The Water Marks Interview: Dave Frug

Over the last year, the CWPPRA Task Force has reviewed the project selection and implementation process. One outcome of this review has been the Task Force's decision to devote a larger share of CWPPRA's annual funding to larger projects that have farther-reaching effects than many of the smaller, local projects constructed over the last four years. Mr. Frug comments on the reasoning behind this change and what it means for the future.

Q Four years of small-scale CWPPRA projects have brought exceptional results in creating and restoring wetlands throughout southern Louisiana. Why the shift to large projects?

A Placing more emphasis on larger projects is the next logical step in CWPPRA's evolution. Its original provisions called for us to fast-track projects that could be completed in five years. And we've done that with the smaller projects approved and built over the last few years. We've shown that our protection and restoration techniques can work. We've gained strong public support for the program. We've had the time to produce a comprehensive restoration plan and begin evaluations of what's possible and what's not from a large-project stand-point. Now it's time to take what we've learned and start applying it to projects that will produce larger effects through-out coastal Louisiana.

Q But smaller, local projects are still part of the CWPPRA effort?

A Absolutely. Under our new funding approach, at least two-thirds of our annual funding will be dedicated to larger-impact, systemic projects, but the remaining funds will still go to smaller projects with more localized effects.

Q How did you arrive at this two-thirds/one-thirds formula?

A Part of the rationale grew out of the state's white paper published in early 1995. It proposed a CWPPRA funding allocation in thirds - one-third of the annual funding for small projects, one-third for river diversions, and one-third for barrier islands. After discussing this idea, the Task Force decided that rather than dedicate specific amounts to certain types of projects, we would simply devote two-thirds of our annual appropriation to large-scale efforts. This distribution will get us where we need to be, but still provide us with the flexibility to fund those larger-impact projects that will produce the greatest wetland benefits.

Q What do you mean by flexibility?

A Well, for one year's priority list, for instance, we could decide to dedicate all of the two-thirds to river diversion projects that would reintroduce freshwater and sediment from the Mississippi into the marshes. For the next year's list, we might devote the two-thirds to a different mix of systemic-impact projects. We can adjust to take advantage of the best project opportunities.

Q How do you differentiate between a small project and large project?

A The Task Force recently defined large projects as generally, but not limited to, those that cost more than $10 million. But it's important to remember that the difference we're looking for is not necessarily in cost or in physical size - the difference is in impact. Larger projects produce bigger results because they work at the process level. For instance, wetlands are built and nourished through basic hydrologic processes, such as fresh water and sediment flowing in and out of a wetlands area. We want to build larger projects that will restore or make use of those beneficial hydrologic processes to restore or create wet-lands, or extend the life of existing wetlands.

Q So larger doesn't necessarily mean in size or cost of projects?

A Not at all. What's large about these projects is that their effects are systemic. That means that their benefits extend to wetlands far beyond the construction footprint, and that they can affect major portions of coastal basins. Small-scale projects, like most of those we've been implementing for the last few years, have produced some very good results, but their effect is generally more localized. So, the difference between small and large isn't necessarily cost or size, but impact at the process level.

Q So, smaller projects don't work at a process level?

A For the most part, no. Most smaller projects, while they can be very effective and very necessary, work at the local level. For instance, rock barriers or breakwaters may prevent erosion of wetlands, but their impacts are often limited to the physical project area - right around the barrier or breakwater. We do believe, though, that groups of smaller projects can be sited, designed and operated in a coordinated way to produce process-level benefits that far exceed what those projects could accomplish individually.

Q A lot of CWPPRA's public success thus far, however, has been tied to the number of small, local projects spread throughout the coastal zone. Do you think the shift to larger projects could affect the publics perception of success?

A Well, there's no doubt that larger projects will affect public opinion. They take more time to build and often affect more people's lives. For instance, some larger diversion projects might require the relocation of bridges and highways, impact navigation, and substantially shift fishing activities (such as the oyster harvest). But I really think there's a growing under-standing on the part of the public that we need to start focusing more on larger projects that will, in the long run, produce longer-lasting and more substantial benefits. I also think they'll accept the fact that it takes longer to build projects that produce those benefits.