Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chap Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CPA board hears draft Chap basin master plan direction and members press to protect 70/30 flow split
Summary
The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board reviewed a draft Chap basin master plan framework and 52 candidate projects, discussed modeling assumptions (including sea‑level rise and possible changes to the 70/30 Mississippi/Chapal flow split), and urged CPA staff to ensure any federal changes avoid harm to coastal parishes.
The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board on May 20 heard a presentation on an emerging master plan for the Chap river basin that will prioritize projects to restore hydrology, trap sediment and rebuild habitat, and be folded into the state coastal master plan.
The plan team described 52 candidate projects spanning integrated projects, sediment trapping, dual placement and hydrologic restoration, and said they are modeling performance under dry and wet years, potential flow‑regime changes and multiple sea‑level‑rise scenarios. Executive Director Michael told the board the effort aims to ‘‘manage the use of the river system, sediments and water to maximize ecosystem function and support continued human uses.’’
Why it matters: the master plan is intended to guide investment and to present a cohesive, evidence‑based case to federal partners and Congress for funding and design choices. Board members repeatedly raised one policy priority in particular: maintaining the so‑called 70/30 split in river operations that has been used to balance freshwater flow between the main Mississippi channel and the Chap system.
Several public commenters and board members cautioned that operational changes could push more water into the Chap basin and cause flooding in coastal parishes. One commenter warned that when the Morganza spillway opened in 2011 it ‘‘put over 10 feet of water at Morgan City’’ and disrupted navigation and local communities; the board requested the plan explicitly consider and document potential local harms if federal operations changed.
What was presented: staff said many projects are already in motion: 106 active CPA projects were reported systemwide (31 in construction, 72 in planning, 3 in design). A recently announced FEMA award of roughly $75 million (with a match) and a Treasury CS7 grant were cited as examples of funding moving projects toward construction. Staff described sample candidate projects including Henderson Lake flow improvements, sediment traps and lower‑basin hydrologic restoration measures being evaluated with hydrologic, vegetation and habitat suitability models.
Process and timing: presenters said modeling and target refinement are underway, and that the draft master plan is scheduled to be posted in 2028 with a final master plan timeline aligned to be folded into the state coastal master plan (draft master plan targeted for fall 2028). Board members asked that CPA frame results so federal agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can ‘‘see the state’s interest’’ and the local trade‑offs if river operations like the 70/30 split are revisited.
Next steps: staff said they will refine modeling targets, advance selection of projects, and return to the board with more detailed analyses. Several members urged early outreach to potentially affected parishes to document levees, pump stations and other local risk‑reduction infrastructure so the plan can demonstrate where benefits or harms would accrue.
The board did not take formal policy action on the plan at this meeting; discussion focused on analysis, outreach and ensuring the state’s interests are captured in federal decision making.
