Draft environmental impact statement for the Wetland Management Program St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana : a program to arrest wetland deterioration and enhance fish, wildlife and recreational resources

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
WETLAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ST. BERNARD PARISH, LOUISIANA

A PROGRAM TO ARREST WETLAND

DETERIORATION AND ENHANCE FISHj

WILDLIFE AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

PREPARED FOR

ST, BERNARD PARISH POLICE JURY
TO FULFILL REQUIREMENTS OF THE
OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

APRIL, 1979

izo
IE
Coastal Environments, Inc. C31 -
1260 Main Street, Bcton Rouge, La., 70802-.504-383-7455

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR THE

WETLAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

ST. BERNARD PARISH, LOUISIANA

A PROGRAM TO ARREST WETLAND

DETERIORATION AND@ENHANCE FISH,

WILDLIFE AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Prepared for
St. Bernard Parish Police Jury
to fulfill requirements of the
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Commerce

by
Coastal Environments, Inc.
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

THE PROJECT AND ITS IMPACTS

SECTION 1: GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION , . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

A. Site
B. Relationship of*th'e*P;op*osed* Action't. t'; Total
Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
C. Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

SECTION II: PURPOSE OF PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

A. Areas and Communities Affected . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
B. Need for Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
C. Economic Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
SECTION III: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 3-1

A. No Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
B. Structural Alternatives . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3-5
C. Non-structural Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

SECTION IV: PROJECT DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

A. Engineering Design . . @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
B. Environmental Protection Features . . . . . . . . 4-8

SECTION V: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PERMITS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5-1

A. State Permitting Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
B. Local Permitting Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

SECTION VI: ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

A. Environmental Problems which cannot be Solved 6-1
B. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

SECTION VII: SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT. 7-1

A. Land Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
B. Vegetative Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
C. Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
E. Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
F. Air Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
G. Economic and Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
H. Recreational Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
I. Archeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11
J. Human Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

SECTION VIII: IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.1

A. Land Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
B. Vegetative Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
C. Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
D. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
E. Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
F. Recreational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
G. Archeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
H. Agricultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
I. Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
J. Existing Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
K. Human Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
L. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

SECTION IX: FEDERAL AND STATE INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . 9-1

A. Federal Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
B. State Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
C. Other-Agencies Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
b. Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
E. Existing and Proposed Areawide Planning Agencies 9-11
F. Other Sources of Funding Considered 9-11

SECTION X: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS . . . . 10-1

A. Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
B. Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2
C. Private Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2

ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION

SECTION A: LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

A. Development Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
B. Impact on Other Community Facilities . . . . . . A-2
C. Map Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4

D. Geography and Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
E. Hydrologic Elements . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15
F. Climatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-17
G. Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-19
H. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-21
1. Wildlife Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A:-28
J. Farmlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-30
K. Recreational Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-32

SECTION B: NOISE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

SECTION C: AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

SECTION D: WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

A. State Water Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
B. Present Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2
C. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-12
D. Water Quality Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-16

SECTION E: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS . . . . . . . . .. . . . E-1

A. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
B. Future or Proposed Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

SECTION F: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

A. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
B. Future or Proposed Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

SECTION G: HUMAN POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... G-1

A. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
B. Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-2
C. Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3
D. Disruption of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-6
E. Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-6

SECTION H: TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

A. Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
B. Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
C. Waterway's . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
D. Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
E. Air Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-72
F. Impacts on Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-2

SECTION I: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION J: HISTORIC PRESE RVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

A. National Register of Historic Places in
St. Bernard Parish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1
B. Archeological and Historical Resources . . . . . . J-1
C. General Archeology . * - - - - . . . . . . . . . . J-2
D. Types of Sites and Location . . . . . . . . . . . J-2
E. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-3
F. General Historic Information . . . . . . . . . . . J-7
G. Evaluation of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-9

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page No.

1-1 List of Management Needs by Environments . . . . . 1-8

4-1 Specific Practices, Impacts, and Related Manage-
ment Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

A-1 Existing Land Use Categories . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

A-2 Aquifers Under St. Bernard Parish . . . . . . . . A-11

A-3 Typical Soil Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . A-14

A-4 Farms., Land in Farms, and Land Use: 1969 and 1964 A-31

A-5 Louisiana State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-34

D-1 Louisiana Stream Control Commission Water Quality
Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

D-2 Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality
Standards for Heavy Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

D-3 Average Monthly Count of Total Coliforms per
100/ml - Mississippi River at Violet . . . . . . . D-9

D-4 Organic Pollution Data for St. Bernard Parish
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-10

D-5 Heavy Metal Data for Stations 9 and 10 on Bayou
Dupre and the Mississippi River at Violet . . . . D-13

D-6 Pesticide Levels in the Mississippi River at Algiers
Lock Forebay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-14

D-7 Pesticide Data for Stations 9 and 10 on Bayou Dupre D-15

G-1 Population Growth for St. Bernard Parish and the
State of Louisiana from the years 1970 to 1974 G-1

G-2 Major Manufacturing and Processing Industries G-4

G-3 Selected Educational Statistics, St. Bernard Parish G-3

G-4 Composite Health Status Indicator . . . . . . . . G-5

J-1 Change in Condition of St. Bernard Parish Archeo-
logical Sites Since Initial Recording . . . . . . 1-5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page No.

1-1 Study area, St. Bernard Parish . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1-2 Environmental management units of the St. Bernard
Parish wetlands area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

1-3 Odum's compartmentalization of the environment
in relation to St. Bernard Parish environments 1-7

4-1 Environments, management needs, and structural
measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

A-1 Land use map, St. Bernard Parish . . . . . . . . A-2

A-2 The deltaic sequence of south Louisiana . . . . A-5

A-3 Episodes of deltaic activity in south Louisiana A-7

A-4 Faults under parts of St. Bernard Parish and
adjacent region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9

A-5 Soil distribution, St. Bernard Parish . . . . . A-13

A-6 Hydrology patterns, St. Bernard Parish . . . . . A-16

A-7 Paths of hurricanes in the vicinity of the
St. Bernard Parish study area . . . . . . . . . A-20

A-8 Maximum surge contours predicted for Lake
Pontchartrain and vicinity that might be
generated by a "moderate project hurricane" A-22

A-9 Maximum surge contours predicted for Lake
Pontchartrain and vicinity that might be
generated by a "standard project hurricane" A-23

A-10 Maximum surge contours predicted for Lake
Pontchartrain and vicinity that might be
generated by a "maximum project hurricane" A-24

A-11 Lake Pontchartrain, La., and vicinity hurricane
protection plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-25

@A-12 Vegetation distribution, St. Bernard Parish A-26

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure No. Page No.

A-13 Recreation and principal resources, St. Bernard
Parish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-33

D-1 Comparison of monthly salinity ranges at Paris
Road Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-6

D-2 Comparison of monthly salinity ranges at
Hopedale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7

D-3 Vertical salinity structure in the MRGO . . . . D-8

D-4 Location of water quality sampling stations D-11

E-1 Sewage treatment plants and oxidation ponds E-2

H-1 Existing major transportation routes,
St. Bernard Parish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-3

J-1 Archeological and historical sites, St. Bernard
Parish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-4

J-2 Archeological sites in St. Bernard Parish,
grouped according to sectors . . . . . . . . . . J-10

vii

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I THE PROJECT AND ITS IMPACTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -

SECTION 1'. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. SITE,

St. Bernard Parish is located in southeast Louisiana, entirely within

the Louisiana coastal zone. It is bounded on the north by Orleans Parish and

the Mississippi Sound, on the south and west by Plaquemines Parish, and on

the east by the Gulf of Mexico. St. Bernard Parish is approximately 3,626

sq km (1,400 sq mi), of which 79% is water, 19/1, is wetland, and 2% is urban

and agricultural land. Figure 1-1 shows the study area and parish boundaries.

St. Bernard Parish is rapidly changing in both its physical and cultural

base. Its dynamic physical landscape is constantly being modified by

natural forces such as erosion, subsidence, and hurricanes; and by human

development such as canal building, drainage projects, and urbanization.

The cultural setting is evolving from an agricultural rural framework to a

residential sprawl suburb of New Orleans with an industrial complex of

its own along the Mississippi River. The setting of the parish offers

opportunities for urban growth within the constraints of the environmental

system.

B. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO THE TOTAL PROJECT

The proposed action is the management through structural means of

selected wetland areas in St. Bernard Parish. The purpose of this manage-

ment program is to prolong existence of the wetlands as a productive and

valuable public resource. These wetlands perform a number of important

functions. Through;food chain production and by providing general

A F-,Ivt!f 5 1
Grand Islaod
A- Hielljk@ti I
South Point slill,
I
o C; rm

L W
f Malheureux Point @Li Petit Pass Island
c- IV eu Shell Point
-NW
lake bortgne

Ifigalof Point

ACb
ri ;,--pad
.\o ganst rs
k 7 Point auA MbrChetles L OX I
A
IL

Kill-

Proctor Point El I i 1i

j..A x I..,
St. bern

Keni v

rs (I a
l4io

j
pa ish
V, Point
n 3@ Elo. DP3L Ina
P
At
7M?
-.0

IN. v
I C_
St. 1@ern
iard parish
wetlands area
Grace Point

oml Gardner
I I LLLL1 "t
44
F F-1
0
Inch
"It i one
ties- 1@ocb,que Point slill silis

Figure 1-1. Study area, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

1-3

habitat and rearing areas they support Gulf Coast fisheries and local

trapping industry. They partially shield the urban area and the protective

levee systems of St. Bernard Parish from wave erosion and h@irricane storm

surge,and provide water treatment of runoff from the urbanized natural

levee ridges. Accessibility of the area and proximity to the city of

New Orleans renders the area a prime recreation resource.

To ameliorate current processes that gradually diminish the extent

and quality of wetland areaand thereby the performance of its various

functions, structural measures are proposed. Specifically, these

measures are intended to combat erosion, subsidence, and saltwater intrusion')

and to control water levels and water quality.

1. Concept of Management Units

To set goals and priorities for management of the parish wetlands, there

is a need to identify areas which have bertain common physicalor cultural

characteristics. These characteristics include the type of surface environ-

ment and subsurface conditions which set one area apart from other areas.

V
arious areas are identified as units of common physiographic conditions

and habitat defined by natural or cultural system boundaries. These units

may be considered individually as entities and in their relationship to

each other. GoAls can thus be developed in relation to physical and

cultural characteristics, and management procedures can be set for the units.

The environmental management units affected by the proposed action are shown

in Figure 1-2. Goals, potential solutions, and the management units to which

they apply are-discussed in this section under "Operation and Maintenance."

;River Is','
Au- HvIors ow- Grand Island
South Point
mf;n

e
0,
'Shelt Point mashowev. P te Petit Pass Isfanal
4`4 ze it W
lake borqne
ca hoator Point p.
T

Po,
ni aux maicnelles,rt I A)

'10clorpomi

XT
14
V1 t

X Ken

I e

141 ciA&
Al
VE. Vi i
vj-

19U.

int

"Pad-a
P..i
7
'IN
4
st. bernard pans
C-'- )Ij,
wetlands area
I Set, ftl* LIZ
n.

@i@l "'ni GbtOner
6)
su" loft vicah SWOU six Ml 0"
Pqm(
Al

Figure 1-2. Environmental management units of the St. Bernard Parish wetlands area.

1-5

C. OPERATION AND 14AINTENANCE

Setting goals and priorities for the management units; and planning,

designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the appropriate structural

measures would be the responsibility of the people of St. Bernard Parish, the

St. Bernard Planning Commission, and ultimately the St. Bernard Police Jury.

Overall parish management goals involve social and economical considera-

tions which are finely knit into environmental issues and problems. St.

Bernard Parish has as one of its planning goals the management of its wetlands

to achieve the proper balance between conservation and development by

encouraging reasonable and suitable uses which will result in economic and

social benefits. A successful program for management of St. Bernard Parish

wetlands has to be a part of an overall parish management program which

integrates land development and protection of land and water resources. Goals

for wetland management must emphasize the compatibility of desirable functions

for both the wetlands and the highly developed areas. Development of the

fastlands must be managed so that normal wetland functions are not impaired

or destroyed. Inherent within this concept is the need for consideration

of the interface,or buffer zoneand the wetlands. The narrower this

interface, the greater is the need to achieve compatibility between goals

and management programs for the fastlands and the wetlands.

The idea of compartmentalizing the landscape into fastlands, interface,

and wetlands for management purposes is not new. Odum (1969) offers a

solution to the planning dilemma by devising a multiuse strategy in which

the landscape is compartmentalized "so as to simultaneously maintain

highly productive and predominantly protective types as separate units

subject to different management strategies." He suggests compartmentalizing

1-6

the landscape into four systems: productive, protective, compromise, and

urban-industrial.

The productive system should be managed to maximize its most suitable

outputs such as fisheries and agricultural products, timber, fur, hides,

crayfish, and minerals. The primary goal of a protective system is to

recycle materials and nutrients within the system, to isolate itself

from outside disturbances, and to expand all its energy to maintain itself

rather that to produce an abundance of exploitable, surplus products.

In a compromise system, productive and protective management goals should

be combined in order to obtain an adequate yield or harvest while pro-

tecting the area's natural renewable productive capibilities. The urban-

industrial system is a creation of man, and its main purpose is to provide

humans with a safe, functional habitat.

The management system can be applied to the landscape and land use

suitabilities of St. Bernard Parish (Figure 1-3). The fastlands constitute

the urban-industrial system, the interface functions as a compromise system.,

and the wetlands comprise both the protective and productive systems. In

order to maximize the functions of each of these systems or-areas (fastlands,

interface, and wetlands) in view of past and present human manipulations,

it will be necessary to employ structural and non-structural measures

to fulfill management needs (Table 1-1).

1. Fastland Management Needs

The fastland comprises the highly urbanized higher grounds along the

natural levees and those areas which are protected by the hurricane and

FASTLMDS INTERFACE (BUFFER ZONE) WETLANDS

URBAN-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVEi
COM*PROZAISE 0 PROTECTIVE

Figure 1-1 Odum's compartmentalization of the environment in relation to
St. Bernard Parish environments.,

1-8

Table 1-1. List of Management Needs by Environments

Fastland Management Needs

Land Use (types and densities)

Flood Protection

Efficient Drainage

Proper Waste Disposal

Interface Management Needs

Land Use (types and densities)

Proper Drainage

Control of Environment

Wetland Management Needs

Wetland Use (types)

Maintenance and Enhancement of Original Habitat Distribution

maintenance and Enhancement of Original Habitat Quality

Water Quality Maintenance

Normal Water Movement

Erosion Prevention

Compatible Resource Development

1-9

flood protection levees (See Figure 1-2'. Management Units x, f, g)(CEI, 1976).

This urban-industrial system is primarily a man-made system which functions

at man's discretion. In order for it to function properly, it has to rely

heavily on energy and materials coming from outside the system. Understanding

and perfecting the functioning of this system will create a better human

habitat and prevent the degradation of surrounding environments as a result

of urban-industrial development activities.

The fastland management program must focus on achieving optimum land

development through proper management techniques. Major management concerns

must include desirable land use, hurricane and flood protection, efficient

surface drainage, adequate waste disposal, and development and maintenance

of support facilities.

Interface Management Needs

The overall parish management program should work toward the creation

and maintenance of an interface between fastland and wetland areas. When

considering the combined needs to preserve valuable open space within

developable areas, to maintain a protective buffer zone between fastlands

and wetlands, and to provide adequate drainage within leveed areas; a desirable

goal would be the establishment of a non-impounded forest belt surrounding

the developed areas inside the artificial levees (See Figure 1-2, portions

of Management Units c, d, 1, s). This interface could be managed as a

comp.Tomige system.-where the functionstiof productive and protective systems

can be-combined.

An immediate management goal for this area is revitalization of these

forests. This can be done by repairing the flood gates and pumping excess

water out of the impoundments. Some direct benefits of reestablishment of

1-10

fresh water swamps will be the creation of a wildlife and recreational

resource base and an environment for partial treatment of surface runoff

from the more elevated portions of the fastlands. Construction and proper

utilization of this type of interface zone would enhance the beneficial

functions of wetlands and fastlands by minimizing direct impacts of one

upon the other, thereby lessening environmental stress within each system.

3. Wetland Management Needs

a) Wetland and water uses

The wetland management program must focus on the physically protective

and biologically productive aspects of the environment. In St. Bernard

Parish this will require maintenance and selective reestablishment of

large expanses of wetlands. All wetland functions, including the primary

productive and protective functions as well as the secondary support

functions, are directly related to a viable wetland.

To achieve its general goal, the wetland management program must

identify and implement long-term, pari sh-wide measures, as well as short-

term, localized measures consistent with the overall management goal but

applicable to problem areas within individual management units (CEI, 1976).

The short-term measures can be implemented on a unit-by-unit basis, and

priorities can be set for specific areas and an established time frame.

The main goal for wetlands management on a parish-wide basis includes

at least four principal objectives:

1) maintenance and restoration of physical integrity,

2) maintenance and restoration of habitat diversity,

3) maintenance and restoration of the natural hydrologic regime, and

4) maintenance and restoration of desirable water qualtiy.

These goals can be accomplished through 1) proper water and wetland utili-

zation, 2) improvement of habitat quality and proper diversity distribution,

3) reestablishment and enhancement of wetland vegetation, 4) improvement

of water'quality and reestablishment and maintenance of natural circula-

tion patterns, 5) deterring of natural and man-accelerated erosional

processes,@ and 6) appropriate exploitation of wetland, aquatic, and

estuarine resources.

The control and regulation of certain types of common wetland uses

such as navigation, energy resource development, mineral exploration and

production, and expansion of fastlands into wetlands is needed in order

to prevent further wetland deterioration. It is also needed to mitigate

to the greatest extent possible the incompatibility of certain uses with

the achievement of the stated goals for wetlands.

SECTION II: PURPOSE OF PROJECT

A. AREAS AND COMUNITIES AFFECTED

The wetland management program will directly and.indirectly affect

all of St. Bernard Parish, approximately 3,626 sq km (1,400 sq mi).

Its indirect benefits could affect several eastern coastal Louisiana

parishes,including Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemine Parishes. Some

of the beneficial impacts, such as enhancement of fisheries production,

could be more than regional in nature and benefit the nation as a whole.

The communities to benefit from the wetland management program

are primarily those within the urban developed and semi-developed areas

of St. Bernard Parish. These include the fastlands and highland ridges

along the natural levees of Bayou La Loutre and Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs.

The principal towns within these areas are: Chalmette, Violet, Yscloskey,

Reggio, and Delacroix.

B. NEED -FOR PROJECT

Coastal human activities, especially those related to energy and energy-

related facilities, are precipitating coastal wetlands deterioration in

St. Bernard Parish. Their associated adverse impacts are threatening

economic growth and the safety and livelihood of the parish residents.

The values and the functions of the wetland areas of the parish are rapidly

being lost to subsidence, saltwater intrusion, erosion, and other related
problems. This is affecting the natural resources of 'the area, and in turn

many of the basic economic resources of the parish.

2-1

2-2

The proposed wetland management program has been designed in the interest

of environmental protection, enhancement of human use, and promotion and

maintenance of natural resources within the parish.

C. ECONOMIC STATUS

Past baseline and resource studies of the parish wetland resources have

set the stage for identification of resources, problems, and opportunities;

and for:,-the implementation of a number of measures that address the initial

problems within the framework of the present system. The next step on the

wetland management program is to focus in detail on a management unit by

management unit-basis, identifying those which should have first priority

in terms of critical problem areasand selecting appropriate land uses and

corrective structural measures. Already some structural management measures

are being planned and constructed by the Parish Police Jury as part of an

overall wetland management program plan. The Violet siphon, designed to

introduce freshwater from the Mississippi River into some of the more

critical parish wetland areas via the Lake Borgne Canal at Violet, is such

a project. This project is funded by a grant from the Coastal Energy Impact

Program, Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Department of Commerce.

Approximately $1,118,662.00 will be required to further develop a detailed.

management program implementation study and to.purchase.tbe necessary

equipment to implement the selected structural measures.

SECTION III: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

A. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE

1. General Description of the Alternative

This alternative would involve the decision of not developing and

implementing a wetland management program in St. Bernard Parish. Without

the proposed project, the future environmental conditions of the project

area would be related to the deteriorating process actually taking place

in the study area. Marsh erosion, saltwater intrusion, and subsidence

are gradually changing the original character of freshwater swamps and

marshes that occupy the majority of the study area's extension.

2. Adverse Impacts of the No Build Alternative

a) Shoreline erosion along lake margins

The lakes in St. Bernard are shallow water bodies that can be rapidly

changed from placid water to a high energy condition by local winds and

storm patterns. The shorelines of these lakes are composed of soft mucks

and organic soils with some areas of low shell beach ridges. The lake

edge is highly susceptible to erosion and the lakes are continually being

enlarged by an.@erosion process. In critical areas where the lake edge

is near urban areas, it would be desirable to retard this process.

b) Erosion along small waterways

Small commercial and pleasure boats use the large number of channels

and waterways available throughout the marshland area. Some of these are

named bayous and some are dredged and maintained; the vast majority are

3-1

3-2

tidal marsh channels. Those that are most heavily used are subject to

erosion by boat wake because of the soft sediments that make up their edges.

(c Erosion along pipelines

After a pipeline is constructed, an open channel is frequently left.

The intersections of the pipeline with other water bodies are supposed to

be blocked with shell fill dams. Slumping of pipeline canal walls and

subsidence or erosion of the dams leads to widening of the canal. This is

particularly prevalent when water circulation takes place between the

canal and other water bodies because the shell dam is too low or is

destroyed.

d) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) erosion

Extensive erosion is taking place along the MRGO because of wave and

large boat wake attack. This erosion is particularly serious on the east bank

of the canal because there is only an easily eroded natural marsh edge to

withstand the forces of wave action and rapid return flow of water from the

marsh into the MRGO. This condition has increased-the depth and width of

bayous leading into the MRGO; islands of marsh have been entirely lost, and

embayments have been opened up along the canal edge.

e) Saltwater intrusion

Since construction of the MRGOand during storms, the salinity levels

in areas that were once fresh or intermediate marsh have increased. The

increased salinity has destroyed orchanged habitat diversity and balance

within the parish. It is considered a desirable management practice to

3-3

reestablish habitat diversity and maintain some marsh areas in a fresher

condition than is possible at present.

f) Water level control

Water levels in marsh and swamp areas play a critical role in their

existence. Extensive long-term flooding can lead to vegetation kills and

opening up of marsh or swamp to a pond environment. The building of

pipeline canals, spoil banks, channels, and other such features causes

changes in water flow patterns and, therefore, changes in water levels.

which can be critical in relation to vegetation.

g) Water quality control

Ponding, restriction of water circulation, and introduction of foreign

matter (such as sewage) can have an adverse effect upon water quality.

Normal decomposition of plant material and organic sediments, algae blooms,

and other such processes can also lead to stagnation and lowering of water

quality for fish and other aquatic life.

h) Habitat destruction

Habitat loss in St. Bernard Parish is, to a great extent, a result of

natural processes of delta front retreat, erosion, and subsidence. Subsi-

dence is particularly critical where marsh aggradation cannot keep pace

with sinking because of lack of river,sediment and mineral nutrients brought

in by flood waters. Erosion changes in hydrologic patterns and dredging

and filling have an influence as well. The construction of the MRGO and its

spoil bank has adversely affected large areas of habitat through these

activities.

3-4

i) Gulf front erosion

The area of the parish most open to land loss is along the Gulf front.

An examination of a map of the parish will make evident the fact that the

nearer the land is to the Gulf, the greater is the ratio of water area to

land area. Marine forces are going to continue to erode the coastline and

move it westward and northward toward the developed parts of the parish.

Selected areas along this front need reinforcement to reduce erosional

rates.

In summary, opening up of present marshes, that is an increase in

the water/land ratio, is undesirable for a number of reasons. Not only

does it represent a direct loss o f highly productive marsh habitat, but

it also accelerates further losses through a number of processes; the

most important of which are wave erosion, tidal scour, and saltwater

intrusion. As marsh ponds increase in size, the increased water surface

area provides for a greater wave fetch length which results in increased

wave heights and shoreline erosion. The process thus is self-reinforcing;

soon several marsh ponds merge into a bay. An increase in water/land

ratio,.-.also enlarges the tidal storage volume so that greater volumes of

water are exchanged during each tidal cycle. This leads frequently to

increased erosion of the tidal channel by currents resulting in further

marsh loss and facilitating saltwater intrusion. An increase in the

water/land ratio di minishes the ability of the wetlands to serve as a

fresh water storage area. Fresh water retention is diminished by both

increased hydraulic efficiency and by the increased tidal exchange.

3-5

3. Beneficial Impact of the No Build Alternative

The f.act that the parish is in a regressing, deteriorating, and sub-

siding coastal area is significant. The riverine processes that led to

building the parish outward and upward have been taken away, and unless

riverine processes and materials can be approximated, most actions taken

for protection will be only short-term holding actions to retard the

inevitable march of events. Therefore, programs need to concentrate funds

and resources on those units that are most critical to the human welfare

in the parish. Thus, there would not be any direct beneficial impacts

related to the no build alternative of this project.

4. Decision on this Alternative

Because of the adverse implications of not developmenting and implement-

ing a wetland management program for St. Bernard Parish, the no build

alternative was rejected.

B. STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES

There are no structural alternatives to the wetland management program.

There are., however, several structural measures available as possible alter--

native measures within the management program itself. These will be discussed

in Section IV of this report.

C. NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATI17ES

There are no non-structural alternatives to the wetland management

program. There are, however, several non-structural.measures available

as possible alternative measures within the management program itself.

These will be discussed in SectionIV of this report.

SECTION IV: PROJECT DESIGN

A management program is not a finite action or a rigid plan. It is

a flexible and continuous process that allows for growth and change to

meet new conditions and new needs. It deals with the realities of the

relationship between the natural environment, people, structures, and

circulation systems; time; density or intensity of use; and desirability

and feasibility of action. From a comprehensive base, structural and

non-structural actions will be initiated to accomplish specific goals.

Components of the wetland management program include:

1) Engineering Design (Planning and Design Component)

Detailed studies of management units to define specific
values and problems. Determination of appropriate
management measures to maximize opportunities and solve
the specific problems encountered by means of non-
structural and structural measures.

2) Environmental Protection Features (Implementation Component)

The carrying out of steps necessary to resolve problems,
and monitoring results with regard to non-structural
0
measures (regulation, ordinances, etc.) and structural
measures (weirs, drainage canals, etc.). .

A. ENGINEERING DESIGN (Planning and Design Component)

Planning includes.1) setting priorities for management implementation

for various management units, 2) development of plans according to set

goals for potential resource and environmental management for those units,

and 3) taking the necessary actions to carryout management measures which

will accomplish the desired results.

Setting priorities for management implementation is essential. Those

management units of greatest need and value to the parish should be

4-1

4-2

considered first. Those units which offer first-line protection from

hurricane surge to.parish-inhabited areas seem to be of highest

priority for management. These include management units a, b, c, e,

f, i, and o (See Figure 1-2). Nevertheless, specific problems on

other units may require immediate attention, and therefore would

have to be considered high priority.

Plans for the specific management units should reflect the overall

management program goals as well as address the particular management

needs of the unit. For example, it might be that a particular plan for

a specific unit might be economically feasible, but not environmentally

desirable; thus the plan would be rejected to favor another that would

be in accordance with all conditions.

Detailed studies of specific areas and management units are necessary

to improve the data for decision making. Presently certain short-term

measures are being taken to combat apparent problems, but it is also

essential.to continue with long-term comprehensive planning leading to

specific projects.

Past studies have provided baseline data. It is necessary now to

develop additional specific information to help identify problem areas

and to establish priorities. Only after this determination is it possible

to address the problems appropriately and select the required management

measures.

Once a management unit has been identified as having highest priority

in terms of management needs, a detailed baseline study should be

conducted. The baseline data should provide a complete analysis,

4-3

including geologic setting, soil characteristics, hydrological measurements,

vegetation and wildlife information, present land uses or activities which

take place in that particular unit, existing structures, and principal

resources -including historic or archeologic resources. Interpretation

of this data will be necessary to identify specific water and wetland

management problems present in the management unit.

The next step in the planning and design component is to set goals

for the unit under consideration and to propose specific controls to

achieve these goals in terms of non-structural and structural measures.

1. Non-structural and Structural Measures

Achievement of stated goals can be implemented through different

techniques based on their nature and objective. Certain goals require

administrative action on policy statement (non-structural measures),

while others require physical action (structural measures), or both.

An integral part of a management program is the consideration of

non-structural and structural measures to achieve the management goals.

Depending upon the area to which these measures are applied and the

planning time frame, both short-term and long-term (duration of the effect)

actions are to be considered. Generally, those measures which help to

reestablish riverine functions of water dispersal and sediment deposition

can be considered more long-term actions than fixed structural measures.

a) Potential non-structural measures

Several non-structural measures are available to the parish government

to reach management goals. The following is a list of possible alternative

measures:

4-4

1) Acquire land - land is acquired for the greatest control over
certain land area uses.

2) Transfer of development rights - concessions are granted to
the owner for relinquishing certain ownership "rights"'to the
parish.

3) Regulations - local guidelines may be designed to control and
C.
impose restrictions to certain development actions and their
impacts.

4) Permits - a good system for project review and maintaining
control in critical areas.

5) Guidelines and technical assistance - develop guidelines and
provide technical assistance which will benefit both the parish
and the land owner.

6) Mitigation - an adverse effect of an unavoidable action is
balanced by requiring compensation for the damage done.

7) Moratorium - a temporary or short-term measure to gain time
to study a problem further and to find alternatives for its
solution.

b) Potential structural measures

Structural measures to fulfill management needs involve action to

restore an environment's natural processes and functions. Their specific

placement, size, and design will be determined according to the specific

problem in need of a management solution (Figure 4-1). Several structural

measures that may be used are discussed below:

1) Siphons - The introduction of fresh water from a fresh water source,
such as the Mississippi River, into wetland areas. Its main
purpose is to combat saltwater intrusion by maintaining the natural
salinity gradient ranging from saline to brackish to fresh water
environments. In turn, vegetation would be rejuvenated, benefiting
from detritus input and controlled flood conditions.

2) Weirs and dams - access channels and streams can be used to
maintain nortialwater levels in wetlands, control flow of drainage,
and control saltwater intrusion. Vegetation and wetlands habitat

F A S T L A N D S I NT E R F A C E W E T-L A N D S
0 0 0 U
M 7. z
Ul (- 0 0
D .3 z .)
to 1. 0 W. 0 0 14
CA

fl.
0 to 0 0 (4 Z a z 0 0 z cx
0 0. . z E- U 0 z 0 z W. z 0 0 w
It (n @l 0 D z < A 0 H 0 . . P
0 w z 0 to M " o, H 1 1% z 0 LA
cc U Ix 0 V) I:(
F, ZO LA 0 0
C;- El -c @ z N to E- E. 0 C-4 ex
z z w z V- 0 1 0 z re. M PSI Ic I- ct@ ul
0 IC (-- 0 0- z to C4 U el z @3 7.
u z 0 E- 0 U 0
to AC
0 "1 z ix 0 to 0 :c to 0 M 0 LA
w
> 7. 0
Ln to H En .1 0 14 w 115 - j 13 . 42 w LA
D to . M ce. w 00 0 tri a 0 U 1.1 C14 0 U U V -a 0- 0 0 0 0
u to 0 to M M M H H @ 1.) cr. - to 0 'Y' C4 :3 it it -1 a: :D tc
0 (- ". M 0. 01 H E- z > > -) ce. t- t- to "I U to @- 4 F, M 0
M 0 o D. z 0 z a z 0 0 0 M cr. 0 f-, M 0 7- H V" V z E- M (1: M
Z) 1%. 1@ M D a: 0 z 0 @ W. W. =) :"@ " 4- x 0 < 0 < 0 z D
0.1 tol 0.1 0 1 13@ 1 U < U E. 0, P. 04 Q V)l U:@ uulu- W I

SIPHONS 0

WEIRS AND DAMS 0 0

CREATIVE USE OF SPOIL 0 0

INTRODUCTION OF SEDUENI 4-1
IIYDP,',ULIC FILLING TO MS@ 0 0 0 Ln
FIXED STRUCTURES 0 0 0

VARIABLE STRUCTURES 0 0 0

LEVEES 0 0 0 0

FLOOD GATES 0 0 0

TREATMENT OF SURFACE
RUNOFF 0 0

ARTIFICIAL BARRIER
ISLA140S
WATER DIVERSION 0 0 0 0 0
STRUCTURE

WASTE TREATMENT 0 0 0

DRAINAGE CANAL
PUMPS Ire

Figure 4-1. Environments, management needs, and structural measures.

4-6

can thus be improved. In the past, this technique has been
successfully used on a small scale by trappers in Louisiana
and in St. Bernard wetland areas to improve the fur mammal
habitat.

3) Creative use of spoil - spoil generated from necessary dredging
can sometimes be used effectively to reduce erosion along
waterways. Spoil can be disposed of in marsh areas that are,.
deteriorating to revive them, or simply to establish new marshes
where needed.

4) Introduction of sediment - the introduction of sediment-laden
waters has as its main objective the direction of river waters
and sediment into deteriorating wetland areas. The desired effect
would be the build up of new marsh or swamp areas as a result of
sediment deposition.

5) Hydraulic filling to '.NISL in areas where ponding is occurring
and marsh areas are opening up, hydraulic filling,may be used to
counteract this effect. Caution should be exercised to fill up
the areas to the surrounding marsh levels or slightly higher to
allow for compaction. Revegetation of the area will naturally
follow, thus creating new marsh areas or stabilizing deteriorating
ones.

6) Fixed and variable flow structures - the main objective of these
structures is to control volume and rate of water exchange between
the wetlands and estuarine waters. Their design will be governed
by specific needs for management related to desired wetland
habitats, water quality, and wetland use.. Field structures will
be used where the primary objective is to enhance retention of
fresh water. Variable flow structures allow for seasonal control
on water level s as needed for uses such as trapping.

7) Levees - artificial levees are structures used to protect already
existing human habitats from floods and from hurricane surges.
They should be designed to work as much as possible with natural
processes and hydrologic regime.

8) Flood gates - these gates are structures used for water control.
They are generally built in conjunction with levee systems. They
can be operated to shut off, admit, or release massive amounts
of water,

9) Treatment of surface runoff - Runoff treatment facilities collect,
treat, and restore storm water to appropriate standard quality and
discharge it at an appropriate rate of flow. Once treated, the
water can be released into a buffer zone where it would be filtered
by the vegetation and the soils before it is finally discharged into
a watercourse or seeps into the groundwater.

4-7

10) Artificial barrier islands - manmade artificial islands are
designed to mimic the function of natural barrier islands.
They reduce the wave action upon eroding marsh shorelines
and assure the necessary balance interchange between fresh
water and saltwater.

11) Water diversion structures - this structural measure is used
to introduce fresh river waters and sediment in a manner
similar to the Bonnet Carre' Floodway, but on a smaller scale.
This measure would simulate riverine processes that have presently
been stopped by the construction of artificial levees.
Beneficial effects would be the restoration and build-up of
wetland areas, counteraction of saltwater intrusion, and
balancing of the natural process of subsidence in this area.

12) Waste treatment -waste water treatment plants are designed
to treat waste water with the objective of purifying it
before it is discharged into wetlands or open water bodies.

13) Drainage canals - canals are designed to collect runoff and
storm waters and to direct them away from the fastlands. This
insures protection to developed areas from excessive rain waters.
Agricultural drainage ditches are designed to collect and
carry runoff waters from agricultural lands. Design and
operation of these ditches should not adversely increase down-
stream sediment loads or deteriorate the environment.

14) Pumps - artificial levees for flood and hurricane protection
sometimes impound drainage during heavy rainfall. Pumps are
generally used to withdraw the waters from these areas. They
function as an outlet for the drainage system.

A selection of various combinations of the above measures can be used

to modify and manage particular wetland areas. The selection of a

specific technique will depend upon detailed studies of a designated

wetland area, development of goals for management, and design of a

modification system. Selection of specific study areas and management

measures will be based on present wetland conditions, management needs,

and the fastland/wetland relationship in regard to protection and

enhancement goals.

4-8

B. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FEATURES

The actions necessary to fulfill some of the management needs and to

implement some of the wetland management goals will require legislation,

funding, technical services, and contracting. Depending on the

nature and the scale of these actions, they might be implemented through

non-structural and structural measures (environmental protection features)

directly by the parish, or they may require state or Federal aid for

implementation.

1. Non-structural Measures

At the parish levelYnon-structural measures such as zoning laws and

ordinances can be used to help achieve the desired management goals.

Developing local regulations for a local coastal zone management program

is also an effective tool for controlling activities and uses within the

wetland areas and on specific management units.

Some management goals could be more than local in nature. Their

effects, if implemented, could affect a region (involving more than one

parish), the state, or the nation as a whole (e.g., improvement of

fisheries production). They may require non-structural state or Federal

assistance so that implementation would be effective. Permitting programs,

executive ordinances,.rules and regulations which govern certain types

of activities in wetlands, and floodplain areas of our nation will help

in the achievement of set wetland management program goals.

2. Structural Measures

Many of the small scale structural measures discussed in the preceeding

section can be carried out by the St. Bernard Parish government using

4-9

equipment requested from the energy impact program. Some examples of

structural measures geared to abate or reverse the present trends in

wetland deterioration that can be carried out by the parish are discussed in

Table 4-1. They are presented in terms of typical management solutions to

avoid or counteract adverse impacts related to some specific practices

such as navigation canals and pipelines.

One of the major causes of wetland deterioration in St. Bernard

Parish appears to be closely related to the proliferation of deep navi-

gation and drainage canals connecting the Gulf and interior wetlands.

The overall impact of the canals on wetland quality depends upon the

type and location of the canal and its present function or degree of

operational maintenance (Table 4-1). Some of the more noticeable primary

and secondary environmental impacts often attributable to canals are

as follows:

1) saltwater intrusion

2) shoreline and canal bank erosion and consequent increase of
water area at the expens-e of marshlands

3) destruction of fresh water flora and fauna and consequent
loss of marshlands

4) e.stabli�hment of brackish and saline tolerant flora and fauna
farther inland at the expense of non-tolerant species

5) loss of stable, lower salinity estuarine nursery areas

6) loss of biological diversity as non-salt tolerant species
are squeezed out by higher salinities

7) closure of oyster grounds near polluted canals

8) eutrophication of enclosed water bodies.

In order to minimize the present and future negative environmental

impacts associated with canals, all existing canals in the parish should

nr. 4EW PROCF.SS INITIAITO HATUILAI. PROCRSS IMPAc'r op KHYI1k0NHrN-r SlItUCTURI@ . I.0 nuotr Y NON-STHUCTURAL
ENVIRONNE HTAL MPACT MEASUKES TO
A VVL CT L U MODIrl EHVIRON-
hEHTAL IKPACT

.@Isglsstppi A.Containment at j.PerLodic ovtrbonk A.Ot3fuPtion of nacgrAl hydrologic &.111cotorm annual wnEcf. And nutrient
S. I r .4LsjIoslppL RLY@r I I a a d I n k r I R I re 0 wit,, construccign of fresh -star
Af E I I i c I . I flood ..(arm bAlariodic ovtrb&nk b.Loas of oil[ to natural laves jihon
oj@ijeds to
L,@c, sedLmenc depooicLon And wetlands b. omllen A for land loop chroulh
c. Periodic ovecoank c.mcE loss In surface elevation creative deposition of dredged
nutrient dispersal d.Lost of nutrients cc wacer bad- IgalL or jjislLjsippL River sedimcnt'
it.m and wetlands or sediragric from siphon slw?-C
g.E.Valivion of protected, developet sediment trap
(Asclonds at expense of wetlands

Land I I I ..Creation of fast- .,Normal Processes a.Losm of wecland and aquatic .Control Lrracic lend
Linda and expansion ti&tnclnl to wgtl&nd 1,AbL(AcB fill through ItAf's'lation.
of h-An habitats environments b,Lo&s of 6460cinced fill', wild- jonLng, micitacto 'r1%Log
b.ConErol land III to
I.111go wactr tables life, timber resources let., long
I.Long term (loodinA C.Lo3s Of water (IICCCing ainimille J-d
).Cro-cl, of usEland d.Losj of floodwnCtr storage areas term and itcQnd&cy Ia-
v c & c C A CLOn and c, Loss of wacland buffer zone pact$
- I I d I I I a
4.DcErlt@s input to
c 3 c @a r ( I c I
5.Wt(lnnd buffering
6.rIOOd @M(tr storage
C
,'Ltn..r spoil m.W.tar i.pou.d..nc a.Surfa.cc runoff &.nescrvction of wecland species a. atiliclote spoil to wetland surface A.Legislace construction
!@anks b.Crowth of drier b.Normnl wetiond pro- in impounded water area And Level of spoil banks -- to
habitats and new C a replacement by aquatic plants b.PuE culverts in spoil to reestob- miss, configuration,
species ASSOCLAELoni And 004-1 --ier lish through flow deposition and maincen-
b. InvoilOn Of drier habitat plant c.Cut breaks In &Poll to ree&tabILAh once a( flow through
And nL.&I life 1. chro@gh flow
c.Reduction in evapotranspiration d.AlIgn spoil parallel rather than
rates wick lose of weclAnd perpendicular to nacwral (low
V.B.(Acion

Cade Is a.Chionelited and icc4l- A . Stirface runoff .1tAllid, d'irect input of pollutants jenannent blockage of Canal mouths t.l.clLslation to control
stated rate a( fresh b.Nor.Al, slow recharge co ascuRfint and aquatic ayact.s b.Control at water Ho@ vin weirs, canal conscrvccion,
wa(cr run off a( ground wAter and O.Rapld drainage at tclaads fixcdorvari4ble flow strwc0ifts placement, configuration
aquifer. cAo@tring of water cables depth And maintenance
c. Flood wActr storage dOisplaceracni of descr.cciort of according to accopLable
w,cland species loviroment.1 guidelines

a-b.Sama as above ..Same am above
b.Chsnntltztd and Accel- a.Wttland buffering of aRapid, frequent, and often severe
erated face at 141ty flood and tidal flooding of lo--lying interior
gulf -Ecc. Inca , E a a 4 a bAsing And nacurs-1 ltvttj
Interior be a Los b. Normal maintenance at b.Salt water intrui.lon into munici-
s.LLnIcy gradient pal fresh ater@supplias
from fresh Interior c.IlAck@ip of floodwater, Lo drainage
Ehfough iatermtdIACC can,@ls, behind levees and in
and brackish to ctl.ndfi
..lint gulf d.01splActment of &,line. and brack-
Ish marsh envl ronment a- Into
Interior b..ins %__
s,I)JjsPIACCmtnt or dtAtfUCtion of
interior IreahwaEtr wttlaftdi
I.LaAa Of stable, lower salinity
re..
rAE%lAflne nurs_:(%@
Rmn@era:nt of I _c , -efint tottrent
PA-C-k- -,--I n 1. n d
ti.e,pnnalon of ranat of higher -
J OyAter drill A apeGAes such se,

c.laardthce removal of a.5tifterint of wind, a. 1,oAs of fisheries and wildlife ASame A 4 About 0.5s.2 am above
wetlands SVC. star. action habitat b. pill I n all canals that
bDetilty- formation b .Loe,s at primary food production donot nced to remain open
cWildlife and fifillef- an@,rcc (decritua) to catwocita c.Segment large canals into
It& habitat support C. Lo.@& of buffer sane for Lnd wave smaller units
base procection a( fastland and pollu-
tion protection (or wetlands

d.Shortlint erosion ik.EnvLranmental tx- a. Increase In ratio of water to a.Same as Above a.S..a as above
change along land lAnd
w.cer interface b.Dcccc43c in land-water Interface
acca and Lois at maximum amount
of biological cxciiangc
c.Loss of biological diversity

c.Short-circuiting of a. Surface runoff And A.Acceleraced rate at , tutraphica- A. Same an Abo-a a-Sarse as above
nutrient cycle nutrient UPCAkg by tinn of enclosed fresh water le, ScicccLve rtimccocluction
flora bodies of nt@criant laden fresh
b.Plhnc (IlterIng of hAo.ccinll of ecland plant produr- Ater by man
@UrtACc runoff civity

(.Short-circuiting of Sediment entrapment A.AccelerAted rate of siltation of ..Same 86 above &-Same as above
sedi.tnt cycle, by I lora encloAcd water hodlea b.Sclective reintroduction of sedi-
b.?lAincenance of wet- b,AcceitrAtCd rate of vetland our- mcnc by man
lAnd AL3ffdCt CJCVA- fAct subsidence
clons by Offsetting
nAL,,rAl subsidence
rates

Hurricane A. Impoundment at drain- A.Crowth a( wetland i.Descrucclon of wttiond Vegetation m.Proper design add mALnetn- s.Lc*Ki'iI&t:Icn -and enferce-
protection age waters and poe- vcgeEALLon In Im- In Impounde) areas once of pcotection levees, Cnt of lcvrc CCAttMC-
levees 111bly storm/surges pounded Areas ls.loso a( ecland plant productivity pumps and flood control tion, distribution and
behind levees b. Disrtiption of fresh c. Descruction Of or across on fresh &.too maintenance
b. Point dl.oCributlDn at water surface runoff water plants and &nim.la b. Proper water level control
runoff -Ater& Into from lcvtem bchl.d levees
w&ccr bodies, canals, c. impoundment of saltier c. SurfAct runoff dlichArge
wetlands storm surge .&term Along non-point lines In
wetlands

Weirs a.Chann#1 station along &.Hovement at aquatic a.Darriec sacablishadl usually &,Vari.ble Ilo. structure a.Mor,Ltor weir. (of detri-
#Idea and bass at and marine special fresher behind we I( b, Removal of weir --mcal at dt.lrtd l.pACL,'
w.ir thro@Kh [email protected] b.Co.,c.nt r.cior, of Aquatic and c. Construction of temporary -ties I t R I S I A t 2 a n d control
b.ilockjgt of salinicy b.S.linicy gradient, marl"t special at weir; hinder ChcIr conitrwc tLon and
gradient at air chrow8howc channel, species migrAclon clirovah chAn- mAtntonanct
nol A,M Inca --n4-rLor Ac.1'..

kb,nJ Wecl.nd obstruction a.llicdegr.d.cian Un:::ha:.ic.d:bri a s.RemOVA1 of ObAcrucclons AtSialace and monitor
an and wilell its construction to ensure
t ru4 I to How at -.Car ad marsh aimc.ri.l I 11A d 0 t
t. r I organic ^At.ctals b.ttovemenc of alar, COUalruccion to nAvigation and removal of unwanted or
fikh. Und wildlife fi6lwrlas haryssic jubris

Table 4-1. Specific Practices, Impacts, and Related Management Practices.

4-11

be evaluated in terms of their present purpose and their impact on

the environment. If the canals are not needed for navigation, they

should be permanently sealed at all points where they connect with
larger water bodies and most especially with saline waters. Wh'ere

canals are especially long and wide, they should be compartmentalized

into smaller units to limit fetch length over which wave growth can

occur. This procedure will reduce further canal loss due to wind-

and boat-generated wave erosion.

In areas where canals are used for navigation and cannot be sealed,

several measures are available for reduction of bank erosion by waves.

A possible, but probably impractical, solution is the establishment and

enforcement of boat speed limits. A more practical solution is an

evaluation of all canals in terms of bank stability, type and frequency.

of boat traffidi rates of erosion, and type and feasibility of bank

stabilization structures., Much research has been done recently, especially

through sea grant agencies, on a variety of materials suitable for

shoreline protection under varying cIircumstances. Plastic sheeting,

natural vegetation mats, tires, balloons, floating booms, sea walls,

groins, and revetments are just some of the possible shoreline protection

measures. However, before any structures are implanted, studies must be

done concerning their suitability, cost, maintenance, and environmental

impacts.

In areas where marshlands 'have been replaced by open water, either

because of shoreline erosion or saltwater destruction of fresh marshes,

new marsblands can only be created@through sediment deposition and

4-12

marsh revegetation. In small,open water bodies, surrounding marsh

vegetation would probably invade the sediment and naturally reestablish

a brackish or saline marsh. In larger water bodies, actual marsh rebuilding

may be possible only through man-made grass transplants and sediment

stabilization until the vegetation is well established. A possible source

of sediment is material dredged from channels and canals in the course

of regular channel maintenance. Existing spoil banks along some canals,

especially banks that presently impede surface runoff, may be leveled and

their material utilized to' fill in small, shallowopen water bodies near

the canals. A major area that needs this type of marsh rebuilding lies

immediately adjacent to and east of the MRGO. Material dredged from the

MRGO should be placed in the enlarging water bodies east of the canal

either to be revegetated naturally or by man. Because of the constant

subjection of this shoreline to wave er osion, material stabilization

measures will be required while the marsh is reestablishing itself.

Another major site experiencing marsh deterioration is the levee

flank depression along the east hurricane protection levees. In the

1940s and 1950s this area supported a deep fresh water sawgrass marsh

and bottomland hardwood-cypress forest. Saltwater intrusion via canals

and broken flood gates has stressed and destroyed much of this vegetation.

One immediate solution is permanent closure of the flood gates to prevent

further saltwater intrusion behind the protection levees. A siphon or

pump should be installed to lower water levels behind the levees and

to prevent standing water which can also kill wetland plants. It is

probably unfeasible to reestablish fresh marsh vegetation gulfward of

4-13

the levees because of the frequency of saltwater intrusion either via

canals or storm surges. Also, it is unlikely that brackish or saline

marsh spe@ies will invade this area because of the naturally high water

level. However, it is desirable to establish a marsh along the protection

levee to buffer erosional forces directed at the levee and to filter

water pumped from fastlands into the wetlands. In order to do this, it

will be necessary to elevate the mars h surface to sea level or slightly

above in order to enable brackish water grasses to become established.

This can be accomplished through systematic deposition of spoil along

the outer base of the protection levee. One possible source of sediment is

material dredged from the sluice box at the Violet Canal fresh water

siphon. Non-hazardous garbage may also be used to fill in deep areas prior

to layering with clean sediment.

In order to ensure viable marshes outside of the protection levees,

water pumped from the fastlands should be spread over the marshes rather

than introduced at a few points along canals. Nutrients in these flood-

waters will be absorbed by the vegetation, enriching their growth and

lessening the nutrient overloading of the water bodies. Surface flooding of

the marshes will also enable grasses to filter out pollutants and improve

the quality of waters reaching oyster-growing areas. Reestablishment of

seasonal fresh water flooding will also benefit St. Bernard Parish wetlands

to some extent. Probably the most notable and economically beneficial

effect of this action will be seasonal destruction of oyster drills and

other oyster competitors and predators associated with long-term high

salinity levels. Sediment generated as a result of the fresh water

diversion structures can be used to reestablish marshlands.

4-14

Maintenance of brackish marshlands for production of muskrats

may require artificial control of water levels and salinities in addition

to season al burning of wiregrass to promote establishment of three-cornered

grass. A system of fresh water introduction and weirs to maintain desirable

water levels would probably constitute an integral part of such management.

Because of their nature and size,,larger scale structural measures

will require assistance from the state or the Federal government. For

example, some of the wetlands! problems directly related to saltwater

intrusion, blockage of waterborne sediment, and prevention of seasonal

Mississippi River flooding can be compensated for on a case-by-case basis

with proper management techniques. Reversal of wetland deterioration could

be initiated by reintroduction of fresh water and sediment on a massive

basis,approximating conditions existing prior to leveeing of the Mississippi

River and construction of the MRGO. Theoretically, abandonment of the

MRGO for navigational purposes would greatly increase the options for

wetland management in St. Bernard Parish. The parish.can, through

self-Initiated.efforts, fund part of the large scale structural measures.

However, it will have to rely upon state and Federal technical and financial

aid to fund some of the larger scale projects.

SECTION V: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND PROCEDURES

A. STATE PERMITTING PROCEDURES

1. Requirements

A number of activities which would have an effect on the environment

and which might be associated with the implementation of some of the

structural measures advocated by the wetland management program would

require permits from the State of Louisiana. These include a) discharge

into waters, b) emissions into the air, and c) waste facilities.

a) Discharge into waters

A report is required before construction starts by the Louisiana

Stream Control Commission for any type of activity which will discharge

waste into the state's waters. The report should include a full descrip-

tion of the proposed action disposal system and the measures which will be

taken to mitigate pollution. The report must be prepared and approved

by a professional engineer duly licensed in Louisiana.

b) Emissions into the air

If a proposed facility will release matter into the air, a report

must be submitted to the Louisiana Stream Control Commission through the

Louisiana State Board of Health. The report must be submitted before

construction starts, and should include a full description of the

proposed action and measures that will be taken to protect air quality.

The report must be prepared and approved by a professional engineer duly

licensed in Louisiana.

5-1

5-2

0 Waste facilities

Permits for construction of water supply systems, sewerage systems,

and solid waste facilities are required by the Louisiana State Department of

Health and Human Resources. Applications should include complete construc-

tion and operating plans and sufficient engineering data for project

evaluation.

2. Status of Permits

Prior to construction of any of the suggested structural measures, all

required permits must be obtained and all applicable procedures followed.

3. Coordination with State Agencies

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development - This depart-

ment is presently developing guidelines for the state Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Program (pending approval from the secretary of the U.S. Department

of Commerce), The St. Bernard Parish Police Jury is coordinating its

efforts with the state coastal zone management goals.

Office of Public Works - The department may be called upon to provide

engineering services or adviceand would be in a position to insure

coordination with other projects they'may have in:.the area.

This office is providing engineering services to the Police Jury

as well as to the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District for flood control,

drainage, and other water resource developments. It is also presently

working with the agencies in the improvement of existing drainage

channels within the levee area, and is preparing plans for the construction

of a pumping station at Kenilworth Canal. All of these projects are

5-3

concurrent with the management goals set for the parish and with the

concept of maintaining and providing a safe human environment in the

fastland areas, and coordinating development with the wetlands manage-

ment program's goals and plans.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries - the Department is

interested in the beneficial effects that the wetland management program

might have on fish and wildlife populations in St. Bernard Parish

wetlands. Any activities.which will require permits from this department

will be coordinated with them.

B. LOCAL PERMITTING PROCEDURES

1. Requirements

The area is under the jurisdiction of the St. Bernard Parish Planning

Commission and the St. Bernard Parish-Police Jury. Permitting powers rest

with the Police Jury.

The parish has land use control regulations which include zoning

ordinances, subdivision regulations, pipeline dredge and fill ordinances,

and parish geophysical and geological survey ordinances.

2.. Relat ionships with Local Agencies

The parish has a Coastal Zone Advisory Commission. The wetland

management program is an integral part of the present Coastal Zone

Management (CZM) Program, and guidelines for its implementation are now

being developed at the parish level and will be in accordance with

the state's CZM Program.

5-4

3. New or Additional Permits

Any pew or additional permits or procedures that are developed prior

to construction of any structural measures will be obtained and followed.

SECTION VI: ENVIRONMENTAL SUMARY

A. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS WHICH CANNOT BE SOLVED

1. Land Constraints and Resources

Since riverine processes and periodic flooding by Mississippi River

waters have been stopped by artificial levees, wetlands building by aggrada-

tion and rejuvenation has also been stopped. On the other hand, erosion

by marine forces and saltwater intrusion has precipitated the natural

process of delta deterioration, and subsidence is a predominant factor.

Consequently land loss is occurring at a rapid rate (CEI, 1976).

Delta deterioration is an irreversible process unlelss large

volumes of fresh water and sediments can be reintroduced into the area

mimicking a delta building process by the Mississippi River. The

deteriorating process, however, can be detained and/or mitigated to

some extent by proper wetland management measures.

2. Vegetative Resources

Although most of the environmental problems associated with the

vegetative resources of St. Bernard Parish can be mitigated or solved

through the application of specific structural or non-structural

measures, the persistent subsidence of the land, with its accompanying

loss of marshland, is an inevitable geologic process. Since the

abandonment of the Mississippi River's St. Bernard delta, St. Bernard

wetlands have been subsiding and are being [email protected] open water.

This geologic process has been accelerated by the leveeing of the

Mississippi River which has prevented overbank flooding and sediment

deposition. The degradation and destruction of the St. Bernard marshes

6-1

6-2

are particularly severe in those areas east of the MRGO where large areas

of open water allow waves to build and create an erosional environment.

Through the construction of barrier islands, the compartmentalization

of canals, the use of water and sediment diversion structures, and the

creative use of dredged material and siphon sediments, the subsidence/

erosion problem might be solved in selected areas; but it is doubtful

that the continued loss of marshlands can be completely halted.

3. Wildlife Resources

The continual natural processes of land subsidence accompanied by

erosion due to marine wave action has resulted in a significant loss

of marsh habitat. It cannot be expected that structural implementation

will fully mitigate this wetland deterioration. The marshlands of

St. Bernard Parish were once considered prime habitat for muskrat

(Ondatra zibethicus) (O'Neil, 1949); more recently, nurtia (Myocastor

coypus has also become a locally important species. As wetland

deterioration continues, population levels of these furbearers may

be expected to decrease in some areas.

A variety of waterfowl species are harvested annually from the

St.. Bernard marshlands (Beter, 1957; Carney and Sorensen, 1975). Water-

fowl usage, especially by dabbling ducks, will be curtailed in those

areas most affected by land subsidence and erosion.

4.. Water Resources

Before construction of the extensive levee system in south Louisiana,

the water regime of St. Bernard Parish was controlled by periodic over-bank

6-3

flow of the Mississippi River and drainage off the natural levee. The prohibi-

tion of fresh water flow into the wetlands by the man-made levee system,

and the intrusion of saltwater through subsidence and canalization have

dramatically altered the hydrologic system of St. Bernard Parish. Although

the effects of saltwater intrusion can be somewhat ameliorated by fresh

water siphons and river diversion structures, it is doubtful that the

problem can be remedied at the scale at which it has occurred.

Serious water quality problems may also be associated with the use

of Mississippi River water as part of a wetland management program. The

introduction of river water will no doubt lead to some increase in the

concentration of coliform organisms and heavy metals within the wetlands.

Although this increase can be monitored and regulated, the problem of

pollution of the Mississippi River is massive and cannot be solved by

the Parish government alone.

5. Aqua.tic Resources

Detrital input is a primary factor governing fish and shellfish pro-

duction and is the starting point of the estuarine food web. The loss of

marshlands to subsidence and erosion will decrease detrital input and

lower the value of some areas as -nursery grounds. As a result, fish and

shellfish production may be depressed in these areas.

6. Economic and Social Impacts (Primary and Secondary)

The parish population characteristics and rate of growth are not

expected to be greatly affected by.the proposed action. Growth would be

6-4

planned and recommended to occur within fastland and higher ground areas

of the parish along the existing bayous' natural levees. Implementation of

the wetland management program would completely discourage urban sprawl

into wetland areas of the parish. Construction of some of the structural

measures recommended is not foreseen to greatly increase employment in

the parish, although the labor force would probably be local.

Economic benefits derived from the implementation of the wetland

management program could.be reflected in future quantity and value of

commercial landings of fish and shellfish, as well as in the fur industry

and in the outdoor recreation and tourist industry.

7. Recreational Resources

The only problem foreseen which cannot be resolved regarding

recreational resources is the temporary disruption of these resources

during construction of some of the structu ral measures envisioned.

Long-term beneficial effects would offset any temporary or short-term

inconveniences.

8. Archeological Resources

Two environmental processes having an adverse effect on cultural

resources in St. Bernard Parish cannot be prevented from occurring.

These are subsidence and complete destruction of Indian sites which have

already become totally wave-washed. Subsidence, over the long-term,

causes the burial of sites below the level of the marsh so that the

retrieval of information from them is very difficult, if not impossible,

with present technology. Estimates of subsidence of sites vary, but a

6-5

middle figure is 30 cm (12 in) per century (Kolb and Van Lopik, 1958).

In the future, excavation of submerged sites may become feasible.

A few sites in St. Bernard Parish are wave-washed shell midders,

situated so that no protection can prevent their further deterioration.

An example is 16 SB 97, a recently designated site situated at the

southern end of the MRGO on the sandward side of Gardner Island.

Wave attack has already completely destroyed the original midden, leaving

only resistant shells andartifacts as a beach deposit. It is

doubtful that prevention of this wave action would be possible or even

worthwhile.

9. Agricultural Resources

There are no anticipated problems which cannot be solved which will

affect agricultura 1 resources of the parish as a result of the proposed

wetland management program.

10. Mineral Resources

No mineral resources within the parish will be adversely affected

by the implementation of the proposed action.

11. Existing Developments

Existing developed areas and future areas of development within

fastlands and higher ground areas will not be adversely affected environ-

mentally by the proposed action. The wetland management program will

be coordinated with fastland management programs in a manner which will

benefit and improve both areas.

6-,6

12. Human Elements

The proposed wetland management program will not create any foreseen

problems related tothe human element which cannot be solved.

B. !MITIGATION

One area requiring mitigation has been identified during the course

of this impact statement. The following recommendations have been made.

An archeological study should be conducted to make specific recommendations

for the management of cultural resources in the parish. This should

include a site-by-site evaluation of the feasibility and durability of

taking protective measures to prevent further destruction to sites

potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic

Places, Sites not eligible for the National Register and situated so

that further deterioration is unavoidable should be identified and

designated as such. The study should also include recommendations for

systematic, problem-oriented evaluation of a sample of existing

undisturbed sites which are undergoing subsidence. The study should

consider management of already totally subsided sites lacking surface

expression. Such sites, which may lie many meters below the surface,

are not detectable by ordinary archeological survey techniques, but

may be encountered during dredging.

Regarding construction of structural measures, all cultural resources

sites should be avoided. A qualified archeologist should delineate

the extent of the sites within or near the construction site, or the

areas directly affected by the operation of the structural measure

being taken. The program should be conducted by a qualified archeologist

6-7

in coordination with the Office of the Secretary of the Louisiana Depart-

ment of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism (the State Historic Preservation

Officer).

SECTION VII: SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT

A. LAND RESOURCES

Short-term adverse impacts on land resources are expected to be

minimal. They would be associated mostly with construction and/or

implementation of some of the structural methods of the wetland manage-

ment program.

Long-term impacts would be beneficial to land resources because the

main long-term goals of the wetland management program are 1) to enhance

the physically protective aspects of the wetland environment, and 2) to enhance

the biologically productive aspects of the wetland environment. In

order to achieve these goals, several management measures will have to

be taken to prevent or mitigate loss of land resources as evidenced

by erosion on small waterways, erosion along pipelines, erosion along

the MRGO, saltwater intrusion, habitat destruction, and gulf front

erosion, among others (See Figure 4-1).

B. VEGETATIVE RESOURCES

The distribution of vegetation types in coastal Louisiana is dependent

upon a variety of edaphic and water conditions. Of these factors, water

level and the salinity of the soil water appear to be the most important

(Penfound and Hathaway, 1938).

Alth6ugh under natural conditions species composition of wetland

vegetation types is relatively stable, man's manipulation of important

habitat factors can result in dramatic compositional changes in short

periods of time (Q'Neil, 1949). Through alteration of water levels and

7-1

7-2

salinities associated with economic activities, man has changed the

specific composition of many of Louisianals wetland areas (Center for

Wetland Resources, n.d.; Montz, n.d.; Nichols, 1959)'.

Structural measures initiated as part of a wetland management

program can produce changes in important habitat factors. These measures

are generally designed to control water level, flow, and quality;

to minimize erosion; or to counteract land subsidence. Structural

measures such as weirs and dams, levees, and variable flow structures

act to control water levels, flow, and salinity.

Structures which tend to retard shore erosion in large canals and

open bodies of water include old tires, plastic sheeting, revetments,

and shell.. Although these structures may demand a certain amount of

vegetation habitat, their placement in highly erosional environments

may be of, great benefit in protecting wetland vegetation. If the

structures are constructed so that normal tidal exchange can occur,

the species composition and vitality will be preserved.

Artificial barrier islands placed offshore would also have no

detrimental effects on terrestrial vegetation provided they did not

dramatically alter water flow or salinities. If such islands@-are

constructed, highly produ ctive seagrass beds should be avoided.

In coastal areas, land lost to erosion or subsidence can be

replaced by the.creative use of dredged material and through the intro-

duction of river sediment. In both cases, existing vegetation in the

immediate disposal area will be killed or injured by waterborne

sediments. -The types of plants which will colonize the new substrate

and which might be artificially established will depend on the water

7-3

level, the salinity of the receiving waters, and to some extent on the

nature of the material which is deposited.

A serious problem associated with the use,of dredged material and

sediments for creation of vegetation habitat is that many such materials

contain high concentrations of heavy metals and other pollutants (Espey,

Huston, and Associates, Inc., 1976). Heavy metals can supress plant

growth and production and can be incorporated into plant tissues and

eventually into the animal food chain (Lee, Sturgis, and Landon, 1976).

The deposition of dredged materials in tidal areas also influences

the water energy regime which can ultimately affect local vegetation

resources. Reduction of the tida 1 prism by filling in parts of estuarine

water bodies can decrease tidal velocities leading to sediment deposition

or a shift in the saline--fresh water boundary (Johnson and McGuiness, 1975).

The water levels of wetlands are an important determinant of the

vegetation types. Areas with slight differences in water level are often

occupied by different sets of plant species (Penfound and Hathaway, 193 8;

Palmisano and Newson, 1967). Structures that produce a change in the water

level of a particular area are also likely to effect a change in the

vegetation. Water level changes can be particularly critical in saline

areas where vegetation does not invade areas with water levels deeper

than 10 cm (4 in) (Penfound and Hathaway, 1938).

Besides altering water levels, water control structures can modify

chemical and physical characteristics of water. These modifications can

also affect vegetation composition. Structures such as weirs tend to

stabalize water conditions and can.increase the growth and diversity of

submerged aquatic vegetation (Chabreck and Hoffpauer, 1962).

7-4

The chemical and physical characteristics of the.water can also be

modified by the introduction of large volumes of water via river

diversion structures or siphons. Large pulses of fresh, nutrient-ladened

water can improve the vigor of many'of the marsh plant species (Palmisano,

1971). Although pulses of fresh water can lead to seasonal increases

in growth, it is doubtful that a permanent change in vegetation can be

produced unless fresh water flow is continued during the high salinity

months of late summer and fall.

Associated with fresh water from the Mississippi River are large

concentrations of pollutants, particularly heavy metals. As with the

use of dredged materials, the use of river water as a wetland manage-

ment tool has the possibility of increasing the concentration of undesirable

substances in the vegetation resources, and perhaps eventually the

animal food chain; although river water would be mainly used during high

water levels in the river where coliform content is less.

C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES

The marshlands of St. Bernard Parish constitute the most important

wildlife habitat in the parish. Historically,the-se wetlands have been

important areas for the production of furbearers, especially muskrat

(P'Neil, 1949), and as wintering areas for several species of waterfowl

(Beter, 1957; Carney and Sorensen, 1975). The deterioration of these

wetlands, due in part to the natural processes of land subsidence and

erosion, has been accelerated by man-induced change. The most important

of these problem factors are 1) the leveeing of the Mississippi River

which deprives the marshes of fresh, sediment-laden water and nutrients,

7-5

thus curtailing marsh building processes, 2) an extensive network of

man-made canals which disrupt water flow through the marsh and increase

saltwater intrusion, and 3) the construction of the @LRGO Canal which

has greatly increased marsh salinities and replaced marsh with open

water and spoil deposits. The result has been a decrease in actual

marshland acreage and a trend toward more saline conditions. Wildlife

habitat has suffered in turn in terms of reduced diversity and quality.

Proposed implementation of structural measures to arrest wetland

deterioration wi-11 have both short- and long-term impacts on wildlife

resources. The use of siphons and water diversion structures will intro-

duce sediment-laden fresh water and nutrients into the wetlands from the

Mississippi River to simulate natural riverine processes of overbank

flooding. Ideally, with the proper number and placement of such structures,

this should enhance marsh building processe@ and create a salinity gradient

of fresh to brackish to saline marshes. In particular, this should help

maintain viab ility of brackish marshes in the face of saltwater intrusion.

Long-term impacts of such measures would include a more diverse and pro-

ductive marshland for furbearers such as muskrat, and better wintering

habitat for waterfowl. Because the Mississippi River would be the source

of fresh water input, constant monitoring of the water for coliform bacteria

and heavy metals would be necessary.

The use of weirs, dams, and fixed and variable flow structures to

control water levels and salinities and to improve access for hunters

and trappers has met with varying degrees of success in other parts of

the Louisiana coastal marshes. A major function of these types of

7-6

structures is to maintain water levels during periods of low tide

(Chabreck et al., 1978). Correspondingly, Spiller (1975) found signi-

ficantly higher populations of ducks and wading birds in ponds behind

weirs than in control ponds during low tides. Weirs also have a

moderating effect on water salinity, preventing drastic changes in

salinity levels (Chabreck et al., 1978). Weits may also lower water

turbidity in some areas (Chabreck, 196'8)4 Larrick and Chabreck (1976)

reported increased aquatic vegetation in weired ponds. However, weirs

seemed to have little impact on muskrat and nutria usage (Spiller and

Chabreck, 1975). The net impact on wildlife by these structures would

seem to be increased waterfowl usage and better access to the areas

by hunters and trappers.

The creative use of spoil as provided by maintenance dredging of

the,kM.GO and hydraulic filling could essentially lead to the formation

of additional wildlife habitat. Depending on the placement of the

spoil and fill and the subsequent vegetative successional patterns,

these areas could be utilized by various species of wildlife. In cases

where large spoil levees are formed, such as along the MRGO, various

terrestrial mammals such as rabbits (Sylvilagus sp.) and racoons Qr2Syon

lotor) may inhabit the low to mid successional vegetation. Various

non-game birds would also be expected to utilize the spoil area as shrub

and mid-story vegetative speci6s developed. If new marsh is created, it

would be utilized by the usual wetland mammals.such as nutria and muskrat,

and also various wading birds.

Barrier islands have been shown to be important sites for nesting

colonies of seabirds and wading birds (Portnoy, 1977). Since artificial

7-7

islands are designed to mimic the functions of natural barrier islands,

these areas should provide additional utilizable nesting habitat for

seabirds and wading birds.

D. WATER RESOURCES

In order to institute changes in a wetland environment, it is

necessary to manipulate the water regime. Most of the structural

measures used in wetland management programs are designed to control

one or more of the water regime parameters. In most instances the

installation of such structures will cause a local temporary decline

in water quality through an increase in turbidity and the possibility

of a suspension of heavy metals and other pollutants from loose bottom

sediments.

Structures which control water levelssuch as weirs, dams,

flow structures, and leveescan induce a variety of water quality changes.

Many of the changes will be similar to those reported by Chabreck, Hoar,

and Larrick (1978) in their study of weirs. At low tide the areas behind

weirs tend to have higher water levels since the water can recede only

as low as the top of the weir. Accompanying this moderation of the tidal

effect is a moderation of water salinities. The rate of salinity change

is lowered in weired areas and the salinity can be either slightly

higher or slightly lower than the surrounding areas. Lowered turbidity

also appears to result from the use of weirs. Significant impacts on

water quality can also.result from the use of siphons, river diversion

structures, and other structural measures which introduce large quantities

of fresh water into the wetlands.

7-8

The introduction of Mississippi River w ater, with its high concen-

trations of coliform organisms and heavy metals, may have a significan t

impact on water quality. Although the marshes have the capability of

filtering out bacteria, some shellfish areas might have to be closed

for certain periods of time (Odum, 1970). Input of heavy metals and

pollutants into the parish waters could lead to long-term sub-lethal

and lethal effects on vegetative, wildlife, and aquatic resources

if the action is not managed and carefully monitored.

E. AQUATIC RESOURCES

The most important economic aquatic resource in St. Bernard Parish

is the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). In 1970, oyster harvest

in Coastal Study Area II (comprising parts of St. Bernard and Plaquemines

Parishes east of the Mississippi River) yielded close to 2 million pounds

of oyster meat s worth over $800,000 to oyster fishermen (Pollard, 1973).

Oystergrounds have become endangered due to increasing saltwater intrusion

in the parish. Water salinities that remain at 15 parts per thousand (ppt)

or higher favor the oyster's main predator, the southern oyster drill

(Thais haemastoma).(Chapman, 19 .59).

Implementation of structural measuressuch as siphons and water

diversion structures,would help to stall saltwater intrusion by introducing

freshwater from the Mississippi River, and therefore would protect oyster

grounds from the oyster drill. Tabony (1974), however, did not believe

the water diversion canal at Bohemia, Louisiana, altered water salinities enough

to appreciably affect the oyster drill. A number of such structures

would probably be necessary for desired results. A potential hazard

would exist to oysters from input of coliiorm bacteria and other pollutants

7-9

into the marshes via the Mississippi River, therefore these waters would

have to be monitored closely. Also a problem may exist near such structures

due to increased sedimentation and siltation that would destroy oyster

beds (Pollard, 1973).

The input of such sediment-laden fresh waters and nutrients into

the wetland system would help rejuvenate marsh productivity and marsh

building processes. A subsequent increase in detrital material, the

base of the estuarine food web,' would enhance the marshes as fishery

production areas and shellfish nurseries. Freshwater input might also

restore suitable habitat for freshwater finfish species. Saltwater

intrusion due to the MRGO has evidently eliminated some freshwater

species in the Biloxi marsh (Fontenot and Rogillio, 1970).

Water control structures such as dams, weirs, and fixed and variable

flow structures would moderate drastic changes in salinities and thus

help oyster production. Burleigh (1966),Jound that weirs located in the

brackish marsh bordering Lake Borgne concentrated such species as the

spotted sunfish (Lepomis punctatus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus),

pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), and spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus).

Blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) were also concentrated behind weirs.

Water salinities were not significantly altered. Herke (1968) noted

that weits blocked inward movement of marine organisms when water levels

were below the weirs' crests. Thus, the water level structures may

alter distribution of some aquatic resources and impede normal movement

during certain periods.

Spoil deposition and marsh building by hydraulic fill in the short-term

would be detrimental to fish populations due to increased turbidities,

but in the long-term may provide additional production areas.

7-10

F. AIR IMPACTS

Air impacts 'should be expecteddto be of short duration during construc-

tion of some of the structural methods associated with the wetland manage-

ment program. Temporary impacts such as noise, dust particles, and air

emissions of construction equipment will not have any long-term adverse

effects on the wetlands envitonment.

G. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS (Primary and Secondary)

Construction, implementation, and operation of the St. Bernard

wetlands management program will not adversely affect the long-term

productivity of the wetlands. Short-term adverse effects, such.as temporar@7

reduction of fish production during construction of some of the structural

measures, may be experienced in specific areas. However, long-term

beneficial economic and social impacts will offset any temporary losses.

Introduction of fresh water into certain wetland areas, and determent

of saltwater intrusion in certain wetland areas will result in a better

habitat for fur bearing mammals, therefore.resulting in an improvement

of trappers' economic gains. Biological productivity of estuarine areas

is also expected to increase, thus benefiting the fishing industry's

economy. Maintenance of the wetlands that fringe the natural levees is

also a long-term social benefit, since they provide a line of defense

against storm surge to the developed areas.

H. RECREATIONAL AREAS

Water recreation may be temporaril y disrupted or affected by construction

or operation of some structural measures in specific local areas.

7-11

Long-term beneficial effects of the proposed project will include the

provision of a diversity of healthy habitats to support certain estuarine

dependent species and waterfowl$ and the improvement of water quality and

water levels and circulation in wetland areas; all of which will be

beneficial to outdoor sportsmen and wetland recreationi�ts.

I. ARCHEOLOGICAL.RESOURCES

Short-term impacts may be caused by structural measures which may

disturb archeological sites during the construction of weirs and dams,

levees, siphons, and revetments. Disposal of spoil in marsh areas,

hydraulic filling, and introduction of sediment may bury sites. If

possible, sites determined potentially eligible for nomination to the

National Register of Historic Places which may suffer these short-term

effects should be located, and the projects designed so as to avoid them.

Some non-structural and structural measures will have benef icial

long-term effects on cultural resources in St. Bernard Parish. Retardation

of erosion along banklines and lake shorelines will decelerate destruction

of sites in these locations. At present this is one of the greatest

threats to cultural resources in the parish. Structural measures will have

no long-term effect on preventing subsidence of sites; in fact, short-

term effects may be adverse, and mitigation is suggested.

J. HUMAN ELEMENT

There are no foreseeable short-t erm or long-term adverse effects,

including displacement of businesses or people, as a result of the wetland

management program.

SECTION VIII: IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

A. 'LAND,RESOURCES

Implementation of a wetland management program will represent an

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of land resources to the enhance-

ment of the physically protective and the biologitally productive aspects

of the wetland environment.

B. VEGETATIVE RESOURCES

Some of the structural measures of a wetland management program, ill

demand irreversible and irretrievable commitments of vegetative resources.

Often the actual placement of a structural control will demand a commit-

ment of vegetative habitat. In some cases, such as in the construction

of levees, this commitment is quite substantial. The commitment of

vegetative resources for erosion co ntrol structures, although sometimes

permanent in nature, can often prevent a greater loss in vegetative

habitat.

Development of structural measures in the wetlands can also demand

a commitment towards the maintenance or the alteration of vegetation

types. If structural measures substantially alter hydrologic character-:-

istics on a permanent basis, changes in species composition and dominance

may occur.

C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES

None of the structural implementations mentioned would necessarily

have a irreversible impact on wil dlife populations. Overall, the measures

8-1

8-2

seem positive for wildlife. The St. Bernard wetlands represent a very

dynamic and complex system in which management is needed to offset

deteriorating conditions. However, none of the impacts can be expected

to have absolute permanence.

D.- WATER RESOURCES

Installation of permanent water control structures will entail a

commitment of certain waters to artificial regimes or will alter present

artificial regimes. Continued introduction of Mississippi River water

may possibly lead to an accumulation of heavy metals in the bottom

sediments of natural and artificial channels unless careful management and

monitored actions are taken. These pollutants can be resuspended in

the water column at a later date by dredging operations or other

disturbances.

E. AQUATIC RESOURCES

In effect, the structural measures would help to offset somewhat

irreversible conditions should saltwater intrusion continue to increase.

Without management, losses of oyster and fishery resources would be

expected as salinities increase. In the extreme, this deteriorating

condition could become irreversible. The structural(measures could be

a positive influence on aquatic populations, but are not considered to

be an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of aquatic resources.

F. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

The wetland management program will represent a commitment to the

enhancement of recreational resources of the St. Bernard Parish wetlands.

8-3

By enhancing the biological productivity and habitat diversity of the

wetlands, the recreational resources of the parish will also be enhanced.

G. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Disposal of spoil, hydraulic fill, and the introduction of sediment

may bury sites in cases where these measures cannot be relocated so as

to avoid sites. Dredging associated with procurement of spoil and fill

may damage subsided sites having no surface expression. The wealth of

cultural resources in St. Bernard Parish makes both of these possibilities

highly likely. While burial does not theoretically constitute an

"irretrievable and irreversible" commitment of cultural resources (means

of excavating these sites may be devised in the future),it should be

considered as such for all practical purposes. These deeply buried

sites will probably remain inaccessible and information about their

locations may be lost. Dredging through all or part of buried sites

will represent an irretrievable and irreversible commitment of a portion

of the archeological data contained in the sites.

H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

There will not be any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of

agricultural resources which would be involved in the proposed action.

I. MINERALRESOURCES

There will not be any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of

mineral resources as a result of the implementation of the wetland

management program.

8-4

J. EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS

Maintenance of the fastlands for safe human habitation and maintenance

of the wetland areas as a productive and protective system represent

an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources in construction

materials, equipment, labor, and fuel utilized for this purpose.

K. HUMAN ELEMENT

There will be an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of people

for the planning, design, construction, implementation, and maintenance

of the wetland management program.

L. MISCELLANEOUS

Not applicable,

SECTION-IX: FEDERAL AND STATE INVOLVEMENT

A. FEDERAL PROJECTS

The proposed project would not bridge, damage, or interfere in any

way with the functions of the existing protection levees wbich.traverse the study

area and which were built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed

action will not interfere or impede navigation in the Mississippi River,

the Violet Canal, or the MRGO.

B. STATE PROJECTS

Standard Form 424 has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse,

Department of Urban and Community Affairs (Feburary 15, 1979) for A-95

review. No adverse comments have been received.

C. OTHER AGENCIES CONTACTED

A list of Federal, state, and local agencies contacted'appears in

Section-10 of this report. Some of these agencies do not directly involve

.themselves with the proposed action, but they do act in an advisory

and review capacity.

D. COMMENTS RECEIVED

Significant agency comments in regard to the proposed action

are as follows.

9-1

9-2

STATE PLANNING OFF ICE

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

EDWIN EDWARDS DONNA M. IRVIN
GovrRNoR EXEcu7ivE: DIRECTOR

February 26, 1979

Maria M. Urrechaga
Coastal Environments, Inc.
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Dear Maria:

This is in reference to your recent letter requesting comment by this
office on the following information dealing with the preparation of an
environmental impact statement regarding the St. Bernard Parish wetland
management program:

(1) Any identifiable conflicts or potential conflicts that might
result with any active and proposed plans and regulations
involving our agency from the proposed action.

(2) Any thoughts on the proposed action.

We are in possession of the St. Bernard Parish Police Jury grant
application for the proposed project. After review of this document,
we find no conflicts with any active or proposed plans and regulations.
In addition, we are in concurrence with the suggested actions within the
study area.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to contact
me should any further information be needed.

Sincerely,

Renwi k P. DeVille
Policy Planner

RPD/jct
n @re'y
L

Ren@wi k P.

'n
r
(Icz=n,

WILLIAM C. HULS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SECRETARY
LOUISIANA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

February 13, 1979

coastal Environments, Inc.
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Attention: Ms. Maria M. Urrechaga

Re: St. Bernard Parish Wetland Management
Program

Dear Ms. Urrechaga:

This is to advise that we have no information to offer you at this time regard-
ing this environmental assessment.

Very truly yours,

LOUISIANA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Harry Roland, Jr.
Assistant Director

HLR: FMM

P.O. BOX G BATON ROUG E, LA. 70893 . PHONE 504-389-5812

9-4

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF A GRICULTURE

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Post Office Box 1630, Alexandria, La. 71301

February 13, 1979

ns. Maria M. Urrechaga
Landscape Architect/Environmental Planner
Coastal Environments, Inc.
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouge, La. 70802

Dear Fis. Urrecbaga:

In response to your request of February 9, 1979, 1 submit the
following consideratiobs:

1. An identified conflict, or potential conflict that might result
with any active and proposed plans and regulations in regulating
the use of wetlands is the locating of facilities such as homes,
industry, etc. on prime farm land in lieu of other lands.

2. If development is to take place, as it surely will, prime farm
land which is very limited in St. Bernard Parish should be retained
for agKicultural uses.

Sincerely,
A I t@n Z@M' a qno e @nm
Con I
State Con ervationist

9-5
State of Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development

EDWIN EDWARDS GEORGE A. FISCHER
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Office of Public Works
P.O. Box 44155 Capitol Station Baton Rouge,Louisiana 70804

February 15, 1979

Mrs. Maria M. Urrechaga
Coastal Environments, Inc.
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

RE: St. Bernard Parish Coastal Zone Management

Dear Mrs. Urrechaga:

I have your letter of February 9, 1979, requesting information from this office
as to any proposed projects or activities that require consideration in your
preparation of an environmental impact statement on behalf of St. Bernard
Parish Police Jury and regarding the St. Bernard Parish Wetland Management
Program.

The Office of Public Works is providing engineering services to the Police Jury
as well as the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District for flood control, drainage and
other water resource developments. We are currently working with those agencies
in the improvement of existing drainage channels within the levee area. We are
also preparing plans for the construction of a pumping station at the Kenilworth
Canal. However, permit problems are presently being encountered by the Police
Jury and Levee District.

Your environmental consideration should provide for the current development of
hurrican and flood control levees as well as interior drainage, pumping station,
flood gates, etc. in order to provide for the orderly development of the protected
areas. Exterior drainage of course will be required as outfall canals for these
flood control and drainage facilities.

You should contact the Levee Board, whose office is in Violet, Louisiana, and
discuss with them in detail their plans in order to place these activities in
proper concept. It will of course be necessary that you thoroughly familiarize
yourself with the full array of flood control and drainage features in that area.
We will be glad to discuss this information with you if you desire to do so
after you contact the Levee Board.

Sincerly yours,

ARTHUR R. THEIS
CHIEF ENGINEER

ART:s1

9-6

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ADCRFSS REPLY TO
C OMIM A N D E R
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (dpl)
EIGHTH COAS-. G ARD DISTRICT
HALE BOGGS FEDERAL BLDG
500 CAMP ST.
f4E)-V ORLEANS, LA. 70130
(504)589-2961

16475
.Coastal Environments, Inc. FEB 16 1979
Attention: Ms. Maria M. Urrechaga
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Dear Ms. Urrechaga:

In regards to your request for information on the impacts of St. Bernard's
Wetland Management Program on Coast Guard activities, I cannot make
specific comments without reviewing the management plan. However,
except for aids to navigation structures, we have no facilities or plans
for any construction in the parish that could conceivably conflict with
any management plans. In general, it is the Department of Transportation
and Coast Guard policy to.avoid impacting on wetlands unless there is no
practical alternative, and then to take every action possible to mitigate
or offset any impacts.

I am enclosing a list of Coast Guard programs that may help you identify
any potential conflicts based on your management goals. If any are
identified, please contact me at (504)589-2961 for consultation.

Sincerely,
/IC2
P. C. GOLDEN
Lieutenant, U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Assessment Officer

Encl:
(1) coast Guard Programs

9-7
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES
OFFICE OF HEALTH SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Of (oil
P. 0. BOX 60630
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70160

EDWIN E DWARDS March 1, 1979
GOVERNOR

Ms. Maria M. Urrechaga
Landscape Architect/Environmental Planner
Coastal Invii-onments, Inc.
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouqe, Louisiana 70802

Re: EIS Preparation in behalf of St. Bernard
Parish Police Jury - St. Bernard Parish
Wetland Management Program

Dear Ms. Urrechag'a:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of February 9, 1979 regardi.ng the
above captioned subject.

With r 'egard to your. general query concerning an identi.fication of potenti,al
conflicts with governmental entities (yeference your to ic areas 1 & 2), the
following is offered (a's regards this Agency's- concerns@:

1. Bas-i'cally, this office does- not object to projects which s.uggest,
by means- of adequate and proper concern, wetlands usage through
appropriate promotion, enhancement and maintenance techiniques.
Our position in this regard, it must be noted, is based solely
upon our mandated concerns for the protection and, where possible,
enhancement of environmental and personai health. Typil cal ly,
natural resources management activities entertain, for the most
" , 0,
part, separate and distinct objectives from Lh se with which we are
normally involved - especially when pollutants introduction and
resultant abatement is of little consequence.

2. Current CEIP funding activit ies wi*thin the Parish 'of St. Bernard,
as is'our understanding, project the implementation of a fresh
water diversion structure (Violet River Water Siphon) at Violet,
La. In this regard, and as is somewhat contrary to that which we
have previously suggested, our office does have a justifiable
concern - that being the potential contamination of those shell-
fish propagation. areas which may be reasonably- expected to
experience measurable river water intrusion and the introduction
of pollutants therefrom. While a specific area of :influence has
not been demonstrated as yet, it seem reasonable to assume that
as a result of bacterial contamination of certain of those shell-
fish producting waters during periods of siphon operation, selected
areas may, of necessity and as is required by this Agency's part-
icipation in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), be
required to be closed, whether permanently or temporarily, to oyster
and other shellfish harvesti.ng i'n order that we may i'nsure a safe
and wholesome cons@umer product from a health standpoint.Accordingly,
the potential for such. action should be take-n- i-.nto consideration in

"AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AGENCY"

9-8

Ms. Maria M. Urrechaga 2 March 1, 1979

the preparation of any related envi@ronmental as,-sessment for the
area.

We would, of course, be willing to discuss with you in greater detail
our responsibilities and concerns.

Please advise if you need additional information or clarification in
this regard.

Respectfully,
.@@ e - @@ajV
George E. Robichaux
Acting Unit Administrator
Permits and Monitoring Unit

GER:fb

9-9
LOUISIANA AIR CONTROL COMMISSION

.325 Lo P.O. Box 60630
Yole A%,cnue
Teleplione 504 568-5121 Ncw Orleans. La. 70160

March 7, 1979

Ms. Maria M. Urrechaga.
Environmental Planner
Coastal Environments., Inc.
1260 Main St.
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Re: St. Bernard Parish
Wetland Management
Program

Dear Ms. Urrechaga:
In response to your le tter of February-9, 1979, we, are
providing the following information.

Ile know of no identifiable conflicts or potential con-
flicts that might result with any active and proposed plans
and regulations involving this agency from the proposed
action.

Ile have no thoughts regarding the proposed action in
the study area.

Very truly yours,.

Gus Von Bodungen, P.E.
Chief, Air Quality Section
Office of Health Services
and Environmental Quality

Y-A-M y s

cc: Atly Brasher

"AN EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AGENCY"

9-10

ior
Un ted States Department of the Interi

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

III East Main Street
Lafayette, Louisiana
70501

March 7, 1979

Ms. Maria M. Urrechaga
Coastal Environments, Inc.
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Dear Ms. Urrechaga:

Reference is made to your February 9, 1979, letter regarding
the Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for the pro-
posed wetland management program for St. Bernard Parish. The
Fish and Wi'ldlife Service (FWS) concurs in the obvious need to
protect the wetlands of St. Bernard Parish. However, information
provided in your letter is insufficient to determine any potential
conflicts with FWS interests and responsibilities. It is suggested
that we be consulted when specific actions, alternatives and meth-
odologies are formulated for the St. Bernard Parish wetlands program.

For your information, we are enclosing copies of the FWS's guide-
lines for the review of fish and wildlife aspects of proposals in
or affecting navigable waters, and FWS procedures for review of
oil and gas exploration and development activities in or affecting
navigable waters and wetlands. These guidelines prescribe the ob-
jectives, policies and procedures to be followed in the Service's
review of proposals for work and activities in or affecting navi-
gable waters and wetlands.that are sanctioned, permitted, assisted
or conducted by the Federal Government. We hope that these guide-
line@'will,be of some@assistance to you in p@eparinq a wetlands
management program for St., Bernard Parish.

Vie look forward to meeting with you in the near future to discuss
the various plans and alternatives developed for the subject pro-
gram. Should you need further assistance, please contact Coastal
Zone Management Coordinator Dick Stanek of this office.

Sincerely yours,

Ca W. Kerlin
Field Supervisor

Enclosures: As Stated

9-11

E. EXISTING AND PROPOSED AREAWIDE PLANNING AGENCIES

Thefollowing existing planning agencies have authority over or

concern for the project:

Louisiana De_partment of Transportation and Development - this agency

is the Coastal zone management coordinating agency for the state and is

responsible for developing guidelines, determing needs, and establishing

priorities for Coastal Energy Impact Program projects in Louisiana. An

allocation process has been developed.

. Regional Planning Commission, Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany

Parishes - this is a regional agency which also functions as a regional

clearinghouse for A-95 review.

There are no other proposed planning agencies at the present time.

F. OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING CONSIDERED

The parish might be in a position to fund some of the small scale

structural management measures using equipment requested from the energy

impact.program. However, the larger activities@ such as diversion structures,

will require large amounts of funding and coordination with many agencies,

consultants, and contractors.

In addition to its own funding through tax monies and revenue sharing,

parish permits and ordinances, local enforcement, and other self-initiated

efforts, St. Bernard Parish is going to have to rely upon state and Federal.

technical assistance and aid. Since the scope of the St. B ernard Wetland

Management Program embraces the enhancement and protection of a resource

value far beyond its own borders, it can expect to make use of a number of

available programs, and also those programs to be developed in the future.

9-12

Some of the programs having relevance to the wetland management program

are listed in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1. Federal Programs Relevant to the St. Bernard Parish Wetlands
Management Program.

1. Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants. For planning,
acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation
areas and facilities.

2. National Register of Historic Places. To identify and
register districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects significant in history, architecture,,_,,.archeology
and culture.

3. Public Domain Grants for Historic Monuments. To preserve
historic sites and their features.

4. Small Watershed Projects. To protect, manage, improve
and develop watershed land and water resources including
recreation, fish, and wildlife resources.

5. Water Bank Programs. To help preser-ve, restore, and
improve migratory water fowl producing wetlands.

6. Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Sanctuaries Program.
To assist in the acquisition, development, and operation
of estuarine sanctuaries for the purpose of creating natural
field laboratories to gather data and make studies* of the
natural and human processes occurring within coastal zone.

7. Coastal Energy Impact Grants. To prevent, reduce, or
ameliorate unavoidable loss of valuable environmental
or recreational resources resulting from coastal energy
impact activity.

8. Small Beach Erosion Control Projects. To control beach
and shore erosion to public shores not specifically author-
ized by Congress.

9. Small Flood Control Projects. To reduce flood damages
through projects not specifically authorized by Congress.

10. Small Navigation Projects. To provide practical and
economic means of fulfilling needs of.general navigation
through projects not specifically authorized by Congress.

11. Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance. To aid in the develop-
ment and operation of effective programs to meet public need
for recreation and related environmental quality.

9-13

12. Construction Grants for Waste Water Treatment. To aid in
construction of municipal sewage treatment works to meet
state and federal water quality standards.

13., National Environmental Study Areas. To make available to
elementary or secondary schools, sites or land resources.
which exemplify natural, social, or cultural principles
of the environments so the sites may be used in educational
programs.

14. Resource Conservation and Development Grants. To assist In
initiating and carrying out long range programs of resource
conservation and development including public water based
recreation and fish and wildlife development-s and water
quality management.

15. Comprehensive Planning Assistance. Offers a broad range of
planning and management activities including goal develop-
ment., resource allocation, and program management..

16. National Registry of Natural Landmarks. To establish
an inventory of the nationally significant areas of the
U.S. and encourage their continued preservation.

17. Economic Development Administration. Assists in developing
an economic planning process leading to the formulation of
development goals and specific strategies to achieve these
goals.

18.- Archeological Investigations and Salvage. To investigate and
recover historic and archeologic remains threatened by
destruction due to Federal activities.

SECTION X: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

A. AGENCIES

The following is a list of Federal, state, and local agencies con-

tacted in relation to the project.

1. Federal

U.S. Department of the Interior - Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service

U.S. Department of the Interior - Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the Interior - Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division

U.S. Department of the Interior - National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service

'U.S. Department of Commerce - NOAA - National Marine and Fisheries

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service

U.S. Department of Transportation - Coast Guard - Eighth District

2. State

Department of Health and Human.Resources - Office of Health Services
and Environmental Quality

Department of Natural Resources - Louisiana Geological Survey

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development - Office of
Public Works

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development - Office of
Coastal Zone Management

Louisiana Department of Community Affairs - Office of State Clearinghouse

Louisiana State Planning Office

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and-Fisheries

State of. Louisiana Stream Control Commission

10-1

10-2

Louisiana Air Control Commission

State of Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism -
Office of State Parks

3. Local

Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany
Parishes

"B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The St. Bernard Parish Coastal Commission has been meeting every

month and plans have been publically discussed along with public partici-

pation from parish residents and interested citizens. Records of minutes

of these meetings are available from the Parish Police Jury.

C. PRIVATE PARTICIPATION

The following is a list of private organizations or businesses contacted

in relation to the project.

Orleans Audubon Society

Ecology Center of Louisiana:

Prescott, Follet, and Associates Consulting Engineers

Delta Chapter of the Sierra Club

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I - .. . -
ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION A: LAND USE

A. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

A land use map of the impacted area and its surroundings in St. Bernard

Parish is shown in Figure A-1. The natural levee along the Mississippi Riv er

and Bayous La Loutre and Terre-Aux-Boeufs offer the best land and opportunity

for development. A mixture of agriculturalresidential, commercial, and

industrial land uses is concentrated along the levees, primarily those of

the Mississippi River and Bayou La Loutre. These lands are protected by a

levee system having floodgate control of all drainage and waste waters.

Highways, roads, and railroads also take advantage of the higher, more

stable soils found in the natural levees. Water transportation is an

important element in the parish economy. Principal water arteries are

the Mississippi River, Bayous La Loutre and Terre-Aux-Boeufs, and the MRGO;

many other natural and artificial waterways are found throughout the parish.

Pipelines for oil and gas distribution also criss-cross the parish in

every direction.

Some of the recreational activities found in the parish, because of

their nature, occupy areas within the levee lands. Others, such as

hunting, fishing, "and general outdoor activities, require open spaces

and wilderness areas which are satisfied by the vast wetland and water

areas within the parish boundaries. Existing land use categories according

to the Louisiana State Planning Office are shown in Table A-1.

B. IMPACT ON OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES

The Chalmette National Histor ic Park at Chalmette is within the study

area. The Biloxi Wildlife Management Area is also located in St. Bernard

A-1

iver I
A R s Grand Island
S.outh Point Au- Herbal stomp

4 Di

e
Malheureux Point 4a Petit Pass Island
00'. 1 Shell Po'At
go w not included
ItDe in
rint. Aree
-411111&
ro.
Alligator Point
p

i6ke borgne

oint aux Marchetles
spoil bank, P

biloxi wildlife marvagq2?2L-d area
W.
an

rector Point I. t.
A@
J-4
X
C2
natural k-yee

Ay
It
rinilwoi

-y
",V X"Ir. r-
U

vi
V

DeAd
in,
il in
PO
c;t
Wet a
St. arnard parish- @#A
wetGnds area 3@1
@17
legeni toc. (.inl
v
monument 11 &-gas
natl .0
0'

C
state park reskientW, Avil"t Gardner
00"0
6
scals a onis Inch *WOW at miles WustrW'
L @jj
s
otamb,ove Po
06) -urban area

Figure A-1. Land use map, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

A-3

Table A-1. Existing Land Use Categories, St. Bernard Parish.

Land Use Category Acres

Urban and Built-Up Land
Residential 4,446
Commercial and Services 247
Industrial 741
Extractive 0
Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities 0
Institutional 0
Strip and Clustered
Settlement 1,976
Mixed 0
Open and Other 741

Agricultural Land
Cropland and Pasture 2,223
Orchards, Groves, Bush
Fruits, Vineyards, and
Horticultural Areas 247
Feeding Operations 0
Other 0

Rangeland-Not Applicable

Forest Land
Deciduous 10,374
Evergreens (coniferous
and other) 0
Mixed 0

Water
Streams and Waterways 5,928
Lakes 117,572
Reservoirs 2,223
Bays and Estuaries 342,589
Other 744,458

Wetland
Forested 4,199
Non-forested 261,326

Barren Land
Salt Flats 0
Beaches 2,470
Sand Other Than Beaches 0
Bare Exposed Rock 0
Other 25,441

Total Acreage 1,527,201

Source: Louisiana State Planning Office, 1972

A-4

Parish within the study area. None of these facilities will be adversely

affected by the proposed project.

C. MAP INFORMATION

The map information related to the following sections is included

in Figures 1-1, 1-2, and A-1, previously presented, or on individual

maps related to the specific discussion topic.

D. GEOGRAPHY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

Subaerial formation of St. Bernard Parish, as with most of coastal

Louisiana, is the direct result of deltaic processes (Figure A-2). Deltaic

processes have been demonst.rated to be cyclic in nature (Coleman and Gagliano,

1964; Morgan, 1972) and'can be divided into three distinct phases: -con-

structional, abandonment, and destructional. During the constructional phases

of deltaic growth, coarse inorganic materials are rapidly deposited and

aggrade the land surface rapidly and natural levees are visibly dominant.

As the rapid depositi on of inorganic sediment slows and ceases, organic

debris begins to accumulate from the extensive marsh areas which develop

during the latter periods of the constructional phase of development.

Associated with the slow accumulation of organic materials is the com-

paction and subsidence of underlying inorganic sediments lowering the

land surface levels. The processes of subsidence are two-fold in the study

areat they result not only from massive local sediment accumulations

(natural levees),but also from a regional tectonic zone of subsidence,

the Gulf Coast Geosyncline, which is active along the entire northwestern

Gulf of Mexico. When the processes of subsidence exceed rates of sediment

WDIX i4AP

T Et 1, 2, 4
ST. DERHARDa 3, 5, 7,0, 9. It
LAFOURCHEs6, 10, 12, 14, 15
PLAQUEMINES-MODERMs 13
3

v
12
2 14 -%
-10

2
C

00
14

J1
1 C 0
\
*4*iAfc +
'ILYA COMPLEX

Figure A-2.....The deltaic sequence of-south Louisiana (After Frazier, 1967),.

A-6

influx,'the deltaic cycle enters into the abandonment phase. This phase

is characterized by extensive bays, lakes, and levee flank depressions.

When other sediment-laden waters are cut off from the distributaries, the

destructional phase is reached. Deterioration of marshes and erosion

of old natural levee features continue. The St. Bernard delta complex

is in the destructional phase.

According to work by Frazier (1967), there have been seven episodes

of deltaic activity which are responsible for the formation of.much

of the study area. The earliest of these began 4,600 years before present

(B.P.) and terminated about 4,400 B.P. The last,and most important in

terms of present subaerial physiography,-.became active about 100 B.P. and

continued to be active in the study area until construction of flood control

levees along the present Mississippi River course (Figure A-3).

As has been seen in the previous paragraphs,. all of the material which

constitutes the surficial stratigraphic units of the study area is of the

'Recent portion (within the last 500 yea rs) of the geologic time scale. Due

to the tectonic downwarping and transgressive sea level rise which has

occurred in the Gulf of Mexico (Coleman and Smith, 1964), there are not

outcrops of materials which represent earlier geologic time periods in

the study area. In the study area Pleistocene materials are blanketed

by at least 15 m (50 ft) of Recent deltaic sediments.

Physiographically, the study area is composed of three major types

of landforms: natural levees, interdistributary basins, and marshes.

Marsh area is the most dominant landform. in the study area, comprising

approximately 79% of the total area. Natural levees-, built by the regular

deposition of river sediments, flank the Mississippi River, Bayou La Loutre,

and Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs. The higher elevations of the parish, ranging

THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE PRESENT

14 a.

PLAQUEMINES-
MODERN
MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTA COMPLEX

BAYOU LAFOURCIIE

BAYOUS LAFOURCHE ANO TERREBONNE

LAFOURCHE
BAYOU BLACK DELTA
COMPLEX
C) BAYOU BLUE

BAYOU TERREBONNE

BAYOU SAUVACE

co MISSISSIPPI-LA LOUTRE ST. BERNARD
DELTA
@4 !,.,'BAYOU DES FAMILIES COMPLEX

I-J" BAYOU TERRE AUX BOEUFS
I I
MtSStSSI
I@
PP RIVER AND BAYOU LAFOURCHE

BAYOU GYPREMORT

f TECHE
BAYOU SALE DELTA COMPLEX
BA V TECHE MARINGOUIN
DELTA COMPLEX
7@Dpl
9:UR(Iil-:

Figure A-3. Epis6des..of deltdid activity in south Louisiana,

A-8

from 1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft), exist along the Mississippi.River. Elevations

up to 1.5 m (5 ft) are found along the other bayous and distributaries which

criss-cross the area. Swamps are adjacent to some natural levees. Beyond

the swamps are the fresh to brackish marsh which are at or just above sea

level.

1. Structural Geology

Generally speaking, materials deposited by deltaic processes exhibit

blanketing characteristics, i.e., they tend to conform to the surface trend

over which they are being deposited. Thus, in the deltaic sediments of the

study area, we find irregular bedding dipping generally in a seaward

direction.

A result of deltaic activity in the study area is that it is tectonically

very active. Local compaction of sediment and regional downwarping due to

the massive weight of sediments across the northern Gulf of Mexico has

produced a regional trough, the Gulf Coast Geosyncline. These are impor-

tant agents of tectonic activity not only in St. Bernard Parish, but in all

of coastal Louisiana (CEI, 1972). The processes of . subsidence, both regional

and local, are responsible for numerous faults which occur throughout the

study area (Figure A-4). While these structural forces are active, their

effect is felt less dramatically than in other well known areas of

tectonic activity.

Seismic hazard in the study area is very low to non-existent (Algermissen,

1969; Algermissen and Perkins, 1976). Potential for seismicrisk is

described on a scale of 0 to 3 where Zone 0 means no damage, Zone 1 means

A-9

80 0

J. 0
10--0.

GOOSE POINT
_U
1) 1-0-0

5.0

BLOCK 37
--'@F-SHELL POINT
UNKNOWN
PASS
BORGNE

.0'
OPE 0
10
.01
KENNER

loll

"o,

oo,
STELLA
Ile
SIUDY AREA
\1

Fault I
10.0 S W th surface d*splocement
(displacement in feet)
---- Faults with no apparent surface displacement

- Lineations or probable faults

U
D Subsurface faults
Oil and gas production
0 5 MILES

Salt dornes SOURCES: fiak. 1944; S-601, 1963; and WcIIcc*. 1966

Figure A-4. Faults u nder parts of St. Bernard Parish and adjacent
region.

A-10

minor damage, Zone 2 means moderate damage, and Zone 3 means major damage.

Such a scale is based on historical data which considers only the intensity

of the earthquake, not the frequency. The study area has a seismic potential

of zero (Algermissen and Perkins, 1976),even though there have been two

recent earth quakes. On October 19, 1930, an intensity VI (Modified

Mersalli [MM] scale) earthquake was centered south of Donaldsonville
at approximately 300N latitude and 910W longitude,or 80 km (50 mi)

west of the study area. Some brick chimneys had their tops knocked down

or were cracked in Gonzales, Louisiana, 24 km (15 mi) north of the epi-

center. A second earthquake occurred 'on November 19, 1958, in Baton

Rouge, Louisiana, 144 km (90 mi) northwest of the study area. An intensity

of V (MM scale) is estimated for this earthquake which shook houses and

rattled windows. The Baton Rouge fault'is active and has moved .06 m/yr

(-.20 ft/yr) from 1959 to 1969 (Wintz et al., 1970).

2. Mineral Resources

Much of coastal Louisiana is underlain by extensive oil and gas fields.

St. Bernard Parish is not as well endowned.as many of the other coastal

parishes in the state. There are some 24 oil and gas producing fields

in the parish (Department of Conservation, 1973). Other extractive

mineral industries, notably clay mining, occur in St. Bernard Parish.

3. Groundwater

St. Bernard Parish is underlain by three aquif ers: the St. Bernard

Delta "200 foot" gand;.the "700 foot"-sand, and the "1,200 fooe,sand

(USCE, 1975a). Table A-2 shows the characteristics of these aquifers.

Table A-2. Aquifers Under St. Bernard Parish.

quantity of Quality of -Current
Name Description Water Water Use

200-foot sand Point bars and distx@ilbution Small amount of fresh Poor .-Developed to
channel deposits. fresh water; maximum limit
Old Course of Mississippi recharge-rainwater
River
West of Lake Borgne; fair Poor Developed to >
45 m (150 ft) thick maximum limit H

Western Edge of Parish and Poor Poor Developed to
north of Mississippi River maximum limit
Thickness = 26 m 05 ft)

Source: USCE, 1975a

A-12

4. Soils

On the natural levees flanking the Mississippi River and its distri-

butary channels, the soils are primarily of the Commerce-Sharkey

Association (Figure A-5, Table A-3). Commerce soils at the higher ele-

vations are composed of silt loam or silty clay loam surface and silty

clay loam subsoil. Sharkey soils are generally found at.lower eleva-

tions and are poorly drained. They have a dark gray, clay surface and

a gray clay subsoil.

Commerce soils are better suited for building activities than

Sharkey soils,.which have a low bearing*capacity. Commerce soils are

also better suited for agricultural endeavors (although they, too, may

need drainage) tb an Sharkey soils, which are generally more difficult

to prepare for planting.

Swamp areas are flooded much of the time. These freshwater areas

have soils composed of an organic surface layer .33 to one meter deep

over firm to semi-fluid gray clays. After being drained, swamp soils

have very severe limitations for most urban uses because of their

low bearing strength, very high subsidence rate, and very high shrink-

swell potential.

Marsh soils, which cover the major part of the parish area, consist

of peat or muck underlain by slightly firm.to semi-fluid gray clays.

They are organic and mineral soils with high subsidence characteristics,

low bearing strength, severe fire hazard potential, and very severe

limiataions for must urban uses after drainage.

Soils on the spoil banks consist of excavated material from the

dredging of new channels, such as the MRGO, and from the deepening

and widening of natural channels such as Bayou La Loutre and St. Malo.

.' A', @Riv;i Is:;
Au! Herbes Grand Island:
South Point Po'

Gree
Di

L ne
Malheurev. Po-mi 4Le' Pelil P833131and
A Shell Point
oly IMew
saline mars
'P681 iw@d mmk solli
ez
P.
N111gator Point
lake borgne
natural ley
-WII loam to Clay 59113: 4
PAT
Point aux Marcheites
bank

.qce rates
oclot-7dirRer Con-FuiT
-1HKLL 1.1
fresh to LAKE
brackish m--
Post amd muck son.

rR(
RIP

4 4,

B
.14 )qj
a
d lin@t ANE
m Deadm
J7111 A"A Point

A Op
st. bernard p rish IN
1! A.,
wetlands area AW W,
1 54 mile
fpce @Oint
46
LLIJ= oi-
L12--E=
0 ni Gefdner
MONO"
0 .00
"I Inch sq,"
six Milos A
Q
'ambfque Po,r?l

Figure A-5. Soil distribution
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

Table A-3. Typical Soil Characteristics.

NATURAL LEVEE FRESH SWAMP TO BRACKISH MARSH SPOIL LAKE
CANAL RIM

TO BRACKISH MARSH SPOIL BRACKISH
SOIL ASSOCIATION COMMERCE SHARKEY FRESHWATER SWAMP MARSH

TYPICAL COMMERCE SILT SHARKEY ALLEMANDS MAUREPAS LAF@ITTE KENNER
SOIL TYPE LOAM CLAY PEAT MUCK MUCK MUCK

Cy2tj,&tjK_ 5OC5,o@@ @-) 7 rf. 5.1trt (1,
VA ccm' @jjpt5p,@_ 50%s \A,44 -0414 CIZ- Caw Y_ 50@ts \Vrfw 1- 1`1 9fUh'_F40'1
GENERAL SOIL jmftFp dAW@ cv Lc6W IMfeP 6A'ftYCK 1,0W (Prza cmwic 50ts
,--A 0 Y_ 5 , L&*Z; HkMew-s" q
CHARACTERISTICS UWG; -6rrmly 0r4Qv.5z LA'(M -It'"AlLaw. Y_ 5@JLS Uwaulj W dAY. 0 LA)W, ","F@, @WIOIVS- ">?W- %-M 1 V CL&)S'

La'/ P"huk H15vlu@ -fo U@w @kjpslmjy- 460 '"Xbxe >
-fo Va& W tjo :W 0 W_ VafWA@; W
W OVI%4 3UVIQI@, rief@ 9wer;', Lo"'11"vivri L@@ tier-, WAPP; L@'l rflC& I
W-fo\4: "Ic'u'pouv- 6W C(_1 r0w,
-1?y 9,M fo%U11AL AUP LO,,/ -,r41jV4; Wer4dAP_ W-;)rOJ vwwi @qwwl'4;
GENERAL ft-'1901AL; kkm@Lla-;5 TbtLMk; @b -1@b rmqv)Qy-
w g cr r(. fe cLX ciZ -f-b @10( fwILIC, I-rwuolq; HWC119 o@'j eiI15 ce -I@xb %L9y*v-v-
ENGINEERING vu L45.5e'l ftj@r45. MT@ !:tVEM LJMMA-
)5; MCMIZAIV lu lRimni,45; qfwwf@ -r-- e,.v IjA@-rxnw5
vj@ cc. \vW %xi2r, Lim 0- -iiN,, tte vic?@r L)Cmq 055
_AJ5 UVOAQ u-'E@5
Hc6f UVAO LrX5 ApVP- @c5f L m(W vsr5 ArWiC -@iW5 itiz OW AO L61@51 -IL wfm rvV Hc*f L)C
CHARACTERISTICS A"e -MNQkw,.

SUITABILITY
@br 5VMW@ U23T @UKA" Lbf qytk" 5u@fAKg
W
Ay @kwjawr' i 10A% VNIC -fo ltcl@ '@o M@f 5UKANr- Paf'50I`fAN-f IvM X*f,\" 0:1 9XACLe pof 5utfA"
0' 1
&_'AmarIAL. rILL WM 5urfAlLfr Oaf Qvr %IfAol@

DEGREE OF
LIMITATION muw L)1KD)LIw vmuw LxXVAILIeC@
kkelrn95 - WrIlEr IWPJ3W HaVW5, Lbf 01V Ibr Qw-gP vxm vrp@ %M \MV Ww Ww %W 9 vfw 51wm \MSWEM
tA0t;-%6FV- -Z7A0rN5,- VkAr- @AJQW WLyf VAVP 5elw" @t( rfi4.r.7 e
vee@ \,VW 5MW6
qA)ti0vUM - pICQ r-,kVVA Hcmom "of cbfw @&rvl OTf?bfw @e@ vw@ W&W %W6 \Aw @VgP6 S9462v'; wev @Nwr@
5v@m Awv rows MD(XeA1V W Q1VV @kl ckflW @'O_ toff- vvtk XV15M 1xQ1(5INM6 WA2f 5WW vt@[N %W'35 vwf 5ww' 5M er,
DRAINAGE Mo 14(juirvLw I:Wrdz 4110 9_195;(0rP-; rIM W2AW 01CIVI @-kO5i W4M - 9VAW V6Y 010 -)us-5i 02P W16P li-ow'Ld
FACTORS Itre -ro rAle-At3v 91MILKY pry, 4VAVV'@Ma lqm F4"7 e9, fMC ',Xg pV6 UAner

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1970

A-15

They consist of a mixture of mineral soils, peats, and other organic

matter. Spoil banks are thus a mixed-up version of the geologic section

of the area in which they are located.

E. HYDROLOGIC ELEMENTS

The basic hydrologic structure of St. Bernard Parish is related to

a pattern of abandoned distributaries of an ancient Mississippi River

Delta complex. The head of the delta appears to have been near the

junction of Bayou Petre and Bayou La Loutre. From this point, streams

radiated outward like stretching fingers. Additional distributaries,

such as Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs and Bayou Yscloskey, were established

to the west (Figure A-6).

Composing the general drainage pattern are two types of channels:

those related to the fo rmer delta growth, such as the distributaries

and channels established by crevassing, and those developed as drainage

of interdistribgtary areas. Most channels now function as tidal

streams, winding through the marsh areas in a sinuous fashion-They

are usually deep and allow passage of great quantities of water in an

exchange between the marshes, Lake Borgne, the Mississippi Sound, Chandeleur

Sound, and the Gul f of Mexico with each rising and falling of the tide.

The hydrologic setting is rapidly changing as a result of subsi-

dence and the action of waves and currents. These processes have become

increasingly dominate ever since the last distributaries were cut off

from the Mississippi River source of sediment and fresh water by man-

made levees. Without sediment deposition and land building, Gulf waters

have progressively invaded the coastal marshes, forming numerous bays,

lakes, and ponds.

so Lit %A'
River Is!,, 00.
Ci.ml Island
South Point Au, Herbes
7' so
o r e c "I"POP al
01
4A

f M51hevreuW1A Le PeW Pass lsla@d
Ur., e 40OF
hell P I
A NW 4@ i@

thoalor nt

14
06 all A
s, lake bor
@,nt aux M
1.4 7) arctette:
IN111
PI

@uv
ractor Po,ni
Lt #ILA
tidal streams
b

Al
t 1111`411 r:

rMo v

e@
cr
d M. V7,11 Dead@an
P
.st. bemard parish
wetlands area i (Wrid: Lpce 4inl
I sq. mile n.
soft grMM vat" 01
L 111- 1 2. hard wmirid w3ter
LI .1-1-1 1 1 oint Ga
rdner
3. no potabie gm" erw oo
"Aso I on* Irch equals six fnilo 41.
fresh waiter W zarnbique Poi,

Figure A-6. Hydrology patterns, St.-Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

A-17

Theoretical water movement based on tidal regime in the study area

has a regula r diurnal regime; water movement in the study area is much

more complicated. Winds,rather than tides,have been shown to have a

much greater effect on water movement. Work by Stone,et-al. (1972) has

shown that water moveme nt in Lake Pontchartrain is related to wind

direction. Direction of water movement has been found to generally

follow in the direction to which the wind is blowing, i.e., a wind

from the north will produce a net water movement to the south. This

phenomenon will have an important effect on mixing and movement

of introduced water.

Wind direction based on January through June at Moissant Airport,

New Orleans, Louisiana, indicated predominantly a south and east wind

54%.of the time. Winds from these quadrants should produce a net
landward movement of water producing'7a "stacking" of water in the north

and west portions of the project area.- Winds with a northerly component

affect the study area 29% of the time, producing a net lowering of water

levels in the study area to the west of the MRGO, and aiding in the sea-

ward movement of water. Winds with a northerly component should also

allow freshened waters to be introduced into the marshes fringing the

western shore of Lake Borgne.

F. CLIMATOLOGY

The Violet siphon site in St. Bernard Parish has a humid, sub-

tropical climate associated with the latitude of the region and its

proximity to the Gulf of Mexico.

A-18@

1. Temperature Distrbution

Annual average temperature in the study area is 200C (690F). The
average January temperature is 130C (550F), and the average July temperature
is 270C (800F). During the summer months the days are hot with predominant

southeasterly winds. The fall season is generally warm, and freezes are

uncommon. Usually winter months are rather mild and cool, but cold

fronts accompanied by northerly and northwesterly winds are common.

2. Rainfall Distribution

Precipitation averages 153.67 cm (60.50 in) annually. The winter

and summer seasons are generally the rainiest. Precipitation during

the winter months, and to some extent during the summer, is frontal. The

monthly precipitation mean for the winter season is 11.50 cm (4.6 in),

and 13 cm (5.2 in) for the summer season.

3. Humidity

Although humidity.is high all year around, it is higher during the

summer season.

4. Winds

Average wind velocity is 14 km per hr.(8.6 mi per hr). During the

early morning hours, winds on Lake Borgne are variable, shifting often

to easterly during the afternoon. Winds from the northeast and northwest

cause whitecaps and breakers in waters along the south shore. The

southern part of the lake is calm when the winds are from the southeast.

A-19

During the summer months winds are predominantly southerly (southeast

or southwest and during the winter season northerly winds (northeast

or northwest) predominate.

5. Hurricanes and Cyclones

Tropical storms and hurricanes may cross the area from late May to

early November. These devastating storms can cause severe damage to

people, property, and the environment. The erode the coastline, temporarily

destroy wildlife habitats, and increase salinity levels in the marshes.

The paths of several of these tropical storms and hurricanes, which may

occur in the study area once or twice every five years, are shown in

Figure A-7.

G. FLOODPLAINS

St. Bernard Parish lies in an area which,.before man'smodification

of the environment, was periodically flooded by Mississippi River waters.

Run-off from precipitation and overbank flow ran down the natural levee ridges

and moved through interdistributary basins into the lakes or the Gulf of

Mexico. Wetlands were tidally influencedand free water and salinity

exchange predominated.

Artificial levees now protect the flank of natural levees and urban

developments from overbank flow, tidal flushing, and storm surge. Maximum

storm surge heights experienced along the Gulf Coast range between 3 and

4.8 m (-10 and 16 ft). Theoretical storms have been used for computing

flood elevations and frequencies in order to devise a flood protection

plan for the Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity area. Maximum surge contours

- 9 - 3-0 9..2-0 .91 0 900 890

310

Cake" Charles
Laf a yette

M. C." >
STUDY
8 0
0 AREA
1940
ly +
OV
'IV
010 Cb
0
7-
Cb
2
0-
9

CI '0
"0
'0
0,
1-Y 7@;

(0
/Y
I I / CV
'0 CV ; I VVI
I Ar Qo

Figure A-7. Paths of hurricanes in the vicinity of-the St. Bernard Parish Study Area
(After USCE, 19 62).

A-21

predicted for a portion of this area that might be generated by "moderate,"

"standard," or "maximum" hurricanes are -shown in Figures A-8,- A-9, and

A-10'.

The highly urbanized areas of St. Bernard Parish are surrounded by

levees (Figure A-11). The levee system is designed to protect the area

from flooding by the 100 yr frequency hurricane. It provides for a

levee "27.8 miles in length along the southern shore of the MRGO from the

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) to a point approximately 6 miles

southeast of Bayou Dupre, thence southwest to Verret, thence west to

the Mississippi River levee at Caernavon, Louisiana." (U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, 1974).

H. WETLANDS

The variety and abundance of vegetation types in St. Bernard Parish

are closely associated with its topography, soils, salinity distribution,

and humid sub-tropical climate (Figure A-12). Along the highest, unaltered

portions of the natural levees, limited stands of hardwood forest are

still present, however most of the original- forests have been cleared for agri-
culture and urbani'zation. The best drained areas of the natural levees

typically support trees such as the live oak (Quercus virginiaha), southern

magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), hickory (Carya spp.), pecan (Carya illinoesis),

sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American elm (Ulmtis americana), cottonwood

(Populus deltoides), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). On levee

areas that are less well drained, the more-common species are water oak

(Quercus nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and willow (Salix spp.).

A-22

91.?

Nis a Is SIPPI
Sound
L III ePO I C h a It I./ A

14.4
-1 15.2

9
hot
9 pour
12.4
12.6 ,2.1
14.6
rbor
Rile, N-19C.".. . k Borgne
nol 13.8

4! -@o
14.7 12

ELEVATIONS IN FEET, MEAN SEA LEVEL

10
MILES 14.7 12a%%%% 000011%ft 9 ...00
ISOLINE OF MAXIM WATER SURFACE ELEVAT10N
RESULTING FROM A HURRICANE HAVING A CENTRAL
PRESSURE OF 26.9 INCHES M@D A CRITICAL TRACK

Figure A-8. Maximum surge contours predifted for Lake Pontchartrain
and vicinity that might be generated by a "moderate
project hurricane" (After USCE, 1962).

A-23

c@
9 9,
N

So..d
L k o P- I C h . I,*/. R I,. fe I.
10.3 12 1.,)

Ch.1
9
P...
2
9 . J 11.

-b-
R 1,., 1- L . k . B.
C-B) 11.9

ELEVATIONS IN FEET, MEAN SEA LEVa

0 10
C@@@
MILES 11.0 9 00--- 9
ISOLINE OF MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
RESULTING FROM A HURRICANE HAVING A CENTRAL,
PRESSURE OF 27 .8 INCHES AND A CRITICAL TRACK

Figure A-9. Maximum surge contours predicted for Lake Pontchartrain
and vicinity that might be generated by a "standard
project hurricane" (After USCE, 1962).

A-24

9@,
6 6 -..00000'@ N

",;j Is sIPP I
O..d
L k . P. . f

Ch.f
6 ."r*ur
8.2 loss. 6
6
Arl, In or Nsrbar
R I N vlgc.ion L . k 00 9..
9.2

10.1 41

ELEVATIONS IN FEET, MEAN SEA LEVEL

MILES 9

1SOLINE OF MAXIKUM WATER SURYACE ELEVATION
9 RESULTING FROM A HURRICANE HAVING A CENTRAL
PRESSURE OF 28.3 INCHES ANTI A CRITICAL TRACK

Figure A-10. Maximum surge contours predicted for Lake Pontchartrain
and vicinity that might be generated by a "maximum
project hurricane" (After USCE, 1962).

A-25

L E G E N 0

improvements completed
am Improvements under construction

improvements authorized
N
Plopos.d f-ee heighle M.1I

-C:3-@=) Channel

Control structure

Flooogote - Novigoble APPLE PIE
X Y RIDGE
Drainoge structure
IZ> Lock

Levees not in this project If to
Portion of U.S. Hwy 90 -'Co'
to serv as part of
Barriere Embankment
South Point
Recreation Site
LAKE 'INE
c
ST.

10 32.9
C?
".9 0
NEW
-e- ORLEANS
EAST
SEABROOK ORL 90
LOCKN S H 7 1 "1 1 PA35
Is I 1 -1 CITRUS 3i.9

38.4
35@4
3N W
01 L ANS
CHxLMETTE ,9

Violet

SCALE OF MILES
t 0

Figure A-11. Lake Pontchartrain, La., and vicinity hurricane protection
plan (After USCE, 1975a; Pontchartrain Land Corp., 1972).

SLIM
Point River Is rlb Grand Island
South Poin, Au. Herbek W@a I ssy islan %1-19
to
at
D
00
(Y at ne
nI 41, Petit Pass Island
Ild, f Malheureux Pot
v SheH Point
ol 6411 it W
saline marsh
Oro
4, -D
Point p-
Am
-o - lake borgne
A bradS6b
natural levee Point au-
fresh wate-
@7; A9
rj
foclor Point I
Aq
spoil bank 4
0
if
fit,

71
t

rl@' a

PS.
VI

M.
I'Vil, int De
Pot"",

21
00"
'Jzly- " AD
tbl
"FAt I I A.-.$&
st. I)ernard parish
rqpce 4aint
wetlands area

ot"
A 0% 1
411&
oint Gardner
-1 LLLJ
--T= 44 10"
h,
qI
6
4FFH Is. aft Inch o"Qual's 51 1!!\' ,A b-aue PO-ril
X@

Figure A-12. Vegetation distribution, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

A-27

Understory shrubbery on the natural levees is characterized by dwarf

palmetto (Sabal minor) , 'blackberry., (Rubus spp.) , hawthorns (Crataegus spp

deciduous holly (Illex decidua), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera.), and grasses

such as switch cane (Arundinaria tecta) and bermuda grass (Cynodon @j@lo@n).

Lower levees, which are subject to flooding, support only shrubs, grasses,

and water tolerant trees. .

A distinctive group of plants occurs in freshwater swamps flanking

the backslopes of the natural levees. The original stands of cypress

forest are mostly gone due to heavy'logging which occurred around the turn

of the century. The cypress forests which exist today vary considerably

in condition; there are signs of deterioration due to subsidence and changes

in the water regime. Typical species of trees found here are bald cypress

(Taxodium distichum , swamp red maple (Acer rubrum drummondii), water oak

(Quercus_nigra , and tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica . Typical understory vege-

tation includes dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), button bush (Cephalanthus

occidentalis), groundsel bush (Bacharies halimifolia), and swamp elder

(Iva frutescens). Among the grasses, paille fine (Panicum hemitonium),

sawgrass (Claidium Jamaicense), feather.grass (Panicum. virgatum), and,

wiregrass (5partina patens). are common.

Marsh areas cover most of the parish. The distribution of vegetation in

the marshes is affected by salinity, elevation, and soil organic matter.

The marshes in St. Bernard Parish are most commonly brackish or saline.-

These estuarine areas are covered with grasses and reeds, the principal

sources of detritus and organic matter,.which are vital elements-in the

biological productivity of this area of the coast. In brackish marshes,

the dominant type of grass is wiregrass (Spartina patens). Other types

A-28

of grass, such as three-cornered grass (Scirpus olneyi , coco (Scirpus

robustus), and saltgrass (Distichilis spicata , are also present. The

predominant grass species in the salt marsh areas is oyster grass (Spartina

alternifolia), followed by black rush (Juncus roemerianus) and saltgrass

(Distichilis spicata .. Less significant quantities exist of wiregrass

(Spartina patens) and other grasses.

Spoil material has been deposited along the banks of man-made canals

and natural channels that have been dredged. Spoil banks are higher than

the elevati on-of the surrounding marsh. The vegetation found growing on

the spoil is dependent upon the salinity of the water in the channel and

the composition of the soils in the deposit. Typically, the vegetation

will consist of wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), groundsel tree (Baccharis

haliEi@folia), willow (Salix sp.), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), and

herbaceous perennials.

I. ' WILDLIFE HABITATS

1. General Wildlife Description

In-general... the area represents a wetland-estuarine ecosystem

important for its role in the early life stages of marine fishes and shell-

fishes. It is also an important habitat for migratory waterfowl and

fur-bearing mammals. However, this wetland area has undergone con siderable

changes as a result of both natural and man-made processes, thus affecting

to some extent the natural productivity of the area and its value as a

wildlife habitat. At present, formerly fresh backswamp, environments show

evidence of saltwater intrusion with the presence of wiregrass growing in

A-29

some areas beneath dead levees. The marshes beyond the swamplands are

brackish, as determined by the type of grasses predominantly growing

at present. Canals, bayous, and small tidal channels are connected with

Lake Borgne and the Gulf of Mexico. Fish population in the lake is

characterized by several fish species including spot (Leiostomus zanthurnO,

croaker (Micropogon undulatus), anchovy (Anchoa sp.), seatrout;(Cynoscion

sp.), hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), menhaden (Brevoortia sp.), sea

catfish (Galeichthyes felis), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), lined sole

(Archirus lineatus), and silver perch (Bairdiella chrysura). Oysters

(Crassostrea virginica), crustaceans.such as shrimps (Penaeus spp.), and

blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) are also found in this environment. The

majority of the identified fish and shellfish species in the area are

estuarine dependent and require low salinity areas at some time or another

in their life cycle.

Salinities in the study area marshes generally stayed below 10 ppt.

Benthic invertebrates usually found in brackish waters are expected to

inhabit bottom muds of channels and bayous in the study area. These

organisms are.important food for many fish species. The wetlands of the

study area provide seasonal habitat f or migratory waterfowl species. Ducks

which may be expected seasonally in the area include American C.oots

(Fulica Americana), Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), AmericanWigeons (Anas

crecca), Pintails (Anas acuta), Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors), Gadwalls

(Anas strepera), Mottled Ducks (Anas fulvigula); geese which may be expected are

White-fronted Geese (Anser albifrous), Snow Geese(Chen caerulescens),

and even Canada geese (Branta canadensis). Rails such as the King Rail

(Rallus elegans), the Virginia RtLil (Rallus limicola), the Sora (Porzana

carolina),and the Snipe (Capella gallinago) may be found in the less

A-30

saline marshes of the study area. Other birds which are found in this

environment include wading birds such as Egrets and R-erons, and marsh birds

such as Redwinged Blackbirds, Boat-tailed Grac
,Y,les,_and.Seaside-Sparrows.

Many songbirds use.spoil bank vegetation as a habitat.

The marshes in the study area o nce supported large numbers of

fur-bearing mammals, but environmental changes have brought-a decline

in population. If restored and properly managed, the area could again

support a rich population of fur-bearers. The most common fur-bearers'

in this area are nutria (Myocastor coypus , muskrat (Onafra zibetbicus),

and racoons (Procyon lotor). Also found in.the area, but less abundant,

are the mink (Mustela vison) and otter .(Lutra canadensis). Swamp rabbits

(Sylvilagus aquaticus) are very common in these wetland habitats, and also

in the spoil banks along channels and waterways.

a) Rare and endangered species

Some of the endangered species which inhabit or pass through St.

Bernard Parish are the Eastern Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and

the Peregrine Falcon (Falcon'peregrinus). The American alligator

(Alligator mississippiensis) is no longer on the list of endangered

species but is now on the list of threatened species.

J. FARMLANDS

Agriculture, which used to be one of the economic bases of the parish,

has undergone great changes, and the number of farms has been decreasing

in the last two decades. Table A-4 illustrates some of these changes for

this period of time. Truck farming,,livestock,.--and a few dairy farms

A-31

Table A-4. Farms, Land in Farms, and Land Use: 1969 and 1964

All Farms' 1969 1964
All'farms ............. ....... number 27 33
Land in Farms ............................ acres 7,112 15,152
Average size of farm ................... acres 263.4 459.2
Approximate land area ..................... acres 329,024 326,405
Proportion in farms ..................... percent 2.2 4.6
Value of land and buildings ................. dollars 2,052,900 (NA)4-
Average per farm ....................... dollars 76,033 78,273
Average per acre ....................... dollars 288.65 175.11

Land in Farms According to Use
Total Cropland ............................. farms 21 29
............................ acres 651 2,032
Harvested cropland ..................... Jarms 18 27
acres 354 377
Number of farms by acres harvested
1 to 9 acres ......................... 8 13
10 to 19 acres ...................... 4 6
20 to 29 acres ...................... 3 3
30 to 49 acres ....................... 1 5
50 to 99 acres I -
100 to 199 acres .................... 1
200 to 499 acres .................... -
500 to 999 acres .................... -
1000 acres and over ................. - -
Cropland used only for .
pasture or grazing ................... farms 7 7
..................... acres 164 1,387
All other cropland .............. farms 4 (NA)*
acres 133 268
Woodland including woodland pasture ....... farms 11 16
....... acres 253 3,314
All other land .............. I ...... farms 17 (NA)"'
..................... acres 6,208 9,804
Irrigated land ............................. farms 2 1
................ ............. acres 3 20

*(NA) - not available

Source: Department of Commerce, 1973

A-32

are still in operation, but their economic influence in the parish has

decreased as much as the number of farms still operating.

K. RECREATIONAL ELEMENTS

Because of its location, the area has tremendous recreational potential,

especially with regard to water-based activities such as fishing,

boating, crawfishing, etc. There are also many opportunities for

primitive camping, hunting, and nature study. Several bayous or

segments of bayous within this area are scenic rivers, including the

Violet Canal, Bayou Dupre, Bashman Bayou, Terre Beau Bayou, Pirogue

Bayou, Bayou Bienvenue, and Bayou Chaperon.

The area is rich in historical and cultural resources. The

Biloxi Wildlife Management Area (16,089 hectares [39,728 acres))

offers recreational opportunities for fishing and hunting according to

seasonal schedule, and for nature study (Figure A-13). The Breton

National Wildlife Refuge within St. Bernard and Plaquemine Parishes

offers 3,042 hectares (7,512 acres) of island environments. A national

park, the Chalmette National Historic Park, is located several kilometers

from the study area at Violet. St. Bernard State P ark,- located within the

batture land south of English Turn, is in the process of being completed.

This park has been designed as a resource-oriented park of fering a

variety of recreational facilities.

1. Supply and Demand for Recreational Resources

Projected participation of the population for various activities

for the years 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995 isAepicted in Table A-5.

P,),Mf A River Is
Au% Herbas sla Grand Island
South Point 'Pop.
07;, 0..
0 AIV
Gree
Di
0# natural oyster seed Wmnds
at ne
46
M@ eurfit Le Pew Pass Island "14.
!0 Shell Point
it w
4, 11-1* 10

Alligator Point

A, lake bor ne
area
biloxi ife manNement 9
-4a wpm
A 7 Point auk Marchenes
ased
OVter
a. roun V1
'j all oil &cias ffield S

lor Poini
ar*
not included L
P
.19 In rngi. arm

d'.
L Wlq

t
le ws
txv
a Allu
9 o

7'
40ve
JOL
43 U

V, C I T;1%
d ead am
P
oint

st. @ernard parish _4 ft .400
wevands area P (Oint
I sq. mile legend: Lpce
"41
"0
0
-national mmxT*M gas PUM)t 0000
LET-= 15
oint Gardne;PO6 Op
Ll I LLU .-state park ref kwy .; A '0
.000
-existing recreation @ clay
wAle i Ono equals six mile%
otarnbique Point
mo
sa'

-proposed recreation

Figure A-13. Recreation and'principal resources, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

A-34

Table A-5. Louisiana State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

REGION 1 NEEDS CALCULATIONS FOR 1980
BASED ON A PROJECTED POPULATION OF 1,199,950

PARTICIPATION 111C]i QUARTER RICH QUARTER EXISTINC FACILTIY
ACMITY RAI.E2 USER DAY PAR- CUNDAY PARTICIPA- STANDA"3 'PROJErTED SUPPLY4 )JEEDS5
TICIPATION TION AT 2.88Z PAMCIPATION

EJ rdwatcl.ing 1.60 1,919,930 55,294 --- --- ---
bicycling 11.34 13,607,501 391,896 ---
Camping. Lent .76 911,967 26.265 .036A 946 215 731
Cawping. trailer .55 659,976 19,007 .025A 475 491 (161
C.,noelng .39 467,983 33,478 .16M 2,156 329 1,827
Crawfishing 2.01 2,411,912 69.463
Crabbing 3.07 3,683,865 106,095
Driving for pleasure 9.74 11,687,571 336.602
Figbing. frez;hwater 2.56 3,071,887 88,470 .017.k 1,062 28 1,034
Fishing, saltwater 3.39 4,067,851 117,154 .012A 1,406 28 1,378
Golfing 1.65 1,979,927 57,022 .14A 7,983 1508 6,475
Hiking .76 911,967 26.265 .03H 788 8 780
Horseback riding .96 1,151,958 33.176 .05M 1.659 13 1,646
11tinting big game .55 659,976 19,007 26A 494,190 119,302 374.888
Hu,,,Ing 6,"Il game 1,10 1,319,912 38,015 --- --- ---
Hunting waterfowl 3.00 1,199,956 34,559 --- --- ---
K,LOf hvaElng 3.57 4.283.843 123,375 .008A 987 28 959
tLitorcycling 1.72 2.063.924 59,441
H.ture ualk 3.22 3.863,858 111,279 .025M 2.787 13 2.769
Picnicking' 3.80 4,559,833 131,323 .02A 2,626 754 1,872
Playing baseball 4.25 5,099,813 146,975 .025A 3,672 388 3.294
Playing basketball 2.77 3,323,878 95,728 .0025A 239 21.3 -217.
rjaying football 3.83 4,595,831 132,360 .033A 4,368 258 4,110
Playing volleyball 2.90 3,479,872 3,00,220
N8"'ng .81 971.964 27.993
Slghl.Seeing 4.76 5,711,791 164.500
S.inming, gulf 1.86 2,231,918 64,279 110.87SF 7,126.639 1,128,240 5,998,399
Sw@mmJng, lakes 1.99 2,387,912 68,772
S.immlng, pools 10.10 12,119.556 349.043 4.48SY 1.563.713 214,668 1.349.045
Tinnis 2.33 2,795,897 80,522 .002.A 161 10.2 150.
Wa I k In.,-. 49 11.387.s8? 327,962
watc:iing auto racing .64 767,971 22,118
Watching baseball 4.54 5.447,800 156,897
Watchl 2g football 5.22 6,263.i7O 180,397
w3tchl.14g Rolf .42 503.982 14,515
WatcbAg horse racIng 1.38 1.655,939 47.691
ImLchin& OA'tdoor concerts BO 959,965 27,647 --- ---
Watching tennis .70 839,969 24.191 ---
Water skiing 1.23 1,475.946 42,507 .008A 340 28 312

lHarris Segal, Cordon Sauss y, Fred WrIghton, Dan Wilcox, and Roger Burford, Projections to the Year 2000 of Louisiana Populatlo
and Households (New Orleans. 1976)
2participatlon rates for Region I are a weighted average of the participation rates for Regions 1A and IB as determined in the I
Participation survey detailed on pages The weighting factor used was 1975 populations of the two reglens.
3A-Acrep, K-Mlle(s), SF-Square Feet
4Source; LaSPARC inventory. . -1'
5Weeds calculation for-ula: (partic1pation rate)(populatlon)-(high quarter user day participation)(2.88t)-(bigh quarter Sunday
participation) (standard) -projected participation. projected participation - existing supply - need@

Table A-5 (Continued). A-35
REGION 1 NEEDS CALCULATION FOR 1985 1
BASED ON A PROJECTED POPULATION OF 1,281,661

PARTICIPATION HIGH QUARTER HIGH QUARTER E@ ISTINC FACILTlY
ACTIVITY RATE2 USER DAY PAR- SUNDAY PARTICIPA- STANDARD3 PROJECTED SUppL1y4 11EEDS5
TICIPATION TION AT 2.88%

Rl,dvatching 1.60 2,050,658 59,059 --- ---
Bicycling 11.34 14,534,036 418.560 ---
Camping, tent .76 974,062 28,053 .036A 11010 215' 795
CanpJng. trailer .55 704,914 20,302 .025A 508 491 17
Canoeing 39 499,848 14,396 .16H 2,303 329 1,974
Crawfishing 2*01 2,576,139 74,193 --- --- ---
Crabbing 3.07 3,934.699 113,319 --- --- ---
Driving for pleasure 9.74 12,483,378 359,521 ---
Fishing, freshwater 2.56 3,281,052 94,494 .012A 1,134 28 1,106
Fishing, saltwater 3.39 4,344,831 125,131 .012A 1,502 28 1,474
rolling 1.65 2,114,741 60,905 .14A 8,527 1508 7.019
Hiking .76 974,062 28,053 .03H 842 8 834
Horseback riding .96 1,230,395 35,435 .05H 1,772 13 1,759
flunrlsiR big game .55 704,914 20,302 26A 527,839 119,302 408.537
W,inting small game 1.10 1,409,827 40,603 --- --- --- ---
4u1itJng_waterfowl 1.00 1,281,661 36,912 --- --- ---
Motor boating 3.57 4,575.530 131,775 .008A 1,054 28 1.026
motorcycling 1.72 2,204.457 63,488 --- ---
Nature walk 3.22 4,126,948 118,856 .025H 2,971 13 7,958
Picnicking 3. So' 4,870,312 140,265 .02A 2,805 754 2,051
Playing baseball 4*25 5,441,1119 156,875 3,92, 388 3,534
playing basketball 2'. 7 7 3,550,201 102,246 .0025A 256 21.3 234.
Playing football 3.83 4.908,762 141.362 -033A 4.665 258 4,607
I'laying volleyball 2.90 3,716,817 107,044
Sailing .81 1,038,145 29,889
Sightseeing 4.76 6,100,706 175.700
nwinning, gulf 1.86 2,383,889 68,656 110.87SF 7,611,892 1,128,240 5. 48 3,651
Swimming, lakes IA9 2.550,505 @73,455
SwiUmIng, pools 10.10 12,944,776 372,810 4.48SF 1,670,187 214,668 1.455,519
Tennis 2.33 2,986,270 86,005 .002.A 172 10.2 161.
Walking 9.49 12,362,963 350,293
Watc:iing aut4s racing .64 820,263 23,624 --- ---
Watc1ling baseball 4.54 5,818,741 167,580
Watching football 5.22 6.690,270 192,680 ---
Watching golf 42 538,298 15,503
watching horse racing 1.38 1,768,692 50,938 --- ---
laz@chlng outdoor concerts .80 1,025,329 29,529 ---
Watching ,-n,,I,, 1197,163 25,8311 --- --- --
lWater skiing 1.23 1.5 76,443 45,402 .00 8A 363 28 335

lHarris Segal, Gordon Saussy, Fred Wrighton, Don Wilcox, and Roger Burford, rrojections to the Year 2000 of Louisiana ropulatt
and Households (Few Orleans, 1976)
2Partic4pation rates for Region I are a weighted average of the participation rates for Regions IA and 111 as determined in the
Participation survey detailed on pages The weighting factor used was 1975 populations of the two regions.
3A-Acres, H-Hile(s), SF-Square Feet
4Sourcei LeSPARC inventory.
5Needs calctilation fnrmula: (participation rate)(population)-(high quarter user day participation)(2.882)-(high quarter Sunday
participation) (standard) -projected participation. Projected participation - existing Supply - need.

A-36

Table A-5 (Continued).
REGION I NEEDS CALCULATION FOR 1990 1
BASED ON A PROJECTED POPULATION OF 1P358,313

PARTICIPATION HIGH QUARTER HIGH QUARTER EXISTTNr FACILTIY
ACTIVITY RATE2 USER DAY FAR- SUNDAY PARTICIPA- STANDARD3 'PROJECTED SUppLy4 NEEDS5
TICIPATION TION AT 2.88% -PA.RTICIPATION

Bird-atcbing 1. 60 2,173,301 62.591 --- ---
Bicycling 11.34 15,403,269 443,614 --- ---
Camping, tent .76 1,032,318 29.731 .036A 1,070 215 885
Camping, trailer .55 .747,072 21,516 .025A 538 491 47
Canoeing .39 529,742 15,257 .16M 2,441 329 2,112
Crawfishing 2.01 2,730,209 78,630 --- --- ---
Crabbing 3.07 4,170,021 120.097 ---
Driving for pleasure 9.74 13,229.969 381,023 --- ---
Fishing, freshwater 2.56 3,477,281 100.146 .017A 1,202 28 1,, 174
Fishing, saltwater 3.39 4,604,681 132,615 .012A 1,591 28 1.563
GnIfing 1.65 2,241,216 64,547 .14A 9.037 1508 7,529
Hiking .76 1,032,318 29,731 .03M 892 a 884
Hor*eback riding .96 1,303,980 37,555 .05M 1,878 13 1.865
Hunting big game .55 747,042 21,516 26A 559,407 119,302 440.105
H-Intinr small Elme 1.10 1,494,144 43,031 -
Hunting waterfowl 1.00 1,358,313 39,119 ---
Mntor boating 3.57 4,849,177 139,656 .008A 1.117 28 1,089
Motorcycling 1.72 2,336,298 67,285 --- ---
Nature walk 3.22 4,373,767 125,964 .025H 3,149 13 3.136
Picnicking 3.80 5,161,589 148,654 .02A 2,973 754 2,219
Playing baseball 4.25 5,772,830 166,258 .025A 4,156 388 3,768
Playing basketball 2.77 3,762,527 108,361 .0025A 271 21.3 249
Playing football 3.83 5,202,339 149,827 -033A 4.944 258 4,686
Playing volleyball 2.90 3,939,108 113,446 ---
Sailing 1,100,234 @31.687
SIghtseeing 4.76 6,465,570 186,208
Swimming, gulf 1.86 2.526,462 72,762 110.87SY 8,067,135 1,128,240 6.938,895
SwJuaming, lakes 1.99 2,703,043 :77,848 --- ---
S.i=ing, pools 10.10 13,718,961 395,106 4.48SF 1,770.075 214,668 1,555,407
Tennis 2.33 3,164,869 91,148 OOZA 182 10.2 171
Walking 9.49 12,890.390 371.243
Watching auto racing .64 869.320 25,036
WaLching baseball 4.54 6,166.741 177,602 ---
Watchlig football 5.22 7,090,394 204,203
Wutcl .1;g golf .42 570,491 16,430
Watchitig horse racing 1.38 1,874,472 53,985 ---
wz.chioig outdoor concerts .80 1,086.650 31.296
Watching te@inls .70 950,819 27,384
Water skiing 1.23 1,670.725 48,117 .008A 385 28 357

lHarris Segal, Gordon Saussy. Fred WrIghton. Don Wilcox, and Roger Burford, Projections to the Year 2000 of Louisiana Populatio
and Nuuseholds (New Orleans, 1976)
zParticipition rates for Region 1 are a weighted average of the participation rates for Regions IA and IB as determined in the
PartlcJpation survey detailed on pages The weighting factor used was 1975 populations of the two regions.
3A-Acres. M-Mle(s), SF-Square Feet
4Sourze: LaSPARC inventory. -
5Needs calculation formula: (participati.n rate)(populatlo@i)-(hlgh quarter user day participatlon)(2.881)-(high quarter Sunday
participation) (standard)-projected participation. Projected parLiCiPatIOU - eXISting Supply - need.

A-37

Table A-5 (Continued).
REGION 1 NEEDS CALCULATION FOR 1995
BASED ON A PROJECTED POPULATION OF 1,430,622

PARTICIPATION HIGH QUARTER HIGH QUARTER EXISTING FACILTIY
ACT IV ITY RATE2 USER DAY PAR- suNDAY PARTICIPA- STANDARD3 'PROJECTED SUPPLy4 pEEDS5
TICIPATION TION AT 2.88Z 'PARTICIPATION

hirdw,itchJng 1.60 2.268,995 65.923 --- --- --- ---
Mcyclitig 11.34 16,223,253 467,230 --- --- ---
Camping, tent .76 1,087,273 31,313 .036A 1,127 -215 912.
cawping, trailer .55 786,842 22,661- .025A 567 491 76
Canoeing .39 557,943 16,069 .16M 2,571 329 2,242
Ciafishing 2.01 2.875.550 82,816
Crabbing 3.07 4,392.010 126,490 --- --- --- ---
briving for pleasure 9.74 13,934.258 401,307 --- --- ---
Fishing, freshwater 2.56 3,662,392 105,477 .012A 1.266 28 1.238
Fishing, saltwater 3.39 4,849.8-09 139,674 .012A 1,676 28 1.648
Golfing 1.65 2,360,526 67,983 .14A 9,518 1508 8,010
Iliking .76 .1,087,273 31,313 .03H 939 8 931
Horseback riding .96 1,373.397 39,554 .05K 1,978 13 1.965
Hunting big game .55 786,842 22,661 26A 589,186 119,302 469.a84
Hutiting swill game 1.10 1,573,684 45.322 --- - ---
punting waterfowl 1.00 1,430,622 41,202 ---
KAur boating 3.57 5,)07,321 147.091 .008A 1,177 28 1.149
lio,orcycllng 1.72 2,460,670 70,867 --- ---
Ndture walk 3.22 4,606,603 132,670 .025M 3,317 13 3,304
Plcnicl,ing 3.80 5,436,364 156,567 .02A 3,131 754 2,377
Playing baseball 4.25 6,080,144 175,108 .025A 4,378 '38B 3,990
Playing basketball 2.77 3,962.823 114,129 .0025A 285 21.3 263
Playing football 3.83 5,479.282 157.803 .033A 5,208 258 4,950
Playing volleyball 2.90 4,148,804 119.486
Sailing bi 1,158,804 33,374
Sightseeing 4.76 6,809,761 196,121 -
Swimming. gulf 1.86 2,660,957 76,636 110.87SP 8,496,533 1,128,24o 7,368,343
Swimming, lakes 1,99 2,1146,938 81,992 --- --- --
Swimming. pools 10.10 14,449,282 416,139 4.48SF 1,864.304 214,668 1.649,636
Tennis 2.33 3,333,349 96,000 .002A 192 10.2 181
W41 k J ag, 9.49 li.576 603 i91.006
Watc:iing auto racing .64 915,598 26,369
WaL01ing baseball 4.54 6,495,024 186,057
Watcl Jng football 5.22 7,467,847 215,074
Wntghing gnIf .42 600,861 17,305
watching liorse racing 1.38 1,974,258 56,859 ---
Wn@ching outdoor concerts .80 1,144,498 32,962
Watching tennis .70 1,001,435 28,841
Water skiing 1.23 1,759,.665 50,678 .008A 405 28 377

11larris Segal$ Gordon Saussy, Fred WriGhton, Don Wilcox, and Roger Burford, Projections to the Year 2000 of Louisiana Populstloi
and Households (New Orle.-iris, 1976)
21tarticipation rates for Region 1 are a weighted average of the participation rates for Regions 1A and IS as determined In the
Participation survey detailed on pages The weighting factor used was 1975 populations of the two regions.
3A-Acres, M-Mile(s), SF-Square Feet
4 Sotirce: LaSPARC inventory.
-5Needs calculation formla: (participation rate)(populatloo)-(high quarter user day participstion)(2.881)-(high quarter Sunday
participation):standard)-projected participation. Projected participation - existing supply - need.

Source: Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, 1977.

A-38

There are a number of playgrounds and playfields in St. Bernard Parish

which offer facilities,such as baseball diamonds, football fields, basket-

ball courts@, and others; some of which are part of the St. Bernard Parish

Police Jury Recreation Department. A number of public and private boat

slips, ramps, and marinas are located throughout the parish, such as

those at Poydras, Yscloskey, and Lake Borgne Canal near Violet. Outdoor

recreational facilities, such as the one at Shell Beach, Lake Borgne,

and other surrounding sites, are depicted in Figure A-13.

SECTION B: NOISE IMPACTS

The proposed wetlands management program is not a noise sensitive

project, however, construction activities of some of the structural

measures will generate some noise. No sensitive receptors are presently

found in the wetlands area. The project is not in an unacceptable noise

zone as defined by HUD Circular 1390.2 (U.S. Department of the Interior,

1975).

It is not likely that noise generated by construction activities would

exceed noise criteria established by the U.S. Department of the Interior

in 1975 for recreational areas (45 dRA daytime, 40 dBA evening, 30 dBA

night). Therefore, it is not considered that outdoor recreation in

the wetlands area would be adversely affected by noise pollution.

The general effect of noise on terrestrial wildlife (including birds)

is likely to be one of the wildlife's temporary avoidance of the

construction area.

B-1

SECTION C: AIR QUALITY

The wetlands of St. Bernard Parish have a high air quality and

have no history of air pollution. Because of the area's setting on the-.

-coast, there is almost continuous air movementTindicating that any

potential pollutants would be rapidly dispersed. Low atmospheric

stability and limited atmospheric inversion prevailing in the area

further contribute to favorable atmospheric conditions.

Measurements of atmospheric stability at Taft, Louisiana (80 km

[50 mil 'inland from-the-coast) during May 1972 through April 1973 .

showed extremely stable conditions during 26% of the year and neutral

to slightly stable conditions during 60% of the year (Louisiana Power

and Light'Co., 1974).'Atmospheric inversion in the area has an average

annual frequency of about 25% of total hours (Hosler, 1961), Inversion

frequency ranges from 35% in the winter to 20% in the summer.

Construction and maintenance of some of the structural

measures would probably temporarily affect air quality. Emissions and

dust particles from equipment will be released into the air. However,

it is not anticipated that these sources would greatly change air

quality or have major adverse effects on ambient air quality levels.

C-1

SECTION D: WATER QUALITY

A. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

The Louisiana Stream Control Commission sets standards for water

quality in the State of Louisiana. The Commission sets general standards

applicable to the surface waters of the state and numerical criteria

for specific streams. The state's general water quality criteria are

listed below:

1) Aesthetics - the waters of the state shall be maintained in an
esthetically attractive condition.and shall meet the generally
accepted aesthetic qualifications. All waters shall be free
from such concentrations of substances attributable to waste-
water or other discharges sufficient to:

a) settle to form objectionable deposits;

b) float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to form nuisances;

c) result in objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;

d) 'injure or are toxic or produce adverse physiological response
-:, in humans, animals, fish, shellfish,'wildlife, or plants; and

e) produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life,

2) Color - true color shall not be increased to the extent that
it will interfere with present usage and projected future usage
of the streams and water bodies.

a) waters shall be virtually free from objectionable color;

b) the source of supply should not exceed 75 color units on
the platinun-cobalt scale for domestic water supplies; and

c) increased color (in combination with turbidity) shall not
reduce the depth of the compensation point for photosynthetic
activity by more than 10 percent from the seasonally estab-
lished norm for aquatic life.

3) Floating, suspended, and settleable solids- there shall be no
substdnces--present in concentration sufficient to produce
distinctly visible turbidity, solids or scum; nor sh@ill there
be any formation of slimes, bottom deposits, or sludge banks

D-1

D-Z

attributable to waste discharges from municipal, industrial, or
other sourcesj including agricultural practices. Settleable and
suspended solids shall not reduce the depth of the compensation
point for photosynthetic activity by more than 10% from the
seasonally established norm for aquatic life.

4) Taste and odor - taste-and odor-producing substances shall be
limited to concentrations in the waters of the state that will
not interfere with the production of potable water by reasonable
water treatment methods, or impart unpalatable flavor to food
fish, including shellfish, or result in offensive odors arising
from the waters, or otherwise interfere with the reasonable use
of the waters.

5) Toxic substances shall not be present in quantities that alone
or in combination will be toxic to animal or plant life. In all
cases the level shall not exceed the TLM 96/10. Bioassay techniques
will be used in evaluating toxicity utilizing methods and species
of test organisms suitable to the purpose at hand. In cases where
the stream is used as a public water supply, the level of toxic
substances shall not exceed the levels established by the United
States Public Health Service drinking water standards latest
edition.

6) Oils and greases - there shall be no free or floating oil or grease
present in sufficient quantities to interfere with the designated
uses, nor shall emulsified oils be present in sufficient quantities
to interfere with the designated uses.

7) Foaming and frothing matetials - none of a persistent nature.

8) Nutrients - the naturally occurring nitrogen-phosphorous ratio
shall be maintained. On completion of detailed studies on the
naturally occurring levels of the various macro and micro nutrients,
the state will establish numerical limits on nutrients where
possible.

Water bodies within St. Bernard Parish for which the Louisiana

Stream Control Commission (1977) has established standards are listed

in Table D-1. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established

standards for many polluting substances. The EPA's water quality standards

for heavy metals are shown in Table D-2.

B. PRESENT,CONDITIONS

The presence of large areas of dead cypress trees indicate that at

one time sections of the wetlands of St. Bernard Parish had a water regime

Table D-1. Louisiana Stream Control Commission Water Quality Standards.

Water Uses

Segment 1. primary contact - 1. seco ndary contact 1. secondary contact Dissolved oxygen CL so Temp. pH Bacteria sta@dard
Description swim in&, skiing 2. propagation of fish 2. propagation of fish 4 0 coliforma/100 mi
2. secondary contact - and wildlife and wildlife 4 mg/l 5 mg/l mg/1 mg/i C
fishing, wading, etc. 3. domestic raw water
3. propagation of fish supply
and wildlife

total - 70 and not
Bay Boudreau X X 35 6.5-9.0 more than'10% of the
(tid al) Samples grca er than 230

Bayou La
Lout re (tidal' X X 35 6.5-9.0
Hopaville to
Chandelier
Sound

Bayou Terre
aux Bouefs X X 35 6.5-9.0
(tidal)
Eloi Bay X X 35 6.5-9.0 C1
(tida

Lake St.
Catherine X X .35 6.5-9.0
(tidal)

Lake Borgne X X 35 6.5-9.0
(tidal)

Lake Fortuna X X 35 6.5-9.0
(cidal)

Lake Lery
(tidal) X X 5 6.5-9.0

Morgan Harbor
- .(tidal) X X 35 6.5-9.0

Chandelier
Sound (tidal) X X 35 6.5-9.0

Mississippi
River - Huey total 10,000
Long Bridge X X 75 r20 32 6.5-9.0 fecal 2,000
to Head of
Passes

Source: Louisiana Stream Control Commission, 1977.

Table D-2. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Standards for Heavy Metals.

Metal Fresh water and marine aquatic life IrriRation of Crops Domestic Water Supply

Cn 5.0

As 100.0 50.0

Cd .4 - 12.0 10.0

Cr 100.0 50.0

Cu .1 times a 96 hour LC50 ** as determined through
a nonaerated bioassay using a sensitive aquatic
resident species 1.0
Pb .01 times the 96 hour LC 50 50.0
Hg .10 (marine) .05 (fresh)
2.0
Ni .01 times the 96 hour LC50 for freshwater and marine
a uatic life

Zn .01,of the 96 hour L @5 0 as determined through a bio-
assay using a sensitive resident species 5,000.0

varies with the hardness of t he water
lethal concentration for !I of the test organisms

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.

D-5

dominated by fresh water. Today nearly all wetlands outside the hurricane

levees-contain brackish waters. Figure A-6, Section A illustrates water

salinity variations within the parish.

Although some of the increase in water salinity in the parish wetlands

is, no doubt, the result of natural subsidence and erosion, much of the

increase can be attributed to the construction of canals, especially

large ones such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. The effect of the

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet on water salinities in St. Bernard Parish

is illustrated in Figures D-1 and D-2. Both figures demonstrate the

increase in salinities after the construction of the MRGO. This increase

results from the saltwater wedge which moves up the MRGO from the Gulf

of Mexico. Figure D-3 shows vertical salinity profiles in the MRGO

and demonstrates the movement of saltwater up the MRGO during the

low fresh water runoff period.

Water pollution is a problem in certain parts of the parish,

especially in the Mississippi River. Concentrations of coliform organisms,

heavy metals, and other pollutants are very high during certain periods.

Table D-3 shows the average monthly count of total coliforms for the

Mississippi River at Violet.. The table demonstrates that organic pollu-

tion of the river is much higher during the low water months. Organic

pollution data for the parish wetlands are given in Table-D-4. Figure

D-4 shows the location of the sampling stations. Although at certain

times coliform counts in the wetlands exceed state limits for shellfish

propagation, they are generally much lower than counts for the Mississippi

River, and are closely monitored by the Louisiana State Department of Health

and Human Resources.

D-6

MONTHLY SALINITY RANGE
Paris Road Bridge

20- PPt

15-- 1962-1

10-

1948-1961

0- 1
Jan Mar May July 5ept Noy

Figure D-1. Comparison of monthly salinity ranges at Paris Road Bridge
for periods before and after construction of the MRGO.
(After USCE unpublished data).

MONTHLY SALINITY RANGE
Hopedale

20-' ppt

15-- 1962-196

1957-1961

0
Jan Mar May July Sept Nov

Figure D-2. Comparison of monthly salinity ranges at Hopedale for
periods before and after construction of the MRGO
(After USCE unpublished data).

D-8

0 3
Loke Borgne
mc

Aa'
G

is Issippi R.-Gull UU1'

LOW PHASE, Morch, 1963
0 A B C D E F G

5
7 PPT

10
10 12
15 ....... 14
..............
20 .......

25
30 16
20
35 22
AO r I I , 1 1

HIGH PHASE, Seplem6er, 1963

5
16
is'
20 PPT
:0
5 24

25
20
.............
26
25 25r

30
28

Figure D-3. Vertical salinity structure in the MRG0. Note extreme
salinities in the vicinity of Bayou Bienvenue during
September, 1963, a period of low fresh water runoff
(After Amstutz, 1964).

D-9

Table D -3. Average Monthly Count of Total Coliforms per 100/ml Mississippi
River at Violet, 1973-1978.

Month Average

January 8,400

February 6,000

March 6j.200

April 13,500

May 7,900

June 19,500

July 12,400

August 35,100

SeptembO-r 26,300

October 28,300

November 17,100

December 8,700

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1973-1978

D-10

Table D-4. Organic Pollution Data for St. Bernard Parish Wetlands,

Station Date Fecal Coliform/100 ml Total Coliform/100 ml

1 10-24-78 240
2 10-24-78 79
3 10-24-78 46
4 10-24-78 33
5 10-24-78 13
6 10-24-78 13
7 10-24-78 2
8 10-24-78 <2
9 1-28-76 1100 >1100
9 1-17-76 23 75
9 5-26-76 43 93
9 8-11-76 13 47
9 2-02-77 33 920
9 4-11-77 130 350
10 1-28-76 43 43
10 1-17-76 9.1 23
10 5-26-76 43 75
10 2-02-77 7.8 220
10 4-11-77 23 23
11 1-28-76 43 43
11 3@17-76 15 93
11 5-26-76 9.1 150
11 2-02-77 7.8 13
11 4-11-77 <1.8 2
12 1-28-76 23
12 3-17-76 29 29
12 5-26-76 <3 9.1
12 8-11-76 2 2
12 2-02-77 2 2
12 4-11-77 <1.8 4.5

Source: Louisiana State Department of Health and Human Resources, unpublish6d
data.

D-11

@e 0 1 km
N

tilt

CIO$

012 4
er "11 *8 Proctor Point

39
2
on vi t

387

Kenilwor

err BE A
n
0oht 46 46 14

Figure D-4. Location of water quality sampling stations.-

D-12

Heavy metals'and pesticides.are also pollutants present in varying

quantitie6 in St. Bernard Parish. Table D-5 compares heavy metal data

for the Mississippi River at Violet with stations 9 and 10 shown in

Figure D-4. Concentrations of pesticidds in the Mississippi River

at Algiers and in Bayou Dupre are shown in Tables D-6 and D-7. Pesticide levels

are generally low in St. Bernard waters except for the concentration of

Diazinon in Bayou Dupre.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Many of the structural measures of a wetland management program will

alter water characteristics. Construction of structures in aquatic

environments will increase@turbidity, and the resuspension of organic

sediments may cause lowering of dissolved oxygen levels. When structures

are in place@ permanent alteration of water characteristics can occur.

Water control structures such as weirs, dams, and levees can alter water

levels, salinities, circulation, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and other

water characteristics. The placement of these structures will be used

to obtain anticipated.desired effects, and these@.,;Yill be closely monitored.

The use of Mississippi River water to ameliorate the effects of

saltwater intrusion can also lead to water quality problems. The intro-

duction of river water into the wetlands will increase the possibility

of rising coliform levels and heavy metal concentrations. The effects

of these actions will also be closely monitored. Mississippi River water

quality is expected to improve and to comply with Federal standards in

the very near future.

D-13

Table D-5. 'Heavy Metal-Data for Stations 9 and 10 on Bayou Dupre and the
Mississippi River at Violet.

(micrograms/liter)
Station Cn As Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg Ni Zn

10 .00 0 0 0 1 0 .3: 0 0

9 .00 1 0 0 3 0 .1 0 0

stations 9 and 10 result from one sample date. The Mississippi River data
are averages of 39 sample dates.

Source: Leone, 1976

Table D-6. Pesticide Levels in the Mississippi River at Algiers Lock Forebay (1975).

w 0 0 aj
r. "I Gj "1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w 4 ru 4 Qj w 0 0 0 H f--4 -H r-i0 E-4
10 @4 U -H U 4 >N 4 @-, -rq X
P H m x w 0 4j @C 4j 44 w
Date P 0 @4 4j 0 4j "0 w m 4j r4 CO 4,J M 4,J 4J ;>
-4 C:1 fa4 01 P4 r x P H G) P a) -H H -It
4 a) 0 r4 CO w CO z P
f:) P4 P4 E-4

March 17

March 20 - - - - .00 .00 - - .00 - -

June 11 .0 .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

X-

June 18 .0 .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Source: Demas, 1976

Table D-7. Pestici:de. Data for Stations #9 and #10 on Bayou Dupre (Date: January, 1976).
(Micrograms/liter)

@4
a) 0 0 a)
I-i Ci 0 0 0 0 0
rq `4 -r-4 -40
CO 'C r4 4 ai w 0 -4 0
@4 U 0 Ci @a 0 4 --1 -H r, 4 >@ IC >@
Ca Ca Cd 0@ rA C@ 4J >N 4 0 4 4-J r:) Ln
@4 0 P 4-1 0 4J 10 M -Lj Ca 'z .14 Cd 4J W > I
w P@ a@ P@ rl x W @4 " @z -4 Q) P -ri -q -zi- -Z
Station r@ w (U H 0 rq CC W @4 4-j W @4 -H - -
@Z @4 P A aq E--4 w P-4 H 00 C@4

#10" .0 .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 .02 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00

9@ .0 .0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 .04 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Source: Leone, 1976

D. WATER QUALITY CHANGES

The development of wetland management programs is-generally aimed

at the manipulation of water characteristics. Most structural measures

used in such programs will have a beneficial effect on water quality

or will stabilize rapid fluctuations of water parameters.

In some situations a trade-off is necessitated in the manipulation

of water parameters. The use of Mississippi River water to counteract

the effects of saltwater intrusion is only at the expense of the possible

introduction of organic waste, heavy metals, and other pollutants into

some wetland areas. Although wetland vegetation has the ability to filter

out water pollutants (Odum, 1970), the use of river water in wetland

management will require a monitoring of pollutant levels in water and

sediment. In some cases the pollution levels may necessitate a temp6r@ary

change in the suitability of water for particular uses.

SECTION E: WASTE WATER TREARIENT PLANTS

A. PRESENT FACILITIES

At present, St. Bernard Parish has three sewage treatment plants

and two oxidation ponds. A fourth treatment plant is presently under

construction at Violet. The locations of the plants and ponds are

shown in Figure E-1. All of the sewage treatment plants in the parish

are secondary treatment plants. In all cases, solid wastes from the

facilities are disposed of in the parish dump on Paris Road. The liquid

effluent from the Dravo and Munster Plants is discharged into the

40 Arpent Canal. The effluents from the Fazenlville plant are discharged

into the Mississippi River. The Violet plant, when completed, will also

discharge effluent into the Mis,�issippi River.

B. FUTURE OR PROPOSED FACILITIES

The only plan the parish has concerning waste water treatment plants

is an expansion of the capacity of the Munster sewage treatment plant.

E-1

Hiver Is*;
W Grand Island
AV, Hwbes 9
South Point
G ree, the
'f'or';

at ne

Peld Pass lsla@d
Malheurev@ Point
ef L' Shell Po-@I
U
Nw
lake borgne

AlliQalof Patnt

d
41e
a
Obns! W, sh.,- Po,@j av. MbfChelleS toXl
@jA %
-1 Dravo
'4T IN e
VIA f1l
dWct 3 Munster S.T.P. Pwclot Po,nI
X1.
2 Fazendville S.T.
Ull \,#4*-Violet S.T.P.
N st. bern'
V, ff.5 Violet O.P. !&

er B nd- P.
hell
]'I'(
Ml 0 16

ggio Otv'

7-
pla eM. ine
f %Da is
l@' i @l I )in I'\:
J, Elo, Prot
0'@
10 -1 vc
st. @ernard parish
wetiands area G(ace Poot
7
sq, rWIe

ardner
Poml G

6
auto i one O@ch *WW@ - IN r 116
oinmbsclue Point
J@'

Figure E-1. Sewage treatment plants (S.T.P.) and oxidation ponds O.P.), St. Bernard Par

SECTION F: SOILD WASTE MANAGEMENT

A. PRESENT FACILITIES

At present@ the solid waste of St. Bernard Parish is disposed of at

the Parish disposal site on the west side off Paris Road just north of the

40 Arpent Canal.

B. FUTURE OR PROPOSED FACILITIES

At present, St. Bernard Parish has no definite plans for future solid

waste disposal. The parish is currently participating in a Metropolitan

solid waste disposal study with other parishes" local governments. The

study will assist the Parish in the development of plans for future solid

waste disposal.

F-1

SECTION G: RHM POPULATION

A. DESCRIPTION

St. Bernard Parish bad a total population of 61,966 in 1976 (St. Bernard

Parish Planning Commission Census data, 1977). In 1975, the population was

57,549, representing an increase of 5% over the previous year (Louisiana

State Planning Office, 1976). The majority of the parish population is

concentrated in a linear development coriidor along the levee areas of the

Mississippi River, Bayou La Loutre, and Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs where

the highest and most suitable land for residential development is encountered.

Population increases during the period 1970 to 1974 are shown in Table

G-1. This table shows that the increasing rate of growth for St. Bernard

Parish during the four year period from 1970 to 1974 is 9.1% greater than

the percentage rat e of growth shown by the State of Louisiana as a whole.

Since the 1950s, the Parish has been changing from an agricultural and rural

character to a more urban character. The outdoor recreation opportunities

offered make it an attractive place to live. Projected population for the

year 1985 is 101,947 (Burford and Murzyn,.1972).

Table G-1. Population Growth for St. Bernard Parish and the State of
Louisiana from the year 1970 to 1974

1970 1974 % Chang
St. Bernard Parish -51@185 57,549 12.4%

Louisiana 3,643,180 3,762,309 3.3%

Source: Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

G-1

G-2

B. ECONOMY

1. Agriculture

The first settlers in the area were Europeans, mainly French, who-

engaged in agriculture and trade. Many Spainards from the Canary Islands

settled in St. Bernard Parish during the Spanish domination of the New

Orleans areaapproximately during the last 30 years of,the 18th century.

They were mainly farmers who cultivated sugarcane quite successfully.

Acadians, who also settled in the parish after they abandoned Canada

because of British domination in around the 1750s, were also successful

farmers, planters, and trappers. St. Bernard's plantation type of

economy slowly started to change after the Civil War and small farms

and truck farms developed. During the lumber period in the late 1800s

and early 1900s, almost all of the virgin cypress forest swamps were cut

to provide for the demand for construction material, primarily in the

New Orleans area.

Since the 1950s, the parish natural levee lands have been rapidly

changing from a rural character to an urban and industrial character.

Many agricultural lands have been claimed by urban and industrial

expansion.

2. Industry

In the last few decades the Parish industrial economy has been primarily

centered around manufacturing. Twenty one and one-half percent of its

labor force was engaged in this activity in 1970; construction, public

administration, wholesale trade, retail trade, and transportation

G-3

followed in order of importance. Major,manufacturing and processing

industries found in the parish are shown in Table G-2.

3. Miscellaneous

The principal resources in St. Bernard Parish are minerals, fish and

shellfish, and furs. The value of production for minerals in 1971 was

$50,692,000. Figures for a fisheries total are not available for St.

Bernard Parish exclusively, but the total harvested nursery area pro-

duction for the Lake Pontchartrain - Borgne Basin and the Lery - Breton

Basin was $11,500,000 in 19.72 (USCE, 1975b). Furs have experienced

a decline in recent years because of environmental changes in this

area, such as lack of fresh water influx into the wetlands,and recreation,

especially water oriented activities.

C. INSTITUTIONS

1. Educational Institutions

The total number of sthools in St. Bernard Parish, as well as other

selected statistics in regard to education.,;are shown in Table G-3.

Table G-3. Selected Educational Statistics, St. Bernard Parish, La.

*Total Schools 23
Number of Non-Public Schools (1974-1975) 6
Number of Public Schools (1974-1975) 17
Total Registration (1974-1975) 13,605
Faculty/Student Ratio, Public Schools (1974-1975) 1:20.7

*-*11edian Years of School Completed by Persons 25 yrs and 12.1%
Older, 1970
College Graduates, Persons 25 years or over, 1970 10.7%

Louisiana State Department of Education, 1975
**Public Affairs Research Council, 1973

-------------------------------------------------------------------

G-4

Table G-2. Major Manufacturing and Processing Industries St. Bernard Parish

Company Name Product/Commodity Description

American Sugar Co - --------------------------- refined cane sugar, liquid sugar.

Kaiser Aluminum and ------------------------- Cryolite, calcined petroleum coke,
Chemical Corporation aluminum ingots, billets, and re-
draw rods.

Tenneco Oil Company -------------------------- gasoline, diesel fuel, propane,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
zylenes, orthoxylene, petroleum
coke.

Murphy Oil Company --------------------------- refined petroleum products.

Jackup Boat Builders - ------------------------ custom pressbrake and shearing,
Inc. hydraulic cranes.

Gulf Soap Corporation ------------------------ meat and bone meal, poultry meal,
yellow grease.

Alback Co., Inc - ----------------------------- pressure vessels, tanks, stacks.

Bergeron Machine Shop ------------------------ steel fabrication, marine, indus-
trial, and oil field repair.

Source: U. S. Department of the Army, 1975

G-5

2. Health

Dat'a pertinent to health in St. Bernard Parish is presented in

Table G-4.

Table G-4. Composite Health Status Indicator, St. Bernard Parish, La.

Number of non-Federal physicians per 1,000 population 15 (Dec. 1, 1973)

Number of hospitals 1 (Dec. 1, 1973)

Infant death rate per 1,000 live births 26

Morbidity rate per 1,000 (+) population 803

Number of deaths per 1,000 caused by cancer 53

Number of deaths per 1,000 caused by heart disease 101

Source: Department of Health and Human Resources, 1978
Center for Health Services Research and Development,1974

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several medical facilities and health care units within

the parish. The proximity to the city of New Orleans makes the hospitals

and other outstanding medical facilities available to the inhabitants

of St. Bernard Parish.

3. Electrical Service

St. Bernard Parish is located within the electrical service area of

the Louisiana Power and Light Company.

4. Telephone Service

St. Bernard Parish is served by the South Central Bell Telephone Company.

G-6

D. DISRUPTION OF SERVICES

Since the majority of the structural measures are to be constructed

in the wetland areas, disruption of services in urban and semi-urban

areas is improbable.

E. RELOCATION

No displacement of people or major facilities is foreseen as a

consequence of the proposed wetland management program.

SECTION H: TRANSPORTATION
A..' HIGHWAYS

most of the major highways and roads in St. Bernard Parish are

located on the higher grounds along the natural levees. Highway 47

(Paris Road), which serves as a major access-egress artery into and

out of the parish, is planned to be converted into an interstate

spur route (1-510) in the near future. Highways 39, 46, and 300

serve and connect all the urban and semi-urban areas of the parish along

the Bayou La Loutre and Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs ridges.

B. RAILROADS

Railroad lines and terminals serve the main industrial area of

the parish along its 16 km (10 mi) route of the Mississippi River front.

C. WATERWAYS

There are numerous natural waterways in the parish which are navi-

gable, and many other man-made waterways traverse the area. The most

significant man-made waterway is the MRGO, built in the late 1950s.

D. PIPELINES

Many pipeline-canals serving as transportation channels for the oil

and gas industry cross the parish, as do canals dug for the purpose

of exploration by this industry.

H-1

H-2

E. AIR TRANSPORTATION

New Orleans International and Lakefront Airports are in proximity

to St. Bernard Parish. At present, both airports satisfy the needs

of the parish for air transportation facilities. Transporatation systems

of the parish are shown in Figure H-1.

F. DIPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION

The proposed action is not expected to have a significant adverse

impact on either terrestrial or aquatic transportation routes. However,

temporary inconveniences might be expected during construction and

implementation of some of the envisioned structural measures.

ate
River Is,; Grand Island
South Point Au-.He
it ......
J, G ree V.,6tht"T 'it
n.o. airwill Di
Ilk'
ne
le
I MalheUreux Point
vo!, Or shelf Point Le Petit Pass Island
"o @wr
Alligator Point P.
J* lake borgne
r"I., M.-
Point aux Marche((es LOXI
dr wat-ay
a. 15,X100,

T
? o loctor Point NA PU). M
dredged waterway
Vi X "W, v

A"
f; Kenilwor P
oo Is
A4.

gg 10 C, t % %

r
Ov
Vill% t
cla r I,A K E
14 inf M.

dre J
st. hernar paris "I J'Al Wx 401,
MAI
wetlands area o
sq. Wce (oint
he
M
4% ILI
o- o. /73
oint Gardner
oo
wjw Iaft inch *wW$ six miles & oo
otambiouo Point

Figure H-1. Existing major transportation routes, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

SECTION 1: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

The following bayous and segments of bayous within the study area

are scenic rivers:

Bayou Dupre - from the Lake Borgne Canal to-Terre Beau Bayou
.Lake Borgne Canal - from the Forty Arpent Canal to Bayou Dupre
Bashman Bayou - from its origin to Bayou Dupre
Terre Beau Bayou - from Bayou Dupre to the New Canal
Piroque Bayou - from Bayou Dupre to New Canal
Bayou Bienvenue from Bayou Villere to Lake Borgne
Bayou Chaperon from its origin to its end

The proposed wetland management program will eventually improve the quality

of such bayous. In the event that any structural measures will temporarily

affect any of these streams, the necessary and required permits will be

obtained from the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries which administers

the Louisiana Wild and Scenic Rivers system.

S.ECT I'ON J: HISTORIC PRESERVATION

A. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IN ST. BERNARD PARISH

Three sites are currently listed on the National Register of Historic

Places: Chalmette National Historical Park, Fort Proctor (admitted

September 20, 1978), and Magnolia Mound Archeological Site (admitted

May 22, 1978). The first two are significant in the history of the

area, the last is a large and important prehistoric site. The

Chalmette Battlefield includes most of the area where Americans under

Andrew Jackson repelled the British during the Battle of New Orleans

on January 8, 1.815. Fort Proctor (16 SB 83) was built beginning in

1856 to defend the City of New Orleans from attack via Lake Borgne, and

represents a masterpiece of military construction of the time period.

Magnolia Mound (16 SB 49), an extensive complex of clam middens, conical

mounds of the Marksville period (0 to 400 A.D.) surrounding a plaza,

and pyramidal mounds of the Mississippi period (1,000 to 1,700 A.D.), may

have had a central function in the settlement system of the two periods.

A number of other prehistoric and historic sites and landmarks in

St. Bernard Parish are potentially eligible for nomination to the National

B. ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES

St. Bernard Parish has a rich history and cultural setting. Since

prehistoric times, man has found this area to be a very desirable environ-

ment in which to live. Archeological records show that the St. Bernard

delta complex was occupied by man as far back as 1,740 B.C. Evidence

J-1

j-2

of man during prehistoric and early historic times can be found in many

Indian mounds and middens in the area. These sites represent cultures

from the Poverty Point Period (1,800 to 500 B.C.), through Tchefuncte

and Marksville Periods (500 B,.,C. to 300 A.D.), the Troyville and Coles

Creek periods (300 to 1,000 A.D.), to the Mississippi period and early

historic times (1,000 to 1,700 A.D.). They provide a valuable record

of the development of culture in the area, how man coped with environ-

mental conditions, used natural resources, and structured his society.

C. GENERAL ARCHEOLOGY

Although there are-about 90 identified prehistoric archeological

sites in St. Bernard Parish, a complete archeological survey of the

parish would probably uncover many more. A detailed study of new

sites might reveal even earlier India n occupationsthan the cultural

periods that have been recorded and established from potsherds and

artifacts recovered on the known sites. The lower levels of some

of the known sites may also yield evidence of earlier Indians.

D. TYPES OF SITES AND LOCATION

The archeological sites fall into four different classes: earth

mounds, shell mounds, shell middens, and beach deposits. Earth mounds

are quite distinguishable features in the parish landscape. Elevated

from the surrounding flat topography, they were built by the Indians

apparently as burial tumuli or temple foundations. The Magnolia Mound

complex near the Great Bend of Bayou La Loutre is a fine example

of a group of earth mounds. Shell mounds and middens are sites which

were occupied by Indians. They usually are either low-lying shell

J-3

accumulations without a preconceived shape or ridge-like in form, some-

times .9 to 2.4 m (.3 to 8 ft) high and up*-to a hundred meters in length.

teach deposits are wave-washed accumulations of -sherds and shell, repre-

senting the remains of-a naturally destroyed site. Recorded Indian

sites in St. Bernard Parish are depicted in Figure J-1.

E. STATUS

The principal threats to archeological resources in St. Bernard Parish

are 1) subsidence below the level of the marsh, which prevents surface

detection of the site, and thus its availability for study; 2) dredging

during pipeline and other canal construction; 3) wave erosion, which may

be exacerbated by boat traffic; and 4) vandalism (pot hunting).

Prehistoric Indian sites in St. Bernard Parish can be described'

as being in one of several conditions:

1) Completely undistiirbed (not damaged, not partially subsided)

2) In disrepair (refers to historic buildings and structures)

3) Partially subsided

4) Completely subsided

5) Dredged (totally destroyed or eroding at exposed cutbank)

6) Partially wave-washed (part of the site has been eroded
and is being redeposited on a beach)

7) Completely wave-Washed (all of the site has been eroded
away and has been redeposited on a beach)

8) Completely destroyed (no remaining evidence of the site)

No sites in the parish are completely undisturbed. Table J-1

shows the change in condition which has occurred over the last 20

to 40 years to 34 of the parish's sites (not a complete list of parish

sites). It can be seen from the table that 15 sites (44%) originally

X
Grand IsI,
South Point
I), v jA, 'All

16SB73
f
16 so qf.,77@
?;

16 S13 35
3.-
16 OR 18 W C.4
,@_-J@@_,. @f
16SO62
16 OR 43
Y'M
W, 16 SO 6
16 @PS@
I
16 OR Aake borgne
A41 oe

16 OR 23
WtB 72

16S8,54-
'6@SB 84 k"",
-16 SO 67.,
16 SO 6 '53'),
\ch 15S070
e. q ISS9
I ette-b@itl@-fi6
A
16, 5
W
16";13'
k'10"ie Bel, 16 16,58Ao-"0 16S06 5 It,
@N
V

J, 16
VIA @.l -
0 e
5 M
I NN"
ix
.......- 16SB43
4A
4 411@@ 16 SO 44 16S 75 V
'id,SG 4
rl-@7'% '16'SS 63
16 @13 L
-S 13 6
5 '16SO
v
SO 90@
V 7 4-
fib A
4
.56
z
C, "
.16
16 S a. 9 1!@
6 @;6 6
NA SO VIC
'S 5
16 ssk 1" 3 '16 S 13 3,
r
16 S B Q
0 kl 16S04
e i: 16 )') @1` ; ba
EQ94-
A- jr1
ev T 16 SO 78 S)
6 S13,84
6A_

So in
M.
1 6C L@03 4(4k
1r, . .....
16,61326--' 16,S1327, I
qp.
ar pans 16 MI 2('
B "7,
st. Wn 0110
wetlands area 4.,16 S 9 3 S r N@k;

11"Vj lu;
0 -prehistoric sites tery
07,
0 historic sites f6 �P-14 1 Gaednef
a - shipwreck
11C
@alQ: One UVIN
@10

0"11 six miles
I&* historic homes

Figure J-1. Archeological and historical sites, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

Table J-1. Change in Condition of St. Bernard Parish Archeological Sites
Since Initial Recording.

Initially
Site No. Recorded Revisited Change in Condition

16 SB 1 1935 1976 No change. (Already wave-washed)-

16 SB 2 1935 1976 Partially wave-washed to completely wave-washed

16 SB 4 1935 1976 No change (already wave-washed)

16 SB 6 1935 1976 Completely wave-washed to completely destroyed

16 SB9 1935 1976 Partially wave-washed to completely wave-washed

16 SB 11 1935 1976 Partially wave-washed to dredged

16 SB 12 1935 1978 Partially wave-washed to dredged

16 SB 17 ? 1976 Completely wave-washed to completely destroyed

16 SB 24 1952 1976 Partially wave-washed to dredged

16 SB 27 1935 1976 Partially wave-washed to completely destroyed

16SB 28 1935 1976 No changes (dredged and eroding)

16 SB 29 1935 1978 No change (partially subsided)

16 SB 30 1935 1976 Partially wave-washed to completely destroyed

16 SB 33 1952 1976 No change (partially subsided)

16 SB 35 1952 1976 No change (partially subsided)

16 SB 39 1952 1978 No change (partially dredged)

16 SB 40 1952 1978 Partially wave-washed to dredged

16 SB 43 1952 1978 No change (partially dredged)

16 SB 44 1935 1978 No change (completely wave-washed)

J6 SB 45 1952 1978 No change (dredged and eroding)

16 SB 47 1935 1976 No change (partially wave-washed)

16 SB 49 1935 1976 No change (partially subsided)

J-6

Table J-1. Change in Condition of St. Bernard Parish Archeological Sites
Since Initial Recording (Continued). A-

Initially
Site No. Recorded Revisited Change in Condition

16 SB 50 1952 1976 No change (partially subsided)

16 SB 51 1952 1976 No change (partially subsided)

16 SB 52 ? 1976 No change (partially subsided)

16 SB 53 1952 1976 No change (partially subsided)

16 SB 55 1952 1976 Partially wave-washed to dredged

16 SB 56 1952 1976 No change (partially subsided)

16 SB 57 1953 1976 Partially wave-washed to dredged

16 SB 58 1953 1976 Partially wave-washed to dredged

16 SB 60 1953 1976 Partially wave-washed to completely wave-washed

16 SB 61 1953 1976 Partially wave-washed to completely destroyed

16 SB 62 1953 1976 Partially wave-washed to completely wave-washed

16 SB 64 1953 1976 Partially wave-washed to completely wave-washed

J-7

recorded as only partially wave-washed have since become completely wave-

washed, dredged, or completely destroyed, Nine sites originally

recorded as intact but partially subsided remained in this condition

until 1978. These intact sites offer the' greatest potential for future

research.

F. GENERAL HISTORIC INFORMATION

Europeans settled in the New Orleans area around 1700, and by the

late 1800s the population had reached about 120,000. On March 31, 1807,

the parish of St. Bernard was created. Periods of French, Spanish,

British, and American dominance are well recorded by historic sites in

the area. The contributions of various cultural mixtures and ethnic

groups that give the area its character are still apparent in monuments,

buildings, folklo re, and historic places.

The French were the first settlers of the parish lands. Many of

these became famous men of their time as governors of Louisiana, explorers,

soldiers, and plantation owners, thus leaVing their names recorded in

history. These names,-such as Feret, BienVenue, De Laronde, and Chalmette,

are now associated with the St. Bernard area. Most settlers were farmers,

and their major crop was indigo until cotton was introduced in 1740.

In 1762, Spain took control of Louisiana until 1803. Many Spaniards

from the Canary Islands settled in the parish. Two of these Spaniards, Mendez

And Solis, were quite successful in cultivating sugarcaneand tried to find

a method for its crystal.lization.

Acadians also settled in the parish. Some came directly from Canada,

others came from the island of Santo Domingo in the Caribbean Sea.

J-8

They were farmers, planters, and excellent trappers;.-and their influence

is evident in the food and folklore of the area.

On December 23, 1803, the territory of Louisiana was officially

transferred to the United States. On December 14, 1814, the famous

Battle of New Orleans where Andrew Jackson defeated the British forces.

took place almost entirely in St. Bernard Parish. Near the battlefield

is the "Four Oaks" commemorative site where it is said that the British

General, Pakenham, died.

Many areas of the parish contain a number of sites commemorated by

historical markers, including the St. Bernard Church and Cemetery; the

sites of the former De La Ronde, Villere, and Contreras Plantations;

and the Ducros Historical Museum. Future markers are planned to

recognize the former sites of the Jumonville and Reggio Plantations.

The Kenilworth Plantation, a private residence, was built in 1759 and

is in excellent condition as of 1976.

The U.S. National Cemetery near Chalmette was established in 1864.

More than 14,000 soildiers and sailors from every part of the U.S. are

iriterred here, although about half of the graves are unidentified. Two

graves are those of men that died in the Battle of New Orleans. The

cemetery is listed in.the National Register of Historic Places. His-

torically significant sites are identified in Figure J-1.

After the Civil War (1861-1865), the plantation type of economy

of St. Bernard Parish slowly started to transform into small farms,

mainly truck farms. This was also the great lumbering period when nearly

all the virgin cypress forest swamps were cut. Fishing and trapping

became significant in the parish economy.

J-9

The history of man's technological development in relation to the

natural resources of the area is also well represented in the parish.

The site of the first steam sugar mill in the parish can still be

visited. New plants and industrial facilities show the latest tech-

nological advancements in oil, gas, and manufacturing industries.

Since the 1920s, St. Bernard Parish has been gradually changing

from its previous agricultural and rural character. The excellent

water-ori(hnted recreational opportunities offered by the parish and

its proximity to New Orleans have made it an ideal place to live. Since

the 1950s, the most suitable areas for urbanization have experienced

a great amount of development. Today, the wetland areas of the parish,

with their valuable natural resources and attractions, are in danger

of being lost to the needs and demands of urbanization and industrialization

as well as to natural forces.

G. EVALUATION OF SITES

This section will deal specifically with the evaluation of archeo-

logical sites, both for their scientific and viewing potential. In most

casesYthese two forms of site evaluation go hand in hand. If a site is

proven to be of good scientific value, more than likely it will also

have the appearance, accessibility, and uniqueness that will allow it

to serve as an informative tourist or recreational attraction.

To facilitate our discussion, the parish will be divided into

sectors (Figure J-2). Sites within each sector will be discussed as a

unit and compared according to importance. All of@the sectors have

J-10

I :hN
L
lake pontchartrain
'vel _b
Grartri Island
S-th Pint 22
%ill w- 20
12
TO

f
3
lake borgne
15 ,6.
9 2
30

.2
-36@-:'
13 72
2
37'

67
60
7@_
T-L
Z'm
7TV .0

0
5
sl 0
03
74
tSs
'65
5 75 't
All- i:-N -6 76'
L
LY 60 92

24
A
5
7
T1
z
41k b,
2 7 1>@ 2
26

3@ 11
A 110(w'.
IT
-8 2
'(34,) Ne

Y
C,

e7 f;

SME LEVEL OF [email protected]^mct

V @OST SCNW6CANT
IV cultural resources
st. bernard parish
III wetlands area

I LEAST SICNWICAmr
6 MmMlIlllllll9
miles

Figure J-2. Archeological sites in St. Bernard Parish, grouped according to sectors
and indicated by levels of significance.

J-11

been compared to each other based on a point score. The point score

was derived by summing point scores assigned to each site in the sector

based on the site's ranked significance (1 to 5).

1. Sector 1 (5 points)

This sector is confined to the area in and around the present

town of Chalmette. Two historic sites, Chalmette Battlefield and

De La Ronde Plantation (16 SB 88), are located within the city limits.

The battlefield is already in the National Register of Historic Places,

while the plantation is a well-known historic locale along St. Bernard

Highway. It is questionable as to what inf ormation can be gained from

the plantation, as it is currently in almost total ruin and surrounded

by road pavement. The prehistoric site (16 SB 67) is a late prehistoric

locale of moderate surface expression, and may be worth investigating with

one or two limited test pits.

2.. Sector 2 (23 points)

This group consists of two prehistoric sites, three historic sites

and two sites with a combination of both prehistoric and historic components.

The sites with prehistoric components are significant. for the location along

a relict channel, but are in poor condition.

The three historic sites, Martello Castle (16 SB 85) (,see Figure J-1

Battery Bienvenue (16 SB 84)(�ee Figure J-2), and Lake Borgne Canal

Redoubt (16 SB 89),are nineteenth century American gun emplacements.

They were strategically positioned at the mouth of Bayou Dupre, a bend

in Bayou Bienvenue, and along the Lake Borgne Canal to allow control of

these waterways and to block their use as-back door approaches to New

J-12

Orleans. Both would offer valuable information on small, nineteenth century

gun emplacements and the lifestyles of those who manned them. Restoration

as possible tourist attractions is not inconceivable for any of the sites.

3. Sector 3 (8 points)

The four sites in this sector are all listed as Orleans Parish sites.

However, since the border of St. Bernard Parish is the shoreline around

Lake Borgne, the drowned portions of these sites lying below the lake.'s

surface are technically in St. Bernard Parish. None of the four offer

much in the way of salvage or recreational possibilities. They are all

completely wave-washed and are not of much use for stratigraphic testing

or sight-seeing.

4. Sector 4 (30 points)

This is the first major site cluster with which we will deal. Sites

in this sector are associated with distributaries of the ancient Bayou

La Loutre course of the Mississippi River. Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs-.is

the maj-or distributary in this case, but others, now submerged beyond

recognition, also play a role.

Of"these Sector 4 sites, the most promising is probably Reggio IV

(16 SB 38). A village area is almost certainly associated with the

mound, and test excavations would probably prove valuable. The other

sites are all either subsided, dredged, or are eroding rapidly along

Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeuf's banks. Sites 16 SB 58 and 16 PL 33 were at one

time highly impressive middens, stretching along both banks of Bayou

Terre-Aux-Boeufs for over 2.4 km (1.4 mi) each. When the area was

J-1-i

visited in June 1976, only a few scattered Rangia lenses were found

exposed in the banks. It is probable that this reflects conditions of

high water, the unfavorable situation occurring during the survey. More

importantly, however, the erosional action along the bayou has taken a

heavy toll, and great portions of the sites have been annihilated. If

this erosion can be halted for the sites along Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufg,

then some scientific investigations should be possible. The sites,

if properly preserved, would be definite points of interest for educational

and recreational boat tours, as they are mostly situated along an

easily travelled waterway, namely Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs.

5. Sector 5 (29 points)

A cluster of wave-washed Rangia middens along Lake Borgne, shell

mounds and middens on relict beach ridges, nineteenth century homes,

and a nineteenth century fort form the archeological sites of this-sector.

The wave-washed sites are represented by a portion of Bayou St. Malo

(16 SB 47) and Shell Beach (16 SB 44). Shell Beach, although wave-washed

and situated along a rapidly retreating shoreline, is significant for

a number of reasons. It is the only site thus far recorded in St. Bernard

Parish at which artifacts of the Tchula period (500 B.C. to 1 A.D.) have

been found. Aside from that occupation, Shell Beach was also inhabited

during prehistoric times by Indians of later periods. During historic

times,the site.also served as a living area for officers and men stationed

at Fort Proctor (16 SB 83), and as a favored resort community with a beach

front hotel and summer homes. These houses and the hotel have been

J-14

obliterated in the last one hundred years, however, so that the only

evidence of their previous presence is scattered bottles, coins, utensils,

etc., strewn along the lake shore. In places back from the shore and

along Bayou Yscloskey, in-situ.remains may be expected, although none

have yet been reported. Four other prehistoric sites, Dolluts Canal

(16 SB 43), Bayou St. Malo (16 SB 47), Orange Mound (16 SB 74), and

Northwest of Bayou Guyago (16 SB 75), are situated atop old beach

ridges or "cheniers.'.'

Finally, perhaps one of the most important historic sites in the

parish, Fort Proctor (16 SB 83), also known as Fort Beauregard, is

located in this sector. Much like Battery Bienvenue and Martello

Castle, Fort Proctor was constructed in the middle of the nineteenth

century as a key station in the defense of New Orleans. Its strategic

location enabled it to guard the'entrance to Bayou Yscloskey. When

originally constructed, the fort was about 60 or more meters (196 or

more miles) south of the Lake Borgne shore. Howeverat present the fort

is being affected by wave action and subsidence. The northern wall of

the fort has succumbed to the advancing waters, and if nothing is done

shortly, the remainder of the structure will collapse as well.

6. Sector 6 (50 points)

It is within this sector that we find the most plentiful array

of archeological sites. It is also within this sector that we see

the most historic sites and the largest, potentially most important

prehistoric site in the parish.

J-15

We will begin our discussion of this sector with the historic

sites. Perhaps the most important of these are Kenilworth Plantation

(16 SB 86) and Proctor Sugar Mill (16 SB 87). As sightseeing locations,

the two are ideally situated, being along the St. Ber nard - Hopedale

Road. Permission from the owners and access and parking facilities would

necessarily pre-requisite any plans for thei r development as tourist

attractions. The sugar mill, although currently in ruins, could be

repaired to a representable degree and historic archeological investigations

around the mill's grounds should add worthwhile data on possibly the

first steam-powered mill in St. Bernard Parish. Kenilworth is an excellent

example of a nineteenth century plantation, and is in such a fine state

of preservation that hardly anything at all need be done in the line of

restoration. The major consideration in this case is that the house is

currently occupied and the owners may prefer privacy.

The other historic locales along Bayou La Loutre are all situated

on the south bank of the bayou or north of the MRGO. In the late 1700s.

and early nineteenth century, the main avenue of traffic along Bayou

La Loutre, besides the water itself, was a cinder-paved carriage and horse

road located along the southern natural levee crest. This road appears

to have run from Yscloskey to almost the Big Bend of Bayou La Loutre,

with portions of it still visible today.

The relatively firm ground of the Mississippi and Bayou La Loutre's

natural levees also-offered the prehistoric inhabitants of this sector

an-ideal &ocation for their camps, villages, and mounds. In the western

portion of this sector are three earth mounds, Yscloskey (16 SB 8),

J-16

Reggio 11 (16 SB 42), Bayou Yscloskey 11 (16 SB 46); and two shell middens,

Bayou Yscloskey 1 (16 SB 45) and East Bayou (16 SB 46).

North of the MRGO, we find two highly eroded sites, Bayou La Loutre

MRGO (16 SB 69) and Bayou La Loutre (16 SB 77). The first is almost

totally destroyed, while the second is suffering greatly from the impact

of boat's wakes. The Bayou La Loutre site is important for two reasons.

First, it is extremely extensive, running along both sides of the bayou

from near the Engineers Canal north to Stump Lagoon. Although hardly

recognizable because of the scarcity of shell, the site has offered a

wealth of unique artifacts. Second, this site may reveal scattered

evidence of early settlers in the area.

Finally, we come to the most significant and valuable of all of the

St. Bernard Parish sites. This is the outstanding array of earth mounds,

shell mounds, and middens collectively known as the Magnolia Mound site

(16 SB 49). This immense site is in dire need of archeological investi-

gation; more so, perhaps, than any other site in the parish. Besides the

data such an excavation would reveal concerning the archeological story,

it is so important that the site has been nominated to the National Register

of Historic Places. Without a doubt, if one is to study a site in

St .-.Bernard Parish, this is that site.

7. Sector 7 (14 points)

This is the lower Bayou La Loutre cluster which may not be situated

upon the ancient Mississippi natural levee, and for this reason has been

disassociated with Sector 6. All the sites in this sector, except

J-17

northeast of Joe Shiman Pass (l6 SB 79), are either partially or completely

wave-washed shell middens. The most significant of these is t he Bayou

Petre site (16 SB 11).

This sector seems to have moderate potential; some sites deserve

scientific testing. Bayou Petre especially deserves testing since it is

the "type-site" of a phase as yet only haphazardly defined. The sites

may not offer much in the way of sightseeing or special attractions,

however.

8. Sector 8 (19 points)

The site which would seemingly offer the best data is Mulatto

Bayou (16 SB 12). Its well-preserved, organic material makes it

extremely attractive for future excavations.

Two other subsiding sites, for which not much is known but which

are in a good state of preservation, are Lake of the Second Trees I

(16 SB 29) and Seven Dollar Bay (16 SB 33). Test excavations into

these two sites would probably be relatively simple and would offer

a decent amount of data with which to work. The remainder of this

sector's sites are all wave-washed, dredged, or totally destroyed,_

and would be useful only in the salvage of surface artifacts.

9. Sector 9 (12 points.)

This is perhaps the least informative of all sectors. It is

composed of sites which are all completely wave-washed shell middens.

The sector was intentionally devised to include such sites.

J-18

10. Sector 10 (27 points)

The eight sites which form this sector constitute the best

unaltered family of sites in the whole parish. Despite the fact that

almost nothing is known of them, they potentially offer the greatest

amount of information. Although it is not certain, they seem to be

related to a now-submerged and ill-defined stream course which probably

branched off of either the Bayou La Loutre - Mississippi channel or a

stream similar to the present day Bayou La Loutre.

Three of these sites, Southwest of Cut-off Lagoon (16 SB 50), North-

west of Cut-off Lagoon (16'SB 51), and Bayou Biloxi 11 (16 SB 55), are

composed of both earth mounds and shell middens. They are all in

relatively excellent condition, although Bayou Biloxi II is suffering

from an eroding bankline due to boat traffic on the bayou, and all are

somewhat subsided. The remainder of the sites are all shell middens

which, other than having subsided, are in fine shape.

This sector should undoubtedly employ a detailed excavation pro-

cedure that could unveil the heretofore undisclosed archeological

record. The sites are also centrally located and fairly accessible in

most instances, and could be featured as part of a boat tour through

the Biloxi State Wildlife Management Area.

11. Sector 11 (.20 points)

Sites in this sector are little known and represent a major data

gap in the archeological record. Lake of the Mounds (16 SB 56)J8

reported to consist of two earthen mounds, one square and one circular.

J-19

No artifacts have ever been recovered from the latter site, but as we

-have seen, that is not uncommon. It would undoubtedly offer the best

locale in this sector for limited test excavations.

12. Sector 12 (19 points)

This sector is again typical of the outer marsh environs of the

parish, and the subsequent site alteration and subsidence common in

such a locale. Perhaps the most informative sites in this sector

will turn out.to be-Bayou Pierre (16 SB 10), a "Shell mound" as reported

on the site form; Johnson Bayou (16 SB 31), a-."shell midden"; and

Three Mile Bay (16 SB 35), a mound composed of both earth and shell.

Aside from these, this sector lacks any valuable scientific potential.

A couple of exploratory test pits into Bayou Pierre, Johnson Bayou,

and Three Mile Bay should prove enlightening, however. The far-removed

loc ation of the sites reduces their possibilities as recreational

locales.

13. Sector 13 (.6 points)

This sector's sites are all highly reworked beach deposits on the

Chandeleur Islands and the Freemason Islands. The islands themselves

represent the last vestiges of the outer delta margin, since reworked

and washed backward by the Gulf's waves. None of the islands of the

Chandeleur arc are truly in situ, and thus neither are the two sites

located on these transgressing beaches. The site on Neptune Point

of the Freemason Islands (16 SB 19) may not be removed as much from

its original location as the two on the Chandeleurs; but nevertheless, it

is completely wave-washed.

J-20

The point scores show that Sector 6 (Central Bayou La Loutre area)

is the most archeologically significant; Sector 1 is the least signi-

ficant. This does not imply that Sector 1 cultural resources should be

neglected.. The area, in fact, includes several landmarks of historic

interest. The point score merely shows that the potential for future

archeological research is more limited here than in other parts of

the parish.

REFERENCES

Algermissen, S. T. 1969. Seismic Risk Studies in the United States.
In: Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Santiago,
@-hile. January 13-18.

Algermissen, S. T. and D. M. Perkins. 1976. A Probablistic Estimate
of Maximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. .

Amstutz, David E. 1964. Analysis of Salinity Regime of the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet Channel, Texas A&M Projects 286-1 and 299.
Technical Report 64-2IT, Texas A&M University, 55 pp.

Beter, R. A. 1957. A Comparative Winter Food Habit Study of Dabbling
Ducks from the Brackish Lake Borgne Marsh of St. Bernard Parish and
the Fresh Marsh of Pass-a-Loutre (Mississippi Delta), Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, La.

Burford, R. L. and S. C. Murzyn. 1972. Population Projections by Age,
Race, and Sex for Louisiana and its Parishes. Occassional Paper
No. 10, Division of Research, College of Business Administration
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, June 1972.

Burleigh, J. G. 1966. The Effects of Wakefield Weirs on the Distribution
of Fishes in a Louisiana Saltwater Marsh. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, La., 69 pp.

Carney, S. M. and M. F. Sorensen. 1975. Distribution in States and
Counties of Waterfowl Species Harvested during 1961-1970 Hunting
Seasons. U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific
Report No. 187, 132 pp.

Center for Health Services Research and Development. 1974. Distribution
of Physicians in the United States, 1973.

Center for Wetland Resources. n.d. *Louisiana Offshore Oil Port:
Environmental Baseline Study Vol. I. Environmental Impact Report.
Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, La.

Chabreck, R. H. 1968. Weirs, Plugs, and Artificial Potholes for the
Management of Wildlife in Coastal Marshes. In: Marsh and
Estuary Management Symposium, J. D. Newsom ('@d.), Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, 250 pp.

R-1

R-2

Chabreck, R. H. and C. M. Hoffpauir. 1962. The Use of Weirs in Coastal
Marsh Management in Louisiana. Proceedings of the 16th Annual
Conference of the Southelst Association of Game and Fish
Commissioners, vol. 16, p. 103-112.

Chabreck, R. H., R. J. Hoar and W..D. Larrick. 1978. Soil and Water
Characteristics of Louisiana Coastal Marshes Influenced by
Weirs. Third Coastal Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium,
Louisiana State University.

Chapman, C. R. '1959. Oyster Drill (Thais hAemastoma) Predation in
Mississippi Sound. 1958 Proceedings of the National Shellfish
Association, vol. 49, p. 87-97.

Coastal Environments, Inc. 1972. Environmental Baseline Study, St. Bernard
Parish, Louisiana. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 159 pp.

. 1976. Resource Management: The St. Bernard Parish Wetlands,
Louisiana. Prepared for the St. Bernard Parish Police Jury,
October.

Coleman, J. M. and S. M. Gagliano. 1964. Cyclic Sedimentation in the
Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. Technical Report No. 16, Part G.
Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La.

Coleman, J. M. and W. G. Smith. 1964. Studies of Quaternary Sea Level.
Technical Report 20, Coastal Studies Ihstitute, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, La.

Department of Commerce. 1973. Ranking Agricultural Counties. Special
Reports, vol. 5. 1969 Census of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census,
Feb. 1973.

Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. 1977. Louisiana State
Comprehensive Outdoor.Recreation Plan, Region 1, 1980, 1985, 1990,
1995, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Department of Health and Human Resources. 1978. Public Health Statistics
1978. Serices No. 2, Quarterly, September.

Demas, Charles R. 1976. Analyses of Native Water, Bed Material, and
Elutriate Samples of Major Louisiana Waterways, 1975. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Open File Report 76-853,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Water Quality Criteria. Environ-
mental Protection Agency EPA-A40/9-76-023.

R-3

Epsey, Huston and Associates, Inc. 1976. 'A Study of the Placement
of Materials Dredged from Texas Ports and Waterways, vol. 1.
General Land Office of Texas.

Fontenot, B. J. and H. E. Togillo. 1970. A Study of Estuarine Sport-
fishes in the Biloxi Marsh Complex, Louisiana. Louisiana
Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. Fisheries Bulletin No. 8, 9 pp.

Frazier, D. E. 1967. Recent Deltaic Deposits of the Mississippi River:
Their Development and Chronology. Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies Transactions, vol. 17, p. 287-315.

Herke, W. H. 1968. Weirs, Potholes, and Fishery Management. In:
Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium, J. D. Newsom (Ed.),
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, p. 193-211.

Jhonson, L. E. and W. V. McGuinnes. 1975. Guidelines for Material
Placement in Marsh Creation. Dredge Material Research Program.
Contract Report D-75-2. Environmental Effects Laboratory,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,.Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Kolb and Van Lopik. 1958. Geology of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain,
Southeastern Louisiana. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Technical Report No. 3-483. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Larrick, W. J., Jr. and R. H. Chabreck. 1976. Effects of Weirs on
Aquatic Vegetation Along the Louisiana Coast. Proceedings of
the Annual'Conference of the Southeastern Association of the Game
and Fish Commission, vol. 30, p. 581-589.

Lee, C. R@'., T. C. Sturgis and M.C. Landin.- 1976. A Hydrophonic Study
of Heavy Metal Uptake by Selected Marsh Plant Species. Dredged
Material Research Program Technical Report D-76-5. Environmental
Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Leone, H. L., Jr. 1976. Analyses of -Water, Core Material. and Elutriate
Samples Collected near New Orleans,_ Louisiana (Lake Pontchartrain
Louisiana in the vicinity of the hurricane protection project).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Open File
Report, Baton Rouge, La.

Louisiana Department of-Conservation. 1973.- Oil and Gas Map. Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.

Louisiana Power and Light Co. 1974. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report,
Units 3-4. Waterford Steam Electric Station, 1973-1974. Taft,
Louisiana.

Louisiana State Department of Education. 1975. Publication 1453, Louisiana
School Directory Session 1975-1976.

R-4

Louisiana State Planning Office. .1972. Land Use and Data Analysis
Program (LUDA). U.S. Geological Survey.

Louisiana State Planning Office. 1976. The State of the State in
1976, an Economic and Social Report to the Governor. Louisiana
State Planning Office, Office of the Governor, Baton Rouge, La.

Louisiana Stream Control Commission. 1977. State of Louisiana Water
Quality Criteria, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Montz, G. N. n.d. Botanical Elements - St. Bernard Parish. Mineograph
Report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.

Morgan, J. P. 1972. Impact of Subsidence and Erosion on Louisiana
Coastal Marshes and Estuaries. In: Coastal Marsh and Estuary
Management. L.S.U. School of Forestry and Wildlife Management,
p. 217-233.

Nichols, L. G. 1959. Geology of Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge and Game
Preserve, Cameron and Vermillion Parishes, Louisiana. Louisiana
Wildlife and Fisheries Commission Technical Report, 37 pp.

Odum, E. P. 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystems Development. Science,
vol. 164, p. 262-270.

Odum, W. E. 1970. Insidious Alteration of the Estuarine Environment,
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, vol. 99, p. 836-
847.

O'Neil, Ted. 1949. The Muskrat in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. New Orleans,
Louisiana, 82 pp.

Palmisano, A. W. and J. D. Newsom. 1967. Ecological Factors Affecting
the Occurrence of Scirpus olneyi and Scirpus robustus in the
Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Proceedings of the Twenty-first
Annual Conference, Southeastern Associateion of Game and Fish
Commissioners, p. 161-172.

Palmisano, A. W. 1971. Commercial Wildlife Work Unit Report to
Fish and-Wildlife Study of the Louisiana Coast and the Atchafalaya
Basin, Louisiana. Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, New
Orleans, 180 pp.

Penfound, W. T. and E. S. Hathaway. 1938. Plant Communities in the
Marshlands of Southeastern Louisiana. Ecological Monographs,
vol. 8, p. 1-56.

R-5

Pollard, J. F. 1973. Experiments to re-establish historical oyster
seed grounds and to control the southern oyster drill. Louisiana
Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Oysters, Water Bottoms, and
Seafoods Division, Technical Bulletin No. 6, 82 pp.

Pontchartrain Land Corporation. 1972. Application for Pontchartrain
New Town in Town, vol. 1, Dallas, Texas

Portnoy, J. W. 1977. Nesting Colonies of Seabirds and Wading Birds -
Coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-77/07, 126 pp.

Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, Inc. 1973. Statistical
Profile of St. Bernard Parish.

Spiller, S. F. 1975. A Comparison of Wildlife Abundance between
Areas Influenced by Weirs and Control Areas. M.S. Thesis,
Louisiana State University, 94 pp.

Spiller, S. F. and R. H. Chabreck. 1975. Wil -dlife Populations in-Coastal
Marshes Influenced by Weirs. Proceedings of the Annual Conference
of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fisheries Commission,
vol. 28, p. 518-525.

St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission Census Data. 1977.

Stone, J. H. et al. 1972. Surface Circulation of Lake Pontchartrain:
A Wind7--dominated System. Final Report on GSRI Project NS-255.

Tabony, M. L. 1972. A Study of the Distribution of Oyster Larvae and
Spat in Southeastern Louisiana. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State
University, 70 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1962. Hurricane Study, Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana and Vicinity. Interim Survey Report, New Orleans
District, New Orleans, Louisiana.

. 1974. Final@Environmental Impact Statement,
Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana and Vicinity Hurricane Pr6t&ction
Project. USCE, New Orleans District.

1. 1975a. Project Maps, vol. 2. USCE, New Orleans District,
New Orleans, Louisiana.

. 1975b. Inventory of Basic Environmental Data. New Orleans
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area Engineer Agency for Resource
Inventories. U.S. Army Engineer Topographic Laboratories,
Washington, D.C.

R-6

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. Soil Survey of Portions
of Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Bernard Parishes. Soil
Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of the Army. 1975. Inventory of Basic Environmental
Data, New Orleans - Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area. March.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1975. HUD Circular 1390.2, Washing-
ton, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1976-1978. Water Resources Data Reports,
Water Resources Division, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

. 1973-1978. Water Resources Data Reports, Water Resources
Division, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Wintz, W. A. et al. 1970. Subsidence and Groundwater Offtake in the
Baton io`t@g-e Area, Louisiana. Water Resources Research Institute,
Bulletin No. 6.

"I'll

mr
3 6668 14103 2211
1
1
1
1
I
I
i
I
14 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I