Some of the most controversial practices often associated with marsh management plans are 

 maricultural operations. These operations received much attention after the 1987 session of the 

 Louisiana Legislature when two conflicting bills providing for the establishment of maricultural 

 operations were passed (La. R.S. 56:13,579). La. R.S. 56:579.1 allows DWF to issue a maximum 

 of 10 mariculture permits (La. R.S. 56:579. IB). No permitted area can exceed 8,000 acres and 

 each must be within marsh management areas operating under valid coastal use permits issued by 

 the CMD. It also requires that the permits have a duration of no more than 5 years and that all 

 fisheries used in the operation be "purchased from a legal source." This in effect requires the 

 use of stocked rather than wild organisms. 



The other maricultural law, La. R.S. 56:13, provided for the DWF to issue "special fish and 

 wildlife harvesting permits" to "owners and operators who filed a marsh management plan" (La. R.S. 

 56:13). It set no limit on the number of permits, the duration, or the acreage involved, and did 

 not require the use of stocked fish. 



Both maricultural laws exempted marsh management operators from R.S. 56:329 which prohibits 

 the obstruction of the free passage of fish in any body of water, excepting water control structures 

 or dams for conservation purposes (La. R.S. 56:13, 579.1). Under R.S. 56:13, certain marsh 

 management operators were allowed to place screens on the access routes of their impounded 

 marsh areas in order to trap wild fish. The fish were then allowed to grow within the impounded 

 area and then harvested when they reached a marketable size. This practice raised a storm of 

 controversy when these operators "harvested" red drum which were then protected by closed 

 commercial and recreational fisheries for that species. The DWF was later able to prevent such 

 harvesting of red drum by interpreting R.S. 56:13 in such a way that it did not provide for 

 exemption from rulings of the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission regarding limitations and closures 

 of fisheries (B. Watson, DWF; pers. comm.). This action did not quell the controversy surrounding 

 R.S. 56:13 and it was repealed in the 1988 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature. 



In the regulatory network there is a seeming conflict between the CMD's permitting of marsh 

 management plans and DWF's permitting of maricultural operations within those areas covered by 

 the plans. CMD does not consider maricultural operations to be a marsh management practice; 

 indeed its policy as set forth in the Coastal Use Guidelines is that the restriction of ingress and 

 egress of marine organisms is to be minimized in wetlands that are not completely impounded 

 (U.S. Department of Commerce et al. 1980). The placing of screens or nets across access routes 

 in wetlands is an activity requiring a coastal use permit from CMD as well as a maricultural permit 

 from DWF. In addition, an owner or operator must obtain a coastal use permit for a marsh 

 management plan as a pre-requisite under R.S 56:579.1 to obtain a maricultural permit. Most of 

 the existing marsh management permits were issued before the passage of the maricultural law and 

 with no consideration by CMD of possible future maricultural operations. If a marsh management 

 plan does not include the use of screens or nets to restrict migration and the owner or operator 

 later uses such devices under the maricultural permit, he would appear to be in violation of his 

 coastal use permit for the marsh management operation. The question is whether the legislature 

 intended to exempt maricultural practices which obstruct marine organism ingress and egress from 

 coastal use permit requirements by the language in R.S. 56:579. IB that begins "notwithstanding any 

 other provision of law to the contrary ..." or merely to exempt it from other wildlife and fisheries 

 laws as the illustrative list would indicate. This is an issue that needs to be resolved because future 

 conflicts between the permitting authority of CMD and DWF could occur, leaving marsh managers 

 who also carry out maricultural operations confused about how to comply with regulatory 

 requirements. 



377 



