Environmental characteristics of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin and identification of management issues

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

Environmental Characteristics of the
Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin and
Identification of Management Issues

Prepared for the Lake Pontchartrain Task Force

La. R.S. 49:13 COASTAL ZON E BOUjV4D

Lake
Pontchartrain

SS ss/,o Lake
Borgne

VER

teT OF

Coastal Management Division
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
HT q1E
393
.L8
E58
1984

October 1984

This public document was published at a total cost of $541.80 200 copies of this document were published
in this first printing at a cost of $541.80 . The total cost of all printings of this document, including
reprints is $541.80 . . This document was published by the Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 44124,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804, to inform the public about Coastal Zone Management under the authority of
Public Law 92-583 and La. R.S. 49:213. This material was printed in accordance with the standards for
L printing by state agencies established pursuant to La. R.S. 43:31.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERL9TICS OF THE

PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS, BASIN AND
IDENTIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Prepared for

Coastal Management Division
Louisiana Department of Natural Resourees
Baton Rouge., Louisiana

Prepared by

Coastal Environments, Inc.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Oetober

1984

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ..................... 0......... 0.................... vil
LIST OF PLATES ................... * .................................. viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1-1

Special Area Definition ................................. 1-1
Duties of the Lake Pontchartrain Task Force .............. : . 1-2
Description of Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin .............. 1-3

CHAPTER 2: GEOLOGY IN THE PROPOSED PONTCHARTRAIN-
MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA ............................... 2-1

Abstract ............................. 2-1
Introduction ......................... :::'. *. *. *. ' * * " *@ ':': 2-1
History ................................. .......... 2-1
Soil Distribution ....................................... 2-4
Total Subsidence or Apparent Sea Level Rise ............... 2-8
Soil Subsidence ......................................... 2-8
Problems .......................................... 2-8
Possible Solutions ................................... 2-10
Shoreline Erosion ...................................... 2-10
Problems .............................. 2-10
Possible Solutions ....................... 2-12
Summary and Possible Solutions .......................... 2-12
Bibliography ........................................... . 2-14

CHAPTER 3: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IN THE PROPOSED
PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA .............. 3-1

Abstract .............................................. 3-1
Introduction ........................................... 3-1
Hydrology ........................................... 3-1
Water Quality ...................................... 3-6
History of Changes .................................. 3-7
Urbanization Along the South Shore .................... 3-8
Effects of the Mississippi River ........................ 3-8
Effects of the MRGO and the IHNC ................... 3-9
Existina Problems ...................................... 3-11
Flooding and Development ........................... 3-11
Possible Solutions ................................ 3-13
Sediment Loading and Turbidity ....................... 3-14
Possible Solutions ...... o .......................... 3-15
Water Quality, Sewage Contamination and
Urban Runoff .......................... o ........... 3-16
Possible Solutions .................................... 3-18
Summary and Possible Solutions ........................... 3-49
Bibliography ............................................ 3-21

CHAPTER 4: VEGETATION AND LAND USE IN THE PROPOSED 4-1
PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA ..............

Abstract ................................................ 4-1
Introduction ........................................... 4-1
History of Change ....................................... 4-3
Projected Problems .................................... 4-14
Possible Solutions ................................... 4-17
Summary and Possible Solutions .......................... 4-19
Bottomland Hardwoods .............................. 4-20
'Swamps ............................................. 4-21
Fresh Marshes ...................................... 4-21
Intermediate Marshes ................................ 4-22
Brackish Marshes ................................... 4-23
Submerged Aquatics ................................. 4-24
Bibliography ........................................... 4-25

CHAPTER 5: FISH AND WILDLIFE IN THE PROPOSED
PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA .............. 5-1

Abstract .............................................. 5-1
Introduction ........................................... 5-1
Fish and Wildlife Resources .............................. 5-2
Wildlif e ............................................ 5-2
Fisheries ........................................... 5-7
Present and Projected Problems .......................... 5-12
Wetland Transition and Loss .......................... 5-12
Possible Solutions ................................ . 5-13
Loss of Grassbeds ................................... 5-14
Possible Solutions ................................ 5-14
Population Growth and Urban Expansion ................ 5-15
Possible Solutions ................................ 5-15
Summary and Possible Solutions .................... 5-15
Freshwater Diversion ................................ 5-16
Wetland Protection and Preservation .................. 5-17
Aquisition Programs ................................. 5-17
Enforcement of Water Quality Standards ............... 5-17
Bibliography ........................................... 5-19

CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED
PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA .............. 6-1

Abstract .......... 0................ 0 .................. 6-1
Introduction ..................... o ..................... 6-1'
Definition of System ................................ 6-1
Limits of System .................................... 6-2
Relation of Development to
Pontchartrain Region ............................. 6-2
Purpose .............................. o ............. 6-3
History of Change.. o ................................... 6-3
Original Distribution ................................ 6-3
Present Occurrence ................................. 6-4
Reasons for Change ................ o .............. 6-6

Forms and Processes within the System ................ 6-7
Existing Problems ...................................... 6-8
Natural-Distribution and Magnitude .................... 6-8
Riverine and Coastal Flooding ..................... 6-9
Intense Storms. ... 6-9
Hurricanes .... ... 6-9
Subsidence ...... ............................... 6-10
Shoreline Erosion ................................ 6-10
Man Caused-Distribution and Magnitude ............... 6-10
Water Pollution . . . . . 6...6 ........................ 6-11
Air Pollution ................... 6................ 6-12
Solid Waste Disposal ..... .....6 ................... 6-13
Hazardous Waste Disposal ......................... 6-13
Oil and Gas Extraction .........6 ................... 6-17
Flooding ........................................ 6-19
Loss of Wetland ................................... 6-19
Loss of Prime Agricultural Land ................ 6-19
Loss of Cultural Resources ................... 6-20
Projected Problems ......... 0.. . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . .6.6-20
Natural-Distribution and Magnitude ..................... 6-20
Man Caused-Distribution and Magnitude ................ 6-21
Summary and Possible Solutions ......... 6............... . 6-22
Possible Solutions . 6-23
Bibliography ......... 6-25

CHAPTER 7: ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS
APPLICABLE TO THE COASTAL ZONE,
PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS BASIN ........... ........... 7-1

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ...6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-1
Introduction ........................................... 7-1
Federal Programs ........... 6........................... 7-2
Office of Coastal Resource Management ............... 7-2
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ........................ 7-4
Environmental Protection Agency ..................... 7-5
Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service ............................ 7-6
State Programs ........................................ 7-7
Coastal Management Division ......................... 7-7
Office of Conservation .......... 7-9
7-10
Division of State Lands . ........
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries .......... 7-10
Department of Environmental Quality .................. 7-11
Department of Health and Human Resources ............ 7-11
Department.of Culture, Recreation and Tourism ........ 7-11
Regional and Local Level ................................ 7-11
Differing Resource Uses and Regulation ..................... 7-12
Possible Solutions ................................... 7-15
Summary and Possible Solutions ........................... 7-15
Bibliography ........................................... 7-17

CHAPTER 8: HOW A SPECIAL AREA PLAN FOR THE
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS BASIN MIGHT
BE ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTED IN LOUISIANA .......... 8-1

Abstract ............................................. 8-1
Introduction .......................................... 8-1
Federal Guidelines ................................. 8-1
State Statutory Authority ........................... 8-2
The Administrative Rules Regarding
Special Areas .................................... 8-4
Conclusion ........................................... 8-5

CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................... 9-1

CHAPTER 10: CREDITS .............................................. 10-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................ ..... R-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Study area within the Pontchartrain- Maur epas
Drainage Basin ...........I........ I...................... 1-4

Figure 2-1. Subdelta chronology of the, Mississippi River
Deltaic Plain .............................................. 2-3

Figure 3-1. Mean monthly stage (1963-1977) and mean monthly
salinity (1961-1977) for Pass Manchaic ....................... 3-3

Figure 3-2. Mean monthly discharge and standard error
(1943-1980), Tickfaw River at Lake Maurepas .......o ......... 3-4

Figure 3-3. Trend line analysis of mean annual salinities in parts
per thousand (ppt) at Pass Manchac from 1951-1979 ........... 3-10

Figure 4-1. Relationship of habitat and vegetation associations
to landforms in the Mississippi Deltaic Plain region ........... 4-2

Figure 6-1. The urbanizing necklace of the Pontchartrain-
Maurepas Basin ........ 0 .................................. 6-5

Figure 6-2. Louisiana air monitoring network...... ..................... 6-14

Figure 6-3. Solid waste sites in Louisiana ............. ........... 6-15

Figure 6-4. Hazardous waste sites in Louisiana .............. ........... 6-16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Activities Permitted in the Study Area by the
Department of Natural Resources Through
February 1984 ........................................... 1-6

Tabl e 2-1. Description of Soil Types in Study Area ..................... 2-7

Table 4-1. Vegetation Associations Characteristic of
Major Physiographic Units in the Mississippi
Deltaic Plain Region ........................ 0....... 4-4

Table 4-2. Habitat Area in the Proposed Pontchartrain-
Maurepas Special Area (Excluding Livingston
Parish) for 1955/56, and 1978 and Change in
Area Between 1955/56 and 1978 ........................ 4-8
Table 4-3. Examples of the Functions and/or Utilization of
Wetlands ................................................ 4-16

Table 5-1. Typical Wetland Habitats and Important
Floral and Faunal Species.. Within the
Pontchartrain- Maurepas SA ..................... .... 5-8

Table 7-1. Selected Federal Government Programs
that Affect the Pontchartrain-Maurepas
Coastal Zone ................. 7-3

Table 7-2. Selected State Programs that Affect the
Pont,chartrain-Maurepas Coastal Zone ...................... 7-8

Table 7-3. Resources and Agencies Who Regulate Either
Directly or Indirectly ..................................... 7-13

vil

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1. Location Map

Plate 2. Bottom Sediments, Faults, and Soils

Plate 3. Soil Subsidence Potential and Shoreline
Erosion Rates

Plate 4. Hydrology and Water Quality

Plate 5. Vegetation and Land Use

Plate 6. Areas in Transition

Plate 7. Unique and Valuable Resources.

Plate 8. Oil an Gas Fields and Petroleum
Pipelines

Plate 9. Flood Control, Navigation, and Port
Commissions

Plate 10. 100-year Floodplain

Plate 11. Recreational Areas and Facilities

Plate 12. Proposed Pontchartrain-Maurepas Special Area

..These plates appear in the atlas on the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin, which is issued
as a separate volume.

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin of southeast Louisiana includes river drainage
basins that extend to the north across the uplands of the Florida Parishes and onto the
hills of the state of Mississippi and to the south through the bayou watersheds to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' flood protection levees along the Mississippi River.
Only a small portion of the basin (the study area) is within the Louisiana coastal zone
and eligible for possible classification as a Special Area. Within the Louisiana coastal
zone, coastal use permits from' the Department of Natural Resources are not required
for those activities above the 5-ft contour and inside of fastlands, except when an
activity has a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. Therefore, the lands
and activities which can be affected by implementing a Special Area method of
coastal management through existing legislation are those occurring below 5 ft mean
sea level (msl), those outside fastlands, and those which may have a direct and
significant impact on coastal waters. Most of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas drainage
basin remains unaffected by proposed Special Area plans and guidelines. The basin
contains a rapidly increasing urban area which is, for the most part, beyond the legal
control of the Department of Natural Resources. Larger communities are either
outside of the coastal zone, above 5 ft msl, or within fastlands. Wetlands and lakes
comprise the areas eligible for inclusion in the Special Area.

The purpose of the Task Force is to decide on the need for a Special Area within the
coastal zone of the basin. To accomplish this purpose, the Task Force must determine
whether this part of the coastal zone is aunique and valuable region which requires
selective -management procedures. which. are different from normal coastal
management processes; that is, does the basin possess those physical, biological, and
cultural characteristics which arenot duplicated elsewhere in the state and is the area
valuable because of it significant contributions to an estuarine system of regional,
state, or national importance. If a Special Area is recommended by the Task Force,
they must then prepare special guidelines to implement the process.

Several major problems which have a direct impact on the integrity of the possible
Special Area have been identified through review of the existing data. Soil subsidence
and shoreline erosion throughout'the coastal zone are two major geologic problems.
Water quality in the lakes and wetlands is deteriorating as a result of discharge of
urban related nonpoi nt source runoff, release of inadequately or untreated sewage,
saltwater intrusion from navigation projects, and resource extraction activities.

Wetland habitats have drasti cally changed within the past 25 years because, Of natural
and man-related processes. 'Continued degradation of wetland (swamps and marshes)
as well as aquatic systems such as the lake grassbeds, will result in the loss of a
valuable renewable resource base for.the basin. An abundant, diverse, and, important
fish, waterfowl, and wildlife resource is being. stressed and impacted by the decline of
the wetlands and the water quality of the basin. Most of the problems cart be traced
directly to the activities of man, such as dredging, filling, discharging, and changing
the system to meet the needs of a growing population which, to a large degree, is
outside of the coastal zone or the au thority of the Department of Natural Resources.
Numerous federal, state, and local agencies possess the authority to set standards,
issue guidelines, and enforce regulations. .The worsening environmental conditions in
the basin, however, indicate that the present regulatory system is not sufficient.

One possible solution to the problems is to declare the coastal zone within the basin a
Special Area. Selected activities occurring within the Special Area must then conform
to guidelines and policies to avoid adverse impacts. Certain design, construction,
operation, and maintenance standards that are now only optional and sporadically
utilized will become essential and necessary to the successful implementation of the
Special Area program. These special guidelines will assume a new, more, enhanced
degree of importance and frequency of application. The objective of Special Area
status is to place the decisions beyond the parochial realm into a regional context that
will benefit the entire ecosystem.

The Task Force has been appointed by the Governorto represent ageacies, groups and
concerned citizens who have an active interest in the renewable and nonrenewable
resources of the Pontchartrain- Maur epas Basin. The Task Force functions as an
advisory group to the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. It will assist
in evaluating the available alternatives for protecting the resources of the basin
through implementation of the Special Area planning concept and the preparation of
special guidelines for reducing adverse impacts in each of the environmental
management units.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In order for the Governor's Lake Pontchartrain Task Force to decide whether. the
concept of a Special Area is appropriate for solving the environmental problems within
the Ponthchartrain-Maurepas Basin, it is necessary that the representatives understand
the physical, biological, cultural, and institutional forms and processes active in the
study area. At the same time, the Task Force must be introduced to the most critical
problems within the basin, those issues which are so important as to jeopardize the
integrity of the system if ignored.

It is the purpose of this report and the accompanying Atlas to provide a synthesis of
technical information on the physical, biological, and cultural systems within the
coastal zone of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin. In addition, the report assembles
and discusses the federal, state, local, and regional regulatory programs that affect
resource use in the study area. In each section, the problems and conflicts associated
with each issue are presented and summarized from existing published and unpublished
reports and data. Finally, generic possible solutions are proposed for the identified
problems. The companion Atlas provides 12 maps that depict the distribution of
physical, biological, and cultural features within the basin. References throughout this
text refer to the plates in the Atlas.

This report was prepared by Coastal Environments, Inc. under contract to the Coastal
Management Division, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and does not
represent any opinions or official positions by the state. Findings, conclusions, and
suggested solutions expressed in this report are those of the contractor as modified by
the Department of Natural Resources. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the State
government.

Special Area Definition

The purpose of the Task Force is to decide on the need for a Special Area. In' order
that everyone understand the concept of a Special Area and then relate all actions to
it, we will first establish a common base and then work from there.

A Special Area (SA) is a unique and valuable region in the Louisiana coastal zone which
requires selective management procedures which are different from the normal

1-2

coastal management process because of its regional, state, or national importance.
Unique indicates the area possesses those physical, biological, and cultural
characteristics which are not duplicated in this manner elsewhere in the Louisiana
coastal zone. The area must be valuable by contributing significantly to the estuarine
system. The contribution may be in monetary terms such as in revenue generated
from the fisheries or shellfisheries industry; in non-consumptive use;, such as
recreational boating, aesthetics, or flood control; or consumptive uses, ranging from
oil and gas extraction to water quality modificat ion.

The SA must be within the Louisiana co astal zone delineated by Act 361 as -amended in
1979 and 1980; thus it cannot include fastlands or lands above 5 ft msl. Activities
occurring in an SA conform to guidelines and policies of Federal and stateagencies to
avoid adverse impacts. Certain design, construction, operation, and maintenance
standards that are now only optional may become essential and necessary to the
successful implementation of the SA program and therefore will assume a new, more
enhanced degree of importance and frequency of applicatiom Finally, the SA must
have those properties and attributes that place it beyond the parochial realm and into
the category of a resource that is influential and worthy of note and esteem beyond its
borders.

Duties of the Lake Pontchartrain Task Force

The Task Force members have been selected by the Governor because they represent
the important agencies, groups, and concerned citizens who have an active interest in
the renewable and nonrenewable resources of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas coastal
zone. The Task Force will function as an advisory group to the Secretary of the
Department of Natural Resources and the Louisiana Coastal Advisory Council. If the
plan of action proposed by CEI is followed, the main duties of the Task Force are to:
1) Become knowledgeable of the lake basin, 2) Assess the feasibility of having a
Pontchartrain-Maurepas Special Area, and 3) Formulate guidelines for management. It
will assist by evaluating the availab le alternatives for natural resource use within
designated management units and by prescribing mechanisms for efficiently
implementing those conditions which reduce or avoid adverse impacts that will
degrade the estuarine systems. Parish designated management units are used because
they reflect local goals and objectives and allow for building on existing information.

1-3

The responsibilities of each Task Force member are fourfold. First, each Task Force
member should be familiar with the physical, biological, and cultural setting of the
management units as described in the Atlas and discussed in the meetings. Additional
references can be provided should anyone desire more information. It is suggested
that each member review the local, parish, and state coastal zone program documents.
Second, each member will find it beneficial to read the papers that describe the
problems that presently exist in the Pontchartrain- Maur epas Basin, noting the
conflicting uses of the same resource and the overlap and, more important, separation
of jurisdictions of Federal, state, and local agencies. Third, each member should study
a summary of the parish programs and a matrix of activities, and relate them to
existing setting and described problems. Once each member has digested this
information, we will move to determining mechanisms for. reducing adverse impacts.
This is the final and most important responsibility of the Task Force.

Description of Pontchartrain -Maurepas Basin

The Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin is an area of low elevation and low relief. in
Southeast Louisiana and Southwest Mississippi. Pleistocene Terraces and uplands form
the northern part of the basin; the Mississippi River deltaic plain encompasses the
southern. portion and includes Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas (Figure 1-1). Only a
portion- of the basin falls within the Louisiana coastal zone as defined by Act 361 of
1978, as amended (LRS 49:213). The study area boundaries are shown on Figure 1-1.
Within this area coastal use permits from the Department of Natural Resources are
not required for those activities above the 5-ft contour and inside of fastlands, except
when an activity would have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters.
Fastlands are defined by *the statute as "lands surrounded by publicly owned,
maintained, or otherwise validly existing levees, or natural formations, as of the
effective date of this Act or as may be lawfully constructed in the future, which
levees or natural formations would. normally prevent activities, not to include the
pumping of water for drainage purposes, within the surrounded area from having direct
and significant impacts on coastal waters." Therefore, the lands and activities which
can be impacted by implementing a Special Area through existing legislation are those
occurring, below 5 ft msl and those outside fastlands. A significant part of the
drainage basin will remain unaffected by Special Area actions.

1-4

0 5 10 20 STUDY AREA
m /-4-' 5 ft CONTOUR

AMITE
LIBERTY PIKE BASIN BOUNDARY

miss.

LA.
KENTWOOD
EAST (10
0 CLINTON ST. HELE A WASHINGTON
FE ICIANA TA GIPAHOA

AST
B TON
R UGE
ATO N LIVING ST HAMMOND ST. TAMMANY
ROUGE DENHAM SPRINGS 1-12
COVINGTON

POHTCHAT ULA

I
MA DEVILI E
LEj d"
\\6 GONZALES A
ASCEN,SIQN -LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN,
01:b

ST. JAMES ETAIRI
ORLEANS
NEW ORLEANS
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST
ST. CHARLES, JEFFERSON

Figure 1-1. Study area'within t he Pontchartrain- Maurepas Drainage Basin.

1-5

The basin contains a rapidly increasing urban population with concentrations in St.
Tammany Parish and along the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans.
The deltaic plain is composed of wetlands,, marshes, and swamps that make the
estuarine system one of, the nation's more valuable nursery grounds for major
commercial fisheries. These wetlands, when included with the open water bodies of
the basin, provide many opportunities for recreation, power boating, sailing, fishing
and hunting. In addition, activities in the basin include extraction of renewable and,
nonrenewable resources. The expanding. population pushing further into the wetlands
while contributing pollutants from sewage and nonpoint sources conflicts with other
activities and users. From 1980 to 1983, the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resoure es permitted 261 activities in the basin (Table 1-1) for a variety of
uses. As a result of extensive, multiple use of this limited area, alternative
management techniques for resolving these conflicts are being considered.

In 1982 following the procedures specified in LRS 49:213, the Civic Council of East
Jefferson and the Pontchartrain Shores Civic Association nominated Lake
Pontchartrain to be designated as a Special Area (SA). Special Areas are [LRS
49:213.10(A)l "areas within the coastal zone which have unique and valuable
characteristics requiring special management procedures. Special Areas may include
important geological formations, such as beaches, barrier islands, shell deposits, salt
domes, or formations containing deposits of oil, gas or other minerals; historical or
archaeological. sites; corridors for transportation, industrialization or urbanization;
areas subject to flooding, subsidence, saltwater intrusion or the like; unique, scarce,
fragile, vulnerable, highly productive or essential habitat for living resources; ports or
other developments of facilities dependent upon ac cess to water; recreational areas;
freshwater storage areas; and such other areas as may be determined pursuant to this
Section." Appendix C-4 of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement establishes the rules for nomination of an area in the
coastal zone which has unique and valuable characteristics that require special
management.

tment of Natural Resources Through February 1984.
Table 1-1. Activities Permitted in the Study Area by the Depar

Activity

Water Flood Commercial
Dredge Blocking Control & & Misce@-
Parish and/or Pill Eli Pipeline Structure Cables Sewerage Drainage Industrial Marina Residential laneous;
Jefferson 10 5 3 2 0 1 1 1

30 6
Livingston C13 25 0 3 '-- @7 2
Orleans 25 4 4 13 0 6 2 7 10
St. Charles 7 2 2 4 0 2 5 2
St. James 3 3 0 1 0 1
St.John 13 8 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 6
St. Tammany (:::2 @O> 4 2 7 4 @3@
Tangipahoa 1 0 0 2 0 2 0
Total* 168 55 20 108 2 10 1 28 15 75 87

An activity, when tabulated at'the Coastal Management Division, may be placed in more than one classification. For example, an oil related action in
Jefferson Parish may require dredge and/or fill, plus a rig, a pipeline to transport products, and a water blocking structure to inhibit saltwater intrusion.
Therefore, this one application may be counted four times for the purposes of this table.

so W
low
low low

CHAPTER 2: GEOLOGY IN THE
PROPOSED PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA

Abstract

Soil subsidence induced by wetland drainage and shoreline erosion of Lake
Pontchartrain and Lake Maurepas are two major geologic problems in the proposed
Pontchartrain- Maurepas Special Area. Wetland Drainage can result in severe damage
to subsequent development if inappropriate practices are undertaken. One solution is
to bar drainage of wetlands altogether. More refined solutions involve careful
attention to soil tests, water tables, waiting periods, building codes, and subdivision
regulations. Shoreline erosion is a natural process that requires attention if
development occurs near any shore. Natural coastal environments should be unaltered,
but if development should proceed, attention must be given to the location of
development, impacts of shore protection measures, and excavation in offshore areas
for fill material and navigational improvements.

Introduction

History

The Lake Pontchartrain region is situated within a portion of the earth's crust that has
been slowly subsiding for millions of years. Concurrent with this regional subsidence,
Mississippi River deposits have been constantly accumulating, resulting in more than
30,000-ft thickness of sands, muds, and gravels interspersed with oil and gas
reservoirs. These processes have continued well into recent geologic history (50,000
years to the present). In these. "recent" years much of the substrate and landscape
that we recognize today in the Lake Pontchartrain region was formed. Events
significant in the understanding of the modern region are as follows;

A. More than 50,000 years ago - Deposition of the Pleistocene age Prairie
formation. Sea level stood.at approximately the same level as it does
today. Poorly consolidated sands, silty clays, and clays predominated.

B. 50,000 - 30,000 @ears ago - During various falling and rising stacres of sea
0
level the Prairie formation was exposed to weathering processes and a

2-2

deeply weathered soil prof ile was formed. Regional tilting of the Prairie
formation occurred. When sea level reestablished itself at a high level
30,000 years ago, an uplifted segment of the Prairie formation north of
Lake Pontchartrain remained high and dry, forming the Prairie Terrace.

C.- 30,000 25,000 years ago - Sea level was approximately at its present
stand. A Gulf shoreline with sandy beaches was well established through
what is presently the northern half of Lake Pontchartrain.

D. 25,000 7,000 years ago - Sea level was again lowered some 1300 ft in
response to continental glaciation.

E. 7,000 4,000 years ago - During the last phases of the recent rise of sea
level the area underwent significant morphological changes. Sand deposits,
-winnowed fro m* eroding Pleistocene -deposits and introduced to the coast by
the Pearl River, were reworked and redistributed to form a series of sand
spits and islands trending southwest from the present position of the.Pearl
River mouth into what is now eastern Orleans Parish. A major barrier
island trend of well-sorted sand was established. It separated the open
Gulf from a sheltered sound (now Lake Pontchartrain) on its northern side.
The barrier island outcrops at Pine. and Little Oak islands, and slopes gently
both north and south. At the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain it lies 20
to 25 ft below mean sea level (msl). The sands are permeable and porous
and constitute a minor freshwater aquifer.

F. 4,000 - 700 years ago During this interval a major deltaic lobe of the
Mississippi River developed in the area (St. Bernard delta complex)
(Figure 2-1). Natural levee ridge's formed along Metairie Bayou, Bayous
Sauvage, La Loutre, and Des Families; also, ridges formed along the
present course of the Mississippi River through LaPlace and New Orleans.
Mud flats developed in the interdistrib.utary areas and were soon colonized
by grasses, thereby forming marshes. The Pontchartrain Embayment was
divorced from the Gulf and Lake Pontchartrain was formed. Sea level
reached its present stand almost 300 years ago.

92* 91, go- LA ms 89,

LAKE ISS OP
'TCHARTRA 1jeN

Al
3 'ST.BERNAF
V Ib

4
...X4
OURCHE
Ok LA
X
MODERN
MARIN OWN
5

29*
ATCHAFALAYA* UN
G U L
0 F M E X .0

Figure 2-1. Subdelta chronology of the Mississippi River Deltaic. Plain. Source: Frazier 1967.

2-4

G. 700 years ago Present The Mississippi River changed its course and
abandoned the St. Bernard Complex (leaving only the present river course
through New Orleans active). The abandoned distributaries converted to
minor tidal streams and their channels became largely clogged and fined,
but deposition of organic debris continued in swamp and marsh areas
resulting in the accumulation , of 'Peat deposits. Divorced from the
freshwater of the Mississippi River, the abandoned St. Bernard complex
took on a distinctive estuarine character as salinities increased.

Son Distribution

Soils derived from the sedimentary.deltaic processes of the Mississippi River domin ate
the environment; levee, marsh, and swamp soils comprise over 80% of the surface. In
the northern areas, outside the deltaic. plain, only two general soils are found: those
from the Prairie Terrace and those formed within small alluvial valleys. A discussion
of the major environments and their characteristics follows. A map depicting
soil-type distribution is found on Plate 2.

Natural levee. The areas of slightly higher elevation bordering and confining
distributary channels are. called levees. Levees attain higher elevations upst.rearn and
slope seaward at an average rate of 0.25. ft/mi. Because of their elevation and
firmness, they are usually covered by a dense growth of woody plants. Primarily
because of their considerable age (1,900-700 years old, Frazier 1967), most of the
natural levee deposits encountered in the study area are deeply weathered. The type
and intensity of weathering are manifested mainly by soil color and mineral
concentrations. With prolonged exposure to well-aerated conditions, the levee
sediments, which are predominantly gray when deposited, become mottled with various
shades of red and yellow as a result of -oxidation of irons, The upper'surfaces of the
Mississippi River levees are relatively modern, and, therefore, have not been
significantly weathered.

I nterdis tributary. Marshe's and swamps c 'over much of the study area. Elevations in
these environments are slight; surfaces are seldom more than a few feet above sea
level. Sediment accumulation in these environments is slow and deposits are often
highly organic. Peat and organic clays are widespread and may contain up to 90%
vegetable matter. In addition, constituents containing varying quantities of clay may

2-5

be introduced into the low-lying basins from the sea through tidal channels and during
storm surges, or from the river as overbank sediment during periods of flood.
However, these clay additions are relatively small, and in situ organic deposits
dominate; that is, sediment and minerals organically produced or chemically altered
within the environment of deposition are characteristics of these deposits. The two
broad soil types considered here are marsh and swamp.

Marsh is defined as an area of sedge, grass, or rush growth where water stands around
the plant's roots; plants grow either in tufts with water between or with a continuous
water-covered root mat. Although a variety of marsh types are recognized, only two
are found within the study area: fresh marsh and brackish marsh. Typically, the fresh
marsh has a 1 ft thick, dense, live root mat; some roots penetrate as deep as 3 ft. In
areas where salinity increases with d epth, this penetration does not occur. Peats
often accumulate in fresh marshes. The brackish marsh occupies a complex
transitional zone between fresh and saline areas. The soil profile may consist of a thin
(up to 8 in) zone of live roots and organic muck. Below this are 4 to 10 ft of fibrous
peat.

Swamps constitute low, flat areas periodically covered or saturated by water which
support woody vegetation with or without an undergrowth of shrubs. In areas adjacent
to a river system better drainage conditions are usually present, whereas in areas
isolated from these active channels standing water is present year-round and drainage
is very poor. Therefore, in well-drained swamps alternate oxidizing and reducing
conditions exist during accumulation, whereas in poorly drained swamps reducing
conditions exist. As in the natural levee sediments, subtle variations in oxidizing or
reducing environments impart distinctive characteristics to the deposits. Poorly
drained swamps are characterized by stagnant water conditions, resulting from an
ineffective drainage network. Water levels are fairly stable and rarely exceed 2 to 3
ft except in times of high floods. The deposits laid down under such conditions
generally consist of highly organic black clays and occasional thin laminations of silt
introduced by floods. Woody peat beds are usually found randomly throughout and may
attain considerable thickness locally. Large wood fragments and laminations
consisting of compressed leaves, twigs, and seeds are common.

Well-drained swamp differs from poorly drained swamp only in that drainage channels
are efficient enough to expose the swamp surface for much of the year. The

2-6

sediments accumulating in both environments are similar. Both have essentially the
same soil profile: an organic-rich zone grading into a light gray clay zone- with few
organics. This light gray clay zone is often referred to as an "underclay.11 Peat
deposits are rarer in well-drained swamps, and if present, peats are restricted to small

areas.

Prairie Terrace. The prairie terrace soil differs from the soil elsewhere irk the study
area, for this "upland" is of Pleistocene age and has undergone signifi,L-ant post-
depositional change. The terrace has been exposed to subaerial processes, has
undergone significant compaction, and has been oxidized. The composition ranges
from clay to silty sand. The surface layer is loamy, and although drainage is certainly
better than those.in the deltaic plain, it is still classified as poorly drained.

Alluvial Valle . Numerous'small rivers flow southward through the Prair'lie Terrace
into Lake Maurepas, and Lake Pontchartrain. The most significant of these are the
Pearl (the largest), Tchefuncte, and Tangipahoa Rivers.. These rivers develop flat,
narrow alluvial valleys within the terrace. Soils are comprised of gravel, sand, and
silt. Thickness varies according to size of the floodplain and depth of entrenchment.
The loamy soil at the surface is poorly drained and is subject to frequent flooding. At
the southern ends of these valleys, the alluvial valley soil type grades into marsh and

swamp.

Man-Made. Marsh and swamp soils undergo significant change when dredged by man
to create spoil banks or drained by man to create reclaimed land. The primary cause
of change is dewatering a nd subsequent oxidation of organic components. Soils thus
become clay-rich and highly acidic. Loss of volume occurs, resulting in lowering of
spoil banks and lowering of land to horizons below sea-level in the case of reclaimed
land.

A summary of each soiltype is found in Table 2-1.

2-7

Table 2-1. Description of Soil Types in Study Area.

Soil Type Description

Natural Levee Slope very gently from crest into interdistributary basin;
firm soils. Lower elevations are clayey and somewhat
poorly drained; higher elevations are better drained and
loamy. Interfingering layers of clay and silt throughout.

Interdistributary
Marsh Level, soft, very poorly drained, inineral and organic soils.
Upper layer covered with root mat of grasses. Peat
accumulation greatest in fresh marshes, where
accumulation can represent up to 90% of the soil thickness.

Swamp Level, poorl y drained soils. Mucky surface layer underlain
by semi-nuid clay. The better drained swamps tend to be
clayey throughout and are rated as firm; the poorer drained
soils have higher organic content and are soft.

Prairie Terrace Level to nearly level, somewhat poorly drained, firm soils
with a loamy surface layer. Particles grade from clay to
silty sand.

Alluvial Valley Level, poorly drained loamy soils 'subject to frequent
flooding.. Particles range from gravels to clays. This
association is along drainageways that dissect the Prairie
Terrace.

Man Made Found in either spoil banks or reclaimed land. Generally
created from. marsh or swamp. Soil is poorly drained, firm,
somewhat oxidized, and clay rich.

2-'10

processes. Improper construction during the early subsidence phases can result in
many impacts: tilted and cracked driveways, depressions in yards, undulating streets,
cracked and warped sidewalks, tilted houses, cracked slabs, and broken utility lines
(Earle 1975; Traughber et al. 1978).

The single'most important hazard arises from the need for support pilings, Organic
soils underlain by semi-fluid clays demands that piles be driven deep into 'the soil so
that "skin friction!' can provide adequate support for buildings. Once the pilings and
concrete slabs are in place, the unit remains in a fixed position. As subsidence
continues, the land surface lowers, thereby having the relative effect of raising the
slab. From this situation there arises a series of problems: foundations may become
exposed, unsupported driveways may crack and drop away from.slab grade, and rigid
utility lines may break.

Possible Solutions

1) Deter development of wetland areas.

2) -Require detailed soil tests and analyses of subsidence potential on arty wetland
area that is to be developed.

3) R equire developers to maintain high water tables in reclamation projects.

4) - Impose waiting periods (10 to 20 years) that follow initial drainage and precede
development.

5) Develop strict building codes and subdivision regulations that- specifically address
subsidence hazards.

ShoreUne Erosion

Problems

Except where the shoreline is stabilized by engineering structures such as seawalls,
nearly all the'shoreline along both Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain i's eroding,
typically at a rate that ranges from 5 to 10 ft/year (Plate 3). The principal force
causing this erosion is wave energy from storms (Adams et al. 1978). The variation in
the erosion rates, which is evident on Plate 3, is not due to any real variation in wave
energy, but to differences in beach configuration and sediment types. Some beaches
are rapidly eroding points of land flanked by muddy swamp, others are recessed coves

2'_11

with discontinuous zones of fine sand and shell. Regardless of the various beach types
and their behaviors, there is evidence that all shores are presently experiencing more
erosion in recent years A study of beach behavior in the 1950s and the 1970s (Adams
et al. 1978), when co'mpared to a study of beach behavior in the 1930s and 1950s
(Saucier 1963), demonstrates tha t Lake Maurepas has increased its mean rate per year
of shore erosion by 35% and Lake Pontchartrain by 45% in recent decades. The reason
for this acceleration is unknown, but probably it is enhanced by continued subsidence
and increased wave energy caused by lake enlargement.

Forty percent of the Lake Pontchartrain shore is presently "stabilized" (United States
Army Corps of Engineers 1983). The term "stabilized' means that some method of
shore protection has been imposed; it does not mean that erosion has been checked
completely. The general imposed solution in these areas has been levees and seawalls.
These "structural" solutions have been to a great degree effective' but they have not
been without environmental impact.. One. consequence of these features has been to
'Out off nursery grounds found within inner marshes, another has been the interruption
of the natural water exchange between the wetlands and the lake.

There are a series of other structural as well as nonstructural solutions that can be
applied to the shores of these lakes. Break waters-of fshore surface or subsurface
barriers to. wave attack-could provide shelter from erosive waves, but this solution
tends to be very expensive. Revetments-piles of concrete, stone, asphalt, or sand
bags laid along the beach-can be effectively employed if properly constructed, but
this solution is generally considered to have very poor aesthetic value. Groins@
structures, built from the beach into the lake through the zone of common wave
activity-provide a mechanism for trapping sand as it moves alongshore; but this
technique tends to deprive sand from downdrift beaches and, therefore causes
increased erosion elsewhere. Artifical nourishment-the direct application of sand to
the beach-can be very effective and asethetically pleasing, but it is also very costly.
The eroding shores of Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurep4s seem to be a result of natural
phenomenon that proposes a severe problem only when development exists along the
shore. Once development proceeds, the benefit-to-cost ratio increases, and the
problem can be addressed through the va rious structural and nonstructural solutions.
And even at that point there is no 100% reliable, aesthetic, nondamaging, low cost
solution that can be employed.

2-12

Possible Solutions

1) Restrict development immediately adjacent, to the lake so that the eroding
shore does not present a future problem.

2) Avoid construction of groins so that downdrift beaches are not subject to
accelerated erosion.

3). Make future coastline developers aware of erosion, make them respDnsible
for the cost consequences of retarding erosion and provide a mechanism. for
maintaining erosion control measures or structures.

4) Do not destroy protective shoreline 'vegetation. If destroyed by natural
forces, restore immediately.

5) Proposed excavations in lake bottoms to obtain fill material or for
navigation purposes should be carefully scrutinized for their impact on
wave patterns that may enhance shoreline erosion.

Summary and Possible Solutions

Most of the geologic environments within the proposed Pon char train-M a urepas Special
area were formed within the last 5,000 years. Natural levees, marshes, and swamps
constitute the predominant soil types within this geologic framework. Within this area
there are two geologic related problems that require careful attention:

1) Soil subsidence of wetland soils as a result of land reclaimation, and

2) Shoreline erosion of Lake Maurepas and Lake Pontchartrain.

Development of wetlands usually requires drainage. The resulting lowered water table
allows for compaction and oxidation of highly organic soil. Subsidence can be severe,
and if development procedes without regard to the associated hazards, very costly and
potentially dangerous damages result. One solution is to bar wetland development
altogether. If development is allowed, however, strict restriction should be placed on
development practices. Possible restrictions include detailed soil tests and analyses of
subsidence potent ial, maintenance of. hig@ water tables, waiting periods following
drainage and preceding development, and finally, strict codes and regulatiorLs that
address hazards associated with continued subsidence.

2*-13

Enlargement of Lake Ponchartrain and Lake Maurepas through shoreline erosion is
presently proceding at a rate averaging 5 to 10 feet/year. This erosion is occurring
naturally through wave attack associated with storms and through natural subsidence.
If development occurs near the shore, a problem is generated, for shoreline erosion
will then become a threat. One reasonable solution is to place development away from
the shore, but if shore-side construction is to procede, mitigative measures such as
beach nourishment, rip rap, or seawalls will have to be undertaken to stabilize the
shoreline. Care should be given to whatever natural protective mechanisms presently
exist: vegetation should be protected and any lake bottom excavations should consider
the impact on storm wave approach. If man-.made shore protection mechanisms are
required, careful consideration should be given to their aesthetic value and their
potential for causing enhancing shore erosion in adjacent localities.

BIBIIJOGRAPHY

Adams, R. D., P. J. Banor, R. H. Bauman, J. H. Blackman, W. G. McIntire
1978 Shoreline erosion in coastal Louisiana: inventory and assessment. Louisiana
Center for Wetland Resources. Final report to Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development.

Barrett, B.
1976 Grain size analyses of bottom sediments in Lake Maurepas and
Pontchartrain. In An inventory and study of the Lake Pontchartrain-Lake
Maurepas esttia-rine complex. Louisiana Wildlif e and Fisheries
Commmission, Oysters, Water Bottoms and Seafood Division, Technical
Bulletin No. 19:145-159.

Earle, D.
1975 Land subsidence problems and maintenance costs to homeowners in East
New Orleans, Louisiana. Department of Marine Science, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 366 pp.
Frazier, D. E. 1 1
1967 Recent deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River: their development and
chronology. Transactions - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies.
Volume- XVII:287-311.

Gagliano, S., and J. L. van Beek
1970 Geologic and geomorphic aspects of deltaic processes, Mississippi delta
system. Louisiana State University Center for Wetland Resources, Baton
Rouge. Hydrologic and Geologic Studies of Coastal Louisiana, Report No. 1.

Gundlach, E. R., M. 0. Hayes, and C. D. Getter
1979 Determining environmental protection priorities in coastal ecosystems. In
Proceedings of the 1979 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pollution Responie-
Workshop, 8-10 May, St. Petersburg, Florida, Environmental Contaminant
Evaluation Program, Division of Ecological Services.

Kolb, C. and van Lopik
1958 Geology of the Mississippi River deltaic plain, Southeast Louisiana.
Technical Report No. 3-483, July 1978. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg Mississippi. In two
volumes.

LaBelle, R. P.
1983 An oilspill risk analysis for the Central Gulf of Mexico (April 1.984) and
Western Gulf of Mexico (July 1984) outer continental shelf lease offerings.
In Draft EIS Gulf of Mexico proposed OCS 'Oil and gas lease offerings.
ffentral Gulf of Mexico (April, 1984) Western Gulf of Mexico (Ju]y, 1984).
Mineral Management Service, Metairie,- Louisiana. pp. 281-345. Appendix
A.

2-15

Langley, W. L., R. Jackson, B. Snyder
1981 Managing oil and gas activities in coastal environments: refuge manual.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington,
D.C. FWS/OBS 81/22. Louisiana State Planning Office

Louisiana State Planning Office
1976 Soil subsidence potential maps. Six maps.

Saucier, R. T.
1963 Recent geomorphic history of the Pontchartrain basin. Louisiana State
University Studies, Coastal Studies Service. No. 9, 114 p.

Stone, J. H. (ed.)
1980 Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, its surrounding
wetlands, and selected land uses. Coastal Ecology Laboratory, Center for
Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans. 2 vols.

Traughber, E. J. 0. Snowden, and W. B. Simmons
1978 Differential subsidence on reclaimed marshland peat in metropolitian New
Orleans, Louisiana. Internationas Conference on Evaluation and Prediction
of Subsidence. pp. 479-499.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1983 Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and vicinity hurricane protection project.
Volume 1. New Orleans District. 135 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
1970 Soil survey of portions of Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard Parishes
Louisiana. Soil Conservation Service, Alexandria, Louisiana. 125 p.

1976 Gulf Coast Wetlands Handbook. Soil Conservation Service, Alexandria,
Louisiana. 50 p.

U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1979 A socioeconomic characaterization study of the Mississippi River deltaic
plain region. 65 plates at 1:250,000 scale. FWS/OBS-79/06.

CHAPTER 3: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IN THE PROPOSED PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA

Abstract

The hydrology of the Pontchartrain Basin is fairly well -known. Freshwater resources
included runoff from the 6200 sq mi Pontchartrain watershed, the 8000 sq mi Pearl
River watershed, and aperiodic inputs from the Mississippi River via the Bonnet Carre
Floodway. Marine waters enter the system through the Rigolets and Che:r Menteur
Passes and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. Mixing of the water resources results
in salinities of 0 to 8 parts per thousand (ppt) in Lake Pontchartrain. Circulation
within the lake is dominated by wind with tides playing a major role only in the eastern
section. Little data exists to document the water quality of Lakes.Maurepas and
Pontchartrain, but ongoing studies will hopefully provide this information. Generally
speaking, poorest water quality is confined to pump outfalls and drainage outlets into
the lake and can be related to municipal sewerage contamination and urban
stormwater input. Suggested solutions addressing these problems are given.

Introduction

Hydrology

The study area is within the Pontchartrain-Borgne-Chandeleur Sound estuary
(Hydrologic Unit 1) of southeastern Louisiana. The major hydrologic elements in the
Lake Pontchartrain portion of the estuary are runoff and streamflow from the
6200-sq-mi Pontchartrain watershed; wind-driven circulation over the open lake; tidal
exchange through the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passes, and the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal (IHNC); and discharges from the Pearl River watershed (8,000 sq mi).

Discharges from the Pontchartrain watershed range from 16,700 cubic feet per second
(cfs) in February to 4700 cfs in October (van Beek et al 1982). Freshwater inflow is
derived from both the "gaged' upland areas (where flow is measured) and the
"ungaged' low-lying areas and wetlands that are subject to tidal influence. In the
Maurepas and Pontchartrain drainage basin, five major rivers conduct runoff to the
lakes. Relative to the size of their gaged basin area these are the Amite/Comite
(1280 sq mi), the Tangipahoa (646 sq mi), the Tickfaw (247 sq mi), the Tchefuncta

3-2

06 sq mi), and the Natalbany (80 sq mi) Rivers. It can be seen that the Amite/Comite
River system is the major one, serving more area than the other four rivers combined.
Relative to the total discharge values mentioned above, the gaged uplands produce
values of 8500 cfs in February to 1262 cfs in October. Therefore, from 49 to 73% of
the freshwater supply to Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain are derived from the
low-lying lands and wetlands within the basin (van Beek et al 1982).

This freshwater input, along with the indirect effects of Pearl River discharge (24,600
cfs in March to 3,900 cfs in October) largely determines the salinity regime of the
lakes under average conditions. Salinity generally decreases from southeast to
northwest in Lake Pontchartrain, ranging from 3 to 8 ppt at the Rigolets to 0 to 3 ppt
at Pass Manchac under normal conditions. Saline conditions are not commo n, but may
occur for short durations in the summer and fall near the IHNC (St. Pe' et al.,1983).

Lake Pontchar train is a well-mixed, generally shallow body of water with a daily tidal
range of about 3.5 in at Pass Manchac and a 9.7 in at the Rigolets. The water
elevations tend to rise and fall as a unit over the main body of the lake due to the tidal
signal; however, wind energy often predominates over the tides with regard to water
levels (Swenson 1980a). Streamflow may also influence water levels in some areas.
The three primary w ater transport mechanisms of wind, tide, and streamflow vary
both seasonally and with location in the basin.

The Lake Maurepas drainage is least influenced by astronomical tides which lag seven
hours behind tides in the Rigolets and produce daily fluctuations of only 0.25 ft at Pass
Manchac (Swenson 1980a). In Figure 3-1, two peaks in water level are evident at Pass
Manchac over the annual cycle, one in April and another in September. These
correspond to times of predominant winds from the eastern quadrant (Wicker et al.
1981) with the fall peak also corresponding to highest annual levels of the Gulf of
Mexico (Swenson 1980a). Figure 3-2 shows the average annual discharge pattern for
the Tickfaw River. The highest discharges in the spring precede the peak spring water
levels by approximately one month. As the effect of southeasterly winds begins, the
"tailwater" stage at Pass Manchac increases and the net outflow from Lake Maurepas
decreases. The freshwater then tends to back up into the wetland areas, as indicated
by the salinity at Pass Manchac (Figure 3-1). During the fall water-level peak
(Figure 3-1), discharge is at a low point for the year (Figure 3-2) and water tends to

MEAN
STAGE 1

0
J F M A M- J i A 0 N D

MONTHS

MEAN
SALINITY
(ppt)

0-
i F M A M i i A S 0 N D
MONTHS

Figure 3-1. Mean monthly stage (1963-1977) and mean monthly salinity (1961-1977)
for Pass Manchac. Source: Wicker et al. 1981.

Mm Iniso M M =now= M MINI! 604040
2500-

2000-

.1500-

MEAN
DISCHARGE
(Cfs)

1000-

.500-

0
F M A M J i A S 0 N D
MONTHS

Figure 3-2. Mean monthly discharge and standard error (1943-1980), Tickfaw River
at Lake Maurepas. Source: Wicker et al. 1981.

3@5

flow into Lake Maurepas from Lake Pontchartrain, as evidenced by an increase in
salinity at.Pass Manchac (Figure 3-1) (Wicker et al. 1981).

In the main portion of Lake Pontchartrain, wind is the dominant water transport
mechanism and generally results in n.earshore waters moving with the wind and
counterflows developing in the deeper waters offshore (Gael 1980). For example,
during conditions of southeasterly winds, the area of the lake west of a linE! between
Lakefront Airport and Goose Point experiences westerly currents along the north,
west, and south shores with a large, clockwise gyral forming in the open lake (Plate 4).
Northeasterly winds also produce westerly currents along the north and west shores,
but with easterly currents along the south shore and a counterclockwise gyral in the
open lake (Gael 1980).

East of a line from the Lakefront Airport to Goose Point, tidal forcing becomes more
important with westerly currents onflooding tides and easterly currents on ebbing
tides (Gael 1980). The daily tidal range in the vicinity of the Rigolets and Chef
Menteur is on the order of 0.8 to 1 ft, although wind and storm events frequently cause
ranges of 1.5 ft or more. The north shore of the lake between Big Point and the
Rigolets experiences westerly currents of about 0.66 ft/sec during flood tides and
easterly currents of 0.60 ft/sec during ebb tides (estimated from Gael 19130). This
difference is current speed between flooding and ebbing tides is even more pronounced
in the Rigolets. Swenson (1980b) reports mean speeds of 1.6 ft/sec during flood tides
and 1.1 ft/sec during ebb tides in the Rigolets. Conversely, for the Chef Menteur,
flood currents average 1.3 ft/sec and ebb currents average 1.5 ft/sec (Swenson, 1980b),
making the Chef Menteur ebb dominant.

The normal range and duration of the tides can be greatly influenced by wind, with
southerly winds causing prolonged flood tides and northerly winds, prolonged obb tides.
Swenson (1980b) calculates that at wind speeds of 2 to 4 knots, tides predominate; at
wind speeds of 4 to 6 knots, wind and tides contribute equally; and at wind speeds
greater than 6 knots, wind dominates as the main water transport mechanism.

The IHNC functions as a third pass from Lake Pontchartrain to the Gulf of Mexico via
the Mississipi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO). Although it carries only 7%' of the

3-6

transported water, it accounts for 20% of the total salt entering the lake because of
the presence of a "salt wedge" near the bottom (Swenson 1980b). Some implications of
this man-made hydrologic alteration will be discussed later in this chapter.

Water QuaUty

A compilation of hydrology and water quality monitoring stations sampled by state and
Federal agencies is given in the atlas. It is assumed that data have been taken at
other locations in the Lower Pontchartrain Basin, but incorporation of sta tions used in
short-term or special studies was beyond the- scope of this analysis. In truth, an
adequate and meaningful description of water quality and its effects on the
Pontchartrain Basin cannot be accomplished utilizing presently published data for the
reasons listed below.

First, there are few data (and even fewer analyses) on past water quality to form a
baseline. Most of the stations on the map had not been instituted prior to the early
1970s when the environment became a public concern. Second, the sampling interval
for most of the important water quality parameters has been once monthly, at best,
and this has changed along with the number of stations sampled from year to year.
This can probably be attributed to funding levels, as most water quality laboratory
analyses are very expensive. Understanding environmental processes requires that
time series of data be collected to account for the dynamic nature of the system. In
other words, delineation of cause and effect relationships necessary to find solutions
to some water quality problems will be more probable given 240 observations from 2
stations than 12 observations from 40 stations for a year. Finally, the in situ
environmental effects of water quality degradation such as lethal limits, sublethal
stress, and bio-accumulation are not well established, posing a question as to the
utility of the largely laboratory based criteria presently in force.

Despite the short comings, much is known about water quality in the proposed SA and
more information will soon be available. The 208 Plan for the Pontchartrain Basin
serves as the most comprehensive generic description of present and projected water
quality for the study area. Addition of data to the 208 framework will be forthcoming
from a detailed survey of Lake Pontchartrain being conducted by the Water Pollution
Control Division of the Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, ongoing
data collection, funded by th e Coastal Energy Impact Program through Section 308 of

3-7

the Coastal Zone Management Act, in Lake Maurepas by the University of
Southeastern Louisiana will provide information on water quality and hydrologic
processes that is lacking at present. The discussion of water quality will focus on
trends and problems that have been reported in the literature.

History of Changes

Turner and Bond (1980a) report that agricultural and urban land uses have replaced
former forest areas in the Pontchartrain Basin since the 1950s, resulting in an
increased rate of runoff and increased sediment and nutrient loading to Lakes
Maurepas and Pontchartrain. Analyses of discharge records for the Comite arid Amite
Rivers indicate that peak flood discharges have increased 30 to 40% and flooding
frequency has increased since 1951, while average annual and minimum flows have
remained the same (Turner and Bond 1980b). Some implications of these changes are
discussed below.

Land use changes have effects on both hydrology and water quality, with the clearing
of f orests for pasture having much less of an -ef f eci than clearing of f orests f or urban
development. In fact, the only difference in terms of the theoretical water yield
between pastures dominated by grasses and forested land is the rooting depth, with
forests being able to draw moisture from deeper in the soil. This, however, does not
affect peak runoff. Some pastureland may have a few drainage ditches where standing
water is a problem, possibly increasing runoff rates relative to forests. Row-crop
agriculture on the other hand has a very high drainage density and high soil loss, but
this use has not increased dramatically in the study area.

The most pl ausible reason for the increase in peak discharge is the expansion of urban
and suburban land uses that affect hydrology in two ways. First, permeable vegetated
surfaces tend to be replaced by impermeable unvegetated ones. More runoff is
generated per unit area per unit of rainfall; this runoff carries with it a large variety
of substances that tend to be associated with human habitation. Second, since more
water is generated, hydraulically efficient drains, ditches, and canals are constructed
to replace or augment the then obsolete natural drainage system in the immediate

area.

3-8

During low or moderate rainfalls, a rapid pulse of urban stormwater is shunted into the
river systems and lakes, representing increased loading of pollutants, sediments, and
nutrients. During high rainfall events, the increased rate of runoff overloads the
virtually unimproved lower mainstems of the rivers, causing unprecedented flooding,
and, ultimately, backwater flooding of the urbanized drainage systems themselves.

Urbanization Along the South Shore

Similar changes in runoff rates, peak discharge, and pollutant loading have accrued
from the urban development of fastlands along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain.
The first changes resulted in the removal of hydrologic connection between a large
area of wetlands and the lake. Although much of the resulting fastland was initially
used for agriculture, former geochemical cycles were disrupted whereby nutrient
elements- in their mineral form entering the lake were fixed into an organic form in
the wetlands. The extensive levee system also changed the overall tidal prism and
volume of the lake, which must have af f ected the renewal rate of the estuary.

The major effects evident today, however, are the result of almost total urbanization
of the former wetland areas that has taken place since the 1950s. The ecological
impacts are concentrated at the point of entrance into Lake Pontchartrain. Eleven
almost equally spaced outfalls presently exist along the south shore. During rainfall
events, the nearshore waters become very polluted for a time until the discharges are
dispersed into the open lake. In the absence of rainfall, septic conditions prevail in the
surface sediments near the outfalls: and wind events may resuspend these contaminated
sediments leading to poorwater quality.

Effects of the Mississippi River

Input of Mississippi River water into the Pontchartrain Basin has always occurred to
some extent. In early historic times, flow through Bayou Manchac and annual
overbank flooding in the spring introduced freshwater, sediments, and dissolved
minerals into wetlands and, eventually, the lakes. Even after the initial leveeing of
the river, periodic major inputs- continued 'to occur from .crevasses.

More recently, the Bonnet Carre Floodway was constructed at the site of four previous
crevasses to alleviate pressure on the levee system and lessen the chances of levee

3-9

failure during major floods. Regardless of whether river water enters from a crevasse
or from the spillway, the effects are similar; that is, infrequent high inputs of
Mississippi River water cause a total replacement of the ambient water of Lake
Pontchartrain. Although some immediate short-term impacts may occur, the
ecological system is attuned to these periodic changes in hydrology and water quality.
One difference between past and present, however, is the present status of pollutant
concentrations in the river. This status may represent a change in the level of
exposure to industrial chemicals for the lake biota.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers '(USACE) (1982) has proposed construction of a
diversion system to allow controlled input of freshwater from the Mississippi River. to
Lake Pontchartrain on an "as-needed" basis to manage the salinity regime of the
Pontchartrain-Borgne-Chandeleur Sound estuary (van Beek et al. 1982). As it will be
seen from the discussion to follow, freshwater is needed during certain timEs of the
year to combat saltwater intrusion into Lake Pontchartrain.

Effects of the MRGO and the IHNC

Construction of the MRGO in 1963 caused inumerable impacts to the wetland areas of
St. Bernard Parish, primarily from saltwater intrusion. The connection of the MRGO
to the Intracoastal Waterway and the IHNC provided a new corridor for input Df saline
water to Lake Pontchartrain. There has been considerable debate on whether Lake
Pontchartrain is getting "saltier" or "fresher."

Turner and Bond (1980a) state that increased runoff should produce the net regult of a
fresher lake system, all else being equal. Swenson's (1980b) work, on the other hand,
seems to indicate that the average salt content of the lake may have increased by as
much as 20% since 1963. In a study of saltwater intrusion in the Pass Manchac area
(Wicker et al. 1981) salt stress was implicated as the major cause of mortality of
cypress swamp. However, the same study failed to identify a significant @trend of
increasing mean annual salinity at Pass Manchac (Figure 3-3). Recently, St. Pel et al.
(1983) presented data from a lakewide survey documenting the dispersal of very high
salinity water (20 ppt) from the bottom of the IHNC into Lake Pontchartrain.

The data, in the form of isohalines, clearly show the greater influence of tile INHC
versus the passes in determining the salinity regime of the lake. The data were taken

3.0- SALINITY INCREASE= 0.031 ppt/yr
(r 0.365, p,< 0.1)
Ji

2.0-
000
MEAN
ANNUAL
SALINITY
(PPO

-7-
1950 1960 1970 1980
YEARS

Figure 3-3. Trend line analysis of mean annual salinities in parts per thousand (ppt)
at Pass Manchac from 1951-1979. Source: Wicker et al. 1981.

3-11

in July and August when wind-induced mixing and freshwater inflow are usually
minimal. It is significant that salinities of 4 ppt were recorded near Pass Manchac
(St. Pel et al. 1983) in that this would more than explain the cypress mortality
described by Wicker et al. (1981).

The discrepancies reported by various researchers can perhaps be explained in terms of
the annual cycle. Typically, the highest freshwater inflows and lower salinities occur
in the spring. This is also true for the peak discharges and flooding frequencies that
are increasing (Turner and Bond 1980b). Therefore, Lake Pontchartrain may be
experiencing lower spring salinities in modern times. However, since the rate of
runoff is increasing, the storage and. gradual release of freshwater from the upper
basin to Lake Pontchartrain has diminished. During the low discharge seasons of late
summer and fall, the salt wedge from the MRGO/IHNC can cause a rapid short-term
rise in salinity. Win d-induced peak water I.evels can then drive this more.sa1ine water
into the swamp. In analyzing mean salinities, (Wicker et al. 1981; Figure 3-3), the
lower spring values mask the higher fall values, resulting in no disernible trend. The
additional complication of wet/dry years also makes delineation of trends difficult, if
not impossible, given the 28-year record. In fact, although the annual peak salinities
have apparently increased since'1963, they may not be continuing to increase at
present. The salinity-induced habitat changes. reported simply may not have reached
an equilibrium point over the 21 years since. MRGO because of the short-term nature
of the peak salinities.

Existing Problems

Below some of the major problems concerning hydrology and water quality in the
Lower Pontchartrain Basin are presented. Although elements of these particular
problems deal with subjects other than hydrology or water quality, the discussion will
focus primarily on these two subjects.

Flooding and Development

Because of the land-use changes previously discussed, flooding has now become the
most important socioeconomic problem in the Pontchartrain Basin due to existing and
potential property damage. Chronic flooding not only affects residents along the
Comite/Amite system but also increasingly the urbanzied areas along the smaller

3-12

north shore tributary streams and the nearby Pearl River. Other than increased
runoff, there are three elements that contribute to the problem.

First, there is the continuing trend toward development in the floodplain. Losses from
damages to property are considerably higher now than in the past, probably even if
flood levels were not increasing. Other than damages, placing of fill in floodplains for
road beds and foundations increase flood stages even more by restricting overbank
flow.

Second, sediment input from ditch and canal bank erosion, and from poorly managed
sand and gravel mining operations has led to shoaling and channel deterioration along
river mainstems. This is especially true of the Amite River, where there are the
additional complicating factors of riverbank erosion from boat wakes and impedence
of flow by man-made structures. In most instances where a river channel begins to
experience increased discharges (e.g. the upper Atchafalaya River), the channel tends
to scour and increase in cross section. to accommodate the flow. This process has not
occurred on the Amite River mainstem, perhaps because of the aperiodic nature of the
peak flows and the abrupt decrease in the gradient of the river between 1-12 and the
Amite River Diversion Canal. In this reach of the river, low water stages begin to be
influenced by wind tides from Lake Pontchartrain and the floodplain widens. Incoming
sediments may tend to be increasingly and preferentially deposited in this portion of
the river. The river builds natural levees that confine the peak flows with the result
that flows scour the channel and move the material further downstream to build up
more natural levees. The problem is that the area must experience a major flood for
these natural processes to become active. Perhaps hundreds of floods may be required
over many years for the Amite River to adjust naturally.

The final element of the problem deals with man-made restrictions of flow in the river
channel and wetland overflow areas that create backwater flooding. For example, the
low sill structure across the inlet of the Amite River Diversion Canal was originally
constructed to keep the lower Amite River between Head of Island and Lake Maurepas
from being shoaled up and eventually abandoned. This was thought necessary because
the river was designated as a navigation* route. However, major navigation use has
never materialized as a result of these plans; in fact, major commercial navigation
only takes place in t he diversion canal itself (e.g. Louisiana Materials, Inc.), which is
actually a more expedient route to Lake Maurepas. The only function of the low sill

3-13

structure at present is to force a portion of the floodwaters to take a long and
inefficient route to Lake Maurepas.

Possible Solutions

(1) It is not feasible to totally stop development in floodplains and floodprone- areas,
but various regulations are in place to help. Unfortunately, many times these
regulations focus on making the developments themselves less prone to flooding.
Such incidents on occasion may cause an unfounded sense of security in
prospective property buyers. Minimum slab elevations and on-site r(sponses do
nothing to minimize.the loss of floodplain volume or downstream effects. An of
the watersheds need a comprehensive flood damage reduction program which
combines structural and nonstructural techniques for protecting those who are
threatened and for keeping others from becoming victims.

(2) Some solutions to the problems will likely require substantial dredging, and
therefore, substantial spoil disposal needs. Much of the convenient area for
disposal is forested wetland. In view of the severity of the flooding problem,
suitable areas within affected management units' could be designated for spoil
disposal and that guidelines be drafted to govern their use in an environmentally

sound manner.

(3) Diversion Canals may be considered on a case by case as partial solutions to
flooding problems.

(4) Reservoirs are other partial solutions to flooding that would also effect
environmental management policies in the Lake Maurepas drainage. Some
additional benefits of reservoirs could include conservation of the freshwater
resources of the basin with managed release of water for water quality
enhancement and salinity control.

(5) Promotion of the use of small scale stormwater retention systems for
developments within the SA, perhaps in conjunction with wetland management
could improve the situation.

3-14

Sediment Loading and Turbidity

As previously mentioned, sediment loading in the rivers has increased and may
contribute to flooding problems; however, the effect of suspended sediments on water
clarity is also a water quality issue in the Pontchartrain Basin. Increased turbidity
may result in lowered primary production of phytoplankton, decreased growth of
submerged grassbeds, oxygen depletion, and lowered recreational and aesthetic values.
Some of the major elements of the problem are discussed below.

Increased input of sediments into the rivers can be linked to land clearing, bank
erosion, and sand/gravel mining operations. All of these can be reduced by the use of
prudent soil conservation practices and guidelines for environmentally sound operation.
However, these activities do not take place to a great extent within the boundaries of
the proposed Special Area (SA).

The major factor that influences turbidity in Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain is
wind and its resulting wave formation, a natural element that cannot be controlled. In
fact, Louisiana estuaries are typically turbid to some degree. Sediment resuspension
and transport are important mechanisms in maintaining the elevation of wetlands.
Suspended sediments tend to be trapped by emergent vegetation in wetlands, partially
offsetting subsidence and land loss (Baumann 1980). However, the effects of wind and
waves on turbidity can be influenced by man's activities.

One activity that has been implicated in increasing turbidity is hydraulic dredging.
Many reports have been done on the various effects of dredging, often with
contradictory findings (Palmore 1983; Sikora et al. 1981). The theoretical influence of
shell dredging on turbidity will be discussed in terms of direct and indirect effects.

Direct effects of dredging involves the mechanical resuspension of deposited
sediments. The degree of change in turbidity can be described in terms of the
sediment discharge rate of the dredge in relation to the volume of the water body, the
ambient turbidity, and the rat e of water replacement in the water body. In general, if
the volume of the water body is small and dredging discharge rate therefore
approaches or exceeds ihe rate of water replacement, then the dredging will cause an
increase in turbidity (if the turbidity of the dredge effluent exceeds that of the water
body initially). . The direct effects of dredging on turbidity are more significant in

3-15

small water bodies with slow water exch ange rates. Noticeable localized increases in
turbidity could occur in large water bodies when ambient turbidity leveh,; are low.
During major floods or high wind/wave events, turbidity increases due to dredging may
be masked by high ambient levels of suspended sediment.

Indirect effects of hydraulic dredging in volve the change in character of the bottom
sediments that may make them more easily resuspend ed by wave action. Assume that
dredges excavate in front and discharge the effluent back into the cut. If the bottom
material consists of equal parts of course materials, silt, and clay, the courser
materials will fall out of suspension rather quickly, followed by the silts. The courser
materials have the greatest chance of filling the dredge cut. The clays, because they
remain in suspension longer, have the greatest chance of being transported away from
the site. DNR is preparing to contract for an,independent study of hydraulic shell
dredging by professionals to determine effects of shell extraction in the Lakes.

Sikora et al. (1981) investigated the change in character of bottom sediments due to
dredging in terms of the sediment bulk density which is defined as the weight per unit
volume of intact sediment including. any "trapped" water. Experiments with dredge
effluent showed that bulk density tended to increase from below in a columni of
effluent as water was gradually displaced upwards, with bulk density remaining low in
the surface layer for a long period of time (Sikora.et al. 1981). Each of these cases
could result in an increased susceptibility for sediment resuspension by natural forces.

Because of these indirect effects; turbidity in Lake Pontchartrain will tend to remain
at present levels since the bottom has been subjected to several decades of shell
dredging. However, if for some reason the clarity of the water improves to the former
state of the 1950s, the much higher rates of nutrient input at present may cause
chronic problems with algae blooms and associated fish kills.

Possible Solutions

(1) 1mplementation and enforcement of soil conservation guidelines and practices.
(2) Comprehensive management of the shell dredging industry in Lakes Maurepas
and Pontchartrain including elements discussed in the following section. An
ongoing DNR study should better define the shell dredging impacts.

3-16

Water Quality, Sewage Contamination and Urban Runoff

Where water quality problems exist in Lake Pontchartrain, they can generally be
attributed to sewage effluent and storm water runoff from urban areas. Problems are
frequently found in the nearshore areas between the Rigolets and Goose Point to the
north and along the leveed area of the south shore.

Water quality problems along the north shore include high fecal coliform levels, high
nutrient concentrations, and low dissolved oxygen in the drainage bayous. Health
department officials state that swimming in Lake Pontchartrain is not advisable within
200 yds of Bayous Castine, Cane, Lacombe, Bonfouca, or Salt Bayou because of
bacterial pollution. Much of this problem may be attributed to inadequate @ sewage
treatment from septic tanks in rural settings or raw discharges from the numerous
camps in these areas. Expansion of the urban area of Slidell contributes storm water
pollutants as well.

The most severe problems occur along the south shore from the St. Charles/Jefferson
Parish line eastward to Irish Bayou Lagoon, and are related to pumped runoff from
metropolitan New Orleans. Parameters of concern are fecal coliform counts,
dissolved oxygen levels, and potentially harmful substances such as heavy metals and
synthetic chemical compounds.

For the nearshore areas described above, health officials state that swimming is not
advisable within 0.25 mi of shore because of bacterial contamination (Figure 3). A
recent study by the Office of Health Services and Environmental Quality (1982)
showed that the highest coliform levels were found near pumping station outfalls and
occurred during wet weather. The most severe cases occurred in Jefferson Parish
(Elmwood Canal) where comingling of sewage with runoff and bypassing of treatment
plants frequently occurs. Levels tended to decrease between outfall points and with
distance offshore, with counts decreasing from 10 to 50% at 0.25 mi out. No data was
presented for further than 0.25 mi from shore. With these conditions come above-
average nutrient concentrations (Stoessel 1980) and the possibility of. organic
enrichment of bottom sediments. There may be a connection between the septic
bottom conditions near the pumping station outfalls and the occurrence of the
reported "dead zones" in this part of the lake.

3-17

St. Pel et al. (1983), in tracking the movement of the salt wedge from the IHNC into
Lake Pontchartrain, also recorded very low dissolved oxygen levels near the bottom.
It wits Concluded that the density differonCM-4 ASNOCifttOd With VIC SAIt WOdgtl, CrOMOd R
condition of non-mixing between surface and bottom waters. Biological demand
tended to deplete oxygen from the bottom waters. If the salt wedge would become
situated over an organically enriched area, totally anoxic conditions could occur in a
short period of time. This would elimina te benthic organisms, possibly creating a
"dead zone" which would gradually be repopulated.

A variety of hydrocarbons, heavy metals, PCB's, pesticides, and other synthetic
chemicals have been known to reside in storm water runoff from highly urbanized
areas. This is indeed the case for the pumped discharges from metropolitan New
Orleans. However, recent sampling has shown that conditions are not as bad along the
south shore as the descriptions of the news media may imply. A series of samples
were taken in the passes and the IHNC as the first of a two phase study by the USACE
relative to the proposed Hurricane Barrier Plan. Since the barrier plan wes dropped,
phase II of the study was never implemented, but eight reports are on file at the New
Orleans District office. These reports contain data on heavy metals, pesticides,
PCB's, and organic priority pollutants from samples of sediment and tissue (clams,
crabs, and fish). Similar sampling is ongoing by the Water Pollution Control Division
of DEQ, but the findings have not been released at this time. Personal communication
with Dr. Christian Byrne (1984) of the University of New Orleans, Center for
Bio-organic Studi es, who has been involved with both of the above studies, indicated
that. the degree of pollution is a relative thing. Lake Pontchartrain is not as polluted
as Lake Erie, for example, but it does contain small amounts of typical urban runoff
constituents at levels similar to other urban influenced estuaries. Lead, cadmium,
PCB1s, and pesticides were found in the tissues of aquatic organisms, but at much
lower levels than those of pure urban storm water.

There are no criteria to -govern acceptable levels of most pollutants in living
organisms, although there are criteria for lethal levels. The bio-accumulation factors
are not well documented for many pollutants, making continued study and surveillance
of the south shore area necessary.

3-18

Possible Solutions

(1) Water quality along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain can be greatly
improved by enforcement of point source discharge guidelines and by requiring
environmentally sound surface water management plans to reduce non-point
source pollution. For example, requiring periodic inspections and certifications
for operation for the sewage treatment facilities of camps and other facilities
not on a treatment network would reduce pollution from negligence and
inadequacy. A program could be developed to help municipal sewage plants
formulate plans for management of their effluent by using wetland treatment for
existing or proposed facilities.

(2) Another mitigation measure to improve water quality would be to enhance and
expand beds of submerged grasses, especially near the outlets of drainage bayous
where problems occur most frequently. One way to accomplish this would be by
construction of artificial "barrier islands" near the shore, to decrease wave
energy and promote grass bed development in the resulting "lagoon" while
providing recreational opportunities on the lakeward edge of the island (Wicker
et al. 1982).

(3) Upgrading of sewage facilities in Jefferson Parish to increase the capacity and
allow disposal of effluent into the Mississippi River will greatly improve the
present situation along the south shore. However, the urban storm water
problem will remain. The only mitigation element would be to continue
monitoring the effects.

(3) Future urban development can be done in such a way that sewage effluent and
urban storm water can be discharged into retention lagoons and filtered through
wetland areas. Tertiary treatment objectives could be accomplished through
wetland surface water management, with the additional benefit of wetland
restoration and enhancement.

(4) To prevent further deterioration of water quality, it is desirable not to resuspend
heavy metals, pesticides, and other pollutants already trapped in the bottom
sediments. Sediment elutriate tests similar to those required for dredge and fill
activities could be conducted in the areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain

3-19

that tire open to shell dredging. CloNinf@ containinnted III-Otis to drod:.fingr Would
vI Is t I re t I I tit I to ool I oe I It 1-:1 t iol IS (W I I i I( I eN I I-It b 10 h tVOIS 01' 1 )0 1 It It It I I tS I I I'( - I* t'i I Ijoot ot I
into the aq uatic system. Areas with undesirable levels of pollutants can be
avoided before they are disturbed, and bio-accumulation effects, etc,,, can then

be studied.

(5) Management of hydraulic dredging operations should consider the seasonality of
hydrologic conditions in the lakes as a management tool. For example, during
the summer months it may be desirable to locate dredging activities in the
eastern end of Lake Pontchartrain where tidal flushing is greatest. Summer
water movements in the western area are sluggish, and dredging could contribute
to oxygen depletion. Activity could be shifted to western Lake Pontchartrain in
the winter and spring where the highest annual river flows and low temperatures
would preclude oxygen depletion. This would also reduce possible impacts to
incoming estuarine larvae and postlarvae in the eastern lake during the spring
months.

(6) All dredging activities should be directed to avoid the areas within the saltwater
wedge which periodically intrudes into the basin. This will prevent oxygen-
consuming sediment material from contributing to the anoxic conditions in the
lower water column.

Summary and Possible Solutions

Hydrologic processes in Lake Pontchartrain are fairly well known, but little research
has been done within the Lake Maurepas drainage. This is especially true of the
swamp areas to the south and west of the lake which comprises the majority of the
remaining wetlands in the basin. A data collection program is needed for this area.

Several of the problems touched upon in this paper have possible solutiolas that are
beyond the scope of the Special Area concept. Among these are sediment loading
from sand and gravel operations' and major flood control projects. Dredge spoil
disposal areas may need to be planned. The proposed Amite Reservoir needs to be
evaluated with regard to water quality enhancement and salinity control for Lake
Maurepas.

3-20

Poor water quality is generally limited to the lower segments of rivers and other
points of drainage input around the perimeter of the lakes. However, there are few
sampling stations in the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain.
Perhaps a series of baseline stations should be initiated near the middle of the lakes to
determine whether the water quality problems are spreading. Expansion and
conservation of submerged grass beds is recommended to combat water quality
problems near drainage outlets.

Lake Pontchartrain is far from being a dead lake in terms of water quality. Future
expansion of population along the north shore, in St. Charles Parish, and in the New
Orleans East area need not result in further degradation of the lake if the remaining
wetlands are preserved and prudently managed to treat runoff and sewage effluent.
The most difficult problem to address is that occurring along the presently urbanized
south shore of the lake. Upgrading of sewerage facilities and continued close
monitoring are recommended.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baumann, R. H.
1980 Mechanisms of maintaining marsh elevation in a subsiding environment.
Master's Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 91 pp.

Byrne, Christian
1984 Personal communication in reference to pollutant levels in Lake
Pontchartrain. University of New Orleans, Center for Bio-organic Studies,
New Orleans.

Gael, B. T
1980 Computation of drift patterns in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana in J. H.
Stone, ed., Environmental Analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, Its
Surrounding Wetlands, and Selected Land Uses 1:39-56.

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
1980 Louisiana water quality management plan, Appendix D, Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Plan. Office of Environmental Affairs, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Office of Health Services and Environmental Quality
1982 1982 Lake Pontchartrain Bacterial Pollution Study. Louisiana Department
of Health and Human Resources, New Orleans.

-Palmore, Don
1983 Lake Maurepas -Pontchartrain estuarine complex: viewpoints on uses-shell
dredging. The Lake Pontchartrain/Lake Maurepas estuarine complex:
perspectives on its future, Sheraton Hotel, New Orleans, April 6, 1983.

St. Pel, K. M. and M. H. Schurtz
1983 Water quality influences of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. on Lake
Pontchartrain. The Lake Pontchartrain/Lake Maurepas estuarine complex:
perspectives on its future, Sheraton Hotel, New Orleans, April 6, 1983.

Sikora, W. B., J. P. Sikora, and A. M. Prior
1981 Environmental effects of hydraulic dredging for clam shells in Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. LSU-CEL-81-18. 140 pp.

Stoessel, R. K.
1980 Nutrient and carbon geochemistry in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, in J. H.
Stone, ed., environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, LouKsilFna, its
surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses 1:217-320.

Swenson, E. M.
1980a General hydrography of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana in J. H. Stone, ed.,
Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, its surrounding
wetlands, and selected land uses 1:57-156.

3-22

Swenson, E. M.
1980b General hydrography of the tidal passes of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, in
J. H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, LouisiarZ,
its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses 1:157-216.

Turner, R. E. and J. R. Bond
1980a Recent land use changes in Lake Pontchartrain watershed, in J. H. Stone,
ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, its
surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses 2:1173-1206.

1980b Urbanization, peak streamflow, and estuarine hydrology (Louisiana), Pages
1207-1218 in J. H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, Its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses, pp.1207-1218.

van Beek, J. L., D. Roberts, D. Davis, D. Sabins, and S. M. Gagliano
1982 Recommendations for freshwater diversion to Louisiana estuaries east of
the Mississippi River. Prepared for Coastal Management Section, Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources, by Coastal Environments, Inc, Baton
Rouge. 49 pp.

Wicker, K. M., D. Davis, M. Derouen, and D. Roberts
1981 Assessment of extent and impact of saltwater intrusion into the wetlands of
Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. Prepared for Tangipahoa Parish Jury by
Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 59 pp. 5 plates.

Wicker, K. M., et al.
1982 St. Bernard Parish: A study in wetland management. Prepared for St.
Bernard Parish Police Jury by Coastal Environments, Inc. Chalmette,
Louisiana. 132 pp.

CHAPTER 4: VEGETATION AND LAND USE IN THE
PROPOSED PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA

Abstract

The Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin has undergone extensive habi tat changes within the
past 25 years because of natural and man-made processes. During this period, wetland
habitats decreased by 13% while upland and aquatic habitats increased by 14% and 3%,
respectively. The continued loss of wetland habitats will result in the loss of a
valuable renewable resource base for the area. Furthermore, it removes the option of
using wetlands to buffer upland habitats from storm surges and to remove wastes,
thereby enhancing the water quality of lakes and rivers. In order to preserve the
valuable functions afforded by the area!s wetlands and water bodies there must be a
coordinated effort among the private interests and state and local agencies to devise
for the region a comprehensive, though reasonably flexible, management plan with
clearly defined and enforceable policies, goals, and objectives. The specific
recommendations for lessening the destruction of wetland vegetation must be tailored
to fit the type of habitat being impacted.

Introduction'

The geomorphology of the region strongly influences the distribution of vegetation and
land use through its influence on the hydrologic and salinity regimes. Much of the
region lies below 5 ft in elevation and is susceptible to flooding from precipitation,
freshwater drainage and saltwater storm surge. Only the Pleistocene Terrace, with its
10- to 15-ft escarpment I to 2 mi north of Lake Pontchartrain; the 5- to 10-ft natural
Mississippi River levees; and the man-made, leveed fastlands fringing portions of the
natural levees and Pleistocene Terrace are sufficiently drained by natural and man-
made processes to support upland vegetation communities and developed sites. Lands
lying below 5. ft in elevation are covered by freshwater swamps and fresh-to-brackish
marshes.

A schematic diagram best illustrates the relationship between vegetation associations
and landforms in the Pontchartrain Basin between the Mississippi River and Lake
Pontchartrain (Figure 4-1). The diagram is generalized and includes saltwater
habitats, such as saline marsh, not presently found in the basin area. The system,

AOUATICI WETLAND TERRESTRIAL HABITAT
FUNCTION
MARINE

BOTTOMILAND BOTTOMLAND I VECETATION
'A'
AOUATICS,OPEN MARSH MAPS" SWAMP HAROWOOOS .0A'.T.W1=r. ASSOCIATION
WATER 400 -
ILo" go, I Sho, to r OPEN
WATER
Hyd roptir.0d I Hydiropor,odll

P/L/E P/E, P P P P P P U U1 U I P R SYSTEM
1/2 1 - 1/2 SLIMYSTEM
OW/AB EM FO EM FO FO FO FO FO D DV FO Ow CLASS
5 1/2 1/2/3 1/2 1/2/3 1/3 1/3 1 1/2 SUBCLASS

IL
@u
E 10,
.T.-J)
10
it's

OORLY DRAI

J-
RY POORLY D-RAINED.,; ......
rQ
Ul

RIVER
0-
C. 0 V LA140FOAM
-I C.-
O:V 'Fr ;A 4:,
LAKE MARSH RSH I..
M BACKSWAMP BACKSWAMP

Figure 4-1. Relationship of habitat and vegetation associations to landforms in the Mississippi Deltaic
Plain region (Wicker 1980).
System Subsystem class Subclass
E=Estuarine Estuarine 1=Subtotal AB=Aquatic Bed DV1=Urban/Residential/
Commercial/Industrial
L=Lacustrine Estuarine 2=Intertidal DV=Developed DV2=Agriculture/Pasture/
Modified Grassland
P=Palustrine Lacustrine 1=Limnetic EM=Emergent EM5=Narrow-leaved
Persistent
R=Riverine Lacustrine 2=Littoral FO=Forested F 0 1 =Broad-leaved
/
L"' IS. Deciduous
H I',. ll /Hyd,

U=Upland Riverine 1=Tidal OW=Open Water F02=Needle-leaved
Deciduous
Riverine 2=Lower ?erennial F03= Broad-icaved
Evergreen

4-3

subsystem, class, and subclass terms shown on the diagram relate to the habitat
classification system used in compiling the 1956 and 1978 7.5 minute habitat maps of
the coastal zone for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Wicker 1980; Wicker
et al. 1980). Habitat data from this USFWS study is discussed later in this report.
Table 4-1 lists vegetation species commonly associated with the major landforms in
the Pontchartrain Basin.

Hist2U o f Change

The most recent, vegetation and land use map of the region was compiled from a
December 5, 1982 Thematic Mapper Scene (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS1 1982)
(Plate 5). Comparison of this photograph and interpretation with earlier aerial
photographs and habitat maps of the region for 1955 and 1978 show the extent of
vegetation and land use changes that have occurred (Wicker 1980; Wicker et al. 1980).
While the recent vegetation and land use map was not planimetered, data from habitat
maps compiled from 1955/56 and 1978 aerial photographs accurately convey the
magnitude of changes that have occurred,. and continue to occur, in the region
(Table 4-2). When reviewing this table, note that the habitats in that portion of
Livingston Parish which lie within the proposed Pontchartrain-Maurepas Special Area
(SA) are omitted. No areal measurements were available for this area because at the
time the habitat maps were made, this portion of Livingston Parish was outside the
Coastal Zone.

Within the past 25 years, the major habitat changes character izing the proposed
Pont chartrain-Maurepas SA have been a decrease in freshwater habitgu-(Le., swamp,
fresh marsh, fresh water) and an increase in nonfreshwater habitats and urban-
industrial-residential development.' Agricultural lands have decreased in area and
upla-n-U--a-n-U-n-a-t-u-r-al--le-v-ee hardwoods (second growth forests) have increased in area as
former. agricultural lands lay fallow awaiting development. The decrease in
bottomland hardwoods is due largely to increases in development along the base of the
natural Mississippi River levee. In general between 1955/56 and 1978, -wetlands
decreased from 34% of the area to ater
bodies increased from 46% to 48%.

Remnants of the historic vegetation community still remain. The Pleistocene Terrace,
north of Lake Pontchartrain and east of the Mississippi River, was classified as a

4-4

Table 4-1. Vegetation Associations Characteristic of Major Physiographic Units in
the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain Region.

PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNIT VEGETATION ASSOCIATION/SPECIES
Uplands - Terrestrial Vegetation

1. Upland Terrace
(East of Mississippi River)

a) uplands: cleared a) agricultural crops such as soybeans,
sweet potatoes, strawberries, pasture

b) uplands: uncleared b) longleaf-slash pine:
(USDA,FS 1969;Brown 1945) longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
slash pine (Pinus elloittii
shortleaf pine (Pinus Echinata)
spruce pine (Pinus glabra)
c) uplands c) loblolly pine - hardwoods:
(USDA,FS 1969) loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata)
oaks (Quercus spp.)
hickory (Carya spp.)
red gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)

d) in sloughs and on poorly d) pond cypress (Taxodium distichum
drained flatwood soils var. nutans)
(Brown 1945) swamp black gum Nyssa sylvatica)
magnolia (Magnolia spp.)
water oak- (Quercus nigra)
obtusa oak (Quercus obtusa)
swamp red maple (Acer rubrum
var. drummondii)
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
var. lanceolatqa)
red gum (Liquidambar styraciflus)

e) "scrub oak" woods: e) southern red oak (Quercus falcata)
cleared and/or burned areas post oak (Quercus stellata)
(Brown 1945) blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica)
willow oak (Quercus pheellos)
treeless grasslands

II. Natural Levee

a) higher natural levees a) red gum - mixed hardwoods
(Brown 1945) red gum (Liquidambar stryaciflua)

4-5

Table 4-1 continued

PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNIT VEGETATION ASSOCIATION/SPECIES

(Penfound and Howard 1940) cherrybark oak (Quercus falcata)
var. pagadaefolia
cow oak (Quercus prinus)
nutall oak (Quercus nuttallii)
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
water oak (Quercus nigra)
honeylocust ( Gleditsia triacanthos)
American elm (Ulmus americans)
winged elm (Ulmus alata)
pecan (Carya sp.)
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)

b) lower natural leves b) overcup oak- bitter pecan:
(Brown 1945) overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
bitter pecan (Carya aquatica)
red gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
cherrybark oak (Quercus falcata)
car. pagadaefolia)

c) natural levees below c) live oak- mixed hardwoods:
Baton Rouge (Brown 1945) water oak (Quercus nigra)
live oak (Quercus virginiana)
hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
American elm (Gleditsia triacanthos)
honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos)
howthorn (Crataegus sp.)

d) natural levees, spoiled banks, d) live oak (Quercus virginiana)
and ridges in marshes tooth-ache tree (Zanthoxylum clava-
(vegetation ranked from highest herculis)
to lowest landform elevation) hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
(Brown 1945) hawthorn (Crataegus sp.)
opopanax (Acacla farnesiana)
marsh elder (Iva frutescens)
eastern baccharis (Baccharis
halimifolia)

Wetlands Vegetation

III. Backswamp: Wetlands

a) deep water swamp a) cypress- tupelo gum:
(Penfound 1952) baldcypress (Taxodium distichum)
(Winters and Ward 1934) tupelogum (Nyssa aquatica)
b) swamp- bottomland hard- b) cypress- bottomland hardwoods:
woods baldcypress (Taxodium distichum)
(Brown 1945, Environmental tupelogum (Nyssa aquatica)
Laboratory 1978) swamp red maple ( Acer rubrum

4-6

Table 4-1 continued

PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNIT VEGETATION ASSOCIATION/SPECIES

var. drummondii)
water ash (Fraxinum caroliniana)
pumpkin ash (Fraxinus profunda)
Virginia willow (Itea virginica)
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
samp-privet (Forestiera acuminata)
water locust (Gleditsia aquatica)
water elm (Planera aquatica)
swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica)
var. biflora)

IV. Batture- Frontlands

a) mixed hardwoods a) willow- mixed hardwoods:
(Brown 1945) black willow (Salx nigra)
cottonwood (Populus deltoids)
American sycamore (Platanus)
occidentalis)
red gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
swamp-privet (Forestiera acuminata)
honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos)
water locust (Gleditsia aquatica)

V. Bottomland Hardwoods

a) poorly drained a) overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
(Brown 1945) blitter pecan (Carya aquatica)
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
var. lanceolata)
black willow (Salix nigra)
water oak (Quercus nigra)
hawthorn (Crataegus sp.)

VI. Marshes: Saline

a) Louisiana a) Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)
(Chabreck 19720 saltgrass ( Distichlis spicta)
(Chabreck and Linscombe 1978) blackrush (Juncus roemerianus)
wiregrass (Spartina patens)
glasswort (Salicornia sp.)
batis (Batis maritima)
black mangrove (Avicennia germinans)

Marshes: Brackish

a)Lousisian a) wiregrass (Spartina patens)
(Chabreck 1972) saltgrass (Distichilis spicata)
(Chabreck and Linscombe 1978) three- cornerd grass (Scirpus olneyi)
leafy three- square (Scirpus robustus)
widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima)

4-7

Table 4-1 concluded

PHYSIOGRAPIC UNIT VEGETATION ASSOCIATION/SPECIES

Marshes: Intermediate

a) Louisiana a) wiregrass (Spartina patens)
(Chabreck 1972) roseau cane(Phragmites australis)
(Chabreck and Linscombe 1978) bulltongue (Sagittaria falcata)
Walter's millet (Echinochloa walteri)
bullwhip (Scirpui californicus)
deer pea (Vigna repens)
sawgrass (Cladium Jamaicensis)

Marshes: Fresh

a) Louisiana a) maidencane (Panicum hemitomon)
(Chabreck 1972) bulltonglue (Sagittaria falcata)
(Chabreck and Linscombe 1978) spikerush (Eleocharis sp.)
alligatorweed (Alteranthera
philoxeroides)
pennywort (Hydrocotyl sp.)
water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
pickereiweed (Pontederia cordata)

Aquatic Vegetation

VII. Floating and Submerged Aquatics:
Freshwater

a) lakes, ponds, rivers with a) water-lilies (Nymphaea odorata)
no swift currents water-lilies (Nuphar luteum)
(Lemaire 1960) water-lilies (Nymphoides sp.)
bladderwort (Utricularia sp.)
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sp.)

mermaidweed (Proserpinaca sp.)
watershield (Brasenia schreberi)
fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana)
water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
duckweed (Lemna spp.)
duckweed (Pontederia cordata)

VIII. Submerged Aquatics: Fresh to
Slightly Brackish
a) lakes, ponds, rivers with a) widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima)
no swift currents (ranked horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
from more salt tolerant to wild celery (Vallisneria americana)
less salt tolerant). Species bushy pondweed (Najas quadalupensis)
present in Lake Pontchartrain coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum)
(Montz 1976) pondweed (Pontaimogeton pusillus)
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sp.)

Table 4-2. Habitat Area in the Proposed Pontchartrain-Maurepas Special Area (Excluding
Livingston Parish) for 1955/56, 1978 and Change in Area Between 1955/56 and
1978. (Some habitats not delineated on Plate 5 because of thE!ir small areal
extent.)

1955/56 1978 CHANGE
1955/56-1978
HABITAT CATEGORY

ACRES % ACRES % ACRES %

Urban-Industrial-
Residential 63,646 6 123,898 11 +60,252 +94

Agri c ulture-Pas tur e-
Fallow Land 78,542 7 38,306 3 -40,236 -51

Spoil 3,767 < 1 4,739 <1 +972 +26

Upland Hardwoods-Pine 71,619 6 80,854 7 +9,235 +12

Natural Levee Hardwoods 2,930 < 1 3,874 <1 +944 +32

Bottomland Hardwoods. 36,625 3 26,143 2 -10,4132

Cypress-Tupelo Swamp 187,601 16 166,294 14 -21,307

Fresh Marsh 64,851 6 43,402 4 -21,449
'@Non-Fresh Marsh (Intermediate
and Brackish) 92,476 8 96,843 8 +4,367

Beach 584 1 147 < 1. -437 -74

River Bars 0 0 2 0 +2 -

Reef 4 0 0 0 ..4

Jetties 0 0 1 0 +1 -

Freshwater, Natural 82,970 7 4,271 <1 -78,699 -94

Freshwater, Man-made 2,955 <1 6,295 <1 +3,340 +113
Non-Freshwater,* Natural 427,751 38 522,493 46 +94,742

Non-Freshwater,
Man-made 6,347 < 1 5,125 <1 -1,222 -19

1,1221 .668 1,122,687

4-9

Longleaf Pine Region by Brown (1945) and corresponds to the Upland Hardwoods/Pine
habitat on Plate 5. Prior to the emergence of commercial cultivation of pine
plantations, longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) was the dominant pine species in the region.
After the virgin longleaf pine was harvested, other pine species invaded or were
planted because they produced a commercial grade of timber in a shorter period of
time. Today other pine species such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), slash pine (Pinus
elliottii , shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), and spruce pine (Pinus glabra) are more
common than longleaf pine. The numerous sloughs draining the terrace uplands
contain a variety of hardwoods including pond cypress (Taxodium distichum var.
nutans), swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), magnolias (Magnolia spp.),
water oak (Quercus E!gra), obtusa oak (Quercus obtusa), swamp red maple (Acer
rubrum drummondii), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. lanceolata), redgum (i.e.,
sweetgum) (Liquidambar styraciflua), and numerous ericaceous shrubs (Brown 1945).
Areas of the terrace that have been cleared of pine and subjected to repeated burnings
are often characterized by "scrub oak" communities contain ing southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), post oak (Quercus stellata), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica),
and willow oak (Quercus Phellos) (Brown 1945).

While much of the terrace between Hammond and Slidell is still maintained in
commercial pine plantations, cropland, and pasture, the construction of 1-10 and 1-12
has lessened travel time to the area and fostered rapid development of recreational
sites and bedroom communities serving Hammond, Covington, Slidell, and the Greater
New Orleans metropolitan area. Data on population trends in the region illustrate the
rapid growth responsible for much of the land clearing in the three parishes
(Livingston, Tangipahoa, and St. Tammany) on the terrace (Plate 6). The town of
Slidell, located approximately 20 mi northeast of New Orleans, is an example of one
community which has u *ndergone explosive expansion into the surrounding piney woods
region in the process of increasing its population from 29,858 in 1970 to 66,382 in 1980
(a growth of 122.3%) (Daigre 1981).

The natural levees along the present Mississippi River and its abandoned main and
distributary channels are naturally vegetated by bottomland hardwoods. The higher,
better drained natural levees, corresponding to the natural levee hardwoods on Plate 5,
support a redgum/mixed hardwood community containing redgum, cherrybark oak
(Quercus falcata var. 2agodaefolia), cow oak (Quercus michauxii), Nuttall oak (Quercus
nuttallii), Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii), water oak, honeylocust (Gleditsia

4-10

triacanthos), American elm (Ulmus americana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), pecan
(Carya illinoensis), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) (Brown 1945; Penfound and
Howard 1940). The lower-lying, less well-drained portions of the natural levees
contain an overcup oak-bitter pecan community which include overcup oa!..< (Quercus
lyrata), bitter pecan (Carya aquatica , redgum, persimmon, hackberry, and aherrybark
oak (Brown 1945). Live oak (Quercus virginiana) is also a conspicuous 1,ree, often
accentuating the presence of natural levees, in coastal Louisiana.

The very low-lying natural levees and spoil banks subsiding into the marshlands of
coastal Louisiana are characterized by such trees and shrubs as live oak, 'tooth-ache
tree (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis), hackberry (Celtis laevigata , hawthorn (Crataegus
sp.), Chinese tallow (Melia azedarach), black willow (Salix nigra), marsh elder (Iva
fruteseens), and eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia). Spoil deposits containing
species common to the upland forests are not depicted in Plate 5 because or the small
map scale.

The low-lying, low-relief, freshwater wetlands projecting from the base of the levees
and lying below 5 ft mean sea level (msl) contain backswamy communities. The
sw amps having the longest hydroperiod (i.e., length of time area covered by water)
consist almost entirely of even-aged stands of cypress (Taxodium distichlim) and/or
tupelogurn (Nyssa aquatica (Putnam et al. 1960). Backswamps along the levee base
also contain swamp red maple, water ash (Fraxinus; caroliniana), pumpkin ash (Fraxinus
tomentosa), and small shrubs such as Virginia willow (Itea virginica) and buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis) (Brown 1945).

The marshes in the Pontchartrain-Maurepas region generally lie between 0 and 1 f t msl
and are saturated or covered regularly with water throughout the year. These marshes
range from fresh in the interior, western portion of the basin through intermediate to
brackish near the eastern end of Lake Pontchartrain. The fresh marshes, with
optimum salinities of 0 to 2 parts per thousand (ppt) (van Beek et al. 1982), have the
highest plant diversity (Palmisano and Chabreck 1972) with the major species being
maidencane (Panicum hemitomum), @ulltongue (Sagittaria lancifolia), spikerush
(Eleocharis sp.), alligatorweed (.Alternanthera philoxeroides) and wiregra&3 (Seartina
patens) (Chabreck 1972). Plant diversity is also high in the intermedia'Le marshes
where optimum salinities range between 2 and 5 ppt (van Beek et al. 1982).

4-11

Intermediate marslids are an ecututic: ol, tt-ansition zone between the freshwater and
brackish- to- saline marshes and, therefore, contain some species present in both fresh
and non-fresh marsh zones. While wiregrass is the dominant species in the
intermediate marshes of southeastern Louisiana, other major species include
three-cornered grass (Scirpus olneyi), bulltongue (Sagittaria falcata), dwarf spikerush
(Eleocharis parvula , and roseau cane (Phragmites australis) (Chabreck 1972).

Brackish marshes have a variable, optimum salinity range of 5 to 10 ppt (van Beek et
al. 1982) and are dominated by wiregrass. Other marsh species include saltgrass
(Distichlis spicata), three-cornered grass, dwarf spikerush, and oystergrass or smooth
cordgrass (Seartina alterniflora) (Chabreck 1972). There are no saline marshes in the
proposed Pontchartrain-Maurepas SA.

The shallower, less turbid portions of water bodies in the P ontchartrain- Maur epas
region contain a variety of aquatic plants including submerged moss, algae, and
floating-leaved vascular species. Examples of floating and submerged aquatics
commonly found in less turbid, relatively still freshwater bodies are: waterlilies
(Nymphaea odorata, Nuphar luteum, Nymehoides sp.), bladderwort (Utricularia sp.),
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sp.), mermaidweed (Proserpinaca sp.), watershield
(Brasenia schreberi), fanwort (Cabomba carolioniana), waterhyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes), and duckweed (Pontederia cordata, Lemn sp.) (Lemaire 1960).

Submerged aquatics found in the fresh-to-slightly brackish water bodies such as along
the eastern perimeter of Lake Pontchartrain include: widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima),
horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris), wild celery (Vallisneria americana), bushy
pondweed (Najas quadalupensis), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), pondweed
(Potamogeton pusillus), and watermilfoil (Montz 1978, n.d.).

The submerged aquatics of Lake Pontchartrain have altered their distribution and
composition in recent years. Comparison of studies by Darnell (1961) in the mid-1950s
and Montz (1978) in the mid-1970s indicate an apparent decline in abundance of
widgeongrass and wild celery and an increiise. in the distribution of pondweed and bushy
pondweed (Turner et al. 1980). Causes for these changes have not been determined;
however, it is possible that the declines in the widgeongrass and wild celery are
related to increased turbidities associated with shoreline erosion, heavy boat traffic,
various dredging activities, and eutrophication.

4-12

The agricultural lands along the Mississippi River, historically, have been almost
exclusively in sugarcane production. In recent years, decreases in sugarcane prices
and increases in soybean prices have resulted in some conversion of sugarcane lands to
soybean production. Agricultural practices on the terrace north of Lake Pontchartrain
have concentrated largely on production of truck garden crops in relatively small
fields. The Pontchatoula-Hammond area was once considered the "Strawberry Capital
of the World.". While production has decreased in recent years, strawberrie" are still a
major crop in this region. Chickens, dairy cattle, and beef cattle are also important
farm products in the north shore region.

Natural and man7-made processes have altered considerably the distribution and even
the composition of many vegetation associations or habitats within the basin (Plate 6).
The overall trend for all habitats has been a loss of vegetation resulting directly from
extensive land clearing for agricultural production and construction of urban-industrial
complexes and transportation facilities, including extensive borrow pits and canals
associated with road construction ( i.e., 1-10 in St. Charles Parish and 1-55 in
Tangipahoa Parish), oil and gas exploration, navigation, marinas, and waterside
communities.

Other human activities in and adjacent to the basin have ind irectly caused habitat
changes. by affecting the hydrologic and salinity regimes. The stress and destruction
of the cypress-tupelo swamps and destruction or inland displacement of the freshwater
marshes are related directly to saltwater intrusion and salt buildup in the soils (Wicker
.et al. 1981). Recent studies reveal the conversion of approximately 25,000 ac of
swamp and fresh marsh to intermediate and brackish marsh and open water between
1955 and 1978 (Wicker et al. 1980; van Beek et al. 1982). Of this total, 21,000 ac of
baldcypress died and were replaced by fresh-to-intermediate marsh, and an additional
30,000 ac of baldcypress swamps are in a stressed condition (van Beek et al. 1982').
Baldcypress dieback is common where soil salt levels reach 2 ppt or greater, (Wicker et
al. 1981).

Saltwater intrusion has also caused most of the freshwater marshes along the eastern
perimeter of the basin to be replaced by intermediate-to-brackish marshes or open
water. If these trends continue (and they will without implementation of extensive
and comprehensive wetland management projects), the present-day low salinity
marshes will disappear and interior swamps will die, being replaced by more salt-
tolerant marshes and open water.

4-13

Saltwater intrusion and salt buildup in the soils are facilitated by several factors:

1. regional land subsidence and eustatic sea-level rise;
2. disruption of the natural slow surface drainage by the dredging of deep,
straight canals, (i.e., oil and gas canals, drainage canals, and highway canals
and borrow pits) and deposition of continuous, cross-drainage spoil banks;
3. relic logging scars connecting baldeypress swamps with water bodies
experiencing saltwater intrusion;
4. construction of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO) and Inner Harbor
Navigation (IHN) Canals;

5. effective leveeing of the Mississippi River and prevention of regular, seasonal
overbank flooding; and

6. erosion of isthmus marshes and subsequent widening of tidal passes between
Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne.

The construction of the MRGO and IHN Canals and the widening of the tidal passes
permit increased circulation of more saline waters into the lake. The numerous canals
and logging scars in the wetlands, in turn, rapidly conduct the saltier water into the
interior, form.erly freshwater habitats. The canals and logging scars also rapidly direct
freshwater from the uplands and interior wetlands, thereby removing the freshwater
head that could have effectively buffered the impact of the more saline waters and
flushed the salt out of the soil. Prevention of Mississippi River overbank flooding, the
acceleration of the flooding and draining processes, and the short-circuiting of
nutrients and sediments from the wetlands to the canal networks also deprive the
vegetation of the physical, chemical, and biological processes conducive to promotion
of viable habitats (van Beek et al. 1982; Connor and Day 1976).

Virtually all of the natural levee hardwood forests along the Mississippi River have
been cleared for agriculture or development. Many of the former agricultural lands
are now fallow, awaiting development. Most of the bottomland hardwoods along the.
river also have been replaced by cleared land (agricultural and fallow lands) and
developments. Some deStruction of the backswamp along the river corridor is
occurring because of piecemeal land clearing, land filling, and development.

The little fallo w land that remains in the leveed portions of Jefferson and Orleans
Parishes will be developed in the immediate future. A large tract of leveed marsh
undergoing a transition from brackish- to-int erm ediate marsh in the eastern portion of

4-14

Orleans Parish is also a prime candidate for future development. The unleveed,
brackish marshes in eastern Orleans Parish are gradually disappearing because of
erosional processes and piecemeal development and boat slip dredging alonj,,- highways
such as U.S. 90.

Two types of processes -have altered the historic vegetation distribution and
composition on the terrace: lumbering and development. The lumber industry
harvested the longleaf pine and instituted tree farming. Today, this area has two
forest regions; loblolly-shortleaf pine to the west and longleaf-slash pine to the east
(Mixon n.d.). However, both of these tree regions are being displaced rapidly along I-
12 by residential and urban development. Major foci for development are the junctions
of 1-12 and three major roads leading north-I-55, Pontchartrain Causeway, and I-10.
Several parcels of former marshlands in the 1-10 to 1-12 corridor (between the terrace
and Lake Pontchartrain) were leveed and drained for agriculture in the early-to mid-
twentieth century and are now b eing converted to residential communities. A large
tract of land west of Madisonville is undergoing the same process.

Projected Problems

Natural causes responsible for future vegetation loss will be shoreline erosion,
subsidence, and sea level rise. These are natural processes associated with the
degradational phase of an abandoned delta lobe and cyclic climatic changes. With
these processes, vegetationis lost because the vegetated substrate becomes flooded
or erodes. These natural processes are compounded by man-made processes and it is
often difficult to clearly distinguish between natural and man-made cause and effect
relationships, especially with regard to, losses caused by saltwater intrusion.
Vegetation loss to shoreline erosion may be more severe in areas where the natural,
buffering shoreline vegetation has been damaged or destroyed, where the natural slope
of the shoreline has been altered, and where there is heavy boat traffic and
consequently high wave action

Man-made impacts to vegetation composition and distribution will continue to be
extensive and detrimental. The Pleistocene Terrace pine forest will be systematically
removed as residential and industrial development spreads northward along major
transportation arteries. As the well-drained farm and fallow lands along the
Mississippi levee are rapidly developed, there will be increased pressure for piecemeal

4-15

encroachment into the wet bottomland hardwoods and backswamp by means of small
leveed and drained development projects. There will be very intense pressure to
develop wetlands north of the Mississippi River as far as 1-10 and even beyond to the
shores of Lake Pontchartrain. The need to dispose of waste material generated by the
rapidly expanding urban population in this area provides the excuse for sequential
filling of the wetlands. This would create new, well-drained and very valuable land
adjacent to urban areas and well suited for development.

Oil and gas exploration will continue to destroy wetlands directly by canal dredging
and spoil deposition and indirectly by creating new avenues for saltwater intrusion.-
Wetlands will continue to be destroyed as they are developed for water-based
residential and recreational communities, marinas, boat canals, roads, camp sites, and
land fills. Increased boat traffic along the lakeshore will increase wave erosion and
turbidities, and will further damage the submerged aquatics.

Increases in highway borrow pits and drainage and navigation canals will permit saltier
water to intrude further into interior marshes. The demand for better flood
prevention within the basin will result in construction of more drainage ditches to
rapidly remove water from the basin. This will remove the freshwater head in the
interior swamps and marshes that previously buffered the impact of saltwater
intrusion. Consequently, salinities will increase in the soil and surface waters and
destroy the freshwater vegetation, including swamps.

The continued loss of wetlands in the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin is a severe
problem because wetlands are valuable areas which serve a multitude of purposes. By
definition, wetlands are "lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems
where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by
shallow water" (Cowardin et al. 1979:3). In 1978, wetlands consisting of fresh-to-
brackish marshes, swamps, and bottomland hardwoods composed 30% of the proposed
Special Area (excluding Livingston Parish). Historically, such areas were considered to
be wastelands to be ignored on where possible reclaimed for agriculture and
development. Recent surges in environmental awareness, accompanied by research
into the form and function of wetlands, has begun to provide the evidence required to
enlighten attitudes toward the value and necessity of preserving wetlands. Table 4-3
contains examples of some of the services provided by wetlands.

4-16

Table 4-3. Examples of the Functions and/or Utilization of Wetlands.

1. Primary productivity at base of food chain.

2. Watershed protection and maintenance (floodwater storage and groundwater
recharge).

3. "Giant kidneys" which function as a natural hydra-geo-biological water
treatment systeml.

4. Preservation of species diversity.

5. Preservation of rare and endangered species.

6. Sport and commercial renewable resource harvesting via hunting,, fishing,
trapping, and lumbering.

7. General, non-consumptive recreational experiences such as boating, swimming,
hiking, camping, bird watching, nature studies.

8. Enhanced aquaculture production.

9. Outdoor laboratory for study of fundamental interrelationships of physical and
biotic components of 'an ecosystem.

10. An accessible wilderness experience with aesthetic and scenic vistas.

11. Estuarine nursery areas (in low salinity marsh-shallow water areas).

lWharton 1970

4-17

While productivity varies with location and type of habitat, wetlands are among the
most productive of the world's environments (Wharton 1970). Productivitiy
measurements for a swamp compri sed of water tupelo (N aquatica), red maple,
ash, black willow, cypress and buttonbush, in the Blind River area indicated a standing
biomass of 36.2 kg/m2 (Conner et al. 1980). A baldeypress swamp in the LaBranche
area of St. Charles Parish had a standing biomass of 27.8/kg dry wt/m2 (Conner et al.
1980). On the average, studies indicate that the total net primary productivity of a
bottomland hardwood forest in this region ranges from a minimum of 1574 g dry
wt/m2/yr to a 'total of 1933 g dry wt/m2/yr (Conner and Day 1976). Comparison of
productivity figures indicates that the southeastern swamps with flowing water
regimes have the highest forest productivity (Conner and Day 1976).

Fresh marshes (dominated by bulltongue [Sagittaria lancifolial ) in the Pontchartrain
Basin had an average total biomass of 889 g dry wt/m2 (Conner et al. 1980). Brackish
marshes dominated by wiregrass (Spartina patens had an average total biomass which
ranged from 657 g dry wt/m2 to 34.10 g dry wt/m2 (Conner et al. 1980).

When evaluating the relevance or significance of productivity figures, it is important
to realize that green plants are "the ultimate source of all animal food" (van Beek et
al. 1982). Secondary productivity, such as- fish, shellfish, and crabs in water bodies
depends on green plant productivity within and adjacent to the water bodies. For this
reason, high productivity of fish and shellfish areas near tidal wetlands and in riverine
systems is directly related to the primary productivity levels of green plants within
the wetlands and water bodies. The destruction of wetlands, therefore, win decrease
primary productivity, which will in turn reduce secondary productivity which
translates into a reduction in harvestable renewable resources such as fish, shrimp,
crabs', and shellfish.

Possible Solutions

The two major threats to vegetation in the proposed Pontchartrain- Maur epas SA are
destruction of vegetation by development activities and spacial displacement of
vegetation communities because of changes in the hydrologic and salinity regimes.

There are several measures which must be taken if the vegetation within the proposed
P ontchar train- Maur epas SA is to be preserved and enhanced. First, there must be a

4-18

clear delineation between those areas which are to be altered for developmental
purposes and those areas which are to be conserved for recreational uses, aesthetic
purposes, fish and wildlife habitat, and a renewable resource base. Second, these
conservation areas must be extensively and intensively managed to enhance their
productivity and to buffer them from negative impacts of human activities in and
adjacent to these developed areas. Such areas must be managed in order to allow
them to continue to function as wildlife habitat, nursery areas, a timber re-source, a
pollution buffer zone for the lakes, a storm buffer for the uplands and fastlands, an
aquaculture site, a recreation area, a floodplain reservoir, and a source of numerous
other renewable resources. In order to do this, there must be a coordinated effort
among the private interests, and local and state agencies to devise a comprehensive,
though somewhat flexible, management plan with clearly defined polices, goals, and
objectives. The local parish and state coastal zone programs provide an initial basis
for such a comprehensive management plan.

Hurricane protection levees have historically served as major boundaries between
developable and renewable resource base areas. Areas, even wetlands, enclosed by
levees are more likely to be developed than those which are outside the protection
levees and subject to storm surges. Therefore, new protection levees should enclose
the minimum area possible.

Some examples of measures that are set forth in local and state coastal zone programs
and that can be taken to achieve goals and objectives for wetland conservation yet
allow adequate development in suitable areas are:

1. Prevent leveeing and draining of wetlands for development (confine
development to'uplands and existing fastlands).

2. Curtail, as much as possible, new canal dredging by encouraging directional
drilling and board road construction. Plug or construct water management
control structures in abandoned canals.

3. Stabilize eroding shorelines in an environmentally sound manner such as with
vegetation plantings or flow-through structures (matting materials).

4. R,ehabilitate deteriorating wetlands through wetland management p:@ograms.

5. Prevent deposition of spoil banks which would disrupt natural drainage,
impound water, and destroy wetlands.

4-19

6. Encourage wise (i.e. sustained yield) renewable resource harvesting and
maintenance of wetlands.
7. Implement public acquisition of particularly valuable wetland areas for
conservation, wildlife habitat, and public access.

8. Minimize new pipeline and power transmission corridors.
9. Improve water quality (including lowering man-generated turbidity).
10. Improve public awareness of coastal ecosystem functions and value in order
to enhance proper land utilization.
11. Increase freshwater, nutrient, and sediment input to basin wetlands (i.e.,
sustained freshwater diversion).

12. Prevent saltwater intrusion and its negative environmental impacts on
freshwater systems (through freshwater diversion; wetland management;
moratorium on open, i.e. unplugged or uncontrolled, canals).

Summary and Possible Solutions

The vast majority of the changes in vegetation distribution on both the uplands and
wetlands are directly or indirectly related to human activity. The direct causes
include lumbering and tree farming; land clearing for agriculture and development;
land filling; and dredge and spoil deposition operations relating to oil and gas
activities, marina and harbor development, and water-based recreational community
development. This latter action has also indirectly altered habitat distribution in the
vicinity of the activity within the wetland areas by altering the hydrologic and salinity
regimes. At present the wetland plant communities in the region are trying to
readjust their spatial distribution according to new hydrologic and salinity parameters.
However, given the present circumstances of increasing salinity, subsidence, shoreline
erosion, lack of sediment, nutrient and freshwater input, and continued development,
there can only be continued deterioration and loss of wetland vegetation communities.

Loss of wetland habitats diminishes to the point of extinction the ability of the
Pontchartrain-Maurepas region to support a renewable resource base which includes
timber, furbearers, crabs, shrimp, fish, alligators, waterfowl and numerous non7-game
wildlife and fisheries species. By failing*to maintain and effectively utilize wetlands
to provide storm buffer zones and waste water treatment areas, lakeside communities
will be forced to either cease utilizing the lakes and rivers for recreational purposes,

4-20

such as swi mming and fishing, or to expend enormous sums of money to improve water
quality and maintain storm levees and pumping stations.

Strict adherance to the guidelines for granting permits and attaching conditions as
contained in the Exerpts (Office of Coastal Zone Management and Louisiana Coastal
Resources Program 1980) and implementation of the parishes' goals, objecti.ves, and
policies for the environmental management units within the proposed special area
would alleviate many of the causes for habitat degradation and loss. Specific
recommendatio ns regarding proposed activities can only be devised when the activity
is scrutinized with regard to project need, environmental impact, project alternatives,
and mitigation possibilities. These decisions should be made in consultation with
environmental experts, project proponents, state and local officials, and citizens.

More specific solutions regarding the best ways to alleviate the major problem
confronting vegetation within the proposed Special Area can be categorized according
to the type of vegetation community impacted:

Bottomland Hardwoods

Bottomland hardwoods are a unique and valuable habitat in the region because of their
diminishing area. and their function as a wildlife habitat and renewable resource base.
For this reason, those bottomland hardwoods lying below 5 ft in elevation in the
coastal zone should not be destroyed to make room for other habitat types such as
agriculture and development. They should be managed for renewable resource
production, such as. timber and.furbearers, recreation, and green-tree floodwater
reservoirs.

Any temporary destruction of vegetation, such as for oil and gas exploration or
production or for lumbering should be monitored so as to prevent unnece3sary soil
erosion and pollutant discharge in the area's water suply. Pollutants associated with
oil and gas activities should be contained to prevent destruction of vegetation around
the well site. Alterations to the site of aptivity which would impact surface hydrology
and stress or destroy adjacent vegetation should also be prevented.

4-21

Swamps

Swamps are well adapted to long-term hydroperiods and freshwater. To insure their
survival, the natural hydrologic conditions must be maintained. Soil water salinities
must not go above 2 ppt and fluctuating, rather than permanently high, standing water
levels, must be sustained.

Cross-drainage impediments, such as on-grade roads, levees, -and spoil banks, without
adequate hydraulic crossings must be prohibited in order to prevent permanent
impounding of water on the upflow side and the eventual destruction of the vegetation.
Sediment deposition which covers the roots and portions of the trunks of wetland trees
must also be prevented to avoid wetland vegetation destruction.

Lumbering of swamps must be done in an environmentally sound manner with the
surface topography being returned to its p re--lumbering condition. Logging canals,
especially those connected with water bodies subject to sa Itwater intrusion, should be
permanently plugged if not refilled. This action also prevents rapid drainage of the
swamp and eventual displacement of swamp vegeta tion because of lowered water level,
conditions. Spoil banks along abandoned logging canals, abandoned roads and railroads,
or other ebankments should also be graded to prevent water impoundment and to
encourage pre-lumbering overland flow. These same actions should be taken in
swamps were mineral exploration and production is occurring.

Water from rivers and uplands should be encouraged to flow slowly through the swamps
to the lakes and rivers rather than rapidly short-circuited out of the wetlands via
drainage (or so-called flood protection) canals. Overland surface drainage increases
wetland plant productivity and provides time for harmful substances, if present, to be
removed from the water before it reaches aquatic habitats where it could degrade
water quality. Sediment and nutrients retained in the wetlands can aid the wetlands in
maintaining their surface elevation through enhancement of vegetation growth and
peat production while preventing the overloading or eutrophication of the aquatic
systems.

Fresh Marshes

Fresh marshes, once established, can withstand very long-term, standing water
conditions. However, if vegetation is destroyed, the marsh can be recolonized by

4-22

emergent plants only if the substrate is exposed to air during the period of seed
ger m-ination. Furthermore, optimum salinity ranges for fresh marshes are 0 to 2 ppt,
but generally less than 0.5 ppt (van Beek et al., 1982, Cowardin et al. 1979).

Under these circumstances, fresh marshes in the Pontchartrain Basin can be
maintained only if salinities are ke pt below 2 ppt and water levels can be lowered to
promote seed germination or root attachment in areas where marshes have been
destroyed by natural or man-made causes.

To accomplish this, freshwater must be encouraged to remain on the wetlands to
buffer any intruding saltwater and to fl. ush out salts that reach the area durinor storms.
Canals, therefore, which facilitate saltwater intrusion or the rapid drainage of the
freshwater head from the system must be prohibited; however, if. canals must be built,
they should be isolated from the freshwater wetlands by continuous and permanently
maintained spoil banks. Where possible, these banks should be oriented with the
drainage pattern to prevent overly deep impoundments. Otherwise, a wetland
management plan must be implemented to provide for wetland drainage, revegetation
and reflooding as needed. Temporary canals in fresh marshes, once unneeded for their
original purpose, should be permanently blocked at their junction with other water
bodies and their spoil banks should be graded to marsh level. This is especially
important to prevent the scouring and washing away of the highly organic,
unconsolidated substrate that is often exposed when vegetation is temporarily
destroyed. Because freshwater marshes are disappearing so rapidly in coastal
Louisiana, every concerted effort should be undertaken to actively manage them.
They should be managed in such a manner as to preserve their existence and maximize
their productivity in order to compensate-for their scarcity.

The previous discussion of the necessity of freshwater flow through swamps i's also
applicable to freshwater marshes. Sediment and nutrient impact is essential in aiding
marsh plants to sustain their substrate level in a subsiding, deltaic environment.

Intermediate Marshes

Intermediate marshes with an optimum salinity range of 2 to 5 ppt can withstand
temporary intrusions of higher salinity waters better than freshwater marshes.
However, they also depend on a freshwater flow to buffer the higher salinities and

4-23

prevent build up of salts in their soils. For these reasons, the solutions regarding
preservation of fresh marshes are applicable here.

Brackish Marshes

Brackish marshes, with a' variable optimum salinity range of 5 to 10 ppt for low
salinity brackish and 10 to 15 ppt for high salinity brackish marshes, are subject to
daily tidal inundation (van Beek et al. .1982). They can tolerate a wide range of
salinities but will convert to a saline marsh community if the optimum salinity range
exceeds 15 ppt.

To maintain brackish marshes, canals connecting high salinity water bodies to the
lower salinity marshes should be permanently plugged to prevent saltwater intrusion,
or water control structures should be installed on the canals to regulate the water and
salinity regimes. Spoil banks along the canals should be graded to marsh level where
there is a possibility of water impoundment because of blocked surface drainage or
they should be incorporated into an. actively monitored, long-term, wetland
management program.

If brackish marshes are being managed for fur production, trapping must be extensive
enough to prevent eatouts. Where eatouts or other types of marsh destruction occur,
immediate attempts should be made to revegetate the area or prevent the removal of
the substrate by tidal scour or wave energy until natural revegetation occurs. This
may mean temporary blockage of tidal channels into the area and drawdown of water
levels to enhance revegetation.

While burning is often used to 'encourage production of vegetation preferred by
furbearers and waterfowl, it should be done only in connection with an active wetland
management program. Indiscriminate burning may have detrimental effects on the
marsh, especially with regard to retarding the elevation of the marsh substrate via
organic material accumulation to compensate for subsidence. There should be more
research into the long-term effects of burning.

In. view of the extensive canal and pipeline network already in place in coastal
Louisiana, serious consideration should be given to banning all future canal
construction. New exploration and production for oil and gas should be done from

4-24

existing canals using directional drilling technology or overland board roads where
possible. New developm ent sites which require dredging of canals or draining or filling
of wetlands without adequate mitigation measures should be discouraged or prohibited.
If a parish feels such an activity is essential to economnic growth, the project should
be viewed in terms of immediate and long--term, cumulative impacts in the parish
wetlands and the entire Special Area. The project should be permitted only if it fits
into a comprehensive land use plan and the damage is mitigated by a substantial
contribution to enhancement of other wetland areas in the Special Area.
Developments should not be permitted to adversely affect unique or valuable habitats,
habitats for endangered species, important wildlife or fishery breeding areas, wildlife
management areas.or sanctuaries, or areas utilized by migratory species such as birds
and waterfowl.

Submerged Aquatics

Submerged aquatics in the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin generally occupy areas with
lower salinities, lower turbidities and lower wave energy regimes. The pre-sence of
submerged aquatics under such conditions. provides both food and protection for
aquatic organisms, especially those in the early stage of development (i.e. postlarval
forms). Because of this valuable function, submerged aquatic beds should be! rotected
from destruction due to removal or smothering by canal dredging and spoil deposition.
Water quality must be maintained so that harmful toxins and excessive temperature
ranges, associated with thermal discharges, do not destroy the plants. Excessive
nutrient inputs which accelerate the eutrophication process and restrict light
penetration to the submerged aquatics must also be prevented by strict adherence to
water quality standards.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, C.A.
1945 Louisiana trees and shrubs. Louisiana Forestry Commission Bulletin 1.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 262 pp.

Burk and Associates, Inc.
1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, Tangipahoa Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, St. Tammany Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, Livingston Parish. Prepa red for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, St. John the Baptist Parish. Prepared for
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, St. Charles Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, Jefferson Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, Orleans Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Chabreck, R.H.
1972 Vegetation, water, and soil characteristics of the Louisiana coastal region.
Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. Bulletin No. 664. 72 pp.

Chabreek, R.H. and G. Linscombe
1978 Vegetative type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes. Louisiana Wildlife
and Fisheries Commission, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Conner, W.H. and J.W. Day, Jr.
1976 Productivity and composition of a baldcypress-watertupelo site and a
bottomland hardwood site in a Louisiana swamp. American Journal of
Botany 64:1354-1364.
Conner, W.H., G.W. Cramer, and J.W. Day', Jr.
1980 Vegetation of the north shore marshes and west shore swamps of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Louisiana Academy of Science 43:139-145.

4 26

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe
1979 Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.
FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 103 pp.

Craig, N.J. and J.W. Day, Jr.
1977 Cumulative impact studies in the Louisiana coastal zone. Eutrophication
and land loss. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 157 pp.

Cramer, G.W.
1978 A nutrient study in the St. Charles Parish wetlands adjacent to Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Master's Thesis. Louisiana State 'University,
Department of Marine Sciences, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Cramer, G.W. and J.W. Day, Jr.
1980 Productivity of the swamps and marshes surrounding Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana in Stone, J.H., ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses. Prepared for
U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans. Contract No. DACW29-77-C-
0253, Vol 2:593-646. Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Cramer, G.W., J.W. Day, Jr., and W.H. Conner
1981 Productivity of four marsh sites surrounding Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
American Midland Naturalist 106:65-72.

Daigre, Glen
1981 Population density patterns in Louisiana. Louisiana State Planning Office,
State Data Center, State Planning Bulletin 9(l):l, 3-4.

Darnell, R.M.
1958 Food habits of fishes and large invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, an estuarine community. Publications of the Institute of Marine
Science, University of Texas 5:353-416.

1961 Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community, based on studies of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Ecology* 43:553-568.

1964 Organic detritus in relation to secondary production in aquatic communities.
Verhandlungen der Internationalen. Vereinigung fur theoretische und
angewandte Limnologie 15:462-470.

Environmental Laborat ory
1978 Preliminary guide to wetlands of the Gulf coastal plain. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 73 pp.

Faulks, E.B.
1938 Forest resources in the longleaf pine region of Mississippi and east
Louisiana. U.S. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. Forest
Survey Release 39.

4-27

Giles, L.W.
IS68 Relationship of vegetation to salinity in a southeast Louisiana coastal
marsh. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife-River Basin Studies. Jackson,
Mississippi. 24 pp.

Gosselink, J.G. and R.E. Turner
1978 The role of hydrology in freshwater wetland ecosystems. Pages 63-78 in
R.E. Good, D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson, eds. Freshwater wetlan(:9:-
ecological processes and management potential, Academic Press, New York.

Haynes, R.R.
1968 Potamogeton in Louisiana. Proceedings Louisiana Academy of Sciences
31:82-90.

Hinchee, R.E.
1977 Selected aspects of the biology of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana 1.
Simulation of man's effects on the Lake Pontchartrain food web, 2. The role
of the St. Charles, Parish marsh on the life cycle of the Gulf menhaden, 3.
The fishery value of the St. Charles Parish marsh. Master's Thesis,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 74 pp.

Lemaire, R. J.
1960 Preliminary report of marsh vegetation study, Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet
Navigation Project, Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. Prepared
for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. Branch of River Basin Studies, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. Unpublished.

Mancil, E.
1972 An historical geography of industrial cypress lumbering in Louisiana.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. 275 pp.

Mixon, J.E.
n.d. Louisiana forest types. Louisiana Forestry Commission, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. Map.

Monte, J.A.
1978 Impact of petroleum dredging on Louisiana's coastal landscape: a plant
biogeographical analysis and resource assessment of spoil bank habitats in
the Bayou Lafourche delta. Ph.D. Dissertation. Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 334 pp..

1984 Personal communication. Botanist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans District, New Orleans.

Montz, G. N.
1970 An ecological study of the flora of east St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 190 pp.

1976 Reports tothe file, Botanical elements. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans District, New Orleans.

4-28

Montz, G. N.
1978 The submerged vegetation of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Castanea
43(2):115-128.

n.d. The submerged vegetation of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Unpublished.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. 17 pp.

Montz, G.N., and A. Cherubini
1973 An ecological study of a baldeypress swamp in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Castanea 38(4):378-386.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1978 Flight request 0754, uncontrolled color in frared photographs, 1:24,000. Oct.
8, 9, 10, 15, 1978. Flights 78-143, 78-144, 78-145, 78-148. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Remote Sensing Operations, Branch,
Remote Sensing Division, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Las Vegas, Nevada.

Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of Commerce and Louisiana
Coastal Resources Program, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
1980 Excerpts from Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. pp. 52-64.

O'Neill, M. E.
1931 An ecological study of the cypress-tupelo community. Master-Is Thesis,
Tulane University, New Orleans. 152 pp.

Palmisano, A. W.
1970 Plant community - soil relationships in Louisiana coastal marshes. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 92 pp.

Palmisano, A. W., Jr., and R. H. Chabreck
1972 The relationship of plant communities and soils of the Louisiana coastal
marshes. Proceedings of the Louisiana Association of Agronomists
13:72-101.

Penfound, W. T.
1944 Plant description in relation to the geology of Louisiana. Proceedings of the
Louisiana Academy of Science 8:25-34.

Penfound, W. T.
1952 Southern swamps and marshe s. Botanical Review 18:313-336.

Penfound, W. T., and E. S. Hathaway
1938 Plant communities in the marshlands of Southeastern Louisiana. Ecological
Monographs 8(l). 55 pp.

Penfound, W. T., and J. A. Howard
1940 A phytosociological study of an- evergreen oak forest in the vicinity of New
Orleans, Louisiana. American Midland Naturalist 23:165-174.

4-29

Perret, W., B. Barrett, W. Latapie, J. Pollard, W. Mock, G.Adkins, W. Gaidry, and C.
White
1971 Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory and study, Louisiana, Phase
1, area description. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, New
Orleans.

Petroleum Information Corporation
1956 Black and white, quad-centered, controlled photo mosaics of study area;
1:24,000. San Antonio, Texas.

Suttkus, R. D.t B. M. Darnell, and J. M. Darnell
1954 Biological study of Lake Pontchartrain. In Annual Report 1953-54, Tulane
University, Department of Zoology. 59 pp.

Turner, R. E., B. M. Darnell, J. R. Bond
1980 Changes in the submerged macrophytes of Lake Pontchartrain
(Louisiana): 1954-1973. In J. H. Stone ed., Environmental analysis of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiani-, its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses.
Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rougeq
Louisiana. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans,
Contract No. DACW29-77-C-02-53 Vol 2:647-657.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
1969 A forest atlas of the South. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New
Orleans, Louisiana, and Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville,
North Carolina. 27 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey
1982 Thematic Mapper Scene, 36" x 36" CIR print 40142-16003, Dee 5, 1982.
Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

van Beek, J.L. , D.J. Davis, R.E. Emmer, S.A. Hsu, I.A. Mendelssohn, D.S. Sabins, C.L.
Wax, K.M. Wicker
1980 An introduction to the environmental literature of the Mississippi Deltaic
Plain Region. FWS/OBS-79/30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C.: pp. 142-163.

Wharton, C.H.
1970 The southern river swamp - A multiple-use environment. Bureau of Business
and Economic Research, School of Business Administration, Georgia State
University, Atlanta, Georgia. 48 pp.

White, D. A.
1979 Plant communities of the Lower Pearl River Basin, Louisiana. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.

4-30

White, D. A.
1983 Plant communities of the Lower Pearl River Basin, Louisiana. American
Midland Naturalist 110(2):381-396.

Wicker, K. M.
1980 Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region ecological characterization: a. habitat
mapping study. A User's Guide to the habitat maps. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/07.

1982 Historical map and photographic study, vicinity of 1-310 (Alternate- 6B), St.
Charles Parish, Louisiana. Prepared for Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development by Coastal Environments, In(!., Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. 13 pp. 3 plates.

Wicker, K. M., D. Davis, M. DeRouen, D. Roberts
1981 Assessment of extent and impact of saltwater intrusion into the wetlands of
Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. Prepared for Tangipahoa Parish Police Jury
by Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 59 pp. 5 plates.

Wicker, K. M.2 et al.
1980 The Mississippi deltaic plain region habitat mapping study. 464 maps. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-119/07.

Winters, R. K. and G. B. Ward, Jr.
1934 Forest resources of Louisiana. U. S. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station. 74 pp.

CHAPTER 5: FL13H AND WILDLIFE IN THE
PROPOSED PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA

Abstract

The coastal zone within the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin includes over one minion
acres with an abundant, diverse, and important fish, waterfowl, and wildlife resource
base. Habitat varies from upland type on the north shore to a strictly freshwater
swamp environment west of Lake Maurepas to an increasingly estuarine tidal system
of brackish marshes on the eastern end of Lake Pontchartrain. The fish and wildlife
resources are presently being stressed and impacted by wetland loss due to subsidence,
erosion, dredge and fill, and drainage. Grassbeds are being reduced. Possible solutions
to restoring, enhancing, or rehabilitating these losses include freshwater diversion
from the Mississippi River, public acquisition of critical areas, development controls,
and enforcement of water qualitystandards.

Introduction

The proposed Pontchartrain-Maurepas Special Area (SA) is that portion of the larger
Pontchartrain Basin that lies within the Louisiana coastal zone. The special area
encompasses over one million acres with an abundant, diverse, and impressive fish and
wildlife resource base. Upland habitat exists in the form of over 80,000 ac of mixed
pine hardwood forest within the pra irie terraces of the Florida parishes and as remnant
stands of natural levee hardwood forest along the Mississippi River. Agricultural and
pasture lands are heavily interspersed in bot h these upland regions. However, between
the Mississippi River on the west and south, and the upland terrace formation to the
north lies an extensive system of low-lying wetlands and large water bodies which
serves as a large catchment for all the waters that- are routed through the
Pontchartrain drainage basin into Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and finally
through tidal passes into Lake Borgne and Mississippi Sound.

The waters of the system flow along an elevational and salinity gradient which
generally runs west to east. Water salinities increase from a strictly freshwater
environment west of Lake Maurepas to increasingly estuarine tidal conditions in Lake
Pontchartrain. 'Whereas tidal influence is slight to nonexistent in the wetlands to the
west of Lake Maurepas, tidal energy within the Rigolets and Chef Menteur Pass on the

5-2

east shore is substantial. These environmental gradients produce a variety of wetland
and aquatic habitats with important fish and wildlife resources. Surrounding Lake
Maurepas and along the western shore of Lake Pontchartrain a vast expanse of
baldcypress-tupelogum swamp of almost 260 sq mi forms the predominant habitat.
Other forested wetlands, including bottornland hardwood forest, form the lower flank
of the Mississippi River natural levee but have diminished substantially (28%) in the
last 30 years. Eastward of the Bonnet Carre spillway on the south shore and
Mandeville on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, marsh environments with salinity
regimes ranging from fresh to brackish are the principal wildlife habitats. The waters
of Lake Maurepas, Lake Pontchartrain, and inflowing vicinity streams support a varied
fish and shellfish resource including resident freshwater forms, estuarine dependent
seasonal species, and a few strictly marine-seasonal transients. Several species are of
sport and commercial interest.

This chapter provides an overview of important fish and wildlife resources within the
proposed SA. It will point out some of the more unique and valuable resources, discuss
the pertinent problems related to fish and wildlife resources in the area at present,
attempt to bring out future projected problems, and suggest some possible mitigation

measures.

Fish and Wildlife Resources

WU(Ilife

Baldcypress swamps, which are extensive in the proposed SA, provide important
nesting, brood rearing, and wintering habitat for the Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), a
resident species that is dependent on tree cavities for nest sites (Bellrose 1976;
Sincock et al. 1964). Wood Duck populations are increased in fall and winter months
with the arrival of migrants from nesting areas in midwestern and northeastern states.
A variety of other waterfowl, particularly Mallards (.Anas platyrhynchos), also utilize
swamp forest as wintering areas. As overflow bottomland hardwood areas continue to
diminish in areal extent in Louisiana,(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1979),
swamp forest will likely increase in importance to these waterfowl species. The
USFWS has mapped important biological resources such as waterfowl concentration
areas, wading bird rookeries, and seabird nesting sites .within the Mississippi Deltaic
Plain (Garofalo 1982). The large area of baldeypress swamp south of Lake Maurepas
and extending to the swamps northwest of Lake Pontchartrain has been mapped as an

5-3

important waterfowl concentration area (Plate 7) and has been identified as one of 10
key waterfowl wetland units in Louisiana in the Category 9 (Central Gulf Coast)
system of the USFWS earmarked for preservation and protection (USFWS 1982). On
the average over 60,000 dabbling ducks winter here annually USFWS (1982).

Other avian species utilizing swamp forests to a large degree include wading birds such
as herons, egrets, and ibises which feed largely on small fish and crustacean
populations in shallow water areas. Great Egrets (Casmerodius albus) and Great Blue
Herons (Ardea herodias) commonly nest in swamp forests, and the White Ibis
(Eudocimus albus) is known to nest. in substantial numbers in some years in the
baldcypress swamps of, Tangipahoa Parish (Lowery 1974a; Portnoy 1977). Several
wading bird rookeries of. these species have been identified within the swamp forests
adjacent to Lake Maurepas within the proposed SA (Plate 7) totalling several thousand
birds (Portnoy 1977).

The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is an endangered species in Louisiana and
finds suitable nest sites within baldcypress swamps. Important nest site requirements
usually include tall, mature trees for nest construction, an unobstructed view for
perching, and nearby large, open water bodies for fishing (Dugoni 1980). Three active
nest sites of the Bald Eagle have been identified within the swamps adjacent to Lakes
Maurepas and Pontchartrain (Plate 7).

In addition to these unique wildlife resources, the baldcypress: swamps also provide
important sport hunting for game mammals, including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus , swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus , gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
and fox squirrel (Sciurus !nj!Ker). Important furbearers utilized in the commercial fur
industry include nutria (Myocastor coypus , raccoon (Procyon lotor), and mink (.Mustela
vison). During the early part of this centu ry, mink were particularly abundant and
heavily trapped in the cut-over swamps around Lake Maurepas (Palmisano 1971), but
populations have since declined considerably.*

Natural levee forests along the Mississippi River have been almost totally cleared and
converted to agricultural, residential, and industrial land-use practices. They no
longer constitute a major component of wildlife habitat within the proposed SA. A
relatively small band of bottomland hardwood forest exists along the lower flank of
the Mississippi River natural levee, although the extent of this ha bitat has been

5-4.

drastically reduced in Louisiana within the last 20 years (USFWS 1979). Bottomland
hardwoods are some of the most highly productive wildlife habitats in the state
(Yancey 1970). Carrying capacities are generally high for game mammals, such as
white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, and swamp rabbit. These seasonally
inundated forested areas also provide feeding, nesting, and brood rearing habitat for
Wood Ducks and wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. The woodcock ",Philohela
minor) is a popular gamebird which also finds suitable wintering habitat in these moist
woodlands where brushy undercover is available.

Marsh environments are important wildlife habitat within the proposed SA and include
those along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, the marshes upriver from New
Orleans in St. Charles Parish, the marsh along Pass Manchac between Lake Maurepas
and Lake Pontchartrain, and those on the.south shore east of New Orleans. The marsh
habitats vary from fresh-to- intermediate to brackish by salinity regime and vegetation
type (Chabreck and Linscombe 1978).

Fresh marshes usually occur at slightly lower elevations and are subject to more
frequent flooding than adjacent swamp forests. Water salinities in the fresh marsh
vegetative type have been reported.to range up to 6 parts per thousand (ppt) (Chabreck
1972), but typically average less than 2 ppt (Palmisano and Chabreck 1972). Fresh
marsh habitat displays high plant species diversity. Chabreck (1972) reported 93
species occupying the fresh marshes across coastal Louisiana. The high diversity and
low salinity range make fresh marsh habitat valuable for wildlife. In some years the
coastal marshes of Louisiana may winter up to 4,000,000 ducks and 500,000 geese
(Sanderson 1976; Bellrose 1976), which can account for more than two-thirds of the
migratory waterfowl population in the Mississippi Flyway.

The value of fresh marshes in southeastern Louisiana is exemplified by the fact that
about 65% of the puddle ducks recorded here in some years utilize this vegetative type
(Palmisano 1973). Important environmental factors influencing waterfowl. usage of
winter habitat include water depth, food availability, distribution of aquatic habitat,
climatic conditions, andsoil and water salinity (Chabreck et al. 1974; Chabreck 1979).
Tradition can also be important because areas presently in use are generally those that
have been used in the past. However, continued use during the winter is dependent
upon habitat quality and particular preferences of individual species (Chabreck 1979).
The several species of waterfowl that annually winter in Louisiana have varying food

5-5

preferences, water depth requirements, and pond size needs. The fresh marsh type
appears to meet the various requirements to the greatest extent.

Fresh marshes are also important for commercial furbearers. Although catch records
are not always completely indicative of population levels due to variations in trapping
techniques and intensity of effort, fresh marsh evidently produces the highest mean
and maximum harvests of nutria and mink, as well as the greatest maximum catches of
raccoon (Palmisano 1973). The nutria is the most important furbearer in Louisiana in
terms of number of animals harvested and total monetary value to the trapper, having
overtaken the muskrat in this regard in the early 1960s (Lowery 1974b).

Since the 1960s, alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) populations have increased
continually through protection, research, and management efforts of the Louisiana
Department of WilcUife and Fisheries (LDWF) (O'Neil and Linscombe 1977). A legal
harvest season now takes place each fall throughout coastal Louisiana. The estimated
population by 1977 was about 92,000 inthe subdelta marshes, with fresh marsh holding
41.4% of the alligators present (McNease and Joanen 1978). The substantial nutria
populations in fresh marsh are an important food source for alligators (McNease and
Joanen 1977) and contribute to the value of this vegetative type as alligator habitat.

Fresh marshes also serve as valuable feeding and nesting areas for wading birds.
Species most commonly present include the Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), Great Egret
(Casmerodius albus), Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis), Little Blue Heron (Florida cerulea),
and Yellow-crowned Night Heron (Nyctanassa violacea) (Portnoy 1977). Most wad ing
bird nest sites in fresh marsh habitats are associated with adjacent shrub or swamp
forest outliers that project into the marsh proper.

Marshes of intermediate salinity represent an ecotone or transition zone between the
fresh and nonfresh marshes and usually make up only a small percentage of the total
acreage of marsh. The relatively low salinity range (2 to 5 ppt) and high plant
diversity contribute to its value as wildlife habitat. Per acre, intermediate marsh
receives high utilization by waterfowl in southeastern Louisiana and also produces
substantial yields of nutria and mink (Palmisano 1973). In addition, intermediate
marsh supports substantial alligator populations in southeastern Louisiana (McNease
and Joanen 1978).

5-6

Seaward of intermediate marsh, higher water salinities and increased tidal energy lead
to establishment of brackish marsh. This marsh type has a wide range of salinities,-
with Chabreck (1972) reporting a range for Hydrologic Units I and 11 of about 5 to 15
ppt. Brackish marshes historically have'been the major producer of muskrat
(O'Neil 1949), which constituted the strength of the trapping industry in coastal
Louisiana for many years until the nutria took its place in the 1960s (Lowery 1974b).
Brackish marshes, particularly three-cornered grass (Scirpus olneyi marsh, produce
the maximum yields of muskrat. Brackish marshes within the lower half of the salinity
range (5 to 10 ppt) in southeastern Louisiana support alligator populations at densities
only slightly lower than fresh marshes (McNease and Joanen 1978). Alligator
populations are normally sparse in waters of moderate to high salinities, and nesting is
seldom observed in high salinity, brackish marsh (McNease and. Joanen 1978).
.Evidently, prolonged exposure of newly hatched alligators to salinity levels above
10 ppt can be lethal, although'salinity tolerance tends to increase with age (Joanen and
McNease 1972).

Waterfowl.usage of brackish marshes is not as great as fresh or intermediate types on
a unit basis but is still important because of the large expanse of the brackish type
presen t in southeast Louisiana subdelta marshes (Palmisano 1973). The brackish
vegetative type has the greatest density of ponds and lakes (Chabreck 1972),
increasing its attractiveness to ducks. Widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima) is an
important waterfowl food within the brackish marsh and is most prolific in conditions
of low turbidity and stabilized water levels in shallow, brackish-water ponds (Clhabreck
and Condrey 1979). It also occurs in the extensive grassbeds; along the north shore of
Lake Pontchartrain. These grassbeds, along with the adjacent intermediate-to-
brackish marshes, have been identified as an important waterfowl concentration area
(Garofalo 1982). The inter me diate-to-brack ish marshes of St. Charles Parish within
the proposed S A have also been mapped as an important waterfowl wintering area
(Plate 7). This area is included in the Category 9 (Central Gulf Coast) status as a key
wetland unit needing protection and preservation in the acquisition program of the
USFWS focusing on important waterfowl habitats (USFWS 1982). The area annually
winters an average of 36,000 ducks (USF.WS 1982).

Wading birds and seabirds do. not nest as abundantly in brackish marshes, although
several species do commonly nest on spoil ridges (Portnoy 1977). Within the propos ed

5-7

SA, no wading bird nests or seabird nests were found in any of the marsh environments.
All rookeries were restricted to the forested wetlands (Portnoy 1977; Garofalo 1982).

In addition to the waterfowl resources already mentioned, Lake Pontchartrain is an
important wintering area for Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis), the most abundant diving
duck in Louisiana. Of the Lesser Scaups found wintering in the United States, almost
60% (870,000) occur in the Mississippi Flyway (Bellrose 1976). Of these, over 90%
occur in Louisiana, concentrating in Lake Pontchartrain and Lake* Borgne as we 11 as off
the coast in Gulf waters (Bellrose 1976). Scaups feed primarily on animal matter and
are attracted to the abundant snail and clam populations in Lake Pontchartrain.
Important species associated with various wetland habitats in the SA are listed in

Table 5-1.

Fisheries

The water bodies of Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas predominate an estuarine
system that makes up about 46% of the total proposed SA. The aquatic resources of
the area are diverse and substantial and support both sport and commercial fisheries
and the clamshell dredge industry.

The most recent analysis of the Lake Pontchartrain fish community found a total of 85
species inhabiting the lake either as permanent or seasonal residents (Thompson and
Verret 1980). The bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) was the most abundant species taken
during this study. Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), menhaden (Brevoortia
patronus , tidewater silverside (Menidia beryllinas). Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli),
.... .. .. _ I
and sea catfish (Arius felis) were other a bundant species taken (Thompson and Verret
1980). The 10 most abundant species comprised about 90% of the fish population. The
fish community is transient in nature and is dominated by temporary species that move
into the lake for one to several months and then emigrate from the lake (Thompson
and Verret 1980). Some species can be found in the lake during the entire year but
normally part of their population is entering or leaving the lake. These species, which
include bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, and menhaden, are called long-term, periodic,
or semi-resident species (Thomp son and Verret 1980; Suttkus 1954, 1956) and dominate
the lake fish fauna..

5-8

Table 5-1. Typical Wetland Habitats and Important Floral and Faunal Species Within
the Pon tchar train- M aurepas SA.

Habitat Flora Fauna.

Bottomland Hardwoods Hackberry, Green Ash, White-tailed deer,
Red Maple, Boxelder, Grey Squirrel,
Water Oak, Sweetgum Fox Squirrel,
Swamp Rabbit,
Overcup Oak, Nuttall Oak, Raccoon, Mink,
Cottonwood, Sycamore Migratory Waterfowl
(Dabbling Ducks)

Swamp Baldcypress, Water Tupelo White-tailed Deer,
Swamp Blackgum, Swamp Nutria, Great Blue
Maple Heron, Little Blue
Heron, Whitelbis,
Cattle Egret,
Migratory Waterfowl
(Dabbling Ducks),
Wood Ducks, Raccoon,
Swamp Rabbit,
Prothonotary Warbler,
Alligator, Bald Eagle

Fresh Marsh Sawgrass, Bulltongue, Nutria, Mink, Alligator,
Maidencane, Cattail River Otter, Little
Spikerush Blue Heron, Migratory
Waterfowl (Dabbling
Ducks)

Intermediate Marsh Wiregrass, Bulltongue, Alligator, Nutria,
Three-cornered grass, River Otter,Muskrat,
Flatsedge Migratory Waterfowl
(Dabbling Ducks)

Brackish Marsh Wiregrass, Three-cornered Muskrat,
grass, Leafy Three Square, Migratory waterfowl
Saltgrass, Blackrush (Dabbling Ducks)

Open Water Widgeongrass, Migratory Waterfowl
(Lake Pontchartrain) Wild celery Brown Shrimp, White
Shrimp, Blue Crab,
Rangia Clam,
Menhaden, Bay
Anchovy, Atlantic
Croaker, Spotted
Seatrout (Speckled
Trout), Red Drum
(Redfish), Blue
Catfish, Tidewater
Silverside, Gulf
Pipefish, Sheepshead
Minnow, Spot, Sea
Catfish

5-9

Lake Pontchartrain and its surrounding grassbeds and wetlands serves as,an important
nursery ground for many estuarine-dependent species. In the study by Thompson and
Verret (1980) 47 species of fishes (many of commercial significance) were found in
Lake Pontchartrain as young or immature stages. In addition, 36 species of young or
immature fishes were taken in the surrounding marshes. Nine species of marine fish
were found in the lake only as young or small juveniles on a transient basis. This
recruitment of young into the lake results in changes in distribution and abundance of
the fish community. Abundant species showing this pattern include bay anchovy',
Atlantic croaker, menhaden, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), sea catfish, mullet (MypLl
cephalus , sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), and spotted seatrout (Cynoscion
nebulosus) (Thompson and Verret 1980). Spotted seatrout (or speckled trout) were
found to move into the lake as young between June and Se ptember and were found
exclusively in grassbeds along the lake shoreline. They tend to use these grassbeds
throughout summer and fall and then move into the more open lake body (Thompson
and Verret 1980).

That portion of the fish community endemic to freshwater environments also showed
seasonal change in Lake Pontchartrain. The blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) provides
an important commercial fishery in Lake Maurepas and surrounding freshwaters and
extends its range seasonally into Lake Pontchartrain. Blue catfish are most abundant
in Lake Pontchartrain during the colder, less saline periods and then move back into
Lake Maurepas and tributary rivers when salinities and temperatures increase in late
spring and summer (Thompson and Verret 1980).

Invertebra te shellfish species also utilize the Lake Pontchartrain estuarine system and
provide important sport and commercial fisheries. Both brown shrimp (Penaeus
aztecus) and white shrimp (Penaeus seitiferus) were taken at trawl and seine stations
by Thompson and Verret (1980) but in relatively low numbers. Spawning of these
crustaceans takes place offshore in Gulf waters and postlarval forms enter the estuary
through the tidal passes. Adult brown shrimp were taken between May and August and
adult white shrimp between July and September (Thompson and Verret 1980). Blue
crabs (Callinectes sapidus) form the m9st important commercial fishery in the lake;
they are present in the lake year-round but are most abundant in summer and early
fall. Subsequent to mating in the lake, females migrate to higher saline waters.
Young, immature crabs begin migrating into the lake and estuary the following spring.
The grassbeds are evidently important nursery areas for both shrimp and crabs.

5-10

Food habit analyses have been performed on Lake Pontchartrain fishes by Darnell
(1961) and more recently by Levine (1980). Lake. Pontchartrain is an open system and
food habits are generally broad based and somewhat opportunistic in nature. Darnell
(1961) made the following points: (1) Phytoplankton and vascular plant material was
utilized directly by f ew species. (2) Organic detritus was used to some extent by
almost all consumer groups and was used more consistently than any other food
category. (3) Zooplankton is ingested by immature stages of consumers. (4) Small and
large bottom animals and fishes were taken in large quantity by a variety of species.
Many consumers fed from several different categories during any given period of time.
(5) No sharp dividing lines existed between consumers of different categories. Darne 11
(1961) noted that abundant fish and invertebrate species tended to fall into one of two
groups: one fed largely on organic detritus and included such species as rangia clam
(Rangia cuneata), striped mullet, menhaden, and white shrimp; the second included
species that were very omnivorous with a wide range of food tolerance.
Representatives of this group include sea catfish, bay anchovy, spot, Atlantic croaker,
and blue crab.

Although Levine (1980) agreed generally with Darnell's assessment, he did not think
organic detritus was as important in the food web. Two prey-predator pathways that
were much broader than Darnell's and not mutually exclusive were described by Levine
(1980). The first is based on six major benthic and infaunal taxa: polychaete worms;
mollusks; the xanthid crab, Rhithropanopeus harrisii chironomid larvae; amphipods;
and the isopod, Cyathura 221!La. Each was fed upon by at least 10 fish species (Levine
1980). The second pathway is based on taxa associated with the water column:
mysids, copepods, decapods, and fishes. Levine (1980) shows a higher dependence on
mollusks.

Crabs, shrimp, and catfish are the dominant species making up Lake Pontchartrain's
commercial fishery. In most years the blue crab fishery is the largest in Lake
Pontchartrain in both poundage and monetary value, with an annual average catch of
over 800,000 pounds worth about $130,000 per year (Thompson and Stone 1980). The
Lake Pontchartrain shrimp fishery utili?:es both white and brown shrimp. Between
1965 and 1975 the average shrimp catch was 129,000 pounds and averaged $45,500 in
worth. These figures for both crabs and shrimp are definitely underestimates of the
actual harvest and monetary worth, because a substantial local fishery, both
commercial and recreational in nature, exists around Lake Pontchartrain. Thousands

5-11

of individuals fish part-time for shrimp and crabs and much of this catch is sold
locally, and such catch data never reach landing statistics.

Important commercial fish species include blue catfish, red drum, and spotted
seatrout. The catfish harvest is predominant in Lake Maurepas and the western shore
of Lake Pontchartrain, while the eastern section of Lake Pontchartrain consists mostly
of spotted seatrout, red drum, and, to an extent, alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula).
Total fish catch from 1963 to 1975 averaged 86,447 pounds worth on the average
$18,821 (Thompson and Stone 1980). In 11 of 13 years, catfish were the dominant
species in the fish harvest of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain.

The benthic community of Lake Pontchartrain is an important component in the
aquatic system forming an important part of the overall food web complex. The shell
of one species, rangia clam (Rangia cuneata), is commercially harvested by hydraulic
dredge for a variety of on-land uses as well as in-water uses such as oyster reef
creation and maintenance.

A macrobenthic survey of the lake revealed.a list of 24 species or groups identified
from 104 samples collected at 85 stations throughout Lake Pontchartrain (Bahr et
al. 1980). The mean number of organisms per sample was 3116 per sq mi. Eight
species comprised 97% of the samples. The general conclusion from the survey was
that the majority of the lake bottom was relatively sparse in terms of species richness
and density of organisms (Bahr et al. 1980). It became apparent that the edge of the
lake supported a much denser benthic fauna than the interior. One of the more
striking features of the survey showed that a distinctive size difference exists between
rangia clams in the open lake and those at the edge (between .25 and 1 km from shore).
Where shell dredging is,prohibited, shallow areas were dominated by large rangia
(30 mm and above), but clams larger than 10 mm were rare at the 85 open lake
stations. The distribution of rangia is shown in the atlas.

The generally poor condition of the benthic community was believed to represent a
historic decline (Bahr et al. 1980). Statist,ical analyses of the macrofaunal distribution
in relation to various factors including dredging intensity, time of collection,
conductivity, organic carbon, and sediment distribu tion showed different species
sensitive to different parameters. However, when taken together, the distribution was
best accoun ted for by intensity of dredging.

5'12'

The ef fects of hydraulic dredging include the production of fluid mud and lowered
sediment bulk densities. This in turn creates a situation in which sediments can be
more easily resuspended by wind and wave action. It is likely that this phenomenon
has played a role in the increased turbidity levels in Lake Pontchartrain and the
resulting reduction in grass beds. The res uspended sediments also are more likely to
contain particular contaminants whose impact on the biological system is not yet well
understood (Sikora et al. 1981). Primary production in the water column is reduced
and a benthic community of low biomass and diversity is maintained. Therefore, less
food is provided fof benthic-feeding fish and crabs (Sikora et al. 1981). DNR is
preparing to contract for another study of the shell dredging activities in the lakes
which hopefully will settle the impact issues.

Present and Projected Problems

The abundant fish and wildlife resources of the proposed Lake Pontchartrain SA are
presently being stressed and impacted by both natural and man-induced causes. Below
is a discussion of the primary problems now facing.these resources with projections
made where feasible.

Wetland Transition and Loss

Between 1956 and 1978 fresh.marsh habitat was reduced from nearly 65,000 ac to
43,400 ac, a reduction of 33%. Some of this change is actual marsh loss--that is,
transition of marsh to open water-while part of the change is transition of fresh
marsh to intermediate and brackish marshes due to increases in salinity regimes.
Total acreage of marsh of all types was reduced by about 17,000 ac between 1956 and
197.8. Although difficult to detect on a lakewide basis, a slowly increasing salinity
regime is causing transitions of wetlands and, in some -cases, marsh breakup. Fresh
marsh is valuable habitat for waterfowl and furbearers, and its loss is a major problem.
In addition to saltwater intrusion, a great deal of marsh has been impounded and
drained for urban expansion, particularly along the south shore in the New Orleans
region, but recently also along the north, shore. The north shore marshes appear on
aerial photography to be experiencing substantial transition to open water. Although
the causes are unclear, natural subsidence of the marsh substrate in this region may be
exacerbating the salinity intrusion problem, resulting in transition to open water.

5-13

In addition to being important wildlife habitats, marshes also are important nursery
grounds for a variety of estuarine-dependent fish of which some are important
commercially. Marsh also supplies the Lake Pontchartrain system with detrital input.
Detritus forms an important part of the aquatic food chain for various consumer
species. Although the fish population of Lake Pontchartrain is believed to still be
moderately healthy (Thompson and Verret 1980), modeling of the system's energy
pathways indicates that fish populations may have declined by as much as 49% since
the turn of the century because of loss of marsh wetlands (Stone and Deegan 1980).
The projected continuing loss of wetlands surrounding Lake Pontchartrain will have
serious results. Fish and wildlife populations will be drastically reduced if marsh
losses are not slowed.

The baldeypress-tupelogum swamps bordering Lake Maurepas are being stressed by
salinity intrusion and. have shown transition in some areas to marsh habitats (Wicker et
al. 1981).

The construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has evidently increased peak
salinities in the Pass Manchac area such that those swamps are being stressed and are
dying. Salinity-stressed areas are also showing up within the forested wetlands just
south of Lake Maurepas (van Beek et al. 1982). Between 1956 and 1978, about 21,000
ac of swamp in the proposed SA have been lost to primarily salinity intrusion and urban
development. In this same time period, bottomland hardwoods have been reduced by
28%, mostly because of encroachment of the natural levee of the Mississippi River by
industrial expansion, agriculture, and urban developments. These forested wetlands
are important wintering areas for waterfowl, support viable populations of game
mammals such as whit&-tailed deer, provide nesting sites for the federally endangered
Bald Eagle, and are important colonial nesting habitats for various wading birds.
Continuing loss of these wetlands will greatly reduce the abundance and diversity of
wildlife resources in the region.

Po ssible Solutions

1. Provide for freshwater diversion from the Mississippi River into the
Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin.
2. Establish growth lines to protect wetlands from encroachment of development.
3. Acquire critical areas for public ownership.

5-14

Loss of Grassbeds

Since 19543, the grassbeds of Lake Pontchartrain, composed primarily of widgeongrass
(Rappia mantima) and wild.celery (Vallisneria americana), have evidently been re -duced
in extent by approximately 25%. This reduction is especially evident along the south
shore of the lake in the New Orleans area. Although it is unclear why there has been a
grassbed decline, a variety of reasons have been offered. The turbidity of the lake
waters has increased 62% since 1953 (Stone 1980). Other salient factors include urban
expansion, modification of the lake shoreline, marsh impoundment and drainage, and
slight salinity increases. An increase of pollutants in Lake Pontchartrain waters,
particularly the presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons, could also produce toxic
effects. Shell dredging has also been identified as an important factor in 'increased
turbidities, grassbed reduction, resuspension of contaminated sediments, and lowered
benthic production (Sikora et al. 1981).

The grassbeds, an important component of the region's ecosystem, are quality habitat
for some waterfowl species and spawning sites for a variety of fishes. Perhaps the
major importance lies in their function as quality nursery grounds for young, immature
forms of several estuarine-dependent fish. Several species migrate into the lake as
postlarvae in spring and summer and seek these grassbeds for protective shelter and
food, particularly Speckled trout, which tend to use grassbeds exclusively until the
adult stage is reached. It has been estimated through ecosystem modeling that
grassbeds account for about 26% of the fish production, but their value as nursery
areas far exceeds this (Stone and Deegan 1980). Like all other plant material in the
lake, grassbeds contribute to detritus production, which can be an important link in the
feeding web of both sport and commercial fisheries. The continuing reduction in
extent of these subm@rged aquatic beds will further decrease fish production and win
likely decrease survival of estuarine dependent species using these areas as, nursery
grounds. The result will likely be negative impacts on sport and commercial fishin@ in
the lake.

Possible Solutions

1. Provide for freshwater diversion from the Mississippi River Into the
Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin.

5-15

2. Strictly enforce water quality standards and control activities through and
around the grassbeds.

Population Growth and Urban Expawsion

The population of the New Orleans region and the Pontchartrain Basin in general is
expected to increase by several hundred thousand in the, next few decades.
Accompanying this growth will be an increased need to provide suitable land for urban
and industrial expansion and commerce. As a result, greater pressure to drain and
develop wetlands, which are so important to fish and wildlife resources, will likely be
exerted in the future. Between 1956 and 1978, acreage of residential/indus trial land
expanded from 63,646 ac to 123,R98 ac within the proposed Lake Pontchartrain SA, an
increase of 94%. Such expansion in the future will not only reduce habitat acreage for
fish and wildlife but also increase potential for pollution of remaining wetlands and
basin waters from urban runoff, industrial effluents, storm water discharge in forced
drainage areas, and a general increase in nutrient loading of basin waters. While fish
and wildlife habitat will possibly decline in quantity and quality from these increased
stresses, the demand for sport hunting and sport and commercial fishing will continue
to increase with the expanding population base. Based on projections by USFWS
(1980), demands for all types of sport hunting will surpass supply in terms of potential
man-days provided by 1990 within this portion of Louis iana. The same is true for
saltwater finfishing, sport shrimping, sport crabbing, and sport crawfishing (USFWS
1980). The expected result is that quality of sport fishing and sport hunting will
continue to decline with a reduced fish and wildlife resource base and increasing
hunting and fishing.pressures.

Possible Solutions

1. Establish growth lines to protect wetlands from encroachment of development.
2. Acquire critical areas for public ownership.
3. Strictly enforce water quality standards.

Summary and Possible Solutions

Although fish and wildlife resources within the proposed SA are subject to various
present and projected problem issues, proper management of the Pontchartrain Basin

5-16

can at least partially alleviate some of these deteriorating environmental conditions.
The following are a few possible measures that can be taken to protect and preserve
the resource base.

Freshwater Diversion

Several reports have cited the positive benefits of freshwater diversion in southeastern
Louisiana (USFWS 1980; van Beek et al. 1982; Wicker et al. 1981; Roberts et al. 1983).
Salinity intrusion is evidently playing a major role in the transition of wetland habitats
surrounding the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin. Seasonal and controlled diversion of
freshwater from the Mississippi River into Lake Pontchartrain could relieve salinity
stresses on the baldcypress swamps in the Lake Maurepas area. An area in conjunction
with the Bonnet Carre spillway has been identified as a potential site for the diversion
structure (van Beek et al. 1982). Implementation of freshwater diversion at this site is
expected to maintain salinities below, 2 ppt af Pass Manchac, except possibly under
extreme drought conditions, thereby insuring the maintenance of the baldcypress-
tupelo gum swamps in the region and inh.ibiting further loss of swamplands to saltwater
stress. The commercial fishing for catfish should be enhanced by this diversion as well
as freshwater sportfishing in nearby waters. The St. Charles marshes and the swamps
surrounding Lake Maurepas have been identified as important waterfowl wintering

areas.

Freshwater diversion should enhance these areas as wintering gr ounds- for migratory
waterfowl. The St. Charles marshes would experience a lowered salinity regime with
an increase in the intermediate and fresh marsh types. Conditions would be enhanced
not only for waterfowl but also for furbearers such as nutria and raccoon and game
mammals including white-tailed deer. It is also possible that ongoing deterioration of
the marshes along the north shore from Green Point to Goose Point would be
somewhat attenuated. An increase in the intermediate marsh type would be expected.
Generally freshwater diversion will have the most direct positive effects on wildlife
resources and the freshwater fishery. However, by helping to maintain health of all
wetlands surrounding Lake Pontchartrain, p articularly the marsh habitats, diversion
may also help to maintain detrital import into the lake. This will have a beneficial
effect on all fishing resources.

5-17

Wetland Protection and Preservation

Loss of wetlands in the proposed SA will potentially continue due to development
needs of an expanding population and urban/residential land use. Guidelines that
restrict development of wetland habitats should be established through the SA; for
example, a positive step would be to simply not allow future development in unleveed,
nonfastland wetlands. Alternatively, a line could be established on a map between
nonwetland areas and the lakeshore which would act as a development boundary; in
other words, no impoundment or drainage of wetlands would be allowed between the
line and obvious aquatic habitats. In some way, these wetland areas should be given
protection to insure future fish and wildlife resources.

Aquisition Programs

Both the USFWS and the LDWF are government agencies which have programs that
attempt to aquire title to important wildlife habitats. These programs should be
supported and emphasized within the proposed SA. The Nature Conservancy is a
private, nonprofit organization which also acquires habitat for conservation and is
presently interested in Louisiana.

Enforcement of Water Quality Standards

Chlorinated hydrocarbons and some heavy metals are now being found in the water
column and sediments of Lake Pontchartrain. At present these toxins, are generally
below harmful levels, as published in the guidelines of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). There is potential, however, for biom agnifi cation of some materials in
the food chain to hazardous levels in fish and wildlife, particularly in predators near
the apex of the food web. Strict enforcement of allowable EPA discharge levels of
these materials will minimize negative impacts to fish and wildlife resources and
reduce danger of human consumption of harvestable species. This is difficult at best
for non-point source discharges such as pesticides.

In conjunction with this, the clamshell dredging industry needs continued regulation.
The protected zone around the lake shoreline should be emphatically enforced and
preserved in the future. The degree of dredging should not be based on simply the

5-18

number of dredges working at any one time. Intensity of dredging should be limited by
a maximum volume of discharge and concentration of effluent allowed per permit.

This upper limit should be fixed and established through research such that Lakes
Pontchartrain and Maurepas would be given time for recovery. Clamshell in these
lakes should be recognized as a nonrenewable resource under present conditions and
managed as such.

B113LIOGRAPHY

Bahr, L.M., Jr., J.P. Sikora, and W.B. Sikora
1980 Macrobenthic survey of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, 1978. Pages 659-710
in J.H. Stone, ed. Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana,
X
its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses. Center for Wetland
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. U.S. Army Engineer
District, New Orleans.

Becassio, A.D., N. Fotheringham, A.E. Redfield, et al.
1982. Gulf coast ecological inventory: user's guide and information base.
Washington, D.C. Biological Services Program, U.S. Fish. and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS 82/55. 191 pp.

Bellrose, F.C.
1976 Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Wildlife Management Institute,
Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Chabreck, R.H.
1972 Vegetation, water, and soil characteristics of the Louisiana coastal region.
Louisiana State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 664. 72
PP.

1979 Winter habitat of dabbling ducks-physical, chemical, and biological aspects.
Pages 133-142 in T.A. Bookhout, ed., Waterfowl and Wetlands-an integrated
review. Proceedings of a symposium, Madison, Wisconsin, North Central
Section, The Wildlife Society. 147 pp.

Chabreck, R.H., and R.E. Condrey
1979 Common Vascular Plants of the Louisiana Marsh. Louisiana State
University, Center for Wetland Resources, Sea Grant Publication LSU-T-79-
003.

Chabreck, R.H., and R.G. Linscombe
1978 Vegetative type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes. Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge.

Chabreck, R.H., R.K. Yancey, and L. McNease
1974 Duck usage of management units in the Louisiana coastal marsh.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of
Fish and Game Commissioners 28:507-516.

Darnell, R.M.
1961 Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community, based on studies of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Ecology 42(3):553-568.

Dugoni, J.A.
1981 Habitat utilization, food habits, and productivity of nesting Southern Bald
Eagles in Louisiana. Master's Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge. 151 pp.

5-20

Garofalo, D.
1982 Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region ecological characterization: an ecological
atlas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, office of Biological Services.
FWS/OBS 81/16.

Joanen, T. and L. McNease
1972 Population distribution of alligators with special reference to the Louisiana
coastal marsh zones. American Alligator Council Symposium, Lake Charles,
Louisiana. 12 pp.

Xeller, C.E., J.A. Spendelow, and R.D. Gr eer
1983 Atlas of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in coastal Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama: 1983. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Coastal Ecosystems Team, Slidell, Louisiana.

Levine, S.J.
1980 Gut contents of forty-four Lake Pontchartrain fish species, 1977-78. Pages
899-1030 in J.H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses. C enter of
Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. U,,S. Army
Engineer District, New Orleans.

Lowery, G.H.
1974a Louisiana birds. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
651 pp.

1974b The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent *waters. Louisiana State
University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 565 pp.

McNease, L. and T. Joanen
.1977 Alligator diets in relation to marsh salinity. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
31-.36-40.

McNease, L. and T. Joanen
1978 Distribution and relative abundance of the alligator in Louisiana coastal
marshes. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 32:182-186.

O'Neil, T.
1949 The muskrat in Louisiana marshes. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries
Commission, New Orleans. 152 pp. and Foldout Vegetation Map.

O'Neil, T. and G. Linscombe
1977 The fur animals, the alligator and the fur industry in Louisiana, Louisiana.
Department of'Wildlife and Fisheries, New Orleans. 68 pp.

Palmisano, A. W.
1971 Commercial wildlife work unit report to fish and wildlife study of the
Louisiana coast and the Atchafalaya Basin, Volume 1. Louisiana Wifdlife and
Fisheries Commission, New Orleans. 180 pp.

5-21

Palmisano, A. W.
1973 Habitat preference of waterfowl and fur animals in the Northern Gulf Coast
Marshes. Pages 162-190 in R. H. Chabreck, ed., Proceedings of the Coastal
Marsh and Estuary Maniig-ement Symposium. Louisiana State University,
Division of Continuing Education, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Palmisano, A. W. and R. H. Chabreck
1972 The relationship of plant communities and soils of the Louisiana coastal
marshes. Proceedings of the Louisiana Association of Agronomists 13:72-
101.

Portnoy, J. W.
1977 Nesting colonies of seabirds and wading birds - coastal Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama. Louisiana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit.
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. FWS/OBS-77/07.

Roberts, D. W., D. J. Davis, K. J. Meyer-Arendt, and K. M. Wicker
1983 Recommendations for freshwater diversion to Barataria Basin, Louisiana.
Prepared for Coastal Management Section, Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources by Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Sanderson, G. C.
1976 Conservation of waterfowl. Pages 43-58 in F. C. Bellrose, ed., Ducks,
geese, and swans of North America. 95ackpole Books. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. 540 pp.

Sikora, W. B., J. P. Sikora, and A. M. Prior
1981 Environmental effects of hydraulic dredging for clam shells in Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Coastal Ecology Laboratory, Center for Wetland
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. LSU-CEL-
81-18 140 pp.

Sincock, J. L., M. M. Smith, and J. J. Lynch
1964 Ducks in Dixie. Pages 99-106 in J. P. Linduska, ed., Waterfowl Tomorrow.
U.S. Goverment Printing Office-,Washington, D.C.

Stone, J. H. (editor)
1980 Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, its surrounding
wetlands, and selected land uses. Coastal Ecology Laboratory, Center for
Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans. 2 vols.

Stone, J. H. and L. A. Deegan
1980 Preliminary modeling of the Lake Pontchartrain ecosystem by computer
simulations. Pages 1-20 in J.H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana, its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses.
Center for Wetland Resources, LSU. U.S. Army Engineer District, New
Orleans.

Suttkus, R. D., R. M. Darnell, and J. H. Darnell
1954 Biological study of Lake Pontchartrain - Annual Report (1953-1954). Tulane
University. 59 pp.

5-2.2

Tarver, J. W., and R. J. Dugas
1973 A study of the clam, Rangia cuneata, in Lake Pontchartrain Eind Lake
Maurepas, Louisiana. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission
Technical Bulletin 5. 97 pp.

Thompson, B. A. and J. S. Verret
1980 Nekton of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana and its surrounding wetlands.
Pages 711-864 in J. H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana, its surrounding wetlands and selected ].and uses.
Center for Wetland Resources, 'Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1979 Documentation, chronology, and future projections of bottomland hardwood
habitat loss in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain. Division of Ecological
Services, Vicksburg. 133 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
1980 Mississippi and Louisiana estuarine areas study: A planning-aid report
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans DistAct. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services. Lafayette,
Louisiana. 86 pp.

1982 Central Gulf Coast' Wetlands, Category 9, Migratory Bird Habitat
Preservation Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 103 pp.

van Beek, J. L., D. Roberts, D. Davis, and D. Sabins
1982 Recommendations for freshwater diversion to Louisiana estuaries east of
the Mississippi River. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal
Management Section, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 49 pp.

Wicker, K., D. J. Davis, M. DeRouen, and D. W. Roberts
1981 Assessment of extent and impact of saltwater intrusion into the wetlands of
Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. Coastal Environments, Inc. 59 pp.

Yancey, R. K.
1970 Our vanishing delta hardwoods. Louisiana Conservationist 22:3-4 (reprint).
March-April. 4 p.

CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED

PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS SPECIAL AREA

Abstract

The Lake Pontchartrain Basin is one of the most rapidly developing regions in the
state. Population in the basin is expected to increase significantly during the next 50
years, placing increased stress on an already overburdened estuarine system. Drainage
and fill of wetlands, disposal of hazardous and solid wastes and other pollutants,
resource exploitation, and commercial and recreational use all contribute to the
decline of the estuarine system at the same time they conflict with each other.
Mitigation programs and land use policies must be implemented to prevent further
deterioration of the estuarine system. Point source and non-point sources of pollution
must be controlled and further pollution prevented. Development must be better
planned to reduce adverse impacts. Resource exploitation projects must be
implemented so as not to degrade the environment. Existing standards and regulations
must be strictly enforced.

Introduetion

Definition of System

Development in the context of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Special Area (SA) may be
thought of as an organized unit made up of diverse man-made elements that are
operating together toward some end-that is, a system. Simply, the development
system consists of the structures of urban areas, transportation networks, utilities
infrastructure, oil and gas extraction, and other such changes to the natural
environment needed to serve human need for use of the land.

Odum (1977) defines an industrialized economy model that is appropriate to this
discussion because it defines the three major components with which we are involved
in the study area. These components-urban sector (development), agriculture sector,
and life-support wilderness sector (natu're)-are each present to some degree. The
natural systems of the study area have been discussed previously. The development
system, its relationship to other systems, and its problem areas are discussed in this
chapter.

6-2

The agriculture sector is mentioned where appropriate in relation to development and
and modification of the natural system.

Limits of System

There is virtually no portion of the Pontchartrain- Maur epas Basin of any significant
size that has not felt the impact of development or, under present conditions, is free
from further modification. While highly urbanized areas have been very obviously
changed through development, subtle changes have also taken place in lands lumbered
for pine or cypress resources or used for agriculture. Development, as a system,
varies in intensity of use and in society's commitment to permanence of the
modif ications. The regional growth pressures of increasing population and
industrialization have produced a system evolving from lower to higher intensity uses
and from less to more commitment to permanence. Present growth trends are
expected to continue so that patterns of land-use change observed in the past may be
expected to reoccur in the future.

The development system is limited by broad economic forces and public policy.
Economic forces control rate and time of land-use change and the character of the
change. Public action controls change by expenditure of funds for flood protection and
utility or transportation extension, and institution of zoning, building codes,
permitting, and other such policies and programs. Public actions have an influence on
location, and, to some degree, quality and quantity of change.

Relation of Development to Pontchartrain Region

The Pontchartrain- Maurepas Basin region supports greatly diversified types of
development. At the one extreme is the high density urban center of New Orleans; on
the other extreme are near wild swamplands affected only by past lumber activities
and an occasional camp structure. In between are other highly urbanized areas;
smaller towns; agriculture and forestlands; and wetlands modified by canals, oil and
gas extraction, pipelines, and utility rights-of-way.

-The natural physical characteristics of the region and the human ability-or lack of
ability-to deal with them are major controls to development type. Various land units
such as natural levees, Pleistocene Terraces, swamps, and marshes offer varied

6-3

opportunities and constraints to types of development that might occur on them. One
can readily see that site factors have greatly influenced the form and type of
development that has occurred. Intense and high value development types, such as
urban structures, only move off of the higher lands at great expense for protection
against periodic threat of flood and storm.

Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to review the history of development activities in the
Pontchartrain- Maur epas Basin, to summarize present and potential future problems,
and to present possible solutions for planning actions that may be implemented to
resolve environmental conflicts related to land-use modification. The chapter is
organized sequentially by each of the above topics.

History of Change

Odgind Distribution

Looking back at the first Paleo-Indian cultures in southern Louisiana, some 10,000 to
12,000 years ago, the archaeologic record shows that topography and food availability
were the primary controls of population distribution. Centers of encampment and
villages are found concentrated on the edges of bluffs north of Lake Pontchartrain and
on the higher banks of river distributaries in the wetland areas. In both cases, banks of
streams and other water bodies provided fresh water and access to a variety of food
sources. Just as today, those cultures had to contend with the potential ravages of
storm and flood. The only available response was settlement on high ground and
evacuation under extreme conditions of hazard.

First European settlement took place in the early 1700s in New Orleans. Like the
Indian population that it displaced, the early settlers were forced to deal with storm
and flood on a very basic level. Settlement took place on the high grounds offered by
natural levees of the Mississippi River and smaller natural banks of bayous. Some
attempt at levee embankment to restrain Mississippi River floods was made.
Hurricanes and other intense storms caused extensive flooding. North of Lake
Pontchartrain, development took place on the higher Pleistocene Terraces where
danger of flooding and hurricane storm surge were less. Low levels of technology

6-4

forced populations to live within natural restraints over which they had relatively
little control.

Along with the development of settlements, early European settlers also began
intensive use of natural levees, swamps, and forested upland areas. Agriculture
developed along the higher, well drained, and fertile natural levee banks of the
Mississippi River. Even today this is considered some of the best agricultural land in
the region. The vast swamp areas were used primarily for their cypress timber
resource, while the uplands north of-Lake Pontchartrain were a source (if pine and
hardwoods. Hunting, fishing, and trapping occurred throughout the region. In this
early development stage vast natural wooded and wetlands supported relatively small
areas of intense settlement.

Present Occurrence

Today, the Pontchartrain- Maurepas Basin may be seen as a great urbanizing necklace
around an interior core of wetlands and lakes of the basin (Figure 6-1). Along this
urbanizing necklace are nodes of settlement and industrial development separated by
forest, agriculture, and arms of the wetlands. Over 1,737,000 people live in the
parishes that make up the study area, with 82% of this population in the urban
concentrations of greater New Orleans/Slidell on the east, and Baton Rouge on the

west.

The nature . of development along the links of the urbanizing necklace varies
considerably. The Baton Rouge to New Orleans segment along the Mississippi River
corridor has gradually evolved from plantation agricultural to heavy industry. The
New Orleans to Slidell segment has evolved from wetland to increasingly dense
suburban development. The Slidell/Hammond and Hammond/Baton Rouge. segments
still remain largely in forest and agriculture, with increasing occurrence of low density
suburban growth making some inroads. The Hammond/LaPlace northy'south axis
segment is essentially a wetland corridor free of major settlement.

Development in the wetland interior of the urbanizing necklace is mostly related to
recreation, natural resource extraction, utility corridors, or flood control. Recreation
is a major development consideration. Access to the rivers, bayous, lakes, and
wetlands is enhanced by boat landings and marinas, designated scenic streams, and

SECKLAC@ WITH NODES O'F DEVELOpMEIV7
I( - PEOPLE
BATON HAMMOND
ROUGE NODE ;@ .0
NODE 00

Loko SLIDELL
NODE
Afourepas
-rLAND LAICE CO
E R 1 0 R W@
Lek* Pontchartrain

LAPLACE
NODE

NEW
ORLEANS
NODE

Figure 6-1. The urbanizing necklace of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin.

6-6

state parks and wildlife management areas (Plate 11). Oil and gas are major
resources. Besides direct extraction facilities, the area is crossed by an extensive
network of pipelines and powerlines. Urbanized areas near or carved from. the
wetlands are low or below sea level in elevation. Levees, diversion canals, and
dredged natural streams are common elements in the wetland portions of the
Pontchartrain- Maurepas Basin. The Bonnet Carre Floodway, connecting the
Mississippi River with Lake Pontchartrain, is the largest and most apparent
manifestation of this vast flood protection and relief system.

OR and gas activity within the Pontchartrain region is concentrated in the southwest
quadrant, along the Mississippi Riv er, and in Lake Pontchartain (Plate 8). Within this
area, the activity is divided among three basic environments: 1) the relatively high
Mississippi River levee, 2) the wetlands adjacent to Lake Maurepas and Lake
Pontchartrain, and 3) within Lake Pontchartrain itself. In addition to this
concentration of activity, there are a series of transmission lines leading northward,
across Lake Pontchartrain into the uplands and out of the region. A potential exists
for increased drilling into the Tuscaloosa Trend, the high pressure gas horizon that
underlies part of the basin. When the price of gas increases, the demand for greater
drilling in the basin will result in accelerated activity.

Reasons for Change

Population increases, industrialization, and attendant service sector activities are the
driving forces behind changes in land use that have occurred in the study area.

Population of the region has increased by over 600,000 people in the last 30 years, with
the majority being concentrated in the Baton RougeNew Orleans-Slidell are along the
Mississippi River and Lake Borgne coast (Plate 6). It is within this corridor that the
majority of petrochemical and other industrial development has occurred. As industry
moved into the area, agriculture was displaced. New Orleans, as the major urban
center, has spawned service sector activities and greatly contributed to the growth of
Jefferson Parish and the Slidell urban area. Baton Rouge's industrial, governmental,
and academic cluster has also spawned population growth.

The Slidell to Baton Rouge are, less affected by industrialization, has retained reliance
on forestry and agricultural business. Urban growth in the arc north of Lakes

Maurepas and Pontchartrain is not as extensive as in the southern arc. Low density
suburban and planned unit development is a common land-use pattern in the corridor
between 1-12 and Lake Pontchartrain, particularly in the Slidell and Mandeville-
Madisonville areas.

Forms and Processes within the System

The distribution of population within the Pontchartain-Maurepas Basin has been largely
defined by the processes of technology of levees and drainage systems, ports, and the
location of major highway systems for access (Plate 9).

Prior to the 1900s, the locations of various land uses were regulated to a great degree
by natural system factors. Intense agriculture and settlement took place on the
highest elevations along the Mississippi River, with both using fertile, well drained
soils. Flooding and the potential for flooding (Plate 10) were periodic and hazardous in
these areas but frequent and disastrous in lower-lying areas toward the swamps,
marshes, and lakes of the basin. North of Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas, although
land was safe from flooding, the economic base of forestry and agriculture on the less
fertile soils was not sufficient to support major population expansion.

With the introduction of the high speed electric pump in the 1920s and subsequent
expenditure of public funds on levee protection along the Mississippi River and around
wetlands on the edge of Lake Pontchartrain, urbanization of formerly uninhabitable
areas became possible. Flood control and drainage improvements set the die for the
form of the New Orleans metropolitan area.

To a lesser degree, other areas in the Mississippi River corridor and lands north of the
lakes were, likewise, influenced by potential for flooding. Major rivers were, and are,
subject to seasonal flood, and hurricanes can raise the level of water in the lakes and
surrounding wetlands to life-threatening levels. Urbanization and agriculture tended
to take place outside of flood hazard areas which were left in wooded hardwood
habitat which was harvested and hunted. .

The next generation of forces to influence land-use distribution was the improvement
of the transportation system. Although railroads came first, they mostly connected
nodes of development in the study area and were not as important to shaping the form

6-8

of land-use arrangement here as they were in other areas. The building of major
highway links-Highways 190, 61, and 90 and the Pontchartrain Causeway at first, and
later the east-west Interstates 10 and 12 and the northern links, 1-55 and 1-59-made
*rapid expansion possible.

The relationship between development forms and natural and cultural processes in the
study area is clear. The long-term trend in the region has been for an i.ncrease of
population with greater mobility and greater. income (Plate 5). Mobility and income
place demands on land for change from less intense to more intense types of
development-from agriculture and wetland to urbanization. Form, or distAbution, of
urbanization has been related to availability of employment in industry and ports,
resource use, or service sectors of the economy and then ability to convert wetlands to
fastlands, to protect lowland areas from flooding, to make forest and agricultural land
available for other uses, and to provide a manageable relationshi'? between
transportation time and cost between centers of employment and housing.

Existing Problems

Natural-Distribution and Magnitude

The purpose of this section. is to provide a summary of existing problems of interest to
those concerned specifically with development issues. Further Aiscussion of a number
of these topics may be found in appropriate previous chapters where the problem is
examined from the natural system rather than from the develop ment perspe.c!tive.

Natural problems of the region may be defined as those problems that affect
settlements or those which change the relationship between natural systems that in
the long term may affect human use of resources. In other words, problems are
defined in terms of man-nature relationships. In the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin the
major naturally occurring problems that affect settlements or long-term use of land

areas are:

1. Riverine and Coastal Flooding
2. Intense Storms

3. Hurricanes

4. Subsidence

5. Shoreline Erosion

6-9

Riverine and Coastal Flooding

Riverine flooding may occur through flooding of the Mississippi River or through
flooding of rivers feeding into the Pontchartrain7-Maurepas Basin from the north. The
Mississippi River is essentially controlled by levees and, short of a major disaster,
offers little problem to human use of. the land at present. Of more serious concern is
riverine and coastal flooding of communities that have development in floodprone
areas (Plate 10). Such flooding occurs when there is a combination of elevated lake
levels, an extended rainy period, and intense rainfall associated with frontal stalls.
Such conditions are not infrequent. All parishes of the study area, except the study
area portions of Jefferson and Orleans, are subject to riverine flooding or flooding
related to coastal water levels.

Intense Storms

Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, protected by levees and dependent upon pumping
systems (Plate 9) to remove all water from the drainage system, are susceptible to
flooding by intense storms. Such flooding is usually localized to small portions of the
urban area. Property damage and inconvenience are the normal consequence of
rainfall exceeding canal or pump capacity or breakdown of the pumping system.

Hurricanes

Of serious consequence to the entire study area is the occurrence of tropical storms
and hurricanes that strike the region on the average of about once in three years
(USACE 1983). The unleveed wetland portions of the study area are inundated. The
higher areas along the north shore of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin, although not
flooded, are usually battered by intense rainfall and wind. Elevated water levels
extend up the rivers and bayous connected to the lakes and may cause backwater
flooding in floodprone areas. Orleans and Jefferson Parishes are particularly
vulnerable to hurricane threat; serious property damage and loss of life may occur.
Since most of the urbanized land area of these parishes is below sea level, pump
failure, breaches of levees, storm surge, and intense rainfall can be disastrous.

6-10

Subsidence

Virtually all of the land surface of the study area south of the edge of the 'Pleistocene
Terrace and off of the natural levees of the Mississippi River is subject to subsidence
(Plate 3). These vast wetland areas are composed of water-deposited silts and clays
and/or organic matter formed by plants. The problem of subsidence is most severe in
the parishes of Jefferson and Orleans where land has been reclaimed and urban
development has taken place on land surfaces that are still in the process of sinking.
Subsidence takes its toll in the form of increased, costs of building and maintenance of
all structures, utilities, and roads. At best, subsidence is an annoyance, and at worst,
life-threatening, as when accumulated gas from broken utility connections under
buildings explodes. Continued lowering of the earth surface compounds problems of
drainage and flooding for the future.

ShoreUne Erosion

Shoreline erosion is a natural process. It took place in the Pontchartrain-Maurepas
Basin at a rate -of under 2 ac per sq mi/year in the 1955-1978 period (USACE 1983).
However, in some areas shoreline retreat is as high as 25 ft/year (Plate 3). The lakes,
left as water area when the Mississippi River deposited the land mass of the delta in
the ancient Gulf, have been enlarging in size as a result of erosion of the edge by wave
action. Such erosion, although not caused by human actions, has an. impact on
development. Land loss takes areas out of production as wildlife habitat or forest,
reduces the storm buffer zone, and directly attacks urban and recreational uses on the
lake edge.

Man Caused-Distribution and Magnitude

The man-caused problems to be discussed in this report are those that deal with man in
relationship to the natural or cultural environment. Problems are defined as those
actions that place stress on life support systems by development, use, or destruction of
resources. The problems include:

1. water pollution
2. air pollution
3. solid waste disposal

6-11

4. hazardous waste disposal
5. oil and gas extraction
6. flooding
7. loss of wetland
8. loss of prime agricultural land
9. loss of cultural resources

Water Pollution

Water, one of Louisiana's most valuable resources, seems to be in abundant supply.
However, pure water for use by people and industry is not a readily available resource.
The major river source, the Mississippi, is classified "water quality limited" primarily
because of consistently high total and fecal coliform bacteria, and taste and odor
problems (USACE 1983) before it arrives in the study area and is treated as a waste
disposal line as it passes by. Communities and industries along its path use it as a
source and a sewer, and discharges from river traffic affect its quality. Other rivers
flowing into the study area, although not as extensively used as the Mississippi, are
affected by both urban and agricultural runoff. Virtually all major streams and rivers
entering and flowing through the study area have water quality problems associated
with municipal discharges-oxygen demand, coliforms, and nutrients (USACE 1981b).

Existing municipal waste water treatment facilities and projections for future waste
water flow were identified in the NOBRMA (New Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan
Area) Water Resources Study (USACE 1981b). The study area is included in this survey
and pertinent data is summarized here.

There are approximately 30 municipal waste water treatment facilities in the study
area with treatment ranging from collection with no treatment to advanced
treatment, The metropolitan areas of Baton Rouge and New Orleans account for the
largest percent of the total average daily municipal waste water flow.

Most of the treatment facilities use activated sludge and trickling filter processes and
oxidation ponds. Sludge and trickling processes are more common in urban centers.
Oxidation ponds are more common in built-up areas along the Mississippi and north of
Lake Pontchartrain.

6-12

The present estimated municipal wastewater flow for the NOBRMA area is 294 million
gallons per day. This is expected to increase to about 418 million gallonss; per day by
2020. Although these projections are for an area larger than the Pontchartrain-
Maurepas study area, much of the flow, heated or not, eventually finds its way into the
basin and could be a significant future problem. The USACE has. presented
management strategies and alternative plans for future treatment (USACE 1981b).

Water quality problems associated with industrial waste water discharges occur on
only one stream segment of the study area. This is in the area south of Lake Maurepas
in St. John the Baptist Parish and is associated with the industrialization in the
Gramercy to LaPlace corridor along the Mississippi River.

Serious surface water pollution problems occur in the shallow nearshore areas of Lake
Pontchartrain in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes (Plate 4). This zone of the lake is
affected by urban street and storm sewer runoff, by sewage outfall, and by
recreational camps (Plate 11) posing health hazard and aesthetic degradation
(Mumphrey et al. 1976). LSPO estimates that over $1.8 billion is needed statewide
(1983-2000) for sewage treatment and stormwater construction costs just to meet
current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) goals (LSPO 1983). Marinas and the
rush to develop water-oriented recreational facilities (Plate 11) without proper water
quality safeguards pose a problem.

Fresh groundwater in the study area is in increasingly short supply east of Baton Rouge
and south of the parishes on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. In particular, the
area south and east of Lake Pontchartrain experiences difficulty in obtaining
sufficient quantities of fresh groundwater for public supply or industrial requirements
(USACE 1981a). Although studies indicate that surface water contamination has been
greater than groundwater contamination, the resource has experienced some pollution
through injection of wastes-a problem that is still in the early stages of definition in.
the region (Governor's Task Force on Environmental Health 1984).

Air Pollution

The Mississippi River corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, forming the
southern edge of the study area, has developed a concentration of urban areas and
petrochemical and other industries with the potential to become sources of regional

6-13

air quality problems (Figure 6-2). Major sources of air pollution, such as
transportation (55%), indus trial processes (15%), and stationary fuel consumption (17%)
(Governor's Task Force on Environmental Health 1984), are increasingly prevalent in
this area. Since transportation is such a major contributor of pollutants to the lower
atmosphere, any concentration of traffic associated with increased urbanization may
affect the air quality of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin.

SoUd Waste Disposal

Disposal of nonhazardous solid waste is a problem in any urbanized area. In this
region, the prime method of disposal is land fill. The lands affected by waste are
frequently wetlands or land areas with drainage connections to water bodies.
Leachate from solid waste disposal areas is frequently found to be toxic and a source
of water pollution. Solid waste sites in*the state have been identified by concentration
in parishes (Figure 6-3). A review of this figure indicates that, compared to other
areas of the state, the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin parishes, except for East Baton
Rouae, only have moderate concentrations of solid waste sites. However, volume of
material may be expected to be great near urbanized areas, even if number of sites is
low. The'LSPO estimates that over $2.3 billion is needed statewide (1983-2000) to
fund solid waste disposal needs (LSPO 1983).

Hazardous Waste Disposal

Hazardous waste disposal takes place in the study area through deep well injection and
through surface disposal areas and pits. Approximately 300 waste sites in Louisiana
have been targeted by EPA for evaluation of potential hazards (Governor's Task Force
on Environmental Health 1984). Four sites are on the Superfund list for assistance in
management and clean-up. Three of these sites (Inger Oil, Cleve Reber, and American
Creosote) are in parishes of the Pontchartrain7-Maurepas Basin. A number of other
identified hazardous waste sites, not necessarily eligible for Superfund money, are
located in the study area (Figure 6-4). These sites include Combustion, Inc.;'sixteen
sites in East Baton Rouge Parish; two more sites besides Reber and Inger in Ascension
Parish; one site besides American Creosote in St. Tammany Parish; and four of the St.
Charles Parish sites.

6-14

Type of station*
Total Suspended Particulate
0 Nitrogen Dioxide (Gos Bubbler)
0 Ozone
Carbon Monoxide

Sulfur Dioxide
0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide
Non-attainment areas for oxidant levels

Orleans Parish:
ID <>
0
0 2
2

0.9
numerals indicate the. number of stations

Figure 6-2. Louisiana air monitoring network. Source: Governor's Task Force on
Environmental Health 1984.

6-15

SOLID WASTF SITES
E) I to 20
UM 21 to 40

41 to 60

61 to 80

81 plus

Figure 6-3. Solid waste sites in Louisiana. Source: Governor's
Task Force on Environmental Health 1984.

6-16

HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

A. INGER

B. CLEVE REBER

C. AMERICAN CREOSOTE

D. TATE COVE

E. BAYOU SORREL

F. COMBUSTION, INC.

EAST BATON ROUGE-16
ST. TAMMANY-2

4-1
F
AB C
ST. CHARLES-9

CALCASIEU-6
%

ASCENSION-4

Figure 6-4. Hazardous waste sites in Louisiana Source: Governor's Task Force on
Environmental Health 1984.

6-17

All solid and hazardous waste sites in the watersheds of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas
Basin have the potential to create problems of water quality, land degradation, or
health problems. For example, 11 ... chemicals ... at the BFI Darrow site have migrated
through the landfill cap and eventually into the Amite River and Lake Maurepas.
Analysis of clams from Lake Pontchartrain has indicated the presence of chemicals
from this waste site" (Governor's Task Force on Environmental Health 1984, pg. 87). It
is reasonable to project that waste disposal will be a problem associated with further
urban and industrial development of the study area.

OR and Gas Extraction

Nearly all oil and gas activities, whether related to the earlier phases of exploration or
the later phases of production, have the potential to adversly affect all environments
of the region. Access to oil and gas sites encompasses the need for roads or canals in
dry land or swamp areas, and ports and sea lanes when sites are located in the lakes.
Drilling can cause potential local disturbances to the environment through noise
pollution, habitat change and destruction, pollution from fluid storage (drilling muds,
brines, and petroleum products), from leaks and accidental spills, and an increased
potential for subsidence of adjacent lands because of petroleum extraction.
Furthermore, in any extraction activity there is the potential for catastrophic events
such as blowouts and oil spills.

In general terms, it is the natural levee regions that provide the most compatible
environment for oil and gas activities (van Beek et al. 1981). Here, relatively high and
dry ground provides a natural framework for conventional practices. Access can be
made through existing roads or through newly created roads with little additional
cultural and environmental impacts. Pipelines can be excavated and covered quickly
with only a temporary adverse impact to vegetation and animal life. Potential
subsidence caused by extraction is largely unimportant because the ground level is
relatively high. Finally, after the reservoir has been exploited, and the activity
ceases, the environment can be restored to a resemblance of its original condition if
proper techniques have been emplo yed.

Wetlands, in contrast, can be severely affected by petroleum development (Gundlach
et al. 1979). Preliminary seismic work during the early exploration phase can cause
irreparable harm in the. form of access canals and scars created by specialized wetland

6-18

vehicles (Langley et al. 1981). These impacts take the form of direct land loss,
disruption of natural vegetation, and the alteration of natural hydratitic regimes.
Pipelines always require some form of dredging. The impacts can be minimized, but
there always exists a potential for damage similar to the damage capability that
access canals carry.

Oil and gas activity within the lakes (Plate 8) is accomplished through techniques
developed.and designed for use in offshore areas. For example, access is provided by
boat, drilling and production is made through use of a platform, and pipelines are laid
as submarine line below lake bottom. In many ways, these water borne constraints,
albeit more expensive, are more environmentally sound when compared to activities
that occur in the adjacent wetlands. Access damage is basically limited to any
pollution which may be derived from vessel effluents. Buried pipelines provide
potential for impact when installed or maintained, by involving dredge and fill
operations which generate excessive turbidity. The one potential for severe impact
with lake-borne activity revolves a round the oil spill. If an accident were to occur, oil
c6uld be carried to any or all parts of the lake, creating an environmental. disaster of
major proportions.

Catastrophic oil spills are always a possibility, and if they occur, they may affect
shorelines and wetlands, destroy marine life, and disrupt other activities. Analysis by
La Belle (1983) for estimating the probability of an oil spill occurrence established
that a "spill rate for platform spills of 1,000 barrels, or larger, is 1.0 spilh., per billion
barrels produced; and the spill rate for platform spills of 10,000 barrels or larger, is
0.44 spills per billion barrels." Nakassis (1982) concluded that the spin rate has
decreased significantly between 1964 and 1980. An oil spill in the Pontchartrain-
Maurepas Basin could be disastrous no. matter how small the probability,. The spill
could be contained and cleaned effectively along the north and south shorelines
because of the relative few and small openings to the interior wetlands and the
protected shorelin e in front of developments. Containment and cleanup problems
would be more severe along the swamp shorelines in the western part of Lake
Pontchartrain and in Lake Maurepas should a spill occur there.

6-1 9

Flooding

Flooding, although a natural occurrence, is aggravated by human actions. Building of
structures in floodprone areas makes them susceptible to flooding, and at the same
time decreases the potential of the floodplain to store flood waters. Urban
development on floodplains combined with upland urbanization that increases runoff
quantity and rate compound the problem both 1 ocally and regionally. The actions of
any one parish to improve its conditions may well increase problems for others

downstream.

Flood control was examined in the NOBRMA Water Resources Study (USACE 1981b).
The Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin is a part of the Corps' larger study area. The
number of acres flooded by a 100-year frequency flood for selected areas include
30,050 ae in.Baton Rouge; 15,985 ac in Jefferson Parish (east bank); 750 ac in Denham
Springs; 33,722 ac in New Orleans; 195 ac in St. James; 11,034 ac in Covington;
3000 ac in Slidell; 767 ac in Hammond; and 861 ac in Pontchatoula. , Total average
annual damages (1980 dollars) for these areas is approximately $3,218,000. Structural
and nonstructural flood control measures were examined. According to guidelines and
criteria used, none of the structural measures considered were economically justifiable
for construction with Corps participation. Nonstructural measures of flood damage
reduction were recommended.

Loss of Wetland

Wetland zones of the study area are under constant pressure for change. Major
changes include drainage and flood protection for urban construction, channelization
for navigation or drainage, dissection by pipelines and powerlines, embankments for
roads or flood protection, impoundment, timber harvesting, and use for camps and
recreation. Past urbanization has taken place at the expense of wetland loss, and the
pressures for such change continue today.

Loss of Prime Agricultural Land

The natural levees of the Mississippi River have some of the best soils in the region for
agriculture. Historically, these lands have been extensively farmed for a variety of
crops, the most recent being use for large sugarcane plantations. With pressures on

6-20

the river corridor for industrial and housing development, much of this agricultural
0 1
land has been taken out of production. Prime agricultural areas are being lost to other

uses.

Loss of Cultural Resources

Louisiana has a long record.of settlement from prehistory to the present. Evidence of
the state's cultural heritage is found in every parish of the study area and ranges from
Indian middens and encampment sites to grand plantation homes and the more ordinary
artifacts of the common people of the past. This heritage, with it its educational and
recreational potential, has been largely unappreciated in the past and as a result much
of it has been lost to posterity..

Projected Problems

Natural-Distribution and Magnitude

The previously defined natural system related problems of riverine and backwater
flooding, intense storms, hurricanes, subsidence, and shoreline erosion cannot be
expected to suddenly disappear. They are the result of large-scale geological and
climatic forces that are largely outside of the control of human force.

Flooding is distributed in all of the low-lying wetland areas and riverine floodplains of
the study area. Potential flood areas are defined on USGS and FEMA maps available
to communities throughout the region. Areas that have been flooded in the past are
well known to parish engineers and agencies. The magnitude of the problem is serious.
Rarely a week passes without some concern for flood control expressed in public
meetings or in the press.

In the future, flooding may be expected to increase in intensity, frequency, and area.
The world is experiencing a period of sea-level rise. Since much of the Pontchartain-
Maurepas Basin is at or near -sea level, even small changes will have a great effect on
inundation of land surfaces. A more immediate and serious impact is the change of
drainage basin land uses from forest and wetland habitat to agriculture and urbanized
uses. Such changes increase both runoff rate and volume and force natural rivers to

6-@ 1

flow. at increased capacities that they cannot contain. Filling and developing
floodplains themselves, which reduces their capacity to store and gradually release
excess water, compounds the problem of flooding even further.

Subsidence, likewise, is a well defined problem. Areas of high subsidence soils have
been mapped by the Soil Conservation Service for all parishes of the study area. The
problem is concentrated in areas that were once wetland and are now developed or
developing, primarily Jefferson and Orleans Parishes. Subsidence, or other poor
foundation conditions, is potentially a problem wherever organic or certain clay soils
occur. Regional geological subsidence is also occurring.

Problems of land loss are less well known to the general public and, have less effect on
human settlement, at least in the short term. Land loss in the Pontchartrain-Maurepas
Basin takes place at approximately 1 to 2 ac per sq mi/year (USACE 1983). In the
short term, some camps and other lake edge activity may be affected by rapid
shoreline retreat. In the long term, biologically rich wetlands are converted to water
and the buffer effect of wetlands on storm surge is reduced.

Man Caused-Distribution and Magnitude

Problems related to human use of the land previously mentioned-water and air
pollution; solid waste and hazardous waste disposal; oil and gas extraction; flooding;
and loss of wetland, prime agricultural land, and cultural resources-are largely the
result of uncontrolled and unplanned industrial and urban development. These
problems are distributed throughout the study area but are concentrated in localized
areas north of Lake Pontchartrain and in the Mississippi River corridor between Baton
Rouge and New Orleans. Collectively, their impact is great and in the future may be
expected to become more serious.

Much of the study area now has access to a plentiful and pure groundwater supply
shared by urban and industrial development. Surface water is also available, although
not in as pure a state as the ground water supply. The use and abuse of water
resources is a potentially significant future problem as recognized in the 1981 Baton
Rouge-New Orleans Metropolitan Area, Water Resources Study (USACE 1981a). Water
withdrawal may decrease availability and injection. of wastes may make it unpotable.
Future urbanization and waste disposal may further degrade surface water.

.6-22

Future problems of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin will revolve around the basic
conflict between human use of the land and conservation of sensitive natural resources
and natural areas. Population is projected to increase. Wetlands, floodplains, and
other hazard-prone landscapes near present urban areas become vulnerable to pressure
for development, particularly if the protection and access costs may be spread over
the population as a whole. All lands available for development may become
battlegrounds for conflicting types of development. Agriculture, iridLIStry, and
suburban development, for example, all share the need for firm, well-drained land.
Recreation may come into conflict with resource extraction industries in the wetlands
or upland forest areas. Without a comprehensive approach to regional land use and
resource issues, we can expect present problems to become worse. There is little
chance that piecemeal planning, regulation, and permit processes as they are presently
practiced will be adequate to resolve problems of the future since they have, not been
adequate to solve problems of the past.

Summary and Possible Solutions

The issues of development in this region are quite clear. Various land areas -and
landscape types have varying oppor tunities and constraints for different types of
development. Prime agricultural lands offer the best opportunities to provide a
contribution to a lasting food supply and world market for Louisiana. farmers.
Marginal agricultural lands of higher elevation offer good sites for industrial, urban,
and suburban development. High I ands in the northern part of the study area have a
good supply of water and firm, well drained land suitable for urban and suburban use.
They also offer forest product and recreation opportunities. Floodplains offer
opportunities for excess water storage, wildlife habitat, and many forms of recreation.
Wetlands play an important role in biological productivity for coastal fisheries, offer
opportunities for renewable timber harvest, are extensively used for hunting and
fishing for recreation, serve as buffers to storms and flood, and are only developed at
great,initial and long-term expense.

Two major land-use problems of the region-flooding of developed property and
wetland loss to development-can be solved at minimal public expense. 'Urban and
suburban development is only flooded if it is built in floodprone areas that are usually
riverine floodplains or coastal wetlands. These areas have been specifically identified
and mapped; therefore, they may be preserved in natural system habitat. The most

6 23

efficient planning approa ch for the future is to develop policy based on recognition of
natural hazards and values. The effect would be to allow areas that flood to be
controlled by natural processes and absorb the region's excess water and remain as
wetland or floodplain for recreational use or forest harvest. Building and development
on the higher grounds will be safe and secure. Such an approach eliminates the need
for flood insurance on dwellings and expensive installation and maintenance of large-
scale protective systems of levees, canals, and pumps.

Problems of the region have been largely generated by human action, frequently by
lack of attention to natural processes. Land, free of flooding and out of wetland
zones, is available for development. However, land in flood areas and wetlands has
been developed and causes personal and community expense. Problems of the region
can be solved by human action. Air and water purification, solid and hazardous waste
disposal, preservation of cultural and historic resources, and accommodation of growth
within the framework of the basin's natural resources are achievable goals.

Possible Solutions

1. Institute a comprehensive planning approach to Pontchartrain-Maurepas
Basin issues that includes a mechanism for maintenance of an upr-to-date
data base, development of regional guidelines and approaches to growth
management, and decision-making ability.

2. Define a permanent line between urbanization and the wetlands of the
interior of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin. This line may define several
zones based on degree of present commitment to or opportunity for urban
development'of former or present wetland areas. One zone could be those
areas most highly protected by being in the public ownership as parks,
wildlife management areas, or other designated uses. Another zone would
define those areas without adequate flood protection or drainage district
designation for urbanization in their present state. These would be the
critical wetlands that lack . protection and are under pressure for
development of access and flood protection systems to benefit the forces of
urbanization. Another zone would be areas that have been designated as
drainage districts or are leveed and managed and designated for
urbanization.

6-24

3. Develop adequate structural measures to protect present urban or suburban
development within each drainage basin that is most vulnerable -to flooding
without encouraging further development in these areas; that is, correct
problems caused by past actions but do not generate new problems in the
lower portions of the basin.

4. Develop institutional controls to eliminate potential for urban or suburban
development in floodprone areas and wetlands.

5. Develop institutional controls to protect prime farmland, forest habitat, and
other economically productive natural resource areas to assure their
continued productivity.

6. Develop planning approaches, including infill development, to accommodate
urban growth on those lands most easily served by the existing or readily
expanded urban infrastructure of water, sewerage, electricity, schools, and
fire and police protection.

7. Strengthen public'law and enforcement of air, water, and waste issues and
develop mechanisms to resolve problems on at least a basinwide level of
consideration.

8. Continue to enforce existing state and federal guidelines f or oil, gas, and
other mineral activity; have responsible parties develop spill response plans
for the Pontchartrain- Maur epas Basin; and develop guidelines f C)r activity
for each management unit.

9 Concentrate attention on the potential for tourism, which makes use of the
full range of the basins cultural and natural resources as a unit. Too often
these resources are seen as a historic house here, and a spot to fish there,
with a local festival somewhere else. Cultural and natural resc)urces are
frequently clustered and should be emphasized as a package.

10. Institute broad reaching educational programs to influence actions of the
general public and potential "users" of the land and resources of the basin.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Federal Register
1978 Council on environmental quality regulations for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 43 FR
55978-56007. November 29. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.

Governor's Task Force on Environmental Health
1984 Environment and health in Louisiana: the cancer problem. Louisiana State
Planning Office, Office of the Governor. March.

Gundlach, E. R., M. 0. Hayes, and C. D. Getter
1979 Determining environmental protection priorities in coastal ecosystems. In
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proceedings of the 1979 U.S. Fish a@_d
Wildlife Service Pollution Response Workshop, 8-10 May, St. Petersburg,
Florida, Environmental Contaminant Evaluation Program, Division of
Ecological Services.

La Belle, R.P.
1983 An Oil spill risk analysis for the central Gulf of Mexico (July 1984) and
western Gulf of Mexico (July 1984) Outer Continental Shelf Lease Offerings.
In MMS 1984, draft environmental impact statement, Gulf of Mexico
Proposed OCS oil and gas lease offerings, central Gulf of Mexico (April
1984) western Gulf of Mexico (July 1984), Appendix A, Metairie, Louisiana.

Louisiana State Planning Office
1983 State Planning completes infrastructure analysis. State Planning Bulletin
2(3).

Mumphrey, A.S., J. Brooks, and J. Miller
1976 Urban development in the Louisiana coastal zone: problems and guidelines.
Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans.

Nakassis, A.
1982 Has offshore oil production become safer? USGS Open-file report 82-232,
27 pp.

Odum, H.T.
1971 Environment, Power and Society. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Office of Public Works (OPW)
1984 Louisiana Water Resources - Study Commission's Report to the 1984
Legislature. Draft report prepared by Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development, OPW.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District
1983 Mississippi and Louisiana estuarine areas, freshwater diversion to Lake
Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound, feasibility study.

6-26

U S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District
1981a Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area, water resources study, background
information appendix, September.

1981b,New Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area, water resources study,
summary report, September.

van Beek, J.L., D.D. Davis, R.E. Emmer, and D.S. Sabins
1981 Chapter VII: oil and gas activities. In van Beek et al. 1981, and Introduction
to the Environmental Literature of-the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region.
FWS/OBS-79/30. pp. 175-198.

CHAPTER 7: ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS APPLICABLE
TO THE COASTAL ZONE, PONCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS BASIN

Abstract

Numerous Federal and state agencies now regulate activities within the coastal zone.
The Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency in coordination with
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and th e National Marine Fisheries Service are the
principal federal environmental agencies involved in the basin. At the state level, the
Coa stal Management Division of the Department of Natural Resources, the
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the Department of Environmental Quality
are the agencies which have jurisdiction over most landuse activities in the coastal

zone.

Introduction

The nation's coastal zones, including the Pontchartrain-MaurepAs Basin, are regulated
by numerous federal, state, and local agencies and independent bodies. Thirty-eight
federal programs in six departments and four agencies now affect wetlands (Zinn and
Copeland 198Z), and innumerable Federal water resources programs (Holmes 1972,
1979; DeWeerdt and Glick 1973; Hildreth and Joh nson 1983; Rose 1983) subject the
hydrologic system to modification, regulation, and use. In Louisiana, at the state
level, at least 25 programs in six departments and one commission have jurisdiction
over some aspect of activities or conditions within the coastal zone. In addition, four
regional and/or local regulators exert some degree of control on activities at the
parish or basin level. Due to the large number of agencies involved, there is an
overlap of program objectives and jurisdictions, which often may result in conflicting
program objectives and agencies.

The purpose of this section is to 1) identify the federal, state, and various other
programs that have an important role in basin planning by virtue of their permitting or
review mandates and to. 2) present possible solutions for resolving the management
conflict of the basin's resources. It is not intended to be either a compendium of
regulations which has been accomplished elsewhere (Conner 1977; Office of Coastal
Zone Management and Coastal Management Section 1980) or an evaluation of the

7-2

implementation and effectiveness of programs (Houck 1983; Hall 1983; U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1982; Wascom 1984).

Federal Programs

The federal programs regulate land use only on those reservations where they exercise
ownership, such as navigation projects, wildlife refuges, and parks or on lands
associated with federal projects, such as rights-of-way for flood and hurricane
protection levees. However, federal programs do significantly influe nce the intensity
and types of land use by way of the regulatory and permitting process and by
coordination of planning efforts with state and local governments. Federal programs
have assumed the dominant policy formulating. role by setting the scope of state and
local programs; providing funds to achieve the formalized objectives; and most
importantly, defining and setting restrictions and prerequisites for program
participation. Five Federal agencies prescribe policies and set standards which control
or influence the many resource uses in the coastal zone. These are: the Office of
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Table 7-1). A sixth agency, the
Council on Environmental Quality, indirectly affects policy through the National
Environmental Policy Act and the environmental impact statement.

Offiee of Coastal Resource Management

The OCRM administers the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
as amended, which provides for management programs that are developed by state and
local governments. OCRM, which provides support for research and planni.rig, is not
intended to function as a regulatory program for pollution control (Murley 1982).
Probably the most important part of the act concerns federal consistency [CZMA,
Sections 307 W and WA within the state's coastal zone; that is, federal actions
"directly affecting the coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent
practicable!' with the statels approved program. Consistency includes federally
supported and conducted activities, development projects, licensing and permits, and
federal grants and assistance to state and local governments (Hildreth and Johnson
1983). Examples of activities or projects that are generally considered to be affecting

M M man M M M M M M mm mom soon

Table 7-1. Selected Federal Government Programs that Affect the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Coastal Zone.

Lead Agency Authority Statute Action Required Regulation

Office of Coastal Resource Coastal Zone Management 16USC1451-1464 Develop coastal States and parishes develop and implement,
Management (OCRM) Act, as amended zone plan long range management plan approved by
Federal government.

Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act, as 33USC1251-1376 Permit Effluent limitations of point sources of
(EPA) amended, Section 402 pollution.

EPA Clean Water Act, as 33USC1251-1376 Identification of Makes final determination on all wetland
amended, Section 404 Wetlands permit proposals; determines where 404
permit is applicable.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act, as 33USC1251-1376 Permit Applies to discharges or fill material
(USACE) amended, Section 404 placed in wetlands and waters of the U.S.

USACE Rivers and Harbors Act 33USC401-406n Permit Prohibits obstructing by dams, dikes, bridges
of 1899, Section 10 navigable waters or excavating or filling
In any wetlands and waters of the U.S.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife 16USC661-668 Consultation in Integrates concern for fish and wildlife
and National Marine Fisheries Coordination Act permit decisions resources into permit process.
Service (USFWS-NMFS)

Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental 42USC4321-4347 EIS Preparation of environmental document
Policy Act identifying alternatives considered and
beneficial and adverse primary and secondary
impacts.

7-4

the coastal zone are: development projects; activities that affect runoff quantity and
quality; dredge; f ill; construction or waste discharge in or into coastal waters;
activities which, if conducted by the private sector, require a state or local coastal
use permit or in-lieu permit; and, acquisition and disposal of Federal property in the
coastal zone [for a more detailed summary: OCZM and CMS 1980 pp. 133-1431. A
state can block or place conditions on federal financial assistance to state and local
agencies for projects in the coastal zone. Federal agencies must take state concerns
into account so that conflicts can be avoided (Houck 1983).

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

The USACE is authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to protect navigable
waters from obstruction and pollution and to protect wetlands in or adjacent
(bordering, contiguous or neighboring) to waters of the United States by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, as amended. In the former case, the
Corps may issue a Section 10 Permit for dredge and fill act ivities, a modification of
navigable waterways or the construction of dams, dikes or bridges in a navigable
waterway. Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(changed to the Clean Water Act in 1977) Congress expanded wetland and water
protection and placed the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States
under the control the USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Corps administers a permitting program for discharge of dredged and fill material into
the waters of the United States thereby including: coastal and inland waters;
navigable lakes, rivers, and streams, including adjacent wetlands; tributaries to
navigable waters; and interstate waters and their tributaries, including adjacent
wetlands. Typical activities requiring permits are artificial canals, beach
nourishment, boat ramps, bulkheads, dams, dredging, fill, jetties and groins, levees,
piers, roadf ill, outfall pipes, and signs (USACE 1977).

To obtain a permit, an applicant submits to the District Engineer through 'the Coastal
Management Division Joint Public Notice System, a Corps of Engineers' application
(Eng Form 4345) and appropriate drawings. Each permit application is evaluated and if
the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources concurs with the consistency
statement on the application and if the District Engineer concludes 11. . Ahat the
benefits of the proposed alteration outweigh the damage to the wetland resource and

7-5

the proposed alteration is necessary to realize those benefits," 33 CFR 320.001 a
permit is issued. Should problems arise, however, the project must be altered to an
acceptable degree before a permit can be granted. Every project must be evaluated
on an individual basis unless it is covered by a nationwide permit (a blanket permit
Itissued for discharges of dredged or fill material into certain smaller or minor waters
of the United States" or "for certain types of activities in all waters of the United
States") (USACE 1977) or a general permit, similar to a nationwide permit but
applicable to smaller, regions as specified by the District Engineer.

The USACE actively evaluates projects in the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin and takes
action on those that affect navigation and wetlands. As part of its processing, the
USACE may require some form of environmental document as prescribed by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended. NEPA requires that fun
consideration be given to a project's anticipated physical, biological, and
socioeconomic impacts. Alternatives t o the proposed action must be studied and
evaluated to the same level as the.proposed action. Mitigation measures are to be
proposed and implemented to either reduce, eliminate, or compensate for adverse
impacts. An environmental impact document which discloses how environmental
considerations were incorporated into the planning process must be prepared. NEPA is
an important part of the permitting process because agencies use the environmental
impact document as one of the tools of decision making.

Envirortmental Protection Agency

EPA, the second federal agency which has an important regulatory role in the
Pontchartrain- Maurepas Basin, works to protect wetlands from dredged and fill
activities and coordinates permit (Section 404) review with the USACE. However,
EPA has been given the authority to prevent issuance of a 404 permit if it determines
that the fill will have an unacceptable impact on the receiving waters of the United
States. A second permit that involves EPA is the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Amendments of 1972, as amended). The NPDES permit is the primary
mechanism for control of pollutants from point sources by establishing effluent
limitations, by requiring the application of necessary technology, and by scheduling of
compliance with water quality standards. Pollutants are' dredge spoil, solid waste,
improperly treated sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, chemical wastes, and biological

7-6

materials discharged into waters of the U. S. A point source is any discernible,
confined, and discrete conveyance including, but not limited to, any pjipe, ditch,
channel, conduit, well, or discrete fissure from which pollutants are cor may be
discharged. EPA will turn over permitting to a state, if the state requests it, and will
implement the program in a way satisfactory to the federal government. However, in
the event EPA deems a permit not in. compliance with either the law or federal
regulations, it can rescind a state decision.

EPA takes an active role on the large and potentially more controversial projects in
the basin. Some of these are the Almonaster-Michoud Industrial District (A-MID)
project in eastern New Orleans, the 1-310 highway across the LaBranche vretlands in
St. Charles Parish, the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project,
and the water quality problems associated with Jefferson Parish. The Coastal
Management Division reports that smaller projects do not receive a similar level of
interest (Lindsey 1984); consequently, coordination with EPA has been very lilimited.

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service

FWS and NMFS have review privilege through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Fish and wildlife resources must be given equal consideration when evaluating water
resources Aevelopment. A memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of the Army in 1967 set procedures for coordination and
consultation on projects.

.If an FWS District Director advises the USACE that a project will adversely affect
threatened or endangered species, the USACE will not approve a permit until the
objections have been resolved. Appeals are possible up to the secretary level in
Washington, D. C. (Cox 1977).

The principal concern of. the National Marine Fisheries Service is protection of the
marine fisheries resources and its habitat; they "do not take socioeconomic factors
into account in determining the public int erest ... 11 (Dehart and Glazer 1980, p.. 92).

FWS's perspective on projects emphasizes the preservation of wildlife habitat (Dedmon
1980) and threatened and endangered species. Thus the Services can conduct similar

7-7

reviews and provide quite different recommendations (Dehart and Glazer 1980)
because they represent varied interests.

FWS and NMFS have been active in reviewing projects and permits in the
Pontchartrain- Maurepas Basin (Lindsey 1984). They provide comments and suggest
mitigation measures that offset adverse impacts of the proposed projects.

State Programs

The state agencies function as coordinating agencies between local and federal
agencies and among local agencies. State agencies also react to federal programs and
policies and implement those requirements established by the federal government.
Four departments have taken a lead role in regulating activities in the coastal zone:
The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR); Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ); Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources
(DHHR); and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) (Table 7-2).

Coastal Management Division

Probably the most active state agency affecting the wetlands of the Pontchartrain-
Maurepas Basin is the Coastal Management Division (CMD) of DNR. The state's
coastal zone program began in the early 1970's and was formally established with the
passage of the State and Local Resources Management Act of 1978 (Act 361; LRS
213.2). The DNR manages activities below 5 ft mean sea level (msl) and not within
fastlands except when the Secretary of DNR finds that the particular activity will
have direct and significant impacts on coastal waters. Coastal waters are those bays,
lakes, inlets, estuaries, rivers, bayous, and other bodies of water within the boundaries
of the coastal zone which have a measurable seawater content (under normal weather
conditions over a period of years).

Implementation is through the processi ng of the coastal use permit (CUP) that subjects
uses of state concern and uses of locqLl concern. (LRS 213.5) to guidelines that
incorporate general and specific provisions to 'certain types of uses. Once local plans
have been approved, the parishes shall assume responsibility for all uses of local
concern. Because of an interagency agreement between the USACE and the DNR,

Table 7-2. Selected State Programs that Affect the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Coastal Zone,

Lead Agency - Authorit_y Statute Action Required Regulation

Coastal Management Division, DKR Louisiana Coastal Resources LRS49:213.1-.21, Coastal Use Permit Enforces guidelines designed to reduce adverse
(CMD) Management Act of 1978, as impacts on the coastal zone.
amended

Louisiana Department of Wildlife LRS56:450, 541, lease granted Schedules dredging in dredging zones.
and Fisheries (LDWF) 609(c)(1)

LDWF Scenic Stream Act, LRS56:1841-1849 Permit Regulates uses and activities associated with
as amended, Act 398 Scenic Streams.

LDWF LRS56:109, 651-659; Coordination Establishes, manages and regulates wildlife
701-801 management areas, preserves, refuges, and
sanctuaries.

LDWF LRS30:1068, 1091- Permit Controls discharges of polluting substances.
1096; 38:216 0.

DSL, DNR Act 645 LRS41:1131 and Permit Reclaiming land lost through erosion or the
LRS41:1701-I714 maintenance to prevent encroachment on
non-eroded state land.

Department of Health and Human State Sanitary Code LRS40:4-6 Permit Establish and direct water quality parameters
Resources, Office of Health and compliance with standards and regulations.
Services and Environmental
Quality
Office of Conservation, LRS30:151-159 Lease and Permit Regulates exploration and production of
Department of Natural Resources, 171, 208, 209 from Office of Minerals from state owned lands and
CMD, OC, DSL Conservation waterbottoms.
Department of Culture, Recreation LRS41:1601-1613 Review procedure Review permit application to protect and
and Tourism (DCRT) archaeological and historical remains.
Deoartment of Environmental Quality LRS30:1068, 1091- Water Quality Controls discharge of polluting substances.
1096; 38:216 Certification

7-9

applicants for a state coastal use permit now file a Corps of Engineers Form 4345 with
the DNR rather than both agencies. Both agencies still review permits independently,
decide their actions, and issue separate permits.

The CMD assumes a comprehensive review of activities within the coastal zone.
General guidelines have been established for all uses and for such specific activities as
levees; linear facilities; shoreline modification; surface alterations; hydrologic and
sediment transport modification; alteration of waters draining into coastal waters; and
oil, gas, and other mineral activities. Applicants must demonstrate that their
proposed project conforms to the guidelines to the maximum extent practicable so as
to reduce adverse impacts on the physical, biological, cultural, and economic systems.

To assist in achieving these goals, the DNR has a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with a number of other agencies who have agreed to coordinate their coastal
activities to help achieve minimal adverse impacts. These agencies include: the
Office of Conservation -of DNR, which issues drilling permits for oil and gas activities
in lieu of a CMD CUP; the Department of Environmental Quality (formerly the Office
of Environmental Affairs) which will coordinate permit applications, provide
appropriate comments, and coordinate permit conditions to assure consistency; the
Department of Health and Human Resources, which likewise will exchange permit
applications, review comments, and condition permits so as not to conflict with the
terms of the coastal use permit; the Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism
(DCRT) for protection of cultural resources and consistency with state parks and
recreational facilities; the Divison of State Lands of DNR, which comments on
projects that may alienate state owned properties; the Department of Agriculture for
activities in the coastal zone, including misuse of pesticides, so that the programs are
compatible; and the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), which
coordinates activities in the coastal zone.

Office of Conservation

The second DNR division active in the basin is the Office of Conservation (OC). OC
issues in-lieu permits for the location, drilling, exploration, and production of oil, gas,
sulphur, and other minerals. Selected sections of the Louisiana Revised Statutes and
statewide orders provide for the regulation of these activities. OC has agreed to issue
in-lieu permits only if the proposed activity is consistent with the Coastal Use

7-10

Guidelines. OC presently regulates the oil and gas industry in the basin'and works with
CMD to reduce adverse impacts of some of the oil and gas activities. For example,
with consultation from OC and the Louisiana Geological Survey, CMD has been able to
require that wetlands be avoided when directional drilling or board roads and pads
were possible (CMD 1984).

Division of State Lands

The third DNR agency in the basin is the Division of State Lands (DSL), which issues
permits for: reclamation.or recovery of lands lost through erosion (Class A, Permit);
constructing and/or maintaining bulkheads and flood protection structures (Class B
Permit); construction of commercial and/or noncommercial wharves and pier (Class C
Permit); construction and/or maintenance of structures other than wharves and piers
(Class D Permit); and construction and/or maintenance of landfills upon noneroded
state lands (Class E Permit). An applicant must coordinate activities with the Corps
and their permitting process and may substitute the standard Corps forms for state
forms, DSL will not issue a permit until the application has been approved by the
parish governing body, the Louisiana Office of Public Works (OPW), LDWF, State
Mineral Board, CMD, and other parochial or state agencies who may have jurisdiction.
Permits can be denied if the activity obstructs or hinders navigable waters, imposes
undue or unreasonable restraints on the state or public rights which have been vested
in such areas, or the activity will result in unacceptable adverse impacts to the
environment. CMD and the Division of State Lands frequently coordinate or. the issue
of ownership of lands.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

LDWF performs several tasks. First, they review and comment on water resource
development proposals by federal, state, and private interests under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act . The department works closely with the FWS when
reviewing permit applications. Second, the department coordinates the shell[ dredging
activities in the two lakes by granting 1 eases and designating seasonal dredging of
zones. Third, they regulate the uses and activities associated with state designated
scenic streams and issue permits for allowable actions. Prohibited activities include:
channelization, clearing and snagging, channel realignment, and reservoir construction.
Finally, they regulate and coordinate the programs and projects of state wildlife

7-11

management areas, preserves, refuges and sanctuaries. The LDWF reviews CMD
permit applications and strives to coordinate activities through a memorandum of
understanding.

Department of Environmental Quality

DEQ is authorized to adopt rules and regulations to protect water quality. As the
cooperating state agency under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, they issue
state permits for the discharge of polluted waters. At the present time, EPA is still
the controlling agency for NPDES permits. In additon, DEQ is responsible for the
regulation of hazardous wastes, air quality permits, use and disposal of hazardous
wastes, and solid waste disposal. DEQ has coordinated actions with CMD in two
principal areas, unauthorized solid waste dumps and shell. dredging (CMD 1984).

Department of Health & Human Resourees,

The Division of Environmental Services (DES) in the Department of Health and Human
Resources issues permits for and monitors activities associated with human health.
They prepare the State Sanitary Code, which among other things regulates discharges
of sewage and controls the oyster and shellfishing industries. DES routinely comments
on CMD permit applications (CMD 1984).

Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism

DCRT is responsible for state parks and other cultural resources, such as
archaeological or historic sites, within the coastal zone. DCRT reviews permit
application and comments on the impact of the actions on the cultural systems and
recreational facilities, and it routinely comments on CMD permit applications (CMD
1984).

Regional and Local Level

Regional level agencies include 1) levee boards and port commissions and at the local
level, 2) drainage districts; and, 3) parish governing bodies. Several port commissions
are active in the basin and coordinate port-related development activities within their
boundaries. Only the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans

7-12

has a MOU with the CMD to coordinate projects and assure consistency with the
state's coastal zone program. Levee boards are responsible for the maintenance of the
protective systems within their jurisdictions. The levee boards are subject to the
approval and supervision of the Office of Public Works (OPW) and coordinate their
activities closely with them. The boards normally refer technical questioms to OPW
for a decision.

Par ishes and cities are authorized to zone, enact subdivision regulations, and adopt
building codes O.A. Kusler Associates 1976; Mumphrey et al 1976). These authorities
also can construct, operate, and regulate waterworks and sewerage systems (Due,
Dodson, de Gravelles, Robinson, and Caskey 1983). All of the parishes in the coastal
zone of the basin except for St. John the Baptist have submitted draft coastal zone
programs to the Secretary of the DNR. Each is being re viewed for state consistency
and a decision will be made in the near future. Each of the parishes in the basin has
been Active in implementing some of the powers they possess. The degree of control
they exert varies greatly from one to the other.

Finally, several drainage districts are in operation in the basin. Drainage districts
exist for "the purpose of draining and reclaiming the marsh, swamp, and overflowed
lands of Louisiana that must be pumped and leveed in order to be reclaimed."
Cooperation on such projects is through the OPW. Drainage districts coordinate their
actions with the CMD for a CUP.

Differing Resource Uses and Regulation

Physical and biological resources within the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin are subject
to regulation by many federal, state, and local agencies. The basic resources within
the basin are wetlands, wildlife and fisheries, water, soils, extractive, recreational,
and cultural. Table 7-3 shows the resource and the agencies which in some way
regulate them. A conflict exists among agencies because there is an o,-irerlap of
jurisdictions and responsibilites for regulating the resources within the Pontchartrain-
Maurepas Basin. Eachagency has specified goals and objectives and as a result has
occasionally disagreed with the decisions and techniques of other agencies. For
example, resource conservation is an important aspect of the programs administered
by the DNR, EPA, FWS, NMFS, OCRM, LDWF, DHHRv DEQ, and DCRT.

Table 7-3. Resources and Agencies Who Regulate Either Directly or Indirectly.

Wildlife
Ageney/Resource Wetlands and Fisheries Water sons Extractive Recreational Cultural

USACE x x x x x x
EPA x x x
FWS* x x x

NMFS*. x x
CMD, DNR x x x x
DSL, DNR x
DWLF x x x x
DEQ x x
DHHR x
CRT* x x

Ports x

Levee Boards x
Parishes x x

Drainage Districts x
Agencies with review and coordination authority.

7-14

EPA concentrates its efforts on protecting water quality from point sources of
pollution while at the same time placing little effort on controlling non-p6lnt sources
(Jaksch and Peskin 1984). The FWS protects wildlife habitats and threatened and
endangered species. The NMFS is concerned with living marine resources. The OCRM
funds planning programs that comply with federal and state laws. At the state level,
the LDWF cooperates with FWS and NMFS to protect and enhance the living resources.
The state's scenic stream systems are protected by LDWF. DHHR and DEQ
concentrate on the hydrologic system, particularly sewerage discharges, point
discharges, and runoff from solid waste sites. OCRT strives to protect the region's
historical and archaeological sites through the review process. DNR administers the
Coastal Resources Program and through State Lands and Forestry ELdministers
3 million acres of lands and water bottoms (van Sickle 1984).

A second type of conflict may arise in exercising the program objectives of different
agencies within this group. For example, the NMFS protects the living marine
resource while the FWS protects wildlife and enhances wetland.habitat (Dehart and
Glazer 1980). Review of projects and proposals by the two agencies can result in
greatly different recommendations. For example, modification of freshwater wetlands
(hydrologic regime, vegetation, and salinity conditions) due to canal dredging and
saltwater intrusion will be opposed by FWS because it reduces migratory bird habitat.
They would normally recommend a management program to restore the area to its
former status. NMFS prefers the change because it provides more nursery habitat for
marine species, and, all other things being equal, NMFS would recommend that no
remedial -actions be taken. When such problems happen they are very difficult to
resolve (Dehart and Glazer 1980); negotiation and compromise frequently re-sult.

The USACE, EPA, DEQ, DNR, LDWF are the principal agencies which set standards,
publish guidelines, and enforce regulations designed to reduce adverse impacts of
projects and activities on the estuary. However, these agencies are not blindly
opposed to development and economic expansion per se; their role is to be certain that
adverse impacts are minimized and/or mitigated, and that everyone operiLtes within
the limits that will assure a healthy and productive wetlands and 'aquatic system.

Other agencies active in the basin have goals and objectives which support
development of the region. Included in this category are the Office of Conservation,
the levee boards, port commissions, and drain age districts. In the past, 'this meant

7715

unlimited and unrestricted growth with little regard for the natural systems.
Attitudes are changing to some degree within these agencies because of the recently
enacted laws and the permitting processes. Engineers and developers are becoming
more aware of their responsibility to protect the natural systems and mitigate the
adverse impacts their projects and programs may cause. Local governments fit within
this category but, in general, oscillate between conservation and development.

Attempting to maintain an objective, neutral position when reviewing other projects
and programs are the USACE and the CMD/DNR, Louisiana. The permitting procedure
followed by the USACE on larger projects relies heavily on preparation of an
environmental document as outlined by the Council on Environmental Quality in which
alternatives are evaluated, primary and secondary beneficial and adverse impacts are
described, and mitigation measures are prescribed. The state has promulgated its own
guidelines for project review but coordinates activities with numerous Federal and
state agencies through memoranda of understanding (OCZM and CMS 1980).

The DSL's concern is centered on the management of state water bottoms and lands
(van Sickle 1984). This agency appears to be completely neutral on environmental
issues relative to wetlands and water quality. They will not issue a permit until An
application has already been approved by the governing authority of the parish in
which the project will take place-the OPW, LDWF, the State Mineral Board, the
CMD, and any other parochial or state agency which may have jurisdiction over such
matters.

Possible Solutions

1. Coordinate and simplify the procedure for permitting activities.

2. Implement a special area management program so that those seeking
permits or reviewing permit applications will be more consistent in results.

Summary and Possible Solutions

The potential multiple uses for the physical and biological resources within the
Pontchartrain- Maur epas Basin often result in an overlap in jurisdictions and conflicts
among agency objectives and goals. An applicant attempting to obtain a permit for a

7-16

resource use is forced to deal with several agencies and spends much time and many
dollars complying with the regulations. Even after completing the proper procedures,
he is not certain whether he has a real chance of approval because projects are
decided on a case-by-case basis. Other resource users in the basin face similar
problems-of not knowing what to expect.

One potential solution to these problems is the establishment of a Special. Area. A
special area program and methodology has been developed and tried in other parts of
the country (Gray's Harbor, Washington; Coos Bay, Oregon; and Port Bienville,
Mississippi). The goal of these programs was to develop comprehensive plans for
specific geographical areas with the objective of avoiding future conflicts. Plans were
for geographic areas small enough to manage but large enough to solve problems on a
systems basis. Management units were defined, permissible and nonpermissible uses
were assigned, and guidelines for implementing the decisions promulgated. The
methodology encourages collaborative planning and cooperation on solutions of
conflicting resource uses. A committee of federal, state, and local agency personnel
and special interest groups agreed on identified issues. Balanced solutions that were
consistent with all federal and state permit guidelines and regulations were derived by
consensus of all parties. Caution is important because the special area process is not a
cure-all. It does, however, lead to long-term. predictibility for developers and other
users as well as a savings in time and costs to applicants on revisions.

Special area planning can be readily adapted to the Pontchartrain- Maure pas Basin.
The lessons learned by reviewing other state's programs will assist in avoiding
problems which caused them delays. In Louisiana, a program can be built on the state
and parish's coastal zone programs in which management units and goals and objectives
have been defined. In order to protect and preserve a valuable estuarine system
without excessively impeding resource development, it is important to initiate a
comprehensive regional approach to conflict resolution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ball, G. H. and C. Symons
1983 Managing conflict in the coastal zone. In Magoon, 0. T. and H. Converse,
eds., Coastal Zone 183, Vol. 11, pp. 1331-1339.

Bickle, G. L.
1983 Balancing development and environmental concerns in the coastal zone of
New Jersey. In Magoon, 0. T. and H. Converse, eds., Coastal Zone 183, vol.
2v pp. 1120-1135.

Bodi, F. L. and C. K. Walters
19- Special area management planning - The big gamble, attorney, NOAA;
National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. unpublished.

Coastal Management Division
1984 Annual Report to Office of Coastal Resource Management. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

Conner, W. H.
1977 Public administration of Louisiana's coastal wetlands: 1820 to 1976. Center
for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
LSU-T-77-001 Coastal Zone Management Series, 66 p.

Cox, W. E.
1977 Existing legal framework for management of Virginia's coastal wetlands.
VPI, Blacksburg, VA. Research Report AE 31 25 p.

Dedmon, J.
1980 State-Federal relations in the coastal zone. Proceedings of the Gulf of
Mexico Coastal Ecosystems Workshop: Port Aransas, Texas. September
4-7, 1979. FWS/OBS-80/30 May FWS, USD I pp. 175-184.

Dehart, H. G. and M. Glazer
1980 Improved coordination for planning and permitting in special areas. A
report to the president for the Federal Coastal Program Review. Office of
Coastal Zone Management. NOAA, Washington, D.C. Second Draft. 157 p.

DeWeerdt, J. L. and P. M. Glick (eds)
1973 A summary-digest of the Federal water laws and programs. National Water
Commission USGPO's. Washington, D.C. 205 p.

Due, Dodson, deGravelles, Robinson, and Caskey
1983 Legal and institutional analysis of Louisiana's water laws with relationship
to the water laws of other states and the Federal government. Office of
Public Works, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. 6
volumes.

Emmer, R. E.
1980 The evolution of mitigation in a highway system. In Edge, B. L., ed.,
Coastal Zone 180, vol. 2, pp. 1119-1137.

7-18

Evans, N., M. J. Hershman, G. V. Blomberg, and W. B. Lawrence
1980 The search for resolution in Grays Harbor, Washington. WSG 80-5.
Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington 117 pp.

Hall, R. S.
1983 Managing coastal conflict: A Federal permit role? In Magoon,'D. T. and H.
Converse, eds., Coastal Zone 183, vol. 2, pp. 1136-11CE

Hildreth, R. G. and R. W. Johnson
1983 Ocean and coastal law. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
07632.

Holmes, B. H.
1972 A history of Federal water resources programs, 1800-1960. USDA. Misc.
Pub. No. 1233 Washington, D.C. 51 p.

Holmes, B. H.
1979 History of Federal water resources programs and policies, 1961-70. USDA.
Misc. Pub. No. 1379 Washington, D.C. 331 p.

Houch, 0. A.
1983 Land. Loss in Coastal Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies.
Tulane Law Review. Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 3-168.

Jaksch, J. A. and H. M. Peskin
1984 Nonpoint-source water pollution. Resources. No. 75, Winter, pp. 25-26.
Resources for the future.

Kusler, J.A., and Associates
1976 Statutory land use control enabling authority in the fifty states. Federal
Insurance Administration. HUD 304 p.

Liffman, M.
1984 Personal communication. Assistant Director, Ports and Waterways
Institute, Center for W etland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge.

Lindsey, J.
1984 Personal communication. Administrator, Coastal Management Division,
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
1981 Natural and scenic streams system. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 4th Printing.
24 pp.

Moss, E.
1977 Land use controls in the United States. A handbook on the legal rights of
citizens. , Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Dial Press/James
Wade: New York. 362 p.

Mumphrey, A., J. S. Brooks, J. C. Miller
1976 Urban development in the Louisiana coastal zone. Contract No.
SPO-77-05, Louisiana State Planning Office.

7-19

Murley, J. F.
1982 Comment in Galloway, T. D., ed., The new federalism: A new framework
for coastal issues. Proceedings of the sixth annual conference of the Center
for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rhode Island, June 20-23,
1982 Wilson Publishing Company, Inc. Wakefield, Rhode Island.

Office of Coastal Zone Management and Coastal Management Section
1980 Louisiana coastal resources program final environmental impact statement.
NOAA, USDC and LDNR. Washington, D.C. and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Rose, J. G.
1983 Legal foundations of environmental planning. Center for Urban Policy
Research. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1977 Permit programs, a guide for applicants. EP 1145-2-1. 1 November.
Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington,
D.C.

1982 Regulatory summary report of Section 404 Permit Activity, 1977-1980.
Office of Chief of Engineers. As cited in Houck, 1983.

van Sickle, V.
1984 Personal communication. Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge,
La.

Waseom, M. W.
1984 Legal/ ins ti tutional factors affecting wetland trends and use in the study
area: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. In Bahr, L. M. and M. W. Wascom.
Wetland Trends and Factors Influencing W-etland Use in the Area Influenced
by the Lower Mississippi River: A Case Study. Prepared for Office of
Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress. Center for Wetland Resources,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 34 pp.

Zinn, J. and C. Copeland
1982 Wetland management congressional research service. Prepared for the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. U. S. Senate, 97th Congress,
2nd Session, Committee Print 1451. USGPO: Washington, D.C. 149 p.

CHAPTER 8: HOW A SPECIAL AREA PLAN FOR

THE LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN-MAUREPAS, BASIN

NUGHT BE ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTED IN LOUISIANA

Abstract

National policy encourages the preparation of plans for special area management to
protect significant natural resources, provide for reasonable coastal-dependent
economic growth, improve protection of life and property in hazardous areas, and
improve predictability in governmental decision making. Federal statutory authority
is in place for states to adopt and implement special area plans. In accordance with
the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, the state can
establish a special area management program for areas within the coastal zone which
have unique and valuable characteristics requiring special management procedures.

Introduction

Federal Guidelines

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. See. 1451, et seq, Is
primarily designed to develop, on the state and local levels, planning mechanisms and
administrative coordination procedures to implement criteria for decision making
regarding competing uses in the coastal zone. In this Act, Congress specifically finds
and declares that it is the national policy:

"To encourage the preparation of special area management plans which
provide for increased specificity in protecting significant natural
resources, reasonable coastal- dependent economic growth, improved
protection of life and property in hazardous areas, and improved
predictability in governmental decision making." 16 U.S.C. See. 1452(3).

The Act goes on to define the term "special area management plan" as follows:

11 ... a comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and
reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth containing a detailed and
comprehensive statement of policies; standards and criteria to guide public
and private usage of lands and waters; and mechanisms for timely
implementation in specific geographic areas within the coastal zone." 16
U.S.C. See. 1453(17).

8-2

The Federal Act also requires the state management program to contain an inventory
of areas of particular concern within the coastal zone and to provide giddellnes for
priorities of uses. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1454(b)(3)(5).

In addition, Federal "Resource Management Improvement Grants" are statutorily
authorized for the preservation or restoration of specific areas of the state! which are
designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for coxiservation,
recreation, ecological, or aesthetic values or which contain coastal resources of
national significance. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1455(a)(b)(1); 16 U.S.C. 1455(c)(a).

The state coastal management program is subject to continuing review and approval by
the Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce.1 For example, if the
Secretary determines that the coastal state has not made satisfactory progress toward
inventorying and designating areas that contain one or more coastal areas of national
significance and/or has not made. satisfactory progress in providing specific and
enforceable standards to protect such resources, he may, thereafter, decline to make
federal management program grants to the coastal state. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1455 (i). To
date only two Special Areas have been designated in Louisiana: the Louisiana Offshore
Oil Port and the Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge.

State Statutory Authority

From a legal standpoint, the statutory and administrative procedures are already in
place in Louisiana law for the adoption of "special area management plans."

Pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Louisiana 'Legislature
adopted the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, LRS
49:213.1 et seq, which establishes the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program within the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. LRS 49:213.6. This program is
administered by the Coastal Management Division (CMD), Office of the Secretary of
the Department of Natural Resources. Charged with statutory permitting authority
over "any use or activit y within the coastal zone which has a direct and significant

1The Federal Act is administered by the Office,of Ocean and CoastaL Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce.

8-3

impact on coastal waters," LRS 49:213.3(8), the CMD, in making recommendations to
the Secretary regarding permit applications, examines each project for its potential
for cumulative impacts and its overall social, economic, and environmental costs and
benefits, as well as the project's individual merit.
The state Department of Natural Resources retains the exclusive authority to regulate
"uses of state concern." "Uses of state concern" are statutorily defined as:

"Those uses which directly and significantly affect coastal waters and
which are in need of coastal management and which have impacts of
greater than local significance or which significantly affect interests of
regional, state, or national concern. Uses of state concern shall include,
but no be limited to:

a) Any dredge or fill activity which intersects with more than one
water body.
b) Projects involving use of state owned lands or water bottoms.
c) State publicly funded projects.
d) National interest projects.
e) Projects occurring in more than one parish.
f) All mineral activities, including exploration for, and production
of oil, gas, and other minerals, all dredge and fill uses
associated therewith, and all other associated uses.
g) All pipelines for the gathering, transportation or transmission
of oil, gas, and other minerals.
h) Energy facility siting and development.
i) Uses of local concern which might significantly affect interests
of regional, state or national concern." LRS 49:213.5(A)

On the other hand, "uses of local concerrVI are statutorily defined as:

a) Privately funded projects which are not uses of state concern.
b) Publicly funded projects which are not uses of state concern.
c) Maintenance of uses of local concern.
d) Jetties or breakwaters.
e) Dredge or fill projects not intersecting more than one water
body.
f) Bulkheads.
g) Piers.
h) Camps and cattlewalks.
i) Maintenance dredging.
j) Private water control structures of less than $15,000 in cost.
Q Uses on cheniers, salt domes, or similar land forms. LRS
49:213.5(B).

Parishes, after having a local program approved by the state, are delegated the
responsibility of managing uses of local concern, although they have no jurisdiction

8-4

over uses of state concern2. LRS 49:213.9. Coordination and consistency with other
federal and state agencies is required by the state act. LRS 49:213.1(4).

Moreover, the State Act specifically approves the establishment of a special area
management program in "special areas!' which are defined as "areas within, the coastal
zone which have unique and valuable characteristics requiring special management
procedures." LRS 49:213.10. Moreover, the state Act gives the Secretary of the
Department of Natural Resources the specific statutory authority to adopt, after
notice and public hearing, rules for the identification, designation, and utilization of
special areas and for the establishment of gui delines on priorities of uses in each area,
subject to the approval of the Louisiana Coastal Advisory Council created by the 1984
Legislature.

The Administrative Rules Regarding Special Areas

In accordance with the state Act, the Department of Natural Resources has adopted,
as part of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Plan (LCRP), procedural rules for the
identification, designation, and utilization of special areas and for the establishment
of guidelines and priorities of uses for each area. Appendix C-4 to LCRP.

The rules provide that special management areas may be nominated by any person,
local governing body, or state agency. The East Jefferson Civic Council has already
nominated the Pontchartrain-Basin as a special area under these administrative rules.
Moreover, by Executive Order EWE-84-23, signed on August 21, 1984, Governor Edwin
W. Edwards established a Lake Pontchartrain Task Force in the Office of the
Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, appointed 17 persons to serve on
the Task Force, and directed the Task Force to study the feasibility of designating the
Lake Pontchartrain-Lake Maurepas Basin a special management area and tD advise the
Secretary of its findings.

Under the law, in order to be designated as a special area, the area nominated must
meet certain criteria: 1) it must be within the coastal zone; 2) it must 1',Iave unique
and valuable characteristics; 3) it must require special management procedures

2AU parishes within the Pontchartrain Basin have submitted local programs for review
or approval and the approval processes are now pending. The only exception is the
Parish of St. John the Baptist which has withdrawn the application for approval of its
proposed local program.

8-5

different from normal coastal management procedures, and 4) it must be managed for
a purpose of regional, state, or national importance. After a nomination has been
reviewed by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources for its suitability
and consistency with these criteria, the Secretary, if he finds the nomination
acceptable, will prepare a proposal for a special area consisting of a delineation of the
proposed area and suggested guidelines and procedures for the management of usages.
The Louisiana Coastal Advisory Council, newly created by La. Act 408 of 1984, may
advise the Secretary with regard to the proposed guidelines. Notice will be given and
a public hearing on the proposal will be held. After the hearing, the Secretary will
make a decision as to whether to adopt the special program. Should the Secretary
decide to adopt the proposed special area program, the Secretary should then comply
with the rule-making procedures established by LRS 49:953 of the Administrative
Procedure Act before the program can become effective.

Conclusion

Although existing Louisiana statutory law is sufficient for the identification and
designation of special management areas, no special area program is yet in place for
the Pontchartrairi7Maurepas Basin. A major purpose of a special area is to adopt
specific economic, environmental, and social criteria for the consideration and
determination of permit applications. These criteria should include specific methods
for coordinating existing land and water uses and coastal management expertise in
order to properly utilize the Lake Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin. In such a manner,
the important federally-mandated purposes of achieving increased specificity and
improved predictibility in governmental decision making can be achieved.

CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report is a synthesis of information describing the environmental characteristics
of the coastal zone of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin, an area partially on the
higher and older Pleistocene Terrace, but mostly on the Mississippi River deltaic plain.
The coastal zone is subject to many natural and man-related uses and as a result,
numerous problems have evolved and conflicts arisen. These problems are discussed in
the previous sections and are summarized here.

The report was prepared to provide information for the Task Force when evaluating
the potential for designating part of the Pontchartrain- Maurepas Basin as a Special
Area. Because of existing Louisiana legislation, Special Areas are limited to those
areas that are subject to the Department of Natural Resources Coastal Use Permits
(CUP) processing. CUPs may be required foractivities below the 5-ft contour, outside
of fastlands, or on surrounding lands which have a direct and significant impact on
coastal waters. Activities within the coastal zone or that have a direct and significant
impact on coastal waters and are not exempt by the program will be affected by
designation of a Special Area.

Two significant geologic issues of the study area center on common problems of the
deltaic plain where: 1) soil subsidence results from drainage of swamp and marsh soils
and 2) shoreline erosion rates along Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain typically range
from 5 to 10 ft/year. Possible solutions to reduce adverse impacts of subsidence
include maintaining a' high water table to minimize oxidation and consolidation of
soils, the imposition of a waiting pe riod after initial drainage to allow time for
subsidence to occur, and development and enforcement of strict building codes when
swamp and marsh soils are drained. Erosion can be reduced by better wetland
management and planning, restriction of development at the shoreline, maintenance of
natural shorelines and vegetation, and selective implementation of shoreline structures
(jetties, groins).

Shoreline erosion, regional subsidence, and sea-level rise are the natural causes of
vegetation loss in the Pontchartrain- Maurepas Basin. Loss occurs because the
vegetated substrate becomes flooded or erodes; natural vegetation loss is compounded
and accelerated by man-caus ed processes. Industrial and residential development on
the Pleistocene Terrace is systematically removing the pine forest; while at the same
time, industrial and urban expansion on the natural levees are increasing pressures to

9-2

encroach into the bottomland hardwoods and backswamps of the basin. Indirect
effects of population growth include the desire for recreation camps, marinas, canals,
and solid waste sites in association with the urban areas. Oil and gas extraction
activities destroy wetlands by dredging canals, depositing spoil, and providing routes
for saltwater intrusion. Transportation systems (highways, canals, airports) cause the
dredge or f ill of wetlands and open areas to saltwater intrusion.

Adverse impacts can be mitigated by strict enforcem ent of coastal use guidelines, as
outlined in the state's coastal zone program. Wetland management plans need to be
developed and implemented for each parish and coordinated between parishes so that
specific recommendations can be made for every management unit once the priorities
are delineated. It is possible to reduce the impacts of unnecessary canal dredging,
spoil disposal, and saltwater intrusion by minimizing activities and isolating canals.

The fish and wildlife resources of the basin are one of the most important aspects of
the estuarine system; however, both are stressed from natural and man-induced
causes. The principal problem is the loss of wetland habitat from regional. subsidence,
urban encroachment in its many forms, saltwater intrusion, and lack of sediment input
from normal river floods. Aquatic grassbeds are being reduced especially along the
south shore of Lake Pontchartrain.

Possible solutions which will reduce these impacts, for example, diversion of
freshwater into the basin from the Mississippi River would reduce salinity- in the lake
and surrounding wetlands and introduce much needed sediment into the system.
Second, uncontrolled urban and associated expansion into the valuable wetlands must
be restrained and plans prepared which better direct resource use. Finally, federal,
state, and local agencies can acquire the important and critical habitat of the basin
and actively manage it for its renewable resources.

Water quality problems in the coastal zone are the result of man-related actions.
Overloaded treatment plants or septic tanks must bypass sewage and flush it, only
partially treated, into the lakes and wetlands of the basin. Swimming and water-
contact sports are restricted in zones along the south shore and in the rivers and
bayous of the north shore. Gulf water intrusion from the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal (IHNC) pushes a wedge of saltwater into the lake and eventually into the
fringing wetlands, contributing to wetland loss. When combined with infrequent and

9-3

restricted flooding from the Mississippi River, the problem becomes greater. Urban
runoff and other nonpoint sources contribute hydrocarbons, heavy metals, PCBs,
pesticides, and other synth-etic chemicals to the aquatic system. Finally, sediment is
introduced to the lakes from construction sites, agricultural activities, and sand and
gravel mining along rivers in the upper basin. Hydraulic dredging increases turbidity
by stirring up lake bottom sediments.

Several actions can be implemented to improve the water quality of the coastal zone.
Treatment- plants and septic tanks can be upgraded to handle the expected load and,
therefore, not bypass the process. Rerouting effluents into the Mississippi River will
contribute to improving water quality in the lakes. Artifical barrier islands win
promote submerged grass beds that will assist in water quality enhancement. Tertiary
treatment can be accomplished through wetland surface water management and has
the.additional benefit of wetland restoration. Navigation structures on the IHNC will
help reduce the saltwater input to the lakes. Resuspension of pollutants can be
avoided by first testing areas before they are dredged and then avoiding the zones of
concentration.

Conflicts exist between the many uses of the coastal zone and general development of
the basin because of increasing population. Natural disasters within the coastal zone
cause millions of dollars in property damage and require the dedication of millions of
dollars of public funds annually. Riverine and coastal flooding from precipitation, high
tides, and hurricanes are the principal causes; when combined with a subsiding
topography the problem is intensified. Shoreline erosion becomes a problem when
development occurs at the land-water interface. Development of the coastal zone
directly contributes to stressing the surrounding physical and biological systems by
degrading the air and water quality through pollutant discharge, building and not
controlling solid and hazardous wates disposal sites, dredging and filling of wetlands,
developmental encroachment into wetlands, conversion of prime farmlands to
industrial and residential uses, and the destruction of archaeological and historical

resources.

Mitigating natural hazards is accomplished through implementation of nonstructural
flood damage reduction techniques, such as flood-proofing, avoidance of floodplains
for development, or evacuation, butit has been demonstrated on numerous occasions
that structures (levees, dams, diversions) only encourage a false sense of security and

9-4

greater losses in the long term. Building in zones of soil subsidence requires special
construction practices such as piers, flexible utility systems, and control of drainage
methods. FloodplairLs offer excellent opportunities for water storage, Wildlife and
fisheries habitat, and recreation. Coastal wetlands are biologically productive, used
for recreation, and serve as buffers to storm-surge. Development in these areas is
very expensive to maintain and therefore should be avoided. Solid and hazardous
waste sites must be controlled to prevent deterioration of surrounding areas and new
methods must be designed to solve the waste problem, such as recycling materials or
requiring deposits on all plastic, glass, or metal containers. Finally, state, local and
federal regulatory agencies must enforce guidelines and standards de-veloped to
protect the environment.

Many regulatory activities in the Pontchartrain- Maur epas Basin overlap. Federal,
state, and local agencies permit projects, but the coordination and cooperation
between groups is sometimes not all it should be for the long-term benefit of the
state. Studies also indicate that regulatory programs may not be as effective for
protecting the environment as they could be. The most significant problem in the
basin is the uncertainty inherent in the permitting system when an app'Licant seeks
compliance with generic, coast-wide regulations. This problem costs the applicant and
the reviewing agency time and money because modifications and revisions which could
have.been avoided had more site specific guidelines been available are required.

Conflict of resource use and deterioration of the physical and biological base caused
by an increasing population must be immediately addressed before the entire
Pontchartrain-Maurepas estuarine system collapses. It must however be accomplished
in a more innovative way than in the past. Federal agencies are limited to a case-by@
case review of projects and have not undertaken the long-term planning necessary to
restore and protect the basin resources. The responsibility lies with the state to
initiate a comprehensive effort to act in the coastal zone rather than react to what
others do. The state has the authority to prepare the program and the capacity to
analyze the full scope of problems and solutions from a systems or regional
prespective, should they choose to do so.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, R. D., P. J. Banor, R. H. Bauman, J. H. Blackman, and W. G. McIntire
1978 Shoreline erosion in coastal Louisiana: inventory and assessment. Louisiana
Center for Wetland Resources. Final report to Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development.

Bahr, L.M., Jr., J.P. Sikora, and W.B. Sikora
1980 Macrobenthic survey of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, 1978. Pages 659-710
in J.H. Stone, ed. Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana,
its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses. Center for Wetland
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. U.S. Army Engineer
District, New Orleans.

Balfour, S.
1984 Personal Communication. Office of Public Works, Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development. List of drainage districts compiled by.

Ball, G. H. and C. Symons
1983 Managing conflict in the coastal zone. In Magoon, 0. T. and H. Converse,
eds., Coastal Zone 183, Vol. IT, pp. 1331-15-39.

Barrett, B.
1976 Grain size analyses of , bottom sediments in Lake Maurepas and
Pontchartrain. In An inventory and study of the Lake Pontchartrain-Lake
Maurepas estda-rine complex. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries
Commmission, Oysters, Water Bottoms and Seafood Division, Technical
Bulletin No. 19:145-159.

Baumann, R. H.
1980 Mechanisms of maintaining marsh elevation in a subsiding environment.
Master's Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 91 pp.

Bellrose, F.C.
1976 Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Wildlife Management Institute,
Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Bickle, G. L.
1983 Balancing development and environmental concerns in the coastal zone of
New Jersey. In Magoon, 0. T. and H. Converse, eds., Coastal Zone 183, vol.
2, pp. 112o-17135.

Bodi, F. L. and C. K. Walters
19- Special area management planning - The big gamble, attorney, NOAA;
National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. unpublished.

CHAPTER 10: CREDITS

The principal authors of this report and the accompanying atlas are:

Dr. Rod E. Emmer, Project Director, and Environmental Regulations
Dr. Karen M. Wicker, Vegetation
Dr. Daniel W. Earle, Jr., Development and Land Use
Mr. David W. Roberts, Hydrology and Water Quality
Mr. Perry C. Howard, Geology
Mr. Donny J. Davis, Wildlife and Fisheries
Mr. Art Smith, Legal Consultant

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

R-2

Brown, C.A.
1945 Louisiana trees and shrubs. Louisiana Forestry Commission Bulletin 1.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 262 pp.

Burk and Associates, Inc.
1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, Tangipahoa Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, St. Tammany Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, Livingston Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Burk and Associates, Inc.
1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, St. John the Baptist Parish. Prepared for
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

1978 Coastal *Resources Atlas, St. Charles Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, Jefferson Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1978 Coastal Resources Atlas, Orleans Parish. Prepared for Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Byrne, Christian
1984 Personal communication in reference to pollutant levels in Lake
Pontchartrain. University of New Orleans, Center for Bio-organic Studies,
New Orleans.

1979 Winter habitat of dabbling ducks-physical, chemical, and biological aspects.
Pages 133-142 in T.A. Bookhout, ed., Waterfowl and Wetlands-an integrated
review. Proc@edings of a symposium, Madison, Wisconsin, North Central
Section, The. Wildlife Society. 147pp.

Chabreck, R.H., and R.E. Condrey
1979 Common Vascular Plants of the Louisiana Marsh. Louisiana State
University, Center for Wetland Resources, Sea Grant Publication LSU-T-79-
003.

R-3

Chabreck, R.H. and R.G. Linscombe
1978 Vegetative type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes. Louisiana Wildlife
and Fisheries Commission, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Chabreck, R.H., R.K. Yancey, and L. McNease
1974 Duck usage of management units. in the Louisiana co&stal marsh.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of
Fish and Game Commissioners 28:507-516.

Coastal Management Division
1984 Annual Report to Office of Coastal Resource Management. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

Conner, W. H.
1977 Public administration of Louisiana's coastal wetlands: 1820 to 1976. Center
for Wetland Resources. LSU-T-77-001 Coastal Zone Management Series,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 66 p.

Conner, W.H. and J.W. Day, Jr.
1976 Productivity and composition of a baldcypress-watertupelo site and a
bottomland hardwood site in a Louisiana swamp. American Journal of
Botany 64:1354-.1364.

Conner, W.H., G.W. Cramer, and J.W. Day, Jr.
1980 Vegetation of the north shore marshes and west shore swamps of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Louisiana Academy of Science 43:139-145.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe
1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.
FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 103 pp.

Cox, W E.
1977 Existing legal framework for management of Virginia's coastal wetlands.
VPI, Blacksburg, VA. Research Report AE 31 25 p.

Cramer, G.W.
1978 A nutrient study in the St. Charles Parish wetlands adjacent to Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Master's Thesis. Louisiana State University,
Department of Marine Sciences, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

R-4

Cramer, G.W., J.W. Day, Jr., and W.H. Conner
1981 Productivity of four marsh sites surrounding Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
American Midland Naturalist 106:65-72.

Daigre, Glen
1981 Population density patterns in Louisiana. Louisiana State Planning Office,
State Data Center, State Planning Bulletin 9(l)-.1, 3-4.

1961 Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community, based on studies of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Ecology 43:553-5.68.

1964 Organic detritus in relation to secondary production in aquatic communities.
Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fur theoretische und
angewandte Limnologie 15:462-470.

DeWeerdt, J. L. and P. M. Glick (eds)
1973. A summary-digest of the Federal water laws and programs. National Water
Commission USGPO's. Washington, D.C. 205 p.

Due, Dodson, deGravelles, Robinson, and Caskey
1983 Legal and institutional analysis of Louisiana's water laws with relationship
to the water laws of other states and the Federal government. Office of
Public Works, Louisiana. Department of Transportation and Development.
6 volum es.

Dugoni, J.A.
1981 Habitat utilization, food habits, and productivity of nesting Southern Bald
Eagles in Louisiana. Master's Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge. 151 pp.

Earle, D.
1975 Land subsidence problems and maintenance costs to homeowners in East
New Orleans, Louisiana. Department of Marine Science, Ph.D. dissertation,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 366 pp.

'R-5

Emmer, R. E.
1980 The evolution of mitigation in a highway system. In Edge, B. L., ed.,
Coastal Zone 180, vol. 2, pp. 1119-1137.

Emmer, R. E., R. B. Sonnenfeld, A. T. Davison, P. R. Autin, R. P. McCulloh
1983 Louisiana Atlas of Flood Plains and Flooding Problems. Louisiana
Geological Survey. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Environmental Laboratory
1978 Preliminary guide to wetlands of the Gulf coastal plain. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 73 pp.

Faulks, E.B.
1938 Forest resources in the longleaf pine region of Mississippi and east
Louisiana. U.S. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. Forest
Survey Release 39.

Frazier, D. E.
1967 Recent deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River: their development and
chronology. Transactions - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies.
Volume XVII:287-311.

Gael, B. T.
1980 Computation of drift patterns in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana in J. H.
Stone, ed., Environmental Analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louis 7- a, Its
ian
Surrounding Wetlands, and Selected Land Uses 1:39-56.

Garofalo, D.
1982 Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region ecological characterization: an ecological
atlas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services.
FWS/OBS 81/16.

Giles, L.W.
1968 Relationship of vegetation to salinity in a southeast Louisiana coastal
marsh. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife-River Basin Studies. Jackson,
Mississippi." 24 pp.

R-6

Gosselink, J.G. and R.E. Turner
1978 The role of hydrology in freshwater wetland ecosystems. Pages 63-78 in
R.E. Good, D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson, eds. Freshwater wetlanO.
ecological processes and management potential, Academic Press, New York.

Governor's Task Force on Environmental Health
1984 Environment and health in Louisiana: the cancer problem. Louisiana State
Planning Office, Office of the Governor. March.

Gundlach, E. R.9 M. 0. Hayes, and C. D. Getter
1979 Determining environmental protection priorities in coastal ecosystems. In
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Proceedings of the 1979 U.S. Fish aTd
Wildlife Service Pollution Response Workshop, 8-10 May, St. Petersburg,
Florida, Environmental Contaminant Evaluation Program, Division of
Ecological Services.

HalIv R. S.
1983 Managing coastal conflict: A Federal permit role? In Magoon, 0. T. and H.
Converse, eds., Coastal Zone 183, vol. 2, pp. 1136-1liT.

Haynes, R.R.
1968 Potamogeton in Louisiana. Proceedings Louisiana Academy of Sciences
31:82-90.

Hildreth, R. G. and R. W. Johns on
1983 Ocean and coastal law. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
07632.

Hinchee, R.E.
1977 Selected aspects of the biology of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana 1.
Simulation of man's effects on the Lake Pontchartrain food web, 2. The role
of the St. Charles Parish marsh on the life cycle of the Gulf menhaden, 3.
The fishery value of the St. Charles Parish marsh. Master's Thesis,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 74 pp.

Holmes, B. H.
1972 A history of Federal water resources programs, 1800-1960. USDA. Misc.
Pub. No. 1233 Washington, D.C. 51 p.

Holmes, B. H.
1979 History of Federal water resources programs and policies, 1961-70. USDA.
Misc. Pub. No. 1379 Washington, D.C. 331 p.

Houck, 0. A.
1983 Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies.
Tulane La w Review. Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 3-168.

Jaksch, J. A. and H. M. Peskin
1984 Nonpoint-source water pollution. Resiources. No. 75, Winter, pp. 25-26.
Resources for the future.

R-7

Joanen, T. and L. McNease
1972 Population distribution of alligators with special reference to the Louisiana
coastal marsh zones. American Alligator Council Symposium, Lake Charles,
Louisiana. 12 pp.

Keller, C.E., J.A. Spendelow, and R.D. Greer
1983 Atlas of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in coastal Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama: 1983. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Coastal Ecosystems Team, Slidell, Louisiana.

Kolb, C. and J. van Lopik
1958 Geology of the Mississippi River deltaic plain, Southeast Louisiana.
Technical Report No. 3-483, July 1978. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg Mississippi. In two
volumes.

Kusler, J.A., and Associates
1976 Statutory land use control enabling authority in the fifty states. Federal
Insurance Administration. HUD 304 p.

LaBelle, R. P.
1983 An oilspill risk analysis for the Central Gulf of Mexico (April 1984) and
Western Gulf of Mexico (July 1984) outer continental shelf lease offerings.
In Draft EIS Gulf of Mexico proposed OCS oil and gas.lease offerings.
Central Gulf of Mexico (April, 1984) Western Gulf of Mexico (July, 1984).
Mineral Management Service, Metairie, Louisiana. pp. 281-345. Appendix
A.

Lemaire, R. J.
1960 Preliminary report of marsh vegetation study, Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet
Navigation Project, Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana.. Prepared
for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. Branch of River Basin Studies, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. Unpublished.

Levine, S.J.
1980 Gut contents of forty-four Lake Pontchartrain fish species, 1977-78. Pages
899-1030 in J.H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses. Center of
Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. U.S. Army
Engineer District, New Orleans.

Liff man, M.
1984 Personal communication. Assistant Director, Ports and Waterways
Institute, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge.

R-8

Lindsey, J.
1984 Personal communication. Administrator, Coastal Management Division,
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
1972 Grain size analyses of bottom sediments in Lake Maurepas and
Pontchartrain. In Barrett, B. 1976. An inventory and study of the Lake
Pontchartrain-Lake Maurepas estuarine complex. Oysters, Water Bottoms
and Seafood Division. Technical Bulletin 19 pp. 145-159.
1981 Ratural and'seenic streams system. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 4th Printing.
24 pp.

Louisiana State Planning Office
1976 Soil subsidence potential maps. Six maps. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

1983 State Planning completes infrastructure analysis. State Planning Bulletin
2(3).

Lowery, G.H.
1974a Louisiana birds. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
651 pp.

1974F The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State
University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 565 pp.

Mancil, E.
1972 An historical geography of industrial cypress lumbering in Louisiana.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouffe,
Louisiana. 275 pp.

McNease, L. and T. Joanen
1977 Alligator diets in relation to marsh salinity. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
31:36-40.

1978 Distribution and relative abundance of the alligator in Louisiana coastal
marshes. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 32:182-186.

Mixon., J.E.
n.d. Louisiana forest types. Louisiana Forestry Commission, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. Map.

R-9

Monte, J.A.
1978 Impa'ct of petroleum dredging on Louisiana's coastal landscape: a plant
biogeographical analysis and resource assessment of spoil bank habitats in
the Bayou Lafourche delta. Ph.D. Dissertation. Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 334 pp.

1984 Personal communication. Botanist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans District, New Orleans.

Montz, G. N.
1970 An ecological study of the flora of east St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 190 pp.

1973 The submerged vegetation of Lake Pontchartrain. USACE, New Orleans
District. New Orleans, Louisiana.

1976 Reports to the file, Botanical elements. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans District, New Orleans.

1978 The submerged vegetation of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana., Castanea
43(2):115-128.

n.d. The submerged vegetation. of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Unpublished.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. 17 pp.

Montz, G.N., and A. Cherubini
1973 An ecological study of a-baldcypress swamp in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Castanea 38(4):378-386.

Moss, E.
1977 Land use controls in the United States. A handbook on the legal rights of
citizens. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Dial Press/James
Wade: New York. 362 p.

Mumphrey, A., J. S. Brooks, J. C. Miller
1976 Urban development in the Louisiana coastal zone. Contract No.
SPO-77-05, Louisiana State Planning Office.

Nakassis, A.
1982 Has offshore oil production become safer? USGS Open-file report 82-232,
27 pp.

R-10

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1978 Flight request 0754, uncontrolled color infrared photographs, 1:24,000. Oct.
81 9, 10, 159 1978. Flights 78-143, 78-144, 78-145, 78-148. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Remote Sensing Operations Branch,
Remote Sensing Division, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Las Vegas, Nevada.

1982 -Thematic Mapper Scene 46142-16003; Color infrared print. EROS, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1978 Flight request 0754, uncontrolled prints at 1:24,000 October 15. Flight
78-148. EPA, Remote Sensing Operations Branch, Remote Sensing Division,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1974 Chart Number 11369. 25th Edition. National Ocean Survey. Washington,
D. C.

Odum, H.T.
1971 Environment, Power and Society. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Office of Public Works (OPW)
1984 Louisiana Water Resources Study Commission's Report to the 1984
Legislature. Draft report prepared by Louisiana Department of
Transportation. and Development, OPW.

Office of Coastal Zone Management, 'U.S. Department of Commerce and Louisiana
Coastal Resources Program, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
1980 Excerpts from Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. pp. 52-64.

Office of Health Services and Environmental Quality
1982 1982 Lake Pontchartrain Bacterial Pollution Study. Louisiana Department
of Health and Human Resources, New Orleans.

O'Neill, M. E.
1931 An ecological study of the cypress-tupelo community. Master's Thesis,
Tulane University, New Orleans. 152 pp.

O'Neil, T.
1949 The muskrat in the Louisiana coastal marshes. Louisiana Wildlife and
Fisheries Commission, New Orleans. 152 pp. and foldout vegetation map.
O'Neil,T. and G. Linscombe
1977 The fur animals, the alligator and the fur industry in Louisiana, Louisiana.
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, New Orleans. 68 pp.

R-11

Palmisano, A. W.
1970 Plant community - soil relationships in Louisiana coastal marshes. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 92 pp.

1971 Commercial wildlife work unit report to fish and wildlife study of the
Louisiana coast and the Atchafalaya Basin, Volume 1. Louisiana Wildlife and
Fisheries Commission, New Orleans. 180 pp.

1973 Habitat preference of waterfowl and fur animals in the Northern Glulf Coast
Marshes. Pages 162-190 in R. H. Chabreck, ed., Proceedings of the Coastal
Marsh and Estuary Manig-ement Symposium. Louisiana State University,
Division of Continuing Education, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Palmisano, A. W., Jr., and R. H. Chabreck
1972 The relationship of plant communities and soils of the Louisiana coastal
marshes. Proceedings of the Louisiana Association of Agronomists
13:72-101.

Palmore, Don
1983 Lake Maurepas-Pontchartrain estuarine complex: viewpoints on uses-shell
dredging. The Lake Pontchartrain/Lake Maurepas estuarine complex:
perspectives on its future, Sheraton Hotel, New Orleans, April 6, 1.983.

Penfound, W. T.
1944 Plant description in relation to the geology of Louisiana. Proceedings of the
Louisiana Academy of Science 8:25-34.

1952 Southern swamps and marshes. Botanical Review 18:313-336.

Penfound, W. T., and E. S. Hathaway
1938 Plant communities in the marshlands of Southeastern Louisiana. Ecological
Monographs 8(1). 55 pp.

Penfound, W. T., and J. A. Howard
1940 A phytosociological study of an evergreen oak forest in the vicinity of New
Orleans, Louisiana. American Midland Naturalist 23:165-174.

Petroleum Information Corporation
1956 Black and white, quad-centered, controlled photo mosaics of study area;
1:24,000. San Antonio, Texas.

Portnoy, J. W.
1977 Nesting colonies of seabirds and wading birds - coastal Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama. Louisiana Coop*erative Wildlife Research Unit.
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. FWS/OBS-77/07.

R-12

Ports and Waterways Institute
1983 List of Port Commissions and Maps of Jurisdictions. Center for Wetland
Resources. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Rose, J. G.
1983 Legal foundations of environmental planning. Center for Urban Policy
Research. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

St. Pel, K. M. and M. H. Schurtz
1983 Water quality influences of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on Lake
Pontchartrain. The Lake Pontchartrain/ Lake Maurepas estuarine complex;
perspectives on its future, Sheraton Hotel, New Orleans, April 6, 1983.

Sanderson, G. C.
1976 Conservation of waterfowl. Pages 43-58 in F. C. Bellrose, ed., Ducks,
geese, and swans of North America. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. 540 pp.

Saucier, R. T.
1963 Recent geomorphic history of the Pontchartrain basin. Louisiana State
University Studies, Coastal Studies Service. No. 9, 114 p.

Sincock, J. L.9 M. M. Smith, and J. J. Lynch
1964 Ducks in Dixie. Pages 99-106 in J. P. Linduska, ed., Waterfowl Tomorrow.
U.S. Goverment Printing Of fice-,Washington, D.C.

Stoessel, R. K.
1980 Nutrient and carbon geochemistry in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, in J. H.
Stone, ed., environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, LouisifFna, its
surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses 1:217-320.

Stone, J. H. and L. A. Deegan
1980 Preliminary modeling of the Lake Pontchartrain ecosystem by computer
simulations. Pages 1-20 in J.H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana,-Its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses.
Center for Wetland Resources, LSU. U.S. Army Engineer District, New
Orleans.

R-13

Suttkus, R. D., B. M. Darnell, and J. M. Darnell
1954 Biological study of Lake Pontchartrain. In Annual Report 1953-54, Tulane
University, Department of Zoology. 59 pp.

Swenson, *E. M.
1980a General Hydrography of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, in J. H. Stone, ed.,
Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, its surrounding
wetlands, and selected land uses 1:57-156.

1980b General hydrography of the tidal passes of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, in
J. H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana,
its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses 1:157-216.

Tarver, J. W., and R. J. Dugas
1973 A study of the clam, Rangia cuneata, in Lake Pontchartrain and Lake
Maur'epas, Louisiana. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission
Technical Bulletin 5. 97 pp.

Thompson, B. A. and J. S. Verret
1980 Nekton of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana and its surrounding wetlands.
Pages 711-864 in J. H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake
Pontchartrain, LFu-isiana, its surrounding wetlands and selected land uses.
Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans.

Turner, R. E. and j. R. Bond
1980a Recent land use changes in Lake Pontchartrain watershed, in J. H. Stone,
ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Couisiana, its
surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses 2:1173-1206.

1980b Urbanization, peak streamflow, and estuarine hydrology (Louisiana),. Pages
1207-1218 in J. H. Stone, ed., Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, Tts surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses, pp.12:07-1218.

Turner, R. E., B. M. Darnell, J. R. Bond
1980 Changes in the submerged macrophytes of Lake Pontchartrain
(Louisiana): 19 54-1973. In J. H. Stone ed., Environmental analysis of Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiani,-its surrounding wetlands, and selected land uses.
Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans,
Contract No. DACW29-77-C-02-53 Vol 2:647-657.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1975 Inventory of Basic Environmental Data, New Orleans-Baton Rouge
Metropolitan Area. Prepared by Engineer Agency for Resource Inventories;
U. S. Army Engineer Topographic Laboratories, Washington, D. C.

R-14

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1977 Permit programs, a guide for applicants. EP 1145-2-1. 1 November.
Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington,
D.C.

1981a Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area, water resources study, background
information appendix, September.

1981b New Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area, water resources study,
summary report, September.

1982 Regulatory summary report of Section 404 Permit Activity, 1977-1980.
Office of Chief of Engineers. As cited in Houck, 1983.

1983 Mississippi and Louisiana estuarine areas, freshwater diversion to Lake
Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound, feasibility study.

1983 Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and vicinity hurricane protection project..
Volume I. New Orleans District. 135 p.

n.d.. Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area, Water Resources Study,
Background Information Appendix, September.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
1970 Soil survey of portions of Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard Parishes -
Louisiana. Soil Conservation Serviceq Alexandria, Louisiana. 125 p.

1976 Gulf Coast Wetlands Handbook. Soil Conservation Service, Alexandria,
Louisiana. 50 p.

U S. Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1979 A socioeconomic characaterization study of the Mississippi River deltaic
plain region. 65 plates at 1:250,000 scale. FWS/OBS-79/06.

R-15

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1980 Mississippi and Louisiana estuarine areas study: A planning-aid report
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services. Lafayette,
Louisiana. 86 pp.-

1982 Central Gulf Coast Wetlands, Category 9, Migratory Bird Habitat
Preservation Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Departrnent of the
Interior, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 103 pp.

U.S. F ish and W ildlif e S ervice and Bureau of Land M anagern ent
1981 Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region Ecological Atlas. FWS/OBS-81/16. 78
plates.

U.S. Geological Survey
1982 Thematic Mapper Scene, 3611 x 3611 CIR print 40142-16003, Dec 5, 1982.
Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

van Beek, J.L. , D.J. Davis, R.E. Emmer, S.A. Hsu, I.A. Mendelssohn, D.S. Sabins, C.L.
Wax, K.M. Wicker
1980 An introduction to the environmental literature of the Mississippi Deltaic
Plain -Region. FWS/OBS-79/30. - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C.: pp. 142-163.

van Beek, J. L., D. Roberts, D. Davis, and D. Sabins
1982 Recommendations for freshwater. diversion to Louisiana estuaries east of
the Mississippi River. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal
Management Section, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 49 pp.

van Beek, J.L., D.D. Davis, R.E. Emmer, and D.S. Sabins
1981 Chapter VII: oil and gas activities. In van Beek et al. 1981, and Introduction
to the Environmental Literature of the Mississippi Deltaic PIELin Region.
FWS/OBS-79/30. pp. 175-198.

van Sickle, V.
1984 Personal Communication. Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

Wascom, M. W.
1984 Legal/institutional factors affecting wetland trends, and use in, the study
area: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. In Bahr, L. M. and M. V1. Wascom.
Wetland Trends and Factors Influencing Wetland Use in the Area Influenced
by the Lower Mississippi River: A Case Study. Prepared for Office of
Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress. Center for Wetland Resources,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 34 pp.

R-16

Wharton, C.H.
1970 The southern river swamp - A multiple@-use environment. Bureau of Business
and Economic Research, School of Business Administration, Georgia State
University, Atlanta, Georgia. 48 pp.

White, D. A.
1979 Plant communities of the Lower Pearl River Basin, Louisiana. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.

1981 Plant communities of the Lower Pearl River Basin, Louisiana. American
Midland Naturalist 110(2):381-396.

Wicker, K. M.
1980 Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region ecological eharacterization: a habitat
mapping study. A User's Guide to the habitat maps. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/07.

1982 -Historical map and photographic study, vicinity of 1-310 (Alternate 6B), St.
Charles Parish, Louisiana. . Prepared for Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development by Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. 13 pp. 3 plates.

Wicker, K. M., et al.
1980 The Mississippi deltaic plain region habitat mapping study. 464 maps. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/07.

1992 9t. Berna rd Parish: A study in wetland management. Prepared for St.
Bernard Parish Police Jury by Coastal Environments, Inc. Chalmette,
Louisiana. 132 pp.

Winters, R. K. and G. B. Ward, Jr.
1934 Forest resources of Louisiana. U. S. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station. 74 pp.

Yancey, R. K.
1970 Our vanishing delta hardwoods. Louisiana Conservationist 22:3-4 (reprint).
March-April. 4 p.

I
Immillollm
3 6668 14103 86481
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
.. I
I
i
I
I
i