St. Bernard Parish coastal management program document

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

HT
393
.L8
S24
1982

ST. BERNARD PARISH

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DOCUMENT

ST. BERNARD PARISH

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENT

Submitted by.-
St. Bernard Parish Police Jury
Henry J. Rodriguez, Jr., President

Subff. itted to:
Coastal Management Section
L. Phil Pittman
Louisiana Departme it of Natural Resources

Prepared for:
St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission
Anthony Fernaindez, Sr., Chairman
Jack A. Stephens, Director/Secretary

Prepared by.-
Coastal Environments, Inc.
Dr. Paul H. Temptet, Project Director
1260 Main Street
Baton Rouge, '@ouisiana 70802

Noverr ber 1982

ST. BERNARD PARISH

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENT

November 1982

The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant from the
U.S. Department of Commerce under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, as amended.

"This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Natural
Resources in the interest of information exchanged. The State of Louisiana assumes
no liability for its contents or the use thereof."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .......................................................... vii
List of Figures ......................................................... viii
St. Bernard Parish Police Jury and Coastal Advisory Committee .............. xi
Guide to Program Content Requirements .................................. xii
Preface and Acknowledgements .......................................... xiii

CHAPTER I- INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................ 1-1

PHYSICAL SETTING .................................................... 1-1
PRINCIPAL RESOURCES ............................................... 1-3
Fisheries ........................................................... 1-3
Minerals ........................................................... 1-3
Furs ............................................................... 1-3
Recreation ......................................................... 1-4
Resource Use Conflict ............................................... 1-4
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS .................................. 1-4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS .......................................... 1-5
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES .................................... 1-6
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ........................................... 1-8
Public Participation ................................................. 1-9
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 1-9

CHAPTER H.- PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................... 2-1

INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 2-1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................... 4 ........... 2-4
Geology ............................................................ 2-4
Soils ............................................................... 2-7
CLIMATE ............................................................. 2-11
HYDROLOGY ......................................................... 2-14
VEGETATION .............................................. t ........... 2-18
WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES .............................................. 2-23
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES .............................. 2-29
CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................... 2-31
Historic Information ................................................. 2-31
Archaeological Sites ................................................. 2-33
Historical Sites ......................... ............................ 2-36
National Register of Historic Places ................................... 2-36
TRANSPORTATION .................................................... 2-46
Roadways .......................................................... 2-46
Waterways ......................................................... 2-46
Rail Service ........................................................ 2-47
Pipelines ........................................................... 2-47
Airports ............................................................ 2-47
LAND USE ............................................................ 2-47
Flood Protection .................................................... 2-51
Solid Waste Disposal ................................................. 2-51
Sewerage Treatment ................................................. 2-52
Utilities ............................................................ 2-52

CHAPTER 19B PRINCIPLE RESOURCES .................................. 34

INTRODUCTION .................................................. .... 3.--@
FISHING AND TRAPPING ............................................... 3-1
EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES .............................................. 3-2
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ........................................ 3
Existing Recreation .................................................. 3-2
Scenic Rivers ....................................................... 3-.11
Scenic Sites ........................................................ 3-9
Proposed Recreation Sites ......................................... _ 3-9
Proposed Preservation and Restoration Areas ...................... .... 3-0,
POTENTIAL UNIQUE AND PARTICULAR AREAS ..................... .... 3-11
RESOURCE USE CONFLICTS ............................................ 3-14
The Petroleum Industry .......................................... 3-16
Navigation ......................................................... 3-46
Development ....................................................... 3-16
Water Quality ....................................................... 3--ly
Space Conflicts ..................................................... 3. .1 @1
Conflict Resolution .................................................. 3-1,1

CHAPTER IV: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERA71ONS ....................... j,-

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT .......... 4-1
FUTURE LAND USE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS ......................... 4-3
PROJECTED LAND USE ................................................ 4-7

CHAPTER V: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ..................................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS .......................................... 5-1
Saltwater Intrusion ................................................. o 5-1
Erosion ............................................................ 5-4
Subsidence ......................................................... 5-4
Flooding ........................................................... 5-7

CHAPTER VI: GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT UNITS ............. o . (6-.1

STATEMENT OF POLICY ............................................... 6- .91
MANAGEMENT GOALS ................................................. 6-2
PERMISSIBLE USES .................................................... 6-3
MANAGEMENT UNITS .................................................. 6-3
Introduction ........................................................ 6-3
Discussion by Unit ................................................... 6-ji
MANAGEMENT UNIT 1-BIENVENUE-PROCTOR POINT MARSH ............. 6-111
Location Map ....................................................... 6'.@j
Geomorphology ................................................... o . 6-11
Soils ............................................................... 6-12
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-12
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-12
Land Use ........................................................... 6-12
Transportation ...................................................... 6-12
Cultural Resources ........................................... '.@ 3
6 @
Unique Ecological Features ......................................... o . 6-13
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-13
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-13
Permissible Uses .................................................... 3

iii

MANAGEMENT UNIT 2-CENTRAL WETLANDS ............................ 6-15
Location Map ....................................................... 6-15
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-15
Soils ............................................................... 6-16
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-16
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-16
Land Use ........................ I ................................... 6-16
Transportation ...................................................... 6-17
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-17
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-17
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-17
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-17
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-18
MANAGEMENT UNIT 3-LOWER URBANIZED LEVEE ....................... 6-19
Location Map ....................................................... 6-19
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-19
Soils ............................................................... 6-19
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-20
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-20
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-20
Land Use ........................................................... 6-20
Transportation ...................................................... 6-20
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-21
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-21
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-21
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-21
MANAGEMENT UNIT 4-LAKE LERY MARSH .............................. 6-22
Location Map ....................................................... 6-22
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-22
Soils ............................................................... 6-22
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-23
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-23
Land Use ........................................................... 6-23
Transportation ...................................................... 6-23
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-23
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-24
Environmental Considerations ......................................... 6-24
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-24
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-24
MANAGEMENT UNIT 5-BAYOU TERRE AUX BOEUFS WETLANDS ............ 6-25
Location Map ........................................................ 6-25
Geomorphology .......................................... ........... 6-25
Soils ............................................................... 6-25
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-26
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-26
Land Use ........................................................... 6-26
Transportation ...................................................... 6-26
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-26
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-26
Environmental Considerations ......................................... 6-27
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-27
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-27

MANAGEMENT UNIT 6-LAKE LA FORTUNA .............................. 6-29
Location Map ....................................................... 6-29
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-29
Soils ............................................................... 6-29
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-30
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-30
Land Use ........................................................... 6-30
Transportation ...................................................... 6-30
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-30
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-31
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-31
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-31
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-31
MANAGEMENT UNIT 7-LOWER LA LOUTRE WETLANDS ................... 6-33
Location Map ....................................................... 6-33
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-33
Soils ............................................................... 6-33
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-34
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-34
Land Use ........................................................... 6-34
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-34
Transportation ...................................................... 6-34
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-34
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-35
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-35
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-35
MANAGEMENT UNIT 8-BILOXI MARSH .................................. 6-36
Location Map ....................................................... 6-36
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-36
Soils ............................................................... 6-36
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-37
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-37
Land Use ........................................................... 6-37
Transportation ...................................................... 6-37
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-37
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-38
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-38
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-38
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-38
MANAGEMENT UNIT 9-BAY BOUDREAUX - BAY ELOI .................... 6-40
Location Map ....................................................... 6-40
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-40
Soils ............................................................... 6-40
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-41
Hydrology ....................... i .................................. 6-41
Land Use ........................................................... 6-41
Transportation ...................................................... 6-41
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-41
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-42
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-42
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-42
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-43

MANAGEMENT UNIT 10-MRGO SPOIL AREA ............................. 6-44
Location Map ....................................................... 6-44
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-44
Soils .... " * * * * " * ' * * " - * * * * * * * * " * * * - * * * * * " * * * * * * * * * * * * ....... 6-44
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-45
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-45
Land Use ........................................................... 6-45
Transportation ...................................................... 6-45
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-45
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-46
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-46
Management Unit Goals .............. i ................................ 6-46
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-46
MANAGEMENT UNIT 11-SEMI-URBANIZED LEVEE ........................ 6-47
Location Map ....................................................... 6-47
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-47
Soils ............................................................... 6-47
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-48
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-48
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-48
Land Use ........................................................... 6-48
Transportation ...................................................... 6-48
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-48
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-49
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-49
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-49
MANAGEMENT UNIT 12-MODIFIED WETLAND ............................ 6-50
Location Map ....................................................... 6-50
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-50
Soils ............................................................... 6-50
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-51
Hydrology .......................................................... 6-51
Land Use ........................................................... 6-51
Transportation ...................................................... 6-51
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-51
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-51
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-52
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-52
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-52
MANAGEMENT UNIT 13-URBANIZED AREA .............................. 6-53
Location Map ....................................................... 6-53
Geomorphology ..................................................... 6-53
Soils ............................................................... 6-53
Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................. 6-54
Hydrology ........................................................... 6-54
Cultural Resources .................................................. 6-54
Land Use ........................................................... 6-54
Transportation ...................................................... 6-54
Unique Ecological Features ........................................... 6-55
Environmental Problems .............................................. 6-55
Management Unit Goals .............................................. 6-55
Permissible Uses .................................................... 6-55

CHAPTER VII: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .............................. 7-1

INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 7-1
PERMIT ADMINISTRATION ............................................. 7-1
General ........................................................ 7-1
Uses of Local Concern ........................................... 7-4
Uses of State Concern ............................................... 7-4
Performance Standards for Uses of State
and Local Concern ................................................. 7-6
Pipeline Regulations ............................................. 7-6
Pipeline Codes .......................................... 7-6
Road Crossings .......................................... 7-6
Water Crossing and Burial Depths .......................... 7-6
Levee Crossings ......................................... 7-7
Required Annual Inspections .............................. 7-7
Completion of Work ..................................... 7-7
Wetland Regulations ..................................... 7-7
Drilling and Wellsite Development Standards ........................ 7-9
Board Road Conditions ................................... 7-9
Explanation ..................................................... 7-10
Dredging and Filling Standards .................................... 7-10
Seismic Standards ............................................... 7-11
Pipe Requirements ...................................... 7-12
Discharge and Transportation of Explosives ................. 7-12
Marsh Buggy Operations .................................. 7-13
Protection of the Environment ............................ 7-13
ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING ..................................... 7-14
General ............................................................ 7-14
Activities Above the 5-Foot Contour or in Fastlands ..................... 7-14
IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 7-15
General ............................................................ 7-15
Funding Uses ....................................................... 7-15
Mitigation .......................................................... 7-15
Consistency ........................................................ 7-16
SPECIAL AREAS ....................................................... 7-16
Introduction ........................................................ 7-16
St. Bernard Parish Designation Procedure ............................... 7-17
Designated Areas .................................................... 7-18
PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF USES OF GREATER
THAN LOCAL BENEFIT OR IMPACTS ................................... 7-20
Introduction ........................................................ 7-20
Requirements ....................................................... 7-21
Procedures ......................................................... 7-22
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ........................................ 7-22

CHAPTER VIII: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................. g-1

PAST EFFORTS ........................................................ 8-1
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION UNDER AN APPROVED LOCAL COASTAL
MANAGEMENTPROGRAM ............................................ 8-1

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

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Habitat Change in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana:
1955/56- 1978 ............................................ 2-2

Table 2-2. Typical Soil Characteristics ................................. 2-10

Table 2-3. Vegetation of St. Bernard Parish ............................. 2-20

Table 2-4. Mammals that Occur in St. Bernard Parish .................... 2-25

Table 2-5. Birds of Common Occurrence in St. Bernard Parish ............. 2-26

Table 2-6. Common Commercial Fish, Sportfish, and Shell Fish Found
in the Waters of St. Bernard Parish .......................... 2-30

Table 2-7. St. Bernard Parish Archaeological Sites with Reported
Culture Periods and Phase Designations ...................... 2-38

Table 2-8. Historic Sites in St. Bernard Parish .......................... 2-42

Table 2-9. Existing Land Use in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana ............. 2-50

Table 3-1. Commercial Fisheries Harvest for St. Bernard Parish Shown
in Pounds and Value of Catch ............................... 3-3

Table 3-2. Federal, State, and Parish Parks and Refuges .................. 3-5

Table 3-3. Designated Scenic Streams in St. Bernard Parish ............... 3-8

Table 3-4. Potential Recreation Sites in St. Bernard Parish ............... 3-10

Table 3-5. Potential Preservation Sites in St. Bernard Parish .............. 3-12

Table 4-1. Past, Present, and Projected Population of St.
Bernard Parish ............................................ 4-2

Table 4-2. Average Employment by Industry for St. Bernard Parish ........ 4-4

Table 4-3. Projected 1995 Establishment Based Employment -
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana ................................ 4-5

Table 4-4. Land Use Standards for St. Bernard Parish .................... 4-6

Table 4-5. Categories of Projected Land Acreage Representing the
Existing Cordoned Areas for St. Bernard Parish ................ 4-8

Table 6-1. Environmental Summary .................................... 6-5

Table 7-1. Coastal Uses Requiring A Permit ............................ 7-3

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Location of Study Area Within Louisiana Coastal
Zone ..................................................... 1-2

Figure 2-1. Location of Louisiana and St. Bernard Parish Within
the Mississippi Embayment Portion of the Gulf Coastal
Plain .................................................... 2-5

Figure 2-2. The Five Historic Delta Lobes of the Mississippi Deltaic
Plain .................................................... 2-6

Figure 2-3. Forms and Processes Associated with Delta Progradation,
Abandonment, and Human Landscape Modification ............. 2-8

Figure 2-4. General Soils Map of St. Bernard Parish ...................... 2-9

Figure 2-5. Monthly Temperature Taken at New Orleans, Louisiana ......... 2-12

Figure 2-6. Monthly Rainfall in Inches Taken at New Orleans, Louisiana ..... 2-13

Figure 2-7. Components of the Abandoned Distributary and Inter-
distributary Systems in St. Bernard Parish .................... 2-15

Figure 2-8. The Hydrology and Salinity Conditions in St. Bernard Parish ..... 2-17

Figure 2-9. Distribution of Vegetation Associations
of St. Bernard Parish ....................................... 2-19

Figure 2-10. Cross Section of the Landforms in St. Bernard Parish and
Some of the Common Vegetation Species Found There .......... 2-24

Figure 2-11. Cultural Resources of St. Bernard Parish ..................... 2-34

Figure 2-12. Magnolia Mound Shell Midden and Complex ................... 2-35

Figure 2-13. Progressive Shoreline Erosion of a Coastal Midden ............. 2-37

Figure 2-14. Northeast Face of Fort Proctor ............................. 2-44

Figure 2-15. Powder Magazine at Battery Bienvenue, View to the East ....... 2-45

Figure 2-16. Existing Transportation of St. Bernard Parish .................. 2-48

Figure 2-17. Existing Land Use Map of St. Bernard Parish .................. 2-49

Figure 3-1. Oil and Gas Fields in St. Bernard Parish ...................... 3-4

Figure 3-2. Recreational Resources in St. Bernard Parish .................. 3-6

Figure 3-3. Potential Preservation and Restoration Areas in
St. Bernard Parish ......................................... 3-13

Figure 3-4. Potential Unique and Particular Areas in St. Bernard
Parish ................................................... 3-15

Figure 5-1. Land Loss in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, 1955-1978 ............ 5-1

Figure 5-2. Subsidence and Land Loss Potential in St. Bernard
Parish ................................................... 5-6

Figure 5-3. Floodprone areas in St. Bernard Parish ....................... 5-8

Figure 6-1. Names and Locations of Management Units as Presented
in Various Studies of St. Bernard Parish ....................... 6-4

Figure 7-1. Permit Flow Chart ........................................ 7-2

Figure 7-2. Permit Time Lines ......................................... 7-5

Figure 7-3. Areas Recommended for Designation as Special Areas .......... 7-19

ST. BERNARD PARISH

POLICE JURY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Henry J. Rodriguez, Jr. Jack A. Stephens
President Chairman
David Farber Henry J. Rodriguez, Jr.
Secretary-Treasurer Vice Chairman
Jack A. Stephens
Chief Administrative Officer MEMBERS

Larry Asevedo
MEMBERS AlCampo
Ray Creasy
Gerald J. Diaz
Alvin W. Guillot, Ward A Edwin Doody
Joseph H. Knobloch, Ward B E. Dudenhef er
Roy H. Gonzales, Ward C Anthony Fernandez, Sr.
David S. Gorbaty, Ward D Frank Fernandez
Charles Ponstein, Ward E Honorable Manuel Fernandez
Nunzio S. Cusimano, Ward F Harry M. Fisher
Louis P. Munster, Ward G Sherwood Gagliano
James J. Licciardi, Jr., Ward H Sam Giallanza
Floyd Landry, Ward I William J. Guarino
Ashley Henderson, Ward i Bruce Guerra
Henry J. Rodriguez, Jr., Ward K William E. Heck
Harold LaGarde
Charles A. Leon
Joseph P. Lorio
Alan Matherne
Rudy Melerine
Joseph Meraux
Honorable Samuel B. Nunez
Edward B. O'Conner, Jr.
Merrill V. Perez
Luke Provenzano
William Stephens
C. J. Tedesco
William Weber
Walter Younger

GUIDE TO PROGRAM CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

Louisiana CRP Requirement Chapter Location in
Appendix (C2) Ell St. Bernard CMP Document

A I

B II

C IV

D 111-14

E 111-9,11, VII-16
F(l) 1-6, VI-1
F(2) Appendix 1 (Article 1, Section 3)

G VII

G(1) I & VII
G(2) VII-3
G(3) VU-14
GW VII-1
G(5) VII-22
G(6) Appendix 1
G(7) Appendix 2

H VIII

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The development of St. Bernard's Coastal Management Program occurred over a six-
year time interval. Accordingly, this program document represents the culmination of
efforts which occurred during those years and necessarily builds on previous studies
and reports. The chapters concerning setting and forms and processes, resources, and
socio-economic characteristics, environmental concerns, and goals borrow directly
from earlier works, especially from Coastal Environments, Inc. (CEI, 1972, 1976;
Wicker et al. 1982) and Burk and Associates, Inc. (B & A I 1978a, 1979).

The management approach described herein is new in that it does not rely on zoning
concepts but rather on performance standards which are implemented through a
permit process for local uses. The authority for implementation of the program is
contained in a newly enacted 11 ... Ordinance Implementing the St. Bernard Parish
Coastal Zone Management Plan and Providing for the Regulation of Control of Coastal
Uses of Local Concern"; a copy of which is included in Appendix 1. The document
contains new, straight-forward procedures for special areas, program implementation,
uses of greater than local benefit, and interagency coordination.

Special appreciation goes to the St. Bernard Parish Police Jury for their support of the
program and the timely consideration of the ordinance, the Planning Commission and
staff for their active participation, and the Coastal Advisory Committee for their
unstinting labors over a period of years. Thanks also to Charles Neupert who provided
the draft ordinance and Mike Wascom who reviewed it, both of Louisiana State
University's Sea Grant Legal Program. The following CEI staff members -are
acknowledged for their contributions: Dr. Karen Wicker for technical comments,
Nancy Sarwinski for compilation of data, Susan Pendergraft for production editing, and
Bettye Perry, Ludy Dyason, and Ree Musso for typing the report.

xiii

ipk

VIA

IRA

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

The St. Bernard Parish Coastal Management Program (CMP) has been developed in
response to a locally perceived need for comprehensive and scientific management of
the parish's abundant but threatened coastal resources. The mechanism and much of
the guidance for program development is in Act 361 of 1978 (the state and local
Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978), as amended, and in regulations promul-
gated thereof. This program document represents the culmination of a long and
productive partnership between St. Bernard Parish and the Coastal Management
Section (CMS) now within the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR). An
overriding consideration during program development was to provide a coastal
resource management program incorporating a balance of conservation and develop-
ment, an efficient administrative arrangement, and a straightforward, but effective,
procedure for program implementation.

PHYSICAL SETTING

St. Bernard Parish is located in southeastern Louisiana, entirely within the Louisiana
Coastal Zone. It is bounded on the north by Orleans Parish and Mississippi Sound, on
the south and west by Plaquemines Parish, and on the east by the Gulf of Mexico. In
1978, St. Bernard Parish encompassed 1,061,840 acres of water, 238,900 acres of
wetlands, and 26,550 acres of urbanized, agricultural, and forested upland, comprising
13 distinctive environmental units (Figure 1-1).

St. Bernard Parish is in a unique environmental situation. On one side are pressures of
the expanding urbanization of Orleans Parish and the impact of shipping interests
seeking new channels and port facilities. On the other side is the pressure of the Gulf
of Mexico and associated waterbodies gradually expanding their domain at the expense
of parish lands. The urbanized area of the parish is an "island" between these
competing forces.

Development in St. Bernard Parish is concentrated on the relatively small portions of
levee land most suitable for human occupation. Even this land has been developed and
maintained at considerable economic cost. However, the contrasting amenities of the
New Orleans metropolitan region to the north and west, and the extensive marshlands
to the south and east, make it one of the most desirable living areas in the state.

1-1

1-2

NORTH
0 10
R.- Is miles
Grand Island
S-th P,,,t Gn-

L.A. 8.19-

IS 1 10
13 '12 2

3 4 R 7

ley

G--,

1 BIENVENUE-PROCTOR
POINT MARSH a
77- PLAOUEMINES PARIS"
2- CENTRAL WETLANDS
5 - BAYOU TERRE AUX BOEUFS WETLANDS
3 - LOWER URBANIZED LEVEE
6 - LAKE LA FORTUNA
4 - LAKE LERY MARSH
7 - LOWER LA LOUTRE WETLANDS

8 - BILOXI MARSH

9 - BAY BOUDREAUX-BAY ELOI
'iA_
10 - MRGO SPOIL

11 SEMI-URBANIZED LEVEE

12 MODIFIED WETLANDS
LOUISIANA 13 URBANIZED AREA
NY ,

ST. BERNARD PARISH

COASTAL ZONE

Figure 1-1. Location of study area within Louisiana coastal zone and environmental
management units of St. Bernard Parish.

1-3

The environmental setting of the parish is one of rapid change. Unlike highland areas
where the landscape can be expected to remain relatively stable over hundreds of
years, the landscape of St. Bernard can be expected to change noticeably and
significantly within a single generation. Man modifies the landscape through drainage,
canal building, hurricane protection levees, and other adaptations to his surroundings.
Natural forces of land erosion, subsidence, and storm attack work persistently in
reshaping the parish. Thus, a combination of interrelated man-made and natural
forces contribute to an extremely rapid landscape evolution.

Chapter II contains detailed information on the physical setting of the parish.

PRINCIPAL RESOURCES

The principal natural resources of St. Bernard Parish are generally related to the vast
wetland areas within the parish. The fisheries, fur, and recreational interests of the
parish are dependent upon wetlands and associated water bodies for extractable
resources, while most of the petroleum industry is also located in swamps, marshes,
shallow bays, and offshore areas.

Fisheries

The extensive brackish marsh zones of the parish are extremely productive areas for
aquatic species such as fish, oysters, shrimp, and crabs. Some of these species require
marsh and tidal water environments during their entire life cycle, while for others, it
is only important during some stages of their life cycle. The majority of the offshore
fisheries catch in the area is dependent on the marsh region as a nursery zone.

Minerals

Minerals produced in St. Bernard Parish, in order of their value, are natural gas liquids,
natural gas, petroleum, sand, and clay. The parish is a leader in mineral production.

Furs

The coastal marshes are of great value to the fur industry. Principal fur-bearing
mammals found in the area are the common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and the
nutria (Myocastor coypus). Environmental changes brought about by natural forces,

1-4

such as hurricanes, or by man, such as control of freshwater influx into the marsh
areas, usually alter the habitat upon which these animals are dependent. Such
environmental changes have a relatively rapid impact on the fur industry, which has
experienced a decline in fur-bearing animal production within the latter half of the
twentieth century.

Recreation

The potential of the parish for marsh- and water-based recreation is practically
unlimited. Its many waterways and their relative ease of access allow an outlet for
boating, fishing, and hunting not only to parish residents, but also to many residents of
the New Orleans area. St. Bernard Parish provides for recreation potential in its many
bayous and small lakes in protected areas, and in larger bayous and lakes in vast, open
marsh area; it offers access to the Gulf of Mexico on both its eastern and southern
exposures. The parish land area contains scenic sites and rivers and other areas unique
for particular reasons.

Resource Use Conflict

The close proximity of these resources and users is leading increasingly to resource use
conflicts as one use impacts or infringes upon another. Chapter III contains more
detailed information on the parish's principle resources and conflicts.

SOCIO-ECONONUC CHARACTERISTICS

Since prehistoric times, man has realized the richness of coastal areas and deltaic
plains. Early cradles of civilization flourished in these environments. The abundance
of the resources at hand, the fertility of the soils, and the ease of water transportation
contributed to this development. The Louisiana coastal zone, especially the
Mississippi River alluvial coastal plain, is one of the most resource-rich areas of the
world. Many prehistoric and early historic Indian middens and mounds provide
evidence of man's long-term habitation of this area. Europeans started settling the
coastal area around St. Bernard Parish in the eighteenth century. Since then, this
region has developed into the most important economic, industrial, commercial, and
trading center of the Louisiana coast.

The geological and physical history of the origin and development of St. Bernard Parish
can shed light on the values and constraints of this fragile, but very rich, natural

1-5

environment. Its cultural history tells of the relationship between man and the land
and its resources. The significant role that the Mississippi River system and the
proximity of the Gulf of Mexico waters have always had and continue to have on the
life of the people is apparent.

As modern man established himself in this environment, he left his imprint on the
landscape. This is evident in the different land uses and development patterns present
in the area, some of which reflect regional and cultural characteristics inherent to
Louisiana's coastal physiography and to the different nationalities of its settlers.

As population in the parish increases, residential, commercial, and industrial land use
needs will increase, creating development pressures in marginal wetland areas where
poor drainage and soil conditions present major constraints to development.

Farming acreage will decrease while the demand for fish and shellfish will grow.
While the total production of oil and gas within the parish is expected to decrease in
the future, the level of activity may increase in the near future as increased product
price makes smaller yields profitable.

For more information on the socio-economic aspects of St. Bernard Parish see Chapter

IV.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

St. Bernard Parish's location within the New Orleans metropolitan region places it
under pressure of expanding urban, industrial, and commercial demands. The forces
behind development-oriented activities may look upon the parish's undeveloped land
and water areas as potential areas to accommodate the needs of future growth.

The coastal wetlands of St. Bernard are a dynamic system undergoing constant change
in response to a combination of natural and man-made processes. The environment is
experiencing rapid modifications which, if left unchecked, will destroy the productive,
renewable resource-rich wetlands.

A variety of processes have caused the deterioration of the wetlands including
saltwater intrusion, erosion, subsidence, canal construction, wetland reclamation, and
spoil deposition. These factors are interrelated and interactive, in that each one

contributes to the other.

1-6

The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO) is the largest man-made channel in the
parish. It has caused extensive erosion and a three-fold increase in salinity along it's
length.

Other transportation routes in the parish have been developed historically on higher
areas which were less subject to flooding and which offered more stable soil
foundations. Water transportation was along the main natural waterways. New
construction methods and techniques have made it possible for man to build highways
through marshes and dig transportation channels through the wetland environments.
The detrimental repercussions occur not only in these fragile wetland environments,
but are also in certain sectors which are founded on wetland-dependent natural
resources, such as the fur-trapping industry. Modified drainage patterns, resulting
from the development of a variety of networks including transportation, communica-
tions, utilities, and oil and gas pipeline systems, have had tremendous consequences in
this parish and throughout the whole coastal region.

Extraction of non-renewable resources also affects the renewable resources of the
parish. Extraction is accompanied by support activities for exploration, transporta-
tion, and manufacturing. More detailed information on environmental concerns are
contained in Chapter V.

GOALS, OBJECIWM, AND POLICIES

The policy of St. Bernard Parish, as contained in the parish's coastal management
ordinance is:

1. To promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants
of the parish of St. Bernard.
2. To bring about the coordinated, efficient, and economical development of the
parish.
3. To protect, develop, and, where feasible, restore and enhance its resources.
4. To support and encourage multiple use of resources consistent with maintenance
and enhancement of renewable resource management and productivity, with the
need to provide for adequate economic growth and development; and with
minimization of adverse effects of one resource use upon another without imposing
undue restrictions on any user.
5. To develop and implement management programs which are based on consideration
of the resources, environment, and needs of the people of St. Bernard Parish.

1-7

6. To establish goals and plans for St. Bernard Parish, based on economic, envionmen-
tal, and social needs which will guide activity in conformance to this Statement of
Policy.
7. To establish separate guidelines for wetlands which recognize that:
a) The wetlands of St. Bernard Parish, although part of a larger estuarine
ecosystem stretching from Lake Maurepas to the Chandeleur Islands, consist
of a series of distinct geographic units. These units have been combined into
appropriate districts to facilitate management of these areas.
b) Individual permissible uses for each wetland management unit are based on a
balance of economic, environmental, and social priorities and needs for each

area.
c) The primary goal for future use of parish wetlands is to maintain them in their
natural condition and to restore, when possible, those areas that have
deteriorated due to natural and cultural factors. A major aspect of these
restoration activities should be the preservation of the parish's archaeological
and historical resources. Maximum utilization of the renewable and non-
renewable resources of the wetlands is encouraged so long as high productivity
is maintained and the ecological balance of the wetlands is not further
disrupted.

The goals, which are also in the ordinance, are designed to achieve the aims of the
policies and are listed below:

1. Attain proper use of parish resources through a balance of conservation and
development.
2. Identify areas with unique characteristics and develop methods to maintain them.
3. Determine the degree of development intensity suitable for all areas of the parish.
4. Enhance the biologically productive and physically protective aspects of the
parish's wetland environment.
5. Enhance cultural and recreational opportunities in the parish by the development of
ecologically sensitive facilities within the context of a comprehensive program.

The policies and goals were developed over a number of years with the active
participation of the Police Jury, Planning Commission, Coastal Advisory Committee,
scientists, citizens, and agency personnel. The policies and goals provide a framework
and direction to which the St. Bernard CMP will adhere during implementation.

,1-8

The policies and goals, as applied to management units, result in recommendations,
management unit goals, and permissible uses. Chapter VI contains more detailed
information on goals, objectives, and policies.

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

The manner and procedures by which the program will be administered represent an
important element of the program. The CMP will be implemented and administered by
the St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission which will be responsible for grant
administration, overall program management, and program guidance, including new
initiatives.

The permit procedure will involve the submission of coastal-use permit applications to
the St. Bernard Department of Safety and Permits which, in consultation with the
Planning Commission staff (hereinafter referred to as "staff"), will decide if the use is
one of state or local concern and forward a copy to the administrator of the CMS in
DNR. The staff will conduct an environmental review utilizing parish goals, policies,
and performance standards and make a recommendation to the Office of Safety and
Permits. That office will grant or deny the permit with conditions based on the
environmental review. An appeal may be taken to the Police Jury and subsequently to
the Louisiana Coastal Commission.

Enforcement and monitoring will be the responsibility of the Department of Safety and
Permits, with unofficial monitoring being conducted by the staff during the course of
their normal duties. Activities or uses conducted within leveed areas (fastlands) or
above the 5-foot contour generally do not require a coastal use permit.

In implementing the program, the Planning Commission will utilize a number of
techniques, including mitigation, where appropriate, consistency, and the use of
available funding to carry out necessary studies, activities, and management strate-
gies.

The procedures for the designation of special areas involves a nomination with
documentation by any person, a review by the staff and recommendation by the Police
Jury to the Administrator. Procedures for the consideration of uses greater than local
concern involve review by the staff, provision for public presentations, and appeals,
thus insuring fair and objective decisions by the CMP. More detailed information on
program administration is contained in Chapter VII.

1-9

Public Participation

Public involvement in the development of St. Bernard's CMP has been intensive and
wide-spread. The primary vehicle for public input has been, and continues to be, the
local Coastal Advisory Committee which meets monthly and diligently considers
coastal management matters in a public "town meeting" forum. Other public
education efforts involve public meetings, publications, studies, newspaper coverage,
and presentations. Public participation in St. Bernard Parish has been and will
continue to be a model effort and is further discussed in Chapter VIII.

CONCLUSIONS

The CMP in St. Bernard Parish is a mature and workable program. It has the necessary
goals, policies, procedures, authorities, and administrative framework to achieve a
balanced management approach which is necessary for the future health and welfare
of the parish.

AL
it

40L

40(

low-

le 'Ir"
,i'2

"A
-VOL

CHAPTER 11: PHYSICAL SETTING

INTRODUCTION

The physiography of St. Bernard Parish reflects the deltaic nature of its origin.
St. Bernard Parish, situated east of New Orleans, is a product of sediments deposited
by the Mississippi River in several delta-building phases which extended from 700 to
4000 years ago. Four relict Mississippi River channels- -Bayous LaLoutre, Terre aux
Boeufs, Des Familles, and Sauvage--were involved in building the delta complex.
However, natural forces such as downwarping, subsidence, erosion, and tropical storms
have contributed to breaking up these intertidal lowlands. Today, the natural levees of
Bayou LaLoutre and the east bank of the Mississippi River form the backbone of the
parish and contain almost all of the parish's population. The Chandeleur Barrier Island
complex extends along the eastern perimeter of the parish and is separated from the
remainder of the parish by the relatively shallow waters of Chandeleur Sound. This
narrow island chain was formed by the reworking of the outer fringes of the older
deltaic lobes after the Mississippi shifted its course to the present (Plaquemines-
Belize) delta.

All of St. Bernard Parish, containing approximately 1,327,310 acres, is within the
Louisiana Coastal Zone. In 1955, a little more than three-fourths (78.5%) of the parish
was water and less than one-fourth was land. By 1978, the water area had increased
to about 81% and land had decreased to 20%. (Data cited in this section were derived
from the compilation of areal measurements obtained in a habitat mapping study of
the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region [Wicker et al. 1980, Wicker 1982, personal
communication] . See Table 2-1 for a summary of the habitat change [Wicker 19811 .)

St. Bernard Parish is losing land because of erosion, subsidence, and canal construc-
tion. Saltwater intrusion, especially that associated with construction of the
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO), has virtually eliminated the freshwater marshes
and swamps. Between 1955 and 1978, 10,107 acres of swamp (95%) were lost,
primarily because of saltwater intrusion. The natural forest habitat also decreased
(6036 acres or 42%) because of land clearing, and in low-lying, localized areas because
of saltwater intrusion. Man-influenced forests increased by 76 acres (65%) as a result
of canal dredging and spoil deposition. The area of natural scrub/shrub habitat
increased by 228 acres (74%), primarily because of old field succession on abandoned
agricultural lands. Man-influenced scrub/shrub underwent an enormous expansion in
habitat area (15,353 acres or 21,599%) as a result of canal dredging and subsequent

2-1

2-2

Table 2-1. Habitat Change in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana: 1955/56 - 1978.

Habitat Type 1955/56 Area % 1978 Area % Change %
(in acres) (in acres) (in acres)

Developed 4,753 0.4 13,818 1.0 +9,065 190
Agriculture 8,137 0.6 3,032 0.2 -5,105 62
Forest 14,300 1.0 8,341 0.6 -5,959 42
Swamp 10,593 0.8 486 0.0 -10,107 95
Scrub/Shrub 379 0.0 15,961 1.2 +15,582 4108
Fresh Marsh 20,218 1.5 12 0.0 -20,206 99
Nonfresh Marsh 226,152 17.0 215,773 16.3 -10,379 5
Water 1,040,150 78.4 1,067,964 80.4 +27,814 3
Beach/Reef 2,623 0.2 1,925 0.2 -698 27

TOTAL 1,327,305 99.9 1,327,312 99.9

Source: Wicker 1981

2-3

spoil deposition both for navigation and petroleum purposes, but largely because of
spoil deposition from MRGO construction.

Between 1955 and 1978, the fresh marsh habitat in St. Bernard Parish, for all practical
purposes, disappeared (20,206 acres or 99.9%). Some loss was due to construction and
landfill but most was related to saltwater intrusion. The natural nonfresh marsh
habitat decreased by 16,050 acres (7%) because of erosion and canal dredging,
especially the MRGO. Man-influenced nonfresh marsh increased by 5670 acres (89%)
as nonfresh marsh was ditched and leveed for management. Natural beach/reef
deposits also decreased (698 acres or 26%) primarily because of shoreline erosion.

The dune vegetation habitat types shows an increase of 49 acres, but this is the result
of the interpreter's ability to discern dune vegetation on the 1978 color, infrared
imagery (CIR) of the Chandeleur Islands (Wicker et al. 1980). Agricultural habitat
decreased by 5154 acres (63%) parishwide, mostly because of development but also
because some lands were abandoned and revegetated by trees and shrubs. The amount
of developed habitat almost tripled in area (up 9046 acres or 190%).

Analysis of habitat change and land loss data indicates that St. Bernard Parish is a
dynamic environment experiencing great physiographic changes as a result of both
natural and man-made processes. In order to manage the coastal zone in the best,
long-term interest of the parish, management goals, objectives, and priorities must be
established. These management objectives are facilitated through documentation of
the parish's cultural and physical environment, natural resources, and environmental
constraints as presented in the following sections of this report:

1. Geology and Soils

II. Climate
III. Hydrology
IV. Vegetation
V. Wildlife and Fisheries
VI. Endangered and Threatened Species
VII. Cultural Resources

VIII. Transportation

IX. Land Use

2-4

GEOLOGY AND SOE[iS

Geology

St. Bernard Parish lies in the Louisiana Gulf Coastal Plain and its physical features
reflect the deltaic nature of its origin, i.e., the deposition and reworking of sediments
deposited by the Mississippi River in several delta building phases (Figure 2-1). The
most recent of these phases was the St. Bernard delta lobe, active between 1500 B.C.
and A.D. 700 (Wiseman et al. 1979). Historically, the St. Bernard delta complex is one
of five major subdelta complexes of the Louisiana deltaic plain. The others are the
Teche, LaFourche, Maringouin, and Plaque mines-Belize (Modern)." The latter is the
present, active Mississippi River delta lobe (Figure 2-2).

The Mississippi River deltaic processes have been demonstrated to be cyclic (Coleman
and Gagliano 1964; Morgan 1972). The constructional stage of delta growth is
characterized by rapid deposition of coarse, inorganic material, subsequent subaerial
delta aggradation and progradation, and development of prominent natural levees.
During the latter period of the constructional phase, the rate of deposition slows and
eventually ceases, initiating the abandonment phase. During the latter period of the
constructional phase, the rate of subsidence exceeds the rate of sediment influx and
the region is characterized by extensive bays, interdistributary lakes, and levee flank
depressions. The process of subsidence is two-fold: it results from the loading of
massive local sediment accumulations (e.g., natural levees) and downwarping along the
Gulf Coast Geosyncline, a regional tectonic zone of subsidence active along the entire
northwestern Gulf of Mexico.

The destructional phase of the deltaic cycle is initiated by the shifting of the river's
main channel, the closing of active distributary channels, and the curtailment of the
flow of sediment-laden waters to the delta. This cycle is characterized by erosion of
land areas, a lowering of delta relief, and enlargement of water area. Beaches and
barrier islands are formed by the reworking of sand and shell material by waves. In
the absence of high freshwater discharge, saltwater flooding of low-lying marshes by
tidal and storm processes creates saline marshes on the delta margin. The St. Bernard
Parish delta complex entered its destructional. phase about 900 years before present
(B.P.) (Wiseman et al. 1979).

At present, the environment of St. Bernard Parish can be divided into two larger
physiographic systems, fastlands and wetlands, separated by a smaller interface or

LIMIT OF COASTAL@PLAIN

W 11 TAI.
jk C H I T A

ZONE
lp

ER COCENE 4@
LO

MIOCENE

L A 1,1,0,

ST. BERNARD PARISH
EOCENE LOUISiANA
"0'
01

Figure 2-1. Location of Louisiana and St. Bernard Parish within the Mississippi embayment portior
Coastal Plain (modified from Eardley 1962).

WORK
TER" w ,-ST.BERNARD DEL

TON

INFERRED NATURAL LIVE1

DELTA-MARGIN ISLAND OF
IRS 4, URE 4
RILICT SAND SEACH

RILICT MUD REACH

PWSTOCf"1 OUTCROP

00
1�4 SUIIAQU OUS
Wr 0
!AND AC IWIAI HS
nip. Ylk@

T V IN
000P
*40 It

0
A F 0 U
4

Figure 2-2. The five historic delta lobes of the Mississippi deltaic plain (after CEI 1972, from Fraz

2-7

buf f er zone (Figure 2-3). The f astlands, consisting of natural levee ridges (5 to 10 f eet
in elevation) and flanking bottomland hardwoods and backswamps are enclosed by flood
and hurricane protection levees, and drainage in the area is manipulated by canals and
pumps. Segments of the Bayou Terre aux Boeufs and Bayou LaLoutre levees lie
outside the levee but are considered fastlands because of their elevation and better
drainage. A small portion of the parish's wetlands, consisting of freshwater swamps,
marshes and bottomland hardwoods, lies inside the hurricane protection levees at the
base of the natural levees and constitutes a buffer zone between the developed areas
and the wetlands. The majority of the wetlands, constituting about 98% of the parish's
area, lies outside of the levees and consists of low-lying (near sea level) brackish to
saline marshes and very limited amounts of intermediate marsh and stressed cypress

swamps.

Soils

The soils types found in St. Bernard Parish are closely correlated to specific
geomorphic features (Figure 2-4) (Table 2-2). The loamy, alluvial land is found in the
battures situated between the Mississippi River channel and the flood protection
levees. Sediment in this region consists of stratified, grayish-brown silty loam and
very fine and fine sandy loam materials which are constantly reworked by river
currents and human activities such as dredging and construction. The natural levees
adjacent to the Mississippi River and battures consist of the Comm erce-Sharkey
association. The narrow, elevated levee crests contain Commerce soils consisting of
dark grayish-brown silt loam or silty clay loam on the surface and a grayish-brown
silty clay loam subsoil. Sharkey soils are poorly drained and occur in depressions and
downslope from the levee crests. The surface soils are dark gray clay while the subsoil
is a gray clay. The only area in the parish that could qualify as having a Commerce-
Sharkey association soil type is the low-lying natural levee of a former Bayou Terre
aux Boeufs course located in the northeastern corner of the Lake Lery Marsh Unit
(Unit 4 in Burk and Associates, Inc. [B & A 1] 1979). This soil association could
possibly qualify as a prime farmland (Mangum 1978, personal communication), but
there are no detailed soils maps of St. Bernard Parish to verify this.

The backswamps, located at the backslopes and toes of the natural levees, contain a
swamp soil association which is near sea level and flooded most of the time. Much of
the swamp has an organic surface layer ranging from one to several feet thick
overlying firm to semi-fluid gray clays (Soil Conservation Service [SCSI 1970). The
soils of the unit, if similar to others in the region, will range from Gentilly mucks with

2-8

r "I

'(16

4",

PRECIPITATION
0
cc

0 SSIVF STORM SURGE
Ce
cc
vu %DAL FLOOojjVQ
-44P4 & STORM SuR(;,,,
:7 :-:.'-:.%@."@-..
A11VAae VUMP1AfQ
MISSISSIPPI RIVE
FLOOD LEVEE
SURFACE DRAIN
AGE -0-

ANAL
HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE,
RAINAGE.CANAL & PUMP 0,

NATURAL LEVEE/RECLAIMED SWAMP SWAMP/MARSH BRACKISH/SALINE MARSH

FASTLANDS BUFFER ZONE WETLANDS

Figure 2-3. Forms and processes associated with delta progradation, abandonment
and human landscape modification (after Wicker et al. 1982).

Li
eerns lish 000.00000
Island St. Joseph Point
Lake Pontchartrain ..... .000000
I I earl go 00
Pu, n t Riverjs Isle aux Pitre
South Point Au@ Herbes 0.10 so 3 Grand Island

Gree
Di
D at ne 3 Pomtthe
f Shell Point MalheNreux Point OLe Petit Pass Island
6,11 it woodki

d
Alligator Point

C
Lake Borgne
P

47 Point aux Marchettes

310 rt

roctor Point

-46.

4 He 5 116Y fort Island

COMMERCE-SHARKEY
ASSOCIATION
LOAMY ALLUVIAL LAND ela i oint Lydia

MARSH, SALTWATER
SAND BEACHES Point Chico

SWAMP Gardner -Isla
3

otnt Gardner
SOURCE: Soil Conservation Survey 1970 oint Fortuna ST
o z a MT n1Q-u e"ro 1"Al PLA

Figure 2-4. General soils map of St. Bernard Parish (after Soil Conservation Survey
1970).

NATURAL LEVEE FRESH SWAMP TO BRACKISH MARSH SPOIL 1, LAKE
CANAL RIM

SOIL ASSOCIATION COMMERCE SHARKEY FRESHWATER SWAMP TO BRACKISH MARSH SPOIL BRACKISH
MARSH

TYPICAL COMMERCE SILT SHARKEY ALLEMANDS MAUREPAS LAFITTE KENNER
SOIL TYPE LOAM CLAY PEAT MUCK MUCK MUCK
GENERAL SOIL 91wZZN' 56IL-S M1W catOL- 110a 50ILS VN 6f@ea- M05%, 50ILS VM AIIJ Ce- C04AMY- 50IL@5 \,AN J5- It r. C0@IA@ 500 *114 @5-lzff- 6-1 r- q@'
IVKW dA)*Y CC LOW I W017 4AftY CK 14AW 449K- @k@ !AY42.5; CQ@M- cr- \-b@ 04,W V- HAffeaS, q@ @415MACR@ cirA)X$ WMA:9005-
CHARACTERISTICS LA*4t'; -f@y mr4woz L4wl-, -1@10AW-K xa-s uwouij w dg. l0q, 1-mw5; qwF3, 5wl@Wps- O&C 5wipturp [email protected]

1,9,W TovwIl, LoW avwi@@m pwm@, mi5vium -fo wriq u*imia: \w PIC1w qul@51V'5@- 59XIX VtOl-( 14414 5LV51P15mcl?@- V, @IGO "-'APVX-V-'
LN -fo Wrly 00 NOW- W 1-0 VO P0 514OW- ftKWA@- W12@ WICIP 5W2I&- rikY, gh@'Aa- LOW*401,1@ 5@-'m ovz 4w;v L@@ 5v&ep, VIQ5,
zz r.)
GENERAL fiq5 ft' 115"IAL; W, -01.11,LP W IAL; @b 17DO -5@@ fi;ff)4A@ AOL' W -'rmv; IvIz-AdAv- @@W-m W.A&14 5rwr7114; cw Cz WA2MV, fUW,
rz@' C@15 Cr- -fwb:04-1Y fw cog a -fvb %w ?"IkIq Hc6fcw Cr; 0415 cv--[@Nb %v'(*w lf@e 51WIRALM4,15 f2wiv r26VIw;
ENGINEERING IOULP11095, mc"m 10 q)1LPIkq5' Wfwxf -I-C' 0C %ce@,R)IL91%5 0@- 1145 -A5@ur'v"@;iwA5 5" vibl@45'- @w %Vem LjmrIA- wv@ @Vem 0
51@Wla5- 01li-A-904- J@cg 5e," 0mffkfbj5fw qA29 914W4. 5v-qew uml, % --c. \IX< TM U M tfAr -aws @Vcc mcf5f 005w UT6 LJAK4045
CHARACTERISTICS MC5r UZ6U L)5V5 ApWC- N05-r OMW 051!5S t41W <IW5 jZfZ t-)r@?r "- A@ LSer -ft.15 tV-7 t-105rr LOM4 UX-5 A01M VIZAMAJC@-. fz@a *6T ur-
MAI KW4@- Wiw- -MN"A'w UZ.

SUITABILITY
-rcr 54AL-
@WAY 5@@Izwr- 4 @4Df 501'TAfUl 54XA" W15T5L)VfAV05 su@TA"
W51MWIAL, J;'ILL, 9-K Wyl 5UI1A?L-r, WD'r .3off AO f, wor 5UKAO-r, OC@ %I71AIX6

DEGREE OF
LIMITATION m1m5p UkRAII,15p, VVAiww W=ww XN141512 Ufmmwrv vmww uim)ww vuww UXVAIIIeP1
3&M W2@ww- wp@ 5rv@ \wV)906 1Vw5N6w ii 5zit 0,-
[Aom@ -4mcoj5- V446 WIf ekw 50ywy- kbr wfr, ws2f- way %Axo@- 50&VV- wle@ wrix 9?1@ Vw %wvf@' 5F@Xez
aNq[ZoukP5 - plcW r- AWA HCW00115- wof *TrV 509m Irraw 50@ yw@ 5*@ m5ey %VW6 wq@ 5NO21@ 5E@4506
AWV 90A@ t@@ Ncr( 04V 391@ I'Irr VA%V %Nmv@- vok w0yVX-125 lv@ 501ME5 VtT4 %Vgm We( 5wew,
I
DRAINA@@E
fme -0 P)V- 5@@ 91*)L?fy P12%- W-AW, fOW- ACPr, Hom, fmc -,Ix qqf@- 5wit, W)@mw
FACTORS i
SCS, USDA, 1970,
SOURCE: Soil Survey of Portions of Jefferson, Orleans,
and St. Bernard Parishes.

Table 2-2. Typical Soil Characteristics (after CEI 1977).

2-11

thin, organic surfaces underlain by consolidated clayey layers in the better drained
portions of the swamp, to Maurepas muck, loggy with 5 to 12 feet of woody, organic
materials and layers of logs and stumps over a semi-fluid mineral soil layer in the
poorly drained areas (CEI 1972). This soil association has "very severe limitations due
to permanently high water table, flooding hazard, and subsidence if drained"
(SCS 1970).

The marshlands of St. Bernard Parish are classified in the marsh, saltwater associa-
tion. These wetlands are located near sea level and the water table is at or above the
surface of the marsh most of the year (SCS 1970). The soils consist of peat or muck
underlain by slightly firm to semi-fluid gray clays (SCS 1970). This association
includes Lafitte muck and associated soil types which are organic soils with 5 to 12
feet of herbaceous organic materials over semi-fluid clayey layers (CEI 1972).
Beneath the surface, at depths of 10 to 20 feet are interdistributary trough fill and
tidal flat deposits of silty clays and sands. These soils have "very severe limitations
due to unstable condition, permanently high water table, flooding hazard, and
subsidence if drained" (SCS 1970:n.p.).

The sand beaches of St. Bernard Parish are located primarily along the Chandeleur
Island chain in the eastern portion of the parish. They are composed predominantly of
grayish-brown fine sands, sometimes mixed with shell fragments, which are subject to
constant reworking by marine processes (SCS 1970). Small, pocket shell beaches are
situated along the south shore of Lake Borgne. They are derived from wave-tossed
shells originating from the bottom of Lake Borgne or from spoil deposits, as wen as
wave-worked, prehistoric Indian middens. The sand beach soil association has "severe
to very severe limitations due to unstable conditions and flooding hazard"
(SCS 1970:n.p.).

CLIMATE

St. Bernard is located in a subtropical latitude experiencing mild winters and warm,
humid summers. Prevailing southerly winds produce afternoon thundershowers in the
summer and river fogs are common in the winter and spring when the Mississippi River
temperature is slightly colder than the air temperature. The overall temperature
range (Figure 2-5) can be described as moderate, with the average summer tempera-
ture being 83.10 F and the average winter temperature being 56.10 F. The subtropical-
latitude rainfall (Figure 2-6) averages 63 inches per year. Summer showers occur
frequently from mid-June to mid-September, and the average monthly high, 7.9 inches,
occurs in July. Heavy winter rains generally occur from mid-December to mid-March.

2-12

INORMAL:
2MAXIMUM: ........
2MINIMUM: ---

1: U.S. WEATHER BUREAU NORMALS 1931 THROUGH 1960
2: BASED ON RECORDS FROM 1870 THROUGH 1968

90 -

W so..

70--

z 60-

so-

40--

30
A M J 0 N 0

MONTHS

Figure 2-6. Monthly temperature taken at New Orleans,
Louisiana (after Wicker et al. 1982).

2-13

INORMAL:
2MAXIMUM:
2MINIMUM:

1: U.S. WEATHER BUREAU NORMAL$ 1931 THROUGH 1960
2: BASED ON RECORDS FROM 1870THROUGH 1968

'A.

151

Ic
10

01
i M A M J A 3 0 N D

MONTHS

Figure 2-6. Monthly rainfall in inches taken at New
Orleans, Louisiana (after Wicker et al. 1982).

2-14

Monthly lows average about 3.2 inches in October. Annual rainfall has varied from a
high of 85.7 inches in 1875 to a low of 31.3 inches in 1899. Monthly rainfalls
exceeding 12 inches are not uncommon; 25 inches is the maximum recorded in a single
month. Snow and sleet are infrequent occurrences; the last measureable snowfall was
4.5 inches recorded on 31 December 1963 (CEI 1972).

Prevailing winds are from south to southeast during January through July and from
northeast to east-northeast during September through December. Average wind
velocity is 8.6 miles per hour (7.4 knots), but maximum velocities exceed 100 miles per
hour during hurricanes. Hurricanes strike the Louisiana coast an average of 1.6 times
per year (CEI 1972). The hurricane surge, which inundates low coastal lands, is the
most destructive of the hurricane characteristics and accounts for three-fourths of the
lives lost from hurricanes (Regional Planning Commission 1978). This surge is a
product of meteorological, beach, and shore conditions. A higher surge will be
produced if the hurricane passes perpendicular to shore, the velocity of movement is
slow, or the storm's diameter is very large. Maximum storm surge heights experienced
along this region of the Gulf Coast range between 10 and 23 feet. The parish has been
affected by 11 major hurricanes from 1886 to the present (CEI 1972). The storms of
1901, 1947, 1956, 1965 (Betsy), and 1969 (Camille) had particularly severe impacts
with extensive flooding both from storm-generated tides and excessive rainfall.

HYDROLOGY

The hydrologic regime of St. Bernard Parish involves the movement of fresh- and
saltwater masses through the region as a result of the interactions between Mississippi
River discharge, regional precipitation, winds, and tides. This present hydrologic
regime is influenced by both natural and man-made factors. The basic natural
hydrologic system is governed by the pattern of major abandoned distributary channels
of the ancient Mississippi River delta complex (i.e., Bayous LaLoutre and Terre aux
Boeufs), and interdistributary basin channels which serve to drain swamps and marshes
into the estuarine lakes, bays, and Chandeleur Sound (Figure 2-7).

Under natural conditions, the Mississippi River flowed through the wetlands to the
Gulf via the distributary channels. Rainfall and Mississippi River floodwaters flowed
down the gentle slopes of the natural levees and slowly through the swamps and
marshes as sheet flow and interdistributary basin channel flow. The wetland
vegetation and the shallow, winding, interdistributary channels slowed the progress of
this drainage, storing the freshwater for gradual release into the tide waters. This

filled channel
@natural levee fresh swamp__, fresh to brackish marsh sound or gulf
ridge

lakes, bays, tidal streams
beach

Abandoned Distributary System Interdistributary System

Figure 2-7. Components of the abandoned distributary and interdistributary systems in St. Bernard Parish (after
CEI 1976).

2-16

situation contributed to a stable environment where water levels and salinity values
changed very gradually with changing meteorological and tidal conditions.

During historic times, man-made factors have greatly altered the natural hydrologic
regime. Leveeing of the Mississippi River halted the annual overbank flooding and a
channelized drainage network within the leveed fastland area collected precipitation
to be discharged into the wetlands at point sources (e.g., pumping stations and
floodgates) along the Hurricane Protection Levees near the 40-arpent canal.

Man-made physical modifications of the wetlands also occurred within the recent
historic period. Deeper-water canals and spoil banks appeared as a result of logging
activity, drainage, and navigation improvement, and later for oil and gas well drilling
access and pipelines. These modifications allowed surplus freshwater to pass more
quickly from the point discharge sources into the estuarine water bodies. Spoil banks
along the canals segmented the wetlands and hindered circulation. Greater water
depths in the canals provided for greater tidal fluctuation and saltwater intrusion
during dry periods. The MRGO, a 500- by 36-foot channel opened to navigation in
1963, has bad a great impact on the hydrologic regime in most of the parish because it
conducts a large mass of saline water from the Gulf to interior drainage channels
year-round, and it creates greater fluctuations in tide levels.

Under these man-influenced conditions, the hydrologic circulatory system has shifted
to reflect the competition between local runoff in the wetlands coupled with fastland
discharge and meteorological and astronomical tides. The overall effect of these
modifications has been the rapid alteration of a stable hydrologic situation into one
experiencing a greater fluctuation of water levels and salinity values. The salinity
regime within the wetlands is now dependent upon regional precipitation, occasional
openings of the Bonnet Carre Spillway in St. Charles Parish, and more recently, the
implementation of the Violet Freshwater Siphon. Instead of an annual pulse of
freshwater, the hydrologic system now follows a pattern of freshwater "feast or
famine" governed largely by precipitation rates (Gagliano et al. 1970).

The subsurface hydrology of St. Bernard Parish is influenced by three aquifers: 1) St.
Bernard Delta 11200-foot" sand, 2) the "700-foot" sand, and 3) the 111200-foot" sand
(USACE 1975). Because of the pervasive saltwater intrusion, the parish contains little
or no potable water except for occasional lenses of freshwater floating on saltwater
(B & A I 1978a:6). The present salinity levels, tidal exchanges, and aquifers are shown
in Figure 2-8.

ee s fish to 40
Isla d St. Joseph Poin
Lake Pontchartrain -,,e Ri. 'V
b C'. earl
Point A Riverjs Grand I land Isle aux Pitre
Au@ Herb w so CL
South Point CL
t erjac 0
0 Gree C'0- CM
Di 0

Point h
at ne F, 0 t
f MalheWreux Point Le Petit Pass Isla
Shell Point
0111, it w S
A

Alligator Point

90 Lake Borgne
47 -10 Point aux Marchettes

Mar
310 %ii;
C B
e roctor Point -2 5"

Vio

bill
210
n

Vomfort Island
eggi city,

3(
8
AVERAGE SALINITY <
CONTOURS elaer i
Point Lydia
A SOFT GROUND WATER 1@4
B HARD GROUND WATER Vint Chico
.0o,
C NO POTABLE WATER Gardner Isla.QA-*'

Point Gardner
JP i In I-000e
land
duxd

oint Fortuna
SOURCE: Coastal Environments, Inc. 1976 and Coastal Environments, Inc. 1982 ST
ozarn9mqTuemrolmnl-"""""""""'- PL

Figure 2-8. The hydrology and salinity conditions in St. Bernard Parish (after CEI
1976 and CET 1982).

2-18

VEGETATION

The variety and abundance of vegetation series in St. Bernard Parish are closely
associated with the topography, soils, salinity distribution, and humid sub-tropical
climate (Figure 2-9) (Table 2-3). Along the highest, unaltered portions of the natural
levees, limited stands of hardwood forests are still present; most of the original
forests have been cleared for agriculture and urbanization. The best-drained areas of
the natural levees typically support trees such as live oak, hickory, pecan, sweetgum,
American elm, cottonwood, and green ash. On levee areas that are less well drained,
the more common species are water oak, sycamore, and willow. Understory shrubbery
on the natural levees is characterized by dwarf palmetto, blackberry, hawthorns,
deciduous holly, waxmyrtle, and grasses such as switch cane and bermuda grass.
Lower levees, which are subject to long periods of flooding, support only shrubs,
grasses, and trees which are water-tolerant.

A distinctive group of plants occurs in freshwater swamps flanking the backslopes of
the natural levees. The original stands of cypress forest are mostly gone because of
the heavy logging which occurred around the turn of the century. The cypress forests
which exist today vary considerably in condition; there are signs of deterioration due
to subsidence and changes in the hydrologic regime, as well as saltwater intrusion.
Typical species of trees found here are baldcypress, swamp red maple, water oak, and
tupelogum. Typical understory vegetation includes dwarf palmetto, buttonbush,
baccharis, and marsh elder. Among the grasses, paille fine, sawgrass, feather grass,
and wiregrass are common.

Marsh areas cover most of the parish. The distribution of vegetation in the marshes is
affected by salinity, elevation, and soil organic matter. The marshes in St. Bernard
Parish are most commonly brackish or saline. These estuarine areas are covered with
grasses and reeds, the principal sources of detritus and organic matter, vital elements
in the biological productivity of this area of the coast. In brackish marshes, the
dominant type of grass is wiregrass. Other types of grass, such as three-cornered
grass, coco, and saltgrass, are also present. The predominant grass species in the salt
marsh areas is oystergrass, followed by blackrush and saltgrass. In less significant
quantities are wiregrass and other associated salt marsh species.

eems I Lsh
Island St, Joseph Point
Lake PontChartrain ON M
earl
RiverJs .0.0.oo-
Pu,nt c Isle aux Pitre
Grand Island
Aux Herbes 0060
South Point .0--00

0%
Gree
Di
Point"th
OIL e MalheWreux Point 4e Petit Pass Island
Shell Point
t w S

Alligator Point

Lake Borgno

-A
47 Point aux Marchettes A@@s

Mar
31C

roctor Point

omfort Island

3 7'
STRESSED SWAMP

W
OPEN WATER
r
SCRUB/SHRUB Point Lydia

NATURAL LEVEE Point Chico

SALINE MARSH

97 Gardner IsIa,;o-,1
BRACKISH MARSH .01
MRGO
FRESH-INTERMEDIATE MARSH

BARRIER ISLAND VEGETATION oint Gardner
oint Fortuna ST
T"
SOURCE: Chabreck and Lindscombe 1978 and Wicker 1982 o z a mT,q u e7o,'nl P L

Figure 2-9. DisribUtion of vegetation associations in St. 9ernard Parish (after
Chabreck and Linscombe 1978 and Wicker et al. 1982).

2-20

Table 2-3. Vegetation of St. Bernard Parish.

NATURAL LEVEE VEGETATION
TREES - CANOPY
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

America elm Ulmus americana
Cottonwood Populus deltoides
Hackberry Celtis laevigata.
Hickory Carya spp.
Live oak Quercus virginiana
Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata
Pecan Carya spp.
Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana,
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
Sycamore Platanus occidentalls
Water oak Quercus nigra
Willow Salix spp.
Willow oak Quercus phellos

SHRUBS - UNDERSTORY
Bermuda grass -Uy-nodon dactylon
Blackberry Rubus spp.
Deciduous holly Ilex decidua
Dwarf palmetto Sabal minor
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Hawthorn Crataegus spp.
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana
Switch cane Arundinaria tecta
Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera

FRESH SWAMP
Baldcypress Taxodium distichum
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis
Dwarf palmetto Sabal minor
Feather grass Panicum virgatum
Groundsel bush Baccharis halimifolia
Paille fine Panicum hemitomon
Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense
Swamp elder Iva frutescens
Swamp red maple Acer rubrum Drummondii
Tupelogum Nyssa aquatica
Water oak Quercus nigra
Wiregrass Spartina patens

2-21

Table 2-3. Vegetation of St. Bernard Parish (continued).

MARSH VEGETATION

FRESH-INTERMEDIAtE MARSH

COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Bulltongue Sagittoria spp.
Bullwhip Scirpus californicus
Deer pea Vigna repens
Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense
Wiregrass Spartina patens

BRACKISH MARSH

Arrowhead Sagittaria latif olia
Black rush Juncus roemerianus
Coco Scirpus robustus
Dwarf spikerush Eleocharis parvula
Oystergrass Spartina alterniflora
Saltgrass Distichlis spicata
Three-cornered grass Scirpus olneyi
Widgeongrass Ruppia maritima
Wiregrass Spartina patens

SALINE MARSH

Black mangrove Avicennia germinans
Blackrush Juncus roemerianus
Glasswort Salicornia spp.
Oystergrass Spartina alterniflora
Saltgrass Distichlis spicata
Saltwort Batis maritima
Wiregrass Spartina patens

SPOIL AREAS

Baccharis Baccharis halimifolia
Drummond red maple Acer rubrum Drummondii
Goldenrod Solidago spp.
Marsh elder Iva frutescens
Pokeweed Phytolocca americana
Roseau cane Phragmites australis
Water oak Quercus nigra
Wax myrtle Myrica cerif era
Willow Salix spp.
Wiregrass Spartina patens

2-22

Table 2-3. Vegetation of St. Bernard Parish (concluded).

BARRIER ISLANDS

Baccharis Baccharis halimifolia
Bitter panicum Panicum amarum
Black mangrove Avicennia germinans
Glasswort Salicornia spp.
Sea oats Uniola paniculata
Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera
Wiregrass Spartina patens

SUBMERGENT GRASS BEDS

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Manateegrass Cymodocea filiformis
Shoalgrass Diplanthera spp.
Turtlegrass Thalassia testudnium
Widgeongrass Ruppia maritima
Wildcelery Vallisneria americana

Source: CEI 1979

2-23

Spoil material has been deposited along the banks of man-made canals and natural
channels that have been dredged. Spoil banks are higher than the elevation of the
surrounding marsh. The vegetation found growing on the spoil is dependent upon the
salinity of the water in the channel and the composition of the soils in the deposited
material. Typically, the vegetation will consist of waxmyrtle, baccharis, willow,
marsh elder, and herbaceous perennials.

Another type of vegetation community in St. Bernard Parish is that of the barrier
islands (Chandeleur Islands) and beaches. The gulfward side of the Chandeleur Islands
contains sand dunes, some of which have been stabilized by grasses, especially
wiregrass and sea oats. Farther inland, where the older dunes are located, there exist
dense communities of waxmyrtle and baccharis. The leeward side of the islands
supports dense stands of oystergrass and black mangrove. The low-wave energy,
shallow, clear waters behind the islands contain extensive areas of submerged grass
beds. Figure 2-10, shows a typical cross-sectional view of the vegetation types and
associated landforms within St. Bernard Parish.

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

St. Bernard is endowed with an extremely rich and diverse heritage of renewable
wildlife and fisheries resources. However, recent ecological changes causing increased
salinity levels and loss of valuable marshland have caused a drop from earlier levels of
high productivity. Fur harvests have dropped drastically from their former, almost
legendary, levels. These marshes were historically the most productive muskrat
marshes in the state. Construction of the MRGO has had an overall adverse ef f ect on
wildlife and fisheries production, particularly fur, waterfowl, and oysters. The
commercial fishing industry has been experiencing a long-term reduction in catch per
effort, pounds per acre, and dollars per acre in recent years. This loss can be
attributed to loss of low-salinity marshes which are essential to the development or
reproduction of most commercial and sport fish and shellfish species. Although these
environmental changes have been adverse, the parish still has an abundance of valuable
wildlife and fisheries resources. Table 2-4 lists some of the mammals commonly found
in the parish.

Table 2-5 lists some of the birds commonly found in St. Bernard Parish. The brackish
and saline marshes of the parish provide habitat for thousands of wintering waterfowl.
The best habitat is found in the Biloxi Wildlife Management Area between Lake Borgne

2-24

LIVE AK CYPREGGITUPELO, WIREGRAGS WILLOW OY JIRGRAG* MANATERGRA88 MANGROVES

-W-- A GULF

LEVER SWAMP BRACK18" MARS" GPOIL.RANK J-A&IME MAROM &UBLAERGED 19LAND8

Figure 2-10. Cross section of the landforms in St. Bernard Parish and some
of the common vegetation species found there.

2-25

Table 2-4. Mammals that Occur in St. Bernard Parish.

MAMMALS

COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Bobcat Lynx rufus
Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis
Common muskrat Ondata zibethicus
Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
Eastern wood rat Neotoma floridana,
Fox squirrel Sciurus niger
Fulvous harvest house Reithrodontomys fulvescens
Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus
Marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris
Nearctic river otter Lutra canadensis
Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus
North american mink Mustela vison
Northern raccoon Procyon lotor
Northern yellow bat Lasiurus intermedius
Nutria Myocastor coypus
Red bat Lasiurus borealis
Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus
Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans
Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus acquaticus
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
White-tailed mouse Peromyscus leucopus
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana

Source: Wicker et al. 1982.

2-26

Table 2-5. Birds of Common Occurrence in St. Bernard Parish.

BIRDS

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

American Coot Fulica americana
American kestrel Falcu sparverius
American wigeon Anas americana
American Woodcock Philohela minor
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon
Blue-winged Teal Anas discors
Bobwhite Colinus virginianus
Canvasback Aythya valisineria
Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris
Gadwall Annas strepera
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Great Egret Cammerodius albus
Green Heron Butorides virescens
Green-winged Teal Anas carolinensis
Lesser Scaup Aythya af finis
Little Blue Heron Florida caerulea
Louisiana Heron Hydanassa tricolor
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus
Mississippi Kite Ictinia Mississippiensis
Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula
Mourning Dove Zenaidura macroura
Pintail Anas gaita
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteolineatus
Ring-necked Duck Aytha collaris
Shoveler Anas clypeata
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens
Snowy Egret Egretta thula
Virginia Rail Rallus limicola
White This Eudocimus albus
Wilson's Snipe Capella gallinago
Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis

Source: Wicker et al. 1982 from Lowery 1974a, USCE 1974.

2-27

and Lawson Bay and in the marshes on Proctor Point at the southern end of Lake
Borgne. Some of the plants which are attractive to various species of waterfowl found
in the marshes of St. Bernard are widgeongrass, Walter's millet, three-cornered grass,
coco, spikerush, and coontail.

Snow Geese are found in the marshes in great numbers during the winter, particularly
along the islands on the edges of Chandeleur Sound. These geese feed on marsh grass,
roots, and tubers and sometimes "eat out" an area of marsh causing shallow ponds to
f orm.

There are numerous species of ducks which inhabit the marshes, mainly during the
winter, although some are year-round residents. Teal breed here occasionally although
the great majority are winter residents only. The Mottled Duck is the only duck which
breeds in large numbers in the St. Bernard marshes. The Gadwall, also known as the
Gray Duck, is a very common winter visitor. Pintails are a favorite game bird which
winter in the marshes of the parish. Green-winged Teal are very common winter
residents of the marshes. Blue-winged Teal migrate through to the south in late
summer and fall. The Northern Shoveler, or spoonbill as it is known locally, arrives in
the fall and stays through spring. The American Wigeon, or baldpate, is another winter
resident. The loss of the parish's swamps and fresh marsh due to saltwater intrusion
has led to a decline in the wood duck population. The Canvasback, and Redhead are
usually uncommon winter residents but sometimes appears in great numbers, especially
in Chandeleur Sound near the Chandeleur Islands. The Lesser Scaup, or dos gris, is a
common winter resident. Hooded, Red-breasted, and American Mergansers are
common winter residents, especially in Lake Borgne where they feed mainly on fish.

Clapper Rails are common marsh inhabitants in the brackish and saline marsh.
Virginia Rails are primarily winter residents which do, however, occasionally remain to
breed. The American Coot, or 11poule dleau," is a common winter resident in the lower
salinity marshes, particularly where submergent vegetation is available.

St. Bernard provides excellent habitat for many species of seabirds, shorebirds, and
wading birds. Its numerous marshy islands and the shell reefs and beaches of the
Chandeleur Islands serve as nesting grounds and rookeries. Seabird colonies of
Laughing Gulls; Least,Royal, and Sandwich Terns; Black Skimmers; and Willets are
especially common on the Chandeleur Islands. Wading bird rookeries include colonies
of Great Blue, Louisiana and Little Blue Herons; Yellow and Black-crowned Night

2-28

Herons; American, Common, Royal, and Sandwich Terns; Black Skimmers; and Willets
are especially common on the Chandeleur Islands. Wading bird rookeries include
colonies of Great Blue, Louisiana and Little Blue Herons; Yellow and Black-crowned
.Night Herons; American, Common, Snowy, and Cattle Egrets; and White@-faced, White,
and Glossy Ibises. Common loons are prevalent winter residents in Lake Borgne.
Other winter residents include the Eared and Horned Grebes. The Pied-billed Grebe is
abundant during winter months and also frequently breeds in the area. Large flocks of
White Pelicans migrate through the marshes of the parish during the winter. The
Chandeleur Islands contained one of the "natural" colonies of Brown Pelicans in the
state. Since the dramatic die-off of the state's population and their subsequent
reintroduction from Florida, they have been observed nesting here again. The Double-
crested Cormorant is another common resident during winter.

St. Bernard Parish, historically, has had some of the best marsh in the state for
furbearer production, particularly muskrat and nutria. Due to increasing salinity, the
fur industry has suffered major setbacks. Fur production has suffered because of the
loss of fresh marsh and swamp. Preferred vegetation of nutria include such freshwater
species as alligatorweed, cattail, bullwhip, cutgrass, delta duck potato, and others.
When found in brackish marshes, they feed on three-cornered grass, wiregrass, leafy
three-square, and hogcane.

Muskrat, whose preferred habitat is brackish marsh supporting stands of three-
cornered grass, are most common in the marsh around Lake Lery on the Delacroix
Corporation lands. Management for muskrat involves establishing and maintaining
stands of three-cornered grass. Three-cornered grass is a subclimax species which, in
the normal successional pattern of plant succession, is replaced with wiregrass, the
climax species of this habitat type. Burning is a common management tool which sets
back the normal pattern and allows three-cornered grass to dominate. Muskrats often
"eat out" an area of marsh if they are too abundant. This habit causes the marsh to
open up into shallow ponds and is often detrimental in the long run.

Otter also contribute to the fur harvest of St. Bernard. Their pelts are the most
valuable of the animals contributing to the commercial fur industry, however, they
usually make up only a small percentage of the pelts taken. Their most productive
habitats in St. Bernard are the intermediate to brackish marshes. Even in the best
habitats, however, they are never found in great numbers. Raccoon is another animal
which contributes to the fur harvest of St. Bernard. The pelts taken in this area, like
those from other areas of coastal Louisiana, are not of the highest commercial value.

2-29

Their great numbers make them an important resource, nevertheless. Their preferred
habitat is fresh marsh, however, they are relatively abundant in brackish marsh and
along the natural levees. Preferred foods include crawfish, frogs, grasshoppers, and
other animal matter; their diet also includes some plant material. Mink are another
important resource of St. Bernard. The best mink pelts come from freshwater cypress
swamps. Destruction of these areas has led to a decrease in the number of mink. The
diet of mink consists of animal matter including fish, crawfish, frogs, rats, mice, and
birds. Other furbearers of lesser importance are the Virginia opossum, striped skunk,
eastern cottontail, and swamp rabbit.

Natural levees provide habitat for many species of animals and birds. They serve as
the only high ground when flooding occurs. White-tailed deer inhabit these levees but
are becoming less common as these areas decrease. Deer are browsers and feed on
many species of plants. Acorns from the oaks on these levees supply the bulk of their
winter diet. Many songbirds use these areas for nesting. Other species on the levees
include the eastern cottontail, raccoon, and striped skunk.

Fishing, today, is an important way of life for many residents of St. Bernard. The
estuarine unit of which St. Bernard is a major part ranks second in total harvest only
to the Barataria Basin area while the state as a whole produces 27% of the fisheries
tonnage of the entire United States. Despite the problems of saltwater intrusion,
subsidence, and land loss, estuarine areas of the parish still serve as an important
nursery ground for many species of fish and shellfish.

In the estuaries and offshore waters of St. Bernard, many species of commercial and
sport fish and shellfish occur (Table 2-6), among the most important of which are Gulf
menhaden,; white and brown shrimp; blue crab; speckled trout; red drum; black drum;
spot; sand seatrout; southern flounder; Atlantic croaker; and oyster. The oyster beds
in St. Bernard consist of public oyster seed grounds, which occur in higher salinity
waters, and private oyster beds, leased by individuals from the state. Commercial
fishing is a year-round activity for many residents of the eastern half of the St.
Bernard Parish, and sport fishing is important for residents and visitors alike.

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

St. Bernard Parish was once within the range of a few species that are now -considered
to be threatened and endangered, i.e., the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
Perregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)

2-30

Table 2-6. Common Commercial Fish, Sport Fish, and Shellfish Found in the Waters of
St. Bernard Parish.

FISHES

COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

Alligator gar Lepisosteus spatula
Atlantic croaker Micropogon undulatus
Black drum Pogonias cromis
Gulf menhaden Brevoortia patronus
Red drum (redfish) Sciaenops ocellata
Sand sea trout Cynoscion arenarius
Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus
Southern flounder Paralichthys; lethostigma
Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus

SHELLFISH

American oyster Crassostrea virginica
Blue crab Caleinectes sapidus
Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus
White shrimp Penaeus setiferus

Source: For a more comprehensive inventory, including non-commercial fish and
shellfish, refer to Wicker et al. 1.982.

2-31

and Bachman's Warbler (Vermivora bachmarii). Of these species, only the Brown
Pelican and the Peregrine Falcon reside in the parish today. The Brown Pelican
disappeared from the parish in the early 1970s, but has been restocked by the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and now colonizes the Chandeleur
Islands of Isle-a-Pitre and North Island. The American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis , which is also found in the parish in limited numbers, has been
reclassified from endangered to threatened due to similarity of appearance (U.S.
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 1979). Because of the recent increased
abundance of the alligator, a seasonal regulated harvest is now permitted under state

law.

The coastal waters of the parish also contain a few species of whales and turtles that
are classified as endangered. Some of these include the blue whale (Balaenoptera
musculus), humpback whale, (Megaptera borealis), sperm whale (Physeter catodon),
finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus , and the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys
coriacea). The green turtle ( 'Chelonia mydas and the loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta) are also found in the coastal waters and are considered threatened.

There are no reported sightings of endangered or threatened plant species in St.
Bernard Parish (McFatter, n.d.).

The most recent references (FWS 1980, Guillory et al. 1980) list no fish or aquatic
invertebrate in St. Bernard Parish as endangered or threatened.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Historic Information

The parish was settled in 1718 when immigrants entered the region to develop indigo
and sugarcane plantations. It received its name from the old ecclesiastical district of
St. Bernard. During the French regime, St. Bernard was included in the District of
New Orleans, one of the nine districts into which the province of Louisiana was first
divided in 1723. After the cession of Louisiana to the United States in 1803, St.
Bernard was in the New Orleans District. In -1807, when the Territorial Legislature
divided the territory into 19 parishes, the parish of St. Bernard was created with the
city of Chalmette as the parish seat.

2-32

Europeans first settled in the New Orleans area around 1700, and by the late 1800s,
the population had reached about 120,000. The contributions of various cultures
including French, Spanish (Islenos from the Canary Islands), British, and others give the
area its character and their influence can be seen in the monuments, buildings,
folklore, and historic place names. Acadians also settled in the parish, coming from
Canada and from Santo Domingo in the Caribbean. The settlers were farmers,
planters, and excellent trappers, and their influence is evident also in the folklore and
food of the area. The French were the first settlers of the parish and most were
farmers of indigo until cotton was introduced in 1740. From 1762 until 1803, the
Spanish had control of Louisiana. On 20 December 1803, the territory of Louisiana
was officially transferred to the United States. On 8 January 1815, the famous battle
of New Orleans, where Andrew Jackson defeated the British forces, took place almost
entirely in St. Bernard Parish. Near the battlefield, there is the "Four Oaks"
commemorative site where it is said that the British General, Pakenham, died.

Many areas of the parish contain a number of sites commemorated by historical
markers, including the St. Bernard Church and Cemetery, the sites of the former De
La Ronde, Villere, and Contreras Plantations, and the Ducros Historical Museum.
Future markers are planned to recognize the former sites of the Jummonville and
Reggio Plantations. The Kenilworth Plantation, a private residence, was built in 1759
and is in excellent condition.

The U.S. National Cemetery near Chalmette was established in 1864. More than
14,000 soldiers and sailors from every part of the U.S. are interred here, although
about half of the graves are unidentified. Two graves are those of men that died in
the Battle of New Orleans. The cemetery is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. The parish also contains the site of the first stream sugar mill, and examples
of the latest advances in the oil, gas, and manufacturing industries can also be found in
this area.

After the Civil War (1861-1865), the economy of St. Bernard Parish began to change
from the plantation type economy to small farms. About this time, the lumbering
period began, and nearly all the virgin cypress forests were harvested from the area by
the early 20th century.

Since the 1920s, St. Bernard Parish's character and economy have been changing
gradually from rural/agricultural to urban/industrial. Urbanization of the most
suitable parish lands on the natural levees has been almost total, and today the

2-33

marginal, low-lying areas are experiencing the increasing demands of urbanization,
industrialization, and other development forces.

Archaeological Sites

St. Bernard Parish is rich in historic and cultural places as indicated by the number of
sites shown in Figure 2-11. Since prehistoric times, man has found this coastal
environment a Very desirable place in which to live. Archaeological records show that
the St. Bernard delta complex has been occupied by man at least as far back as 1740
B.C. Evidence of man can be found in the many Indian mounds and middens located
throughout the parish.

The sites in Figure 2-11 represent cultures from the Poverty Point Period (1800-500
B.C.), the Tchefuncte and Marksville Periods (500 B.C. - A.D. 300), the Troyville and
Coles Creek Periods (A.D. 300 - 1000), to the Mississippi Period and early historic
times (A.D. 1000 - 1.700) (Gagliano et al. 1978). These cultures provide a valuable
record of the development of prehistoric man in the region and how he coped with the
environmental conditions, used the natural resources, and structured his society.

Although there are about 100 archaeological sites in St. Bernard Parish, a complete
archaeological survey of the parish would probably uncover many more (Wiseman et al.
1979). There are four sites listed for Orleans Parish that are on Lake Borgne, but the
drowned portions of these sites are technically in St. Bernard Parish. None of these
sites offer much in the way of salvage or recreational possibilities because they are
completely wave-washed.

The archaeological sites fall into four different classes: earth mounds, shell mounds,
shell middens, and beach deposits. The earth mounds are quite distinguishable in the
landscaDe because they are elevated from the normally flat topography. These mounds
were apparently built by the Indians as burial tumuli or temple foundations. The
Magnolia Mound complex (Figure 2-12) near the Great Bend of Bayou La Loutre is a
fine example of an earth mound complex. Numerous shell mounds and shell middens
indicate early Indians occupied sites.

While earlier researchers made no distinction in the mapping of shell mounds and
middens, the current practice is to identify these as separate archaeological types.
Shell mounds are general shell accumulations similar in structure to the earth mounds.
The shell middens are accumulations of sherds and shell and are commonly referred to

t'j
N, eems do do
Island St. Joseph Point
Lake Pontchartrain 'he I 'w 0. = w - . -00000
earl
A RiverJs Isle aux Pitre
Po, r, t c,
South Point Au. Herbes Grand Island
0 Gree AA@i,"t frilite
Di
6@ . at ne Point the
f 4' MalheWreux Point @&etit Pass Island
0 Shell Point
1141, it w S

ALwtor Point
ea

90 Lake Borgne
- 47 Point aux Marchettes 10

Mart
310 TE
e roctor Point

"N'

A
K il e
n 46)
4 Re.ggib City, Vomfort Island

o
HISTORICAL SITES '@j. 3 0) ell

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, elaer Point Lydia
16 SB 107-16 SB 119
Vint Chico

rdner Isla.QAe
.00,

t Gardner

oint Fortuna
ST
SOURCE: Gagliano et al. 1979 and Weinstein 1982
'PL

Figure 2-11. Cultural resources of St. Bernard Parish (after Gagliano et al. 1979 and
Weinstein 1982, personal communication).

2-35

4k
z;f,
no

Figure 2-12. Magnolia Mound shell midden and mound complex (after Gagliano et al.
1982).

2-36

as trash deposits. The beach deposit sites are the remains of a shell midden or mound
that has been naturally destroyed by wave action. Figure 2-13 illustrates the process
of the natural destruction of these shell mounds and middens.

The recorded Indian sites in St. Bernard Parish are depicted in Table 2-7. The
principal threats to these archaeological resources are subsidence, dredging, wave
erosion, and vandalism. Four sites in St. Bernard Parish are completely undisturbed.
For further reference or the changing status of these sites refer to the Culture
Resources Survey of the Mississippi RiHer-Gulf Outlet, Orleans and St. Bernard
Parishes, Louisiana, by Wiseman et al. 1979.

Historical Sites

St. Bernard Parish has 16 historical sites. Such sites are distinguished because of their
architecture, age, or rarity, or because they were the scene of an important event.
Figure 2-11 shows the location of historical and National Register Sites in the parish
while Table 2-8 lists the sites along with general information about each site.

National Register of Historic Places

There are presently three sites in St. Bernard Parish listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. They are the Chalmette National Historical Park, Fort Proctor, and
the Magnolia Mound Archaeological Site. The Chalmette National Historical Park
includes most of the area where the Battle of New Orleans was fought and where
Andrew Jackson defeated the British on January 8, 1815. Fort Proctor (16 SB 83) was
built in 1856 to defend the City of New Orleans from an attack by British forces
sailing through Lake Borgne. The fort represents a masterpiece of military construc-
tion for the time. The fort now stands almost completely surrounded by Lake Borgne
waters because of shoreline erosion (Figure 2-14). The Magnolia Mound site (16 SB 49)
is an extensive complex of clam middens and conical mounds of the Marksville period
(0-400 A.D.) which surrounds a plaza with pyramidal mounds of the Mississippi period
dating from A.D. 1000 to 1700. This site may have had a central junction in the
cultural settlement of the two periods. A number of other prehistoric and historic
sites and landmarks in St. Bernard, such as the powder magazine at Battery Bienvenue
(16 SB 84) (Figure 2-15), are eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places. Construction of this Battery began in 1825 (Gagliano et al. 1979).
The structure was built to accommodate 23 artillery pieces and two mortars and to

house 196 men.

2-37

---------------- ------------
------------
----------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MARSH DEPOSITS
--------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - --
@`.66RIED BEACH OR NATURAL
7- ------ %

MARSH !OVERWASH! BERM FORESHORE LAKE OR SAY

ORIGINAL SITE PROFILE
61144-40-4/ Ll(moo Liolv;, "ick(A
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AN SITU MIDDEN
--------------- .. ....
----------
...........
REWORKED MIDDEN.'-*-,".::-'-;::-"::*.'-.'-'-."::'**-':- .. .. .......

REWORKED MIDDEN (beach deposit)

EXHUMED MARSH

I%o - - - - - - - -water surface
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - REWORKED MIDDEN
-------------
'----MARSH DEPOSITS
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Figure 2-13. Progressive shoreline erosion of a coastal midden. The end product is a
beach deposit (after Gagliano et al. 1979).

2-38

Table 2-7a. St. Bernard Parish Archaeological Sites with Reported Culture Periods and Phase Designations.

Map No.* Site No. Site Name Culttre Period Phase

1 16 SB I Lawson Bay Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre
2 16 SB 2 Machias Lake Marksville Magnolia
(Pass Fernandia) Baytown Whitehall
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler

3 16 SB 3 Some as 16 SB 2

4 16S84 Pirate Point Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre
5 16 SB 5 Shell Island Mississippi Bayou Petre

6 16 SB 6 Shell Point Baytown Whitehall
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler

7 16 SB 7 Northwest of Jack Baytown Whitehall
Williams Bay Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre
8 16 SB 8 Yscloskey Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre
9 16 SB 9 Malheureux Point Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre
10 16 SB 10 Bayou Pierre Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

11 16 SB 11 Bayou Petre Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

12 16 SB 12 Mulatto Bayou Baytown Whitehall
(Lone Oak Mound) Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

13 16S913 Same as 16 SB 11

14 16 SB 14 Site in Mississippi,
not Louisiana

15 is SB is Same as 16 SB 23

16 16 SB 16 Door Point No Data

17 16 SB 17 Flower Island No Data

is 16 SB 18 Same as 16 SB 12

19 16 SB 19 Free Mason Island No Data

20 SB 20 Grand Passl Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

21 16 SB 21 Grand Pass 11 Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

22 16 SB 22 Isle au Pitre No Data

23 16 SB 23 North Island Marksville Labranche
Mississippi Bayou Petre

24 16 SB 24 Bayou Eloi Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

25 16 SB 25 South Island Marksville ?
Mississippi Bayou Petre

26 16SO26 Lake Jean Louis Robin No Data

27 16SU27 Grand Coquille Point I No Data

28 16SB28 Grand Coquille Point 11 Marksville Magnolia
Baytown Whitehall
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler

29 16 SB 29 Lake of the Second Mississippi Bayou Petre
Trees I (Yucca Mound)

2-39

Table 2-7b. St. Bernard Parish Archaeological Sites with Reported Culture Periods and Phase Designations.

map No.* Site No. Ste Name Culture Period Phase

30 16 SB 30 Nigger Point No Date

31 16 SB 31 Johnson Bayou Mississippi Bayou Petra

32 16 SB 32 Twilight Harbor Baytown Whitehall
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler

33 16 SB 33 Seven Dollar Bay No Data

34 16 SB 34 Point Gardner No Data

35 16 SB 35 Three Mile Bay No Data

26 16 SB 36 Elephant Point Pass No Data

3T 16 SB 37 Kerchimbo Bay No Data

38 16 SB 38 Reggio I No Data

39 16 SB 39 Shell Beach Bayou Marksville ?

40 16 SB 40 Dupre Marksville, ?
Baytown Whitehall
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petra

41 16 SB 41 Kenilworth Canal Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

42 16 SB, 42 Reggio 11 No Data

43 16 SB 43 Doulluts Canal No Data

44 16 SB 44 Shell Beach Tchula Pontchartrain
Marksville Magnolia
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre
Historic 19th & 20th
Centuries

45 16 SB 45 Bayou Yscloskey I Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Medora

46 16 SB 46 Bayou Yseloskey 11 No Data

4T 16 SB 47 Bayou St. Malo, Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petra

48 16 SB 48 East Bayou Baytown Whitehall
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
49 16 SB 49 Magnolia Mound Marksville Magnolia
Mississippi Bayou Petra
so 16 SB 50 Southwest of Marksville Magnolia
Cut-off Lagoon Baytown Whitehall
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
51 16 SB 51 Northwest of Marksvilie Magnolia
Cut-off Lagoon

52 16 SB 52 Shotgun Shell No Data
63 16 SB 53 Bayou Biloxi I Marksville Magnolia
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petra

54 16 SB 54 Lone Tree Hill No Data

55 16 SB 55 Bayou Biloxi U No Data

56 16 SB 56 Lake of the Mounds No Data

ST 16 SB 57 Bottle Bayou Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre
58 16 SB 58 Bayou Terre aux Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Boeufs 11 Mississippi Bayou Petre
59 16 SB 59 Eighty Arpent Canal Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

2-40

Table 2-7c. St. Bernard Parish Archaeological Sites with Reported Culture Periods and Phase Designations.

map No.* Site No. Site Name Culture Period Phase

60 16 SB 60 Grand Bayou No Data

61 16 SB 61 Lake of the Second Marksville Magnolia
Trees If Coles Creek Bayou Cutler

62 16 SB 62 Lake Borgne Mississippi Bayou Petre

63 16 SB 63 South of Lake Borgne No Data

94 16 SB 64 Cut-off Bayou Marksvile Magnolia
Baytown Whiteshell
Coles Creek Bayou Cutler

65 16 SB 65 Bayou Guyago No Data

66 16 SB 66 No Name No Data

67 16 SB 67 No Name Mississippi Medora(?)

68 16 SB 68 Bayou La Loutre Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Section 30 Mississippi Bayou Petre

69 16 SB 69 Bayou La Loutre Marksville Magnolia
MRGO Mississippi Bayou Petre

70 16 SB 70 Padre Bayou Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

71 16 SB 71 Lake Borgne Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Bayou Dupre Mississippi Bayou Petre
Historic 19th Century

72 16 SB 72 Raccoon Island Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petre

73 16 SB 73 Le Petit Paw Island No Data

74 16 SB 74 Orange Mound No Data

75 16 SB 75 Northwest of Bayou Guyago No Data

76 16 SB 76 Bayou La Loutre Levee No Data
77 16 SB 77 Bayou La Loutre Mississippi Bayou Petre

To 16 SB 78 Garfish Point No Data

79 16SB79 Northeast of Joe Shiman Pass Nq Data

so 16 SB 80 Mussel Bayou No Data

$1 16 SB 81 Bayou Lary No Data

82 16 SB 82 Northeast of Bayou Lery No Data
as 16 SB 83 Fort Proctor Historic 19th Century
(Fort Beauregard)
84 16 SB 84 Battery Bienvenue Historic 19th Century
as 16 SB 85 Martello Castle Historic 19th Century
86 16 SB 86 Kenilworth Plantation Historic 19th Century
87 16 SB 87 Proctor Sugar Mill Historic 19th Century
as 16 SB 88 De La Ronde Plantation Historic 19th Century
89 16SB89 Lake Borgne Canal Redoubt Historic 19th Century
90 16 SB 90 Bayou La Loutre Cemetery Historic 19th Century
91 16 SB 91 Bayou La Loutre Homes Historic 19th Century
92 16 SB 92 MRGO - Homes Historic 19th Century
93 16 SB 93 Bayou Bernard Canal Historic 19th Century
94 16 SB 94 Bakers Ditch Historic 19th Century
as 16 SB 95 Pearstein Historic 19th Century

2-41

Table 2-7d. St. Bernard Parish Archaeological Sites with Reported Culture Periods and Phase Designations.

Map No.* Site No. Site Name Culture Period Phase

96 16 SB 96 Grand Pass Midden Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petra

97 16 SB 97 Gardner Island Coles Creek Bayou Cutler

98 16 SB 98 Mosquito Inlet Mississippi Bayou Petra

99 16 SB 99 Shell Beach Railroad Mississippi Bayou Petra
Historic 19th Century
100 16 SB 100 Horseshoe Bayou No Data No Data

101 16 SB 101 Number not assigned

102 16 SB 102 Merits Plantation Historic 18th Century
19th Century

103 16 SB 103 No Name Coles Creek Bayou Cutler
Mississippi Bayou Petra

104 16 SB 104 No Name Historic 19th Century

105 16 SB 105 Lake Borgne Canal Lock Historic 19th Century

106 16 SB 106 No Name Historic 20th Century

107 16 SB 107 No Name Historic 19th Century

108 16 SB 108 No Name Historic 20th Century

109 16 SB 109 No Name Historic 20th Century

110 16 SB 110 No Name Historic 19th Century

ill 16 SB Ill No Name Historic 19th Century

112 16 SB 112 No Name Historic 19th Century

113 16 SB 113 No Name Historic 20th Century

114 16 SB 114 No Name Historic 20th Century

115 16 SB 115 No Name Historic 19th Century

116 16 SB 116 No Name Historic 19th Century

117 16 SB 117 No Name Historic 20th Century

118 16 SB 118 No Name Historic 20th Century

119 16SBI19 Chateau des Fleur
Plantation House Historic 19th Century

120 16 OR 13 Little Rigolets No Data No Data

121 16 OR 18 Alligator Point Coles Creek Bayou Cutler

122 16 OR 42 No Name No Data No Data

123 16 OR 43 No Name No Data No Data

* The map numbers in bold type correspond to the number in Figure 2-11 for the location of these sites.

Source: Gagliano et al. 1979, Weinstein 1982.

2-42

Table 2-8. Historic Sites in St. Bernard Parish.

MAP NO. NAME INFORMATION

9 Old St. Bernard Courthouse Built around 1915.

b Overseer's House of Built approximately around 1830.
Sebastapol Plantation

c St. Bernard Cemetery Earliest intact cemetery in the region,
graves dating back to the 18th century.

d Kenilworth Plantation Ground floor built in 1759 and used for
(86) a time as a Spanish military post.
Additions where made to the house after
1800.

e Contreras Birthplace of P.G.T. Beauregard (1818-93).

f Solis Plantation House Ruins of an early modest plantation where
sugar was first granulated in Louisiana
on 1791.

9 Fort Proctor 1856 ruins of a fort that was never
(83) (Fort Beauregard) completed, with the early use of metal
I-beam and tie-rod construction.

h Proctor Sugarmill Ruins of a plantation sugar refinery.
(87)

i Martello, Castle Remains of a fort built in 1829.
(85)

George Villere House Built in the 1840s in the Greek Revival
era.

k LeBeau House Built in 1850.

1 Ducros Museum Artifacts from prehistoric Indians, the
Battle of New Orleans, etc.

m Chalmette National Include Rene Beauregard Plantation
Historic Park House built in 1832, Earthworks from the
Battle of New Orleans in 1815 and
Chalmette Monument.

n Chalmette National Laid out in 1864, and contain graves of
Military Cemetery more than 14,000 Union soldiers, in which
more that half are unknown.

0 DeLaRonde Site of the first encounter of the Battle
(88) Plantation of New Orleans and used as a hospital by
the British.

2-43

Table 2-8. Historic Sites in St. Bernard Parish (concluded).

MAP NO. NAME INFORMATION

p Battery Bienvenue Ruins of a fort begun in 1826 and rebuilt
(84) several times before abandoned after the
Civil War.

Source: CEI 1978.

2-44

n@
jj&r
W@

Figure 2-14. Northeast face of Fort Proctor. Notice that the outer wall has
been reduced to rubble below the water line. View to the south-
west. Date: 5/14/76 (after Gagliano et al. 1978).

2-45

A
40

IV
4"A

"Iv

Figure 2-15. Powder magazine at Battery Bienvenue, view to the east. Date:
6/10/76 (after Gagliano et al. 1978).

2-46

TRANSPORTATION

Early transportation corridors in St. Bernard Parish followed the major natural levees
and deeper water channels. This dual land-water transportation system satisfied the
needs of the parish with minimum disturbance to the natural environment. Today,
most of the major land transportation corridors are still located on the higher grounds
of the natural levees but have been expanded substantially to meet the growing needs
of the parish.

Roadways

St. Bernard was one of the first parishes in Louisiana to construct permanent
highways. This movement was launched in 1899 by Sebastien Roy, and the first paved
highway extended from the Orleans Parish line to Paris Road in Chalmette. Major
thoroughfares today are Judge Perez Drive (La. Highway 39), Paris Road (La. Highway
47-39), St. Bernard Highway (La. Highway 46-39), La. Highway 624, and La. Highway
300. Judge Perez Drive, St. Bernard Highway, and Paris Road are the primary routes
servicing the urbanized area, and Judge Perez Drive is presently being extended
eastward to Verret. La. Highway 39 (Judge Perez Highway) extends through Poydras
and connects with La. Highway 46 which is the main route serving the leveed area.
Beyond Reggio, La. 46 follows the natural ridge to Yscloskey and Shell Beach, with the
route number changing to 624 for the segment between Yscloskey and Hopedale.
Below Reggio, La. Highway 300 extends to Delacroix.

Waterways

The principal natural waterway serving St. Bernard Parish is the Mississippi River. It
accommodates ocean-going ships at docks located in Chalmette at the Chalmette Slip;
the Tenneco Crude Terminal Wharf; the Tenneco Wharf No. 4; and Exxon Company,
USA, Chalmette Terminal Tank Dock. Ships may also dock at Murphy Oil Company
Wharf in Meraux, Louisiana. The most significant man-made channel is the MRGO. It
is considered to be economically less important than the Mississippi River in terms of
number of users and tonnage carried. In addition to the MRGO, there are a number of
man-made canals which cross the wetlands at various locations in St. Bernard Parish.
These canals were primarily constructed for the exploration and extraction of
petroleum and natural gas resources. The major natural bayous used for transportation
into the marshes are Bayous La Loutre, Terre aux Boeufs, Bienvenue, St. Malo, and

Biloxi.

2-47

Rail Service

The New Orleans Terminal Company and Louisiana Southern Railway Company (both
under the Southern Railway System) serve St. Bernard Parish. The New Orleans
Terminal Company transports goods from the Orleans-St. Bernard Parish line to
Chalmette, including service to slip and dock facilities along this portion of the
Mississippi. The Louisiana Southern runs from the Orleans-St. Bernard Parish line
along the Mississippi River to the Plaquemines Parish line. There is an extension from
Poydras Junction to Toca. These two railroads have daily service and direct
connections with all other railroads operating in the New Orleans area.

Pipelines

There are numerous petroleum and natural gas pipelines located within St. Bernard.
These facilities transport oil and gas to refineries and processing plants located within
St. Bernard and to markets throughout the country.

Airports

There are no major airports in the parish but two exist in the surrounding areas (Figure
2-16) and serve the parish as well as the New Orleans metropolitan area. The New
Orleans International Airport, constructed in the mid-forties, handles mainly passen-
gers, mail, and cargo and provides national and international service. The New
Orleans Lakefront Airport located just east of the Inner-Harbor Navigation Canal
(IHNC) currently serves only non-scheduled commercial and private flights. At the
present time, these airports are sufficient to handle the air traffic for the region.

LAND USE

The natural levees along the Mississippi River, Bayou Terre aux Boeufs, and Bayou La
Loutre offer the most suitable land within the parish for development, and there exists
a mixture of residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and trans-
portational development concentrated along the corridors. Existing land use is shown
in Figure 2-17 and land use acreages are shown in Table 2-9. The urbanized area (Unit
13 in B & A 1 1979) in which an estimated 88% of the people in St. Bernard Parish
reside, lies within the man-made flood protection levee system between Arabi and
Poydras. The leveed areas extending from Poydras to Verret (the transition manage-
ment unit [Unit 3 in B & A 1 19791 ) are slightly less densely developed, and the

eems lish
Island St. Joseph Point ......
Lake Pontchartrain IV,/ 16; =11110000000
I I , tl earl
o, n I Riverjs Isle aux Par
j. Herbes Grand Island
South Point coastal
6ult into,
Gree
Di
at ne Point@h
e f or Shell Point Malheoreux Point 4e Petit Pass Island
04e, it W S

Alligator Point
C 90 (ema V, Lake Borgne

Point aux Marchettes

310 Bayou Dupre Waterway Mar
c T 6'x 100' 4 9@?
Proctor Point
M I issippi b
r 40,
Railroad let
Bayou St.,Malo @7
'x401
ir 5'x40 k; 14 A Y
"lon Bayou Yscloskey
aniluvort 5'x4O'
err hell
ae on Allu
Reggio C14Y9 Selo K Comfort Island
4
a

RAILROAD elaer 1 Bayou Lal-outre Point Lydia
6'x4O'
....... NAVIGATION CORRIDORS

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS N. Point Chico

Gardner Island

4@1
-,-36'x5OO'

Point Gardner

Point Fortuna
SOURCE: Coastal Environments, Inc. 1976 ST
82am lque oln
PL

Figure 2-16. Existing transportation of St. Bernard Parish (after CEI 1976).

tj
eems lish
IsI.nd St. Joseph Point .. 0000000,
Lake Pontchartrain C. earl - .....
Point A Riverjs Isle aux Pitre
South Point Aux Herbes ......... 00 so Grand Island
v
Gree "@Cpt
Di
at ne Point thevi,
f 4@ Malheureux Point JL. Petit Pass Island
4r it w S Shell Point

Alligator Point
ea
C
90 ee Lake Borgne

47 Point aux Marchettes

310 eVin
T

roctor Point
Aolme

us 34

IL
6
/1. Uv IVomfort Island
4 Regg C i Q-@
r77n 9 3 0) 50 1
INDUSTRIAL

WETLANDS elaer i
oint Lydia
RECREATION 1@0 X
COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES oint Chico

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
c@- Clzrdiriter lslz@e
RESIDENTIAL, STRIP AND CLUSTERED
SETTLEMENT I
11.1 .000

4 oint Gardrw
SOURCE: Burk & Associates, Inc. 1978 oint Fortuna ST. E
ozaMi-quMe'76i"Al@ PLAQ
77

Figure 2-17. Existing land use map of St. Bernard Parish (after B & A I 1978b).

2-50

Table 2-9. Existing Land Use in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.

Land Use Acres Hectares

Urban Areas

Residential 2,377 963
Commercial and Service 353 143
Industrial 482 195
Public/Semi-Public 249 101
Recreation and Parks 477 193
Open and Vacant 21,052 8,526
Other 3,999 1,620

Agricultural Areas

Cropland and Pasture 402 163
Orchard and Grove 58 23
Other 6 2

Forest Lands

Forest 6,701 2,714

Wetlands

Swamp 5,860 2,373
Marsh 429,960 174,134

Source: B & A 1 1979.

2-51

remainder of this transition zone extending south to Delacroix and southeast to
Hopedale is the least developed of the natural levee corridor. Among the more
important land use categories in the parish are the man-made systems which function
to maintain a healthy environment, e.g., flood protection and drainage, solid waste
disposal, sewage treatment, and utilities.

Flood Protection

Most of St. Bernard is a flood-prone area. The parish is most susceptible to storm
surges from hurricane tidal action and the accompanying rainfall. In order to protect
the development along the natural ridge areas, an artificial levee system was
constructed. This system rings the area from Arabi to Verret and has historically
defined the boundary between urban land and wetlands. The ridge areas outside the
levee system from Verret to Delacroix and Hopedale are not protected by levees and
thus, are still subjected to periodic tidal flooding.

The construction of the levee system required the installation of a drainage system.
The area within the levees is, in effect, a giant saucer, and runoff must be channeled
to drainage canals and then pumped over the levees. This system must constantly be
maintained and improved to insure that water trapped within the area is removed
quickly before it can accumulate and cause damage to life and property.

The levee - drainage system has created small areas of uninhabited and undrained
areas of wetlands at the base of the levee system. The inducement of freshwater and
the blockage of saltwater intrusion has created these zones which act as buffers
between the adjacent brackish wetlands and ridge areas. These areas within the levees
should be maintained. However, they do offer the possibility for future development
when parish land needs become critical.

Solid Waste D!Nn221

Until the early 1970s, solid wastes were handled by incineration followed by landfill-
ing. From a management standpoint, this is an ideal system. Incineration reduces
waste volumes by 70 to 85 percent, landfill life span is greatly prolonged, and landfill
site management is relatively simple and inexpensive.

Incineration, however, has one main drawback: air pollution. Incinerators constructed
in the 1960s were made obsolete by particulate (smoke) control requirements estab-
lished by the Air Pollution Control Act of 1972. Technology for controlling

2-52
particulates was not well developed at the time, and refitting of aging incinerators
was an expensive proposition. Thus, incinerators in most parts of Louisiana were
either completely abandoned or turned into transfer stations. St. Bernard's incinerator
was abandoned and the parish has been relying exclusively on landfill ever since.

The Paris Road landfill is now used for disposal of all of the solid wastes generated in
St. Bernard, with the exception of agricultural and industrial wastes. The Paris Road
landfill site is leased from private land owners and operated by St. Bernard Parish
Polic Jury. Municipal (household and small commercial) wastes are collected by the
parish on a six day per week basis. To do this, the parish maintains a fleet of 16
vehicles and a full-time collection staff of over 40 employees.

St. Bernard Parish, in cooperation with the Louisiana Resource Recovery and
Development Authority and Regional Planning Commission, has been pursuing the
feasibility of a regional resource recovery facility to meet the future needs of solid
waste management. The decision to proceed should be made by July, 1983.

Sewerage Treatment

Wastewater treatment in St. Bernard Parish is currently available in Management Unit
13 and in the Poydras Area of Management Unit 3 (B & A 1 1979). Wastes are
collected by a series of collection lines and lift stations and are transported to three
treatment plants and two oxidation ponds. There, the wastes are treated and
discharged into the drainage system or the Mississippi River.

The remainder of the inhabited area does not have major treatment facilities at the
present time. These areas must rely on septic tanks or small package plants for waste

water treatment.

Utilities

Electricity is supplied to the parish by the Louisiana Power and Light Company. The
Louisiana Gas Company provides residential gas service to the urbanized leveed area
(Management Units 13 and 3) and beyond the levee to a point approximately one mile

2-53

from the La. Highway 46 junction. The gas lines resume at Reggio and follow La. 300
to Delacroix and La. 46 to Shell Beach and Hopedale. The company anticipates that
the existing facilities should be adequate to service the demands for the next ten to
twenty years.

The water lines are maintained for Management Units 3 and 13 (the developed natural
levee ridge area) by Water District Number 2. A 10-inch main line services the area
between Poydras and Reggio, while a 4-inch line extends from Poydras to East Wood
Manor. The area between Reggio and Delacroix is served by a 6-inch main line, and an
8-inch main line stretches between Reggio and Yscloskey. The communities of Shen
Beach and Hopedale receive water through a 6-inch main line out of Yscloskey. Water
District Number 1 services Arabi to the Violet Canal and has the only purification
system in the parish. It sells purified water to Water District Number 2.

milk 4

-1=0@0"Ow

"Rau

#sow

CHAPTER III: PRINCIPLE RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

A knowledge of the parish's renewable and non-renewable resource base is essential in
achieving development goals and management practices which lead to long-term
benefits for the area. Renewable resources, such as shrimp, oysters, crabs, fish,
agricultural products, and furs and hides can be utilized by the citizens and visitors of
St. Bernard Parish in perpetuity if carefully managed. Non-renewable resources, such
as oil, gas, and other minerals, contribute to the parish's economic base and provide a
net benefit to the parish if handled wisely. Exploitation of non-renewable resources
can negatively impact the renewable resources which can be depleted through unwise
exploitation, bad management practices, or a change in the environment, such as
pollution and saltwater intrusion, which affect resource productivity. In many
instances, the cause of these changes can be traced directly or indirectly to man's
activities in the wetlands. These activities often happen independently of each other,
and their cumulative impacts are not taken into consideration. Overall goals,
objectives, and effective management programs and implementation procedures may
help to reestablish some of the renewable resources.

FISHING AND TRAPPING

The extensive marshlands of St. Bernard Parish are extremely productive for oysters,
shrimp, crabs, and fish. The extensive marshes and bays with their varying salinity
zones are responsible for Louisiana being the premier state in the annual production of
fisheries and fur. The Louisiana marshes are among the largest and most productive
prime nursery grounds in the world for over 100 species of estuarine-dependent fish
and shellfish, many of which support the offshore fisheries industries. Some of these
aquatic species require marsh environments during their entire life cycle; for others it
is only important during some stages of their life cycle. Commercial fishermen
concentrate on catching striped mullet, gulf menhaden, southern flounder, and
sheepshead, while sportsmen take black drum, Atlantic croaker, red drum, sand
seatrout, and southern flounder.

The largest acreage in private oyster leases in Louisiana is found in Plaquemines and
St. Bernard Parishes. In 1978-79, the leased oyster grounds in St. Bernard Parish
totaled 72,083 acres (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 1979). Increased
salinities and changes in the environment have been detrimental to the area's historic

3-1

3-2

oyster reefs, and the extent of the nursery grounds has been diminished. Pollution
from sewage discharge from urban areas has also been detrimental to oyster
production because of the prohibition of harvesting oysters from polluted grounds. For
location of existing oyster grounds refer to the section of this report on Potential
Unique and Particular Areas. For a summary of the fisheries productivity of St.
Bernard estuaries see Table 3-1.

The St. Bernard wetlands are also a valuable renewable resource in that they provide
habitat to valuable furbearers. The principle fur-bearing animals found in this area
are the common muskrat, the nutria, and the North American mink. The area
surrounding Delacroix is an extremely important prime furbearer habitat, although its
productivity has decreased in recent years. Rising salinities have diminished the low-
salinity (fresh to intermediate) marsh habitat which is the most suitable habitat for
fur-bearing animals.

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES

St. Bernard Parish does not have as extensive oil and gas deposits as some parishes, but
revenues from existing deposits do provide an important economic resource. Hydro-
carbons (natural gas and oil), sand, and clay are the primary minerals produced in the.
parish, with hydrocarbons being the most valuable. Figure 3-1 illustrates the location
of these mineral resources and the pipelines that transport the hydrocarbons from
producing areas to user sources. Clay and sand mining are located at two sites within
the urbanized area of the natural levee.

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Existing Recreation

The coastal environment of St. Bernard Parish is a good example of a sportsman's
paradise. The potential for wetlands/water-based recreation is almost unlimited. The
many waterways and their easy access provide an outlet for boating, trapping, fishing,
and hunting activities in the wetlands. In addition to the numerous private camps and
boat launches, there are 18 'parish, state, and Federal park s and refuges (Table 3-2) and
16 commercial marinas in the parish (Figure 3-2).

The Biloxi Wildlife Management Area is the largest public wetland in the parish and
offers tremendous hunting and fishing opportunities. The management area is located

Table 3-1. Commercial Fisheries Harvest for St. Bernard Parish Shown in Pounds and Value of Catch.

1976 1977 1978 1979

Pounds 412,400 880,100 1,671,900 1,086,855
Fish Value $ 130,718 $ 150,279 $ 170,775 $ 118,945

Pounds 1,718,300 2,252,800 2,049,500 1,439,629
Crabs Value $ 322,232 $ 545,016 $ 447,993 $ 306,907

Pounds 2,122,700 2,048,500 2,394,500 1,840,115
Shrimp
Value $1,209,409 $1,102y599 $1,745,195 $4Y245,656

Pounds 1,618y5OO 1,560,900 1,252,000 921,041
Oysters Value $1,040y346 $1,282,261 $1,428y187 $1,100,282

Pounds 5y87ly9OO 6y742,300 6Y241,100 5,287,640
TOTAL Value $2,702,705 $3,080yI55 $3y792,150 $5,771,790

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce var. yrs.

eems St. Joseph Point 00.00
Island U
Lake Pontchartrain rl .00.0 .......
Point A River Isle aux Pitr
Au@ Herbes od. Grand Island
South Poin

Gree
Di
at ne Pomt'@h
,kr 0!1V:, ef hell Point athetgeux Point JLe Petit Pass Island
04@1 it w S

Alligator Point
ea
C
90 Al
Lake porgn*

47 PcAt aux Mar ettes

31 Mar
9@
P @tor Point
R rr1wc"7"rr---- 39 .4
ii et --7
AY
Ken(Prt
hell
7

Alluvia
@Isclo R-
ewo city Comfort Island

0 a
9 - \ " I
3
CD OIL PRODUCTION

I T D E
C) GAS PRODUCTION Velaer 1 0
Point Ly@ia
............... OIL PIPELINE

GAS PIPELINE
Point Chico

PRODUCTION PIPELINE S FIEL
LINEA Gairdne,diEnItIELD NOT DELINEATED

Point Gardner -Z""
URCE Louisiana Geological Survey 1981 Point Fortuna S1
d-za Trq-.-,ro,-rl 7 PL
7
Figure 3-1. Oil and gas fields in St. Bernard Parish (after Louisiana Geological
Survey 1981).

3-5

Table 3-2. Federal, State, and Parish Parks and Refuges.

MAP NO. SITE RESPONSIBILITY ACREAGE

1 Chalmette Battlefield Federal 130
2 Breton National Wildlife Refuge Federal 7,512
3 Biloxi Game Management State 39,583
4 St. Bernard State Park State 358
5 Parc Chenier Parish 17.8
6 Carolyn Park Parish 2
7 Chalmette Vista Playground Parish 2
8 Prosper Park Parish 2
9 Violet Ball Field Parish 2
10 Riverbend Playground Parish 1
11 Patricia Park Parish 1
12 Community Park Parish 1
13 Versailles Delaronde Park Parish 3.9
14 Rebel Park Parish 2
15 Borno-emouth Park Parish 2
T
16 Kenilworth Park Parish 1.5
17 Bucaneer Villa Park Parish 3.83
18 Schneider Park Parish 1
19 Reggio Marina Commercial .5
20 Chalmette Marina Commercial 4
21 Rips Place Commercial .2
22 Molero's Marina Commercial 1.5
23 Hopedale Grocery & Marina Commercial 1
24 S & S Boat Marina Commercial 1
25 R. Campo's Marina Commercial 1
26 Al Campo Marina Commercial 1.5
27 Roudy Melerine Commercial 1
28 Gulf Outlet Marina Commercial 1
29 Frank Campo Commercial 1
30 Gagnon's Marina Commercial 1
31 Ernest Melerine Commercial 1
32 Mack Melerine Commercial 1
33 End of World Marina Commercial 1
34 Alponsols Marina Commercial 1
35 Chalmette Trapshooters Non-Profit 5
36 Verret Park Parish 2.5
37 Val Riess Park Parish 43
38 Heights Park Parish 0.7
39 Our Lady of Lourdes Parish 2
40 Goodwill Park Parish 2.5

Source: Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism 1977.

Map number corresponds to recreational sites on Figure 3-2.

ee s go 100000
Isla d St. Joseph Point
Lake Pontehartrain M 1110.1000000000
earl so
Point Riverjs Isle aux Pitr
Grand Island
South Point Aux Herbes MGM so

Gree
Di
Z at e Point th
'r e Shell Point Malheoreux Point 4e Petit Pass Island
01:1 it w S 1

Alligator Point 9
ea n4 0

90
Lake Borgne

47 Point aux Marcheltes

Biloxi Game
31o Management Area Ma
T 4
B
e roctor Point

K 1w

r1i on 4

Vornfort Island
Re"alzi 0%y,

SCENIC RIVERS r i
Point Lydia
0 RECREATIONAL SITES
A POTENTIAL RECREATION SITES --j Vint Chico

Gardner Islar
17

.00,

Point Gardner

oint Fortuna
S
SOURCE: Coastal Environments, Inc. 1976 and the Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism 1 77
o I a mr, Mumem Mo MI PL

Figure 3-2. Recreational resources in St. Bernard Parish (after CEI 1976 and the
Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism 1977).

3-7
40 miles east of New Orleans and is accessible by boat from the commercial launches
at Hopedale and Shell Beach. Species hunted in the area include rabbits, ducks, and
geese, while nutria, mink, raccoon, and muskrat are trapped commercially. Large
catches of crabs, shrimp, oysters, and fish are taken by both sport and commercial
fishermen. The Chandeleur Islands, consisting of a 45-mile long barrier island complex
20 miles east and south of St. Bernard, has been designated as the Breton National
Wildlife Refuge and is under Federal jurisdiction. These islands are an important
nesting area for shore and aquatic bird species including the endangered Brown
Pelican. The waters surrounding the island chain are also a vital spawning area for
many crustaceans and fish.

There are numerous state and parish parks (including St. Bernard State Park, Park
Chenier, Delaronde Park, and Bucaneer Villa Park) located on the natural levees of the
parish. These parks Drovide baseball fields, tennis courts, picnic areas, and barbecue
pits year-round for the parish residents and visitors.

Scenic Rivers

St. Bernard has seven designated scenic streams or bayous. Table 3-3 lists these
streams, and their location is shown in Figure 3-2.

A natural or scenic river is a river, stream, or bayou that is in a free-flowing condition
and has not been altered by channelization or realignment. A stream can also be
classified as scenic if it has been altered, but contains native vegetation and has little
or no man-made structures along its bank. The Lake Borgne Canal (or Violet Canal) is
an example of such a scenic river that ha's been altered by dredging to improve
navigation.

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is the administrator of the scenic
river system and serves to protect these streams from the effects of channelization,
channel realignment, clearing and snagging projects, and reservoir construction
projects. The scenic river system is designed to protect the overall ecology of the
stream including the wildlife, vegetation, and hydrology. It is also designed to
preserve the wilderness qualities, scenic beauty, archaeological resources, and other
features of the stream or bayou. All of these streams are used for recreational
activities such as b6ating, fishing, and canoeing.

3-8

Table 3-3. Designated Scenic Streams in St. Bernard Parish.

MAP NO. NAME LOCATION

1 Bayou Dupre From the Lake Borgne Canal to Terre Beau Bayou
2 Lake Borgne Canal From the Forty Arpent Canal to Bayou Dupre
3 Bashman Bayou From its origin to Bayou Dupre
4 Terre Beau Bayou From Bayou Dupre to the New Canal
5 Piroque Bayou From Bayou Dupre to the New Canal
6 Bayou Bienvenue From Bayou Villere to Lake Borgne
7 Bayou Chaperon From the origin to its end

*Map numbers correspond to scenic rivers on Figure 3-2.

Source: Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism 1977.

3-9

Scenic Sites

Scenic sites are those places that offer unusual vistas in the form of townscape and/or
landscape. These sites can be stretches of marshes, wooded areas, architecture, or
any attractive, aesthetically pleasing area. According to the Regional Planning
Commission there are five scenic sites in St. Bernard Parish:

1. Roadway near Kenilworth Plantation

2. Toca

3. Docville Farm
4. Swamp behind Chalmette, Meraux, and Violet spreading toward the Gulf
Outlet Canal
5. Cypress trees off Paris Road

There are, of course, countless other scenic areas, but they have no road access, only

boat access.

Proposed Recreation Site

The Louisiana coast is very popular for recreation, especially activities such as
boating, picnicking, swimming, camping, and water-skiing. Heavy use is the primary
cause of crowding of many of the facilities, particularly beaches, campgrounds, and
parks in close proximity to urban areas. Table 3-4 lists the proposed new or expanded
recreational sites in St. Bernard Parish. These new sites include levees, battures,
fishing piers, spoil bank areas, and beaches. The list identifies the recommended sites
by name, describes the facilities proposed, and the corresponding map number locates
the site in Figure 3-2.

Proposed Preservation and Restoration Areas

Burk and Associates, Inc. addressed and evaluated the areas that should be preserved
and restored in their report: Potential Preservation and Restoration Areas in the
Louisiana Wetlands (1977b). This study evaluates and rates 50 potential natural areas
representing a cross section of all major physiographic types in coastal Louisiana.
These areas were generally remote, relatively inaccessible, and show little or no
physical alterations within historic times. Each of these sites has varying degrees of
ecological, recreational, economic, or aesthetic value. The site evaluation of each of
these areas consisted of the following criteria: naturalness, diversity, representa-
tiveness, unique ecological value, susceptibility to damage, degree of threat, aesthetic

Table 3-4. Potential Recreation Sites in St. Bernard Parish.

MAP NO. SITE PROPOSED USE OR FACILIT Y

A La. 46 Scenic road, roadside parks, historical tours.

B Fort Proctor Picnicking, historical interpretation.

C Hopedale - End of La. 46 Potential camping, picnicking and boat
launching facilities at junction of MRGO
and Bayou La Loutre.

D Bayou Bienvenue Area General recreational development.

E Chandeleur Islands Boat camping, surf fishing, bird watching.

Source: B & A I 1977a

*Map number corresponds to recreational sites on Figure 3-2

3-11
quality, recreational value, and educational and scientific value. These criteria were
rated 1 through 10, then totaled. Those areas assigned the greatest number of points
were considered to be the most important remaining natural coastal areas in
Louisiana. Table 3-5 lists the four sites in St. Bernard Parish that are potential
preservation areas.

In addition to consideration of potential preservation areas, a study was made of the
potential restoration areas, especially those affected greatly by saltwater intrusion,
erosion, and land loss. The most critical areas of shoreline erosion, land loss, and
saltwater intrusion occur primarily in southeast Louisiana. Figure 3-3 contains the
potential preservation and restoration areas in St. Bernard Parish. The most critical
area is in the St. Bernard delta complex along the MRGO. The problems of erosion and
saltwater intrusion possibly could be stopped through shoreline stabilization with rip,
rap or sheet piling and a re-creation of eroded areas behind the shore protection
structures. The southern shoreline of Lake Borgne is also undergoing shoreline retreat
because of wave erosion. Beach nourishment and artificial reefs may be a solution to
this problem. Another area for potential restoration is the "mainland coast" along
Chandeleur Sound. Beach nourishment and marsh and dune re-vegetation are possible
measures which can be used to retard erosion along these islands.

POTENTIAL UNIQUE AND PARTICULAR AREAS

The Louisiana coast possesses rich and diverse natural resources that have many
unique features. The diverse habitats of the alluvial ridges, swamps, marshes,
beaches, bays, and nearshore Gulf waters support extremely dynamic and productive
biotic communities. In addition to supporting dense populations of commercially
important species, the region provides critical habitat for several rare or endangered
species. The marshes and bays in the coastal area are responsible for Louisiana being
so productive. These potentially unique ecological features have been divided into
zoological, botanical, and geological components. A unique ecological feature is
defined as an area or a resource whose characteristics qualify it as one of the
following: 1) a critical habitat for rare or endangered species, 2) an area of extremely
high biological productivity, 3) a location of vital importance as a nesting, feeding,
wintering, or spawning area for fish and wildlife, 4) a rare or unusual occurrence of a
particular species near the limits of its ranges, 5) vital to the maintenance of a coastal
ecological process, 6) a unique physiographic feature, or 7) an area of exceptional
recreational value (B & A 1 1976).

Table 3-5. Potential Preservation Sites in St. Bernard Parish.

MAP NO. SITE ACREAGE **PRIORITY CHARACTER AND DESCRIPTION
RANKING

A Proctor Point Marsh 9,181 11 An isolated brackish marsh, in generally
good condition except along the southern
end where it is being eroded by the
MRGO. Excellent prime fish nursery
ground and waterfowl habitat, also con-
taining a wading bird rookery.

B Bayous LaLoutre- 4,912 10 Portion of the natural levee ridge of an
St. Malo, Alluvial abandoned Mississippi River distributary
Ridge Complex channel and an important natural barrier
to saltwater intrusion. Magnolia Mound
Indian Site and several other archaeo-
logical sites are present on this live oak
and palmetto vegetated ridge.

C Biloxi 260,790 4 Part of Biloxi Wildlife Management area
Marsh and essentially a wilderness area. Ex-
cellent fisheries nursery grounds, fur-
bearer habitat, and oyster production
area.

D Chandeleur 44,922 3 Barrier islands consisting of beach,
Islands dunes, mangrove, and saline marsh with
submergent grass beds on the eastward
side. Part of the Breton Island National
13ird Refuge and an extremely important
nesting area for a variety of seabirds,
waterfowl, and the endangered logger-
head sea turtle. Also important spawn-
ing area for many fish and crustaceans,
and a popular surf fishing area.

Map Numbers Correspond to Areas in Figure 3-3.
Priority Ranking in a Total of 50 Potential Areas.

Source: B & A I 1977b

eems lish to
Island St Joseph Point
Lake Pontchartrain 'OC 0 w W w 'M "N11100000000
earl
A Riverjs Isle aux Pitr
Pu,nt Grand Island
South Point Au. Herbes
V0)&It trilLe
Gree C,
Di
f at ne Malhewreux Point @Le Petit Pass Island Point th
Shell Point
it w S

ea Alligator Point

Point aux Marcheltes

370 Mar
C
roctor Point
io t A t, 01

e
rmn n

u
Re b Cqyq omfort Islan
4

3j Q-
0

POTENTIAL PRESERVA--'-.CN elaer i
oint Lydia
AREAS

0.
POTENTIAL RESTORAnSON Vint Chico
AREAS

Gardner Isla
oe.-"

oint Gardner
oint Fortuna ST
SOURCE: Burk and Associates, Inc. 1977b
P L

Figure 3-3. Potential preservation and restoration areas in St. Bernard Parish (after
B & A I 1977b).

3-14

In addition to unique features, particular areas of concern may also be identified as
areas requiring special management procedures. An area which qualifies can be
nominated and classified as a Special Area using the procedure described in Chapter
VII, and special management plans can be developed for the area. In considering areas
which may qualify, the following potential sites or features should be considered
(Figure 3-4).

1. Chandeleur Islands (Barrier Islands and Beaches)

2. Freshwater Diversion Areas

1. Caernarvon
2. Violet Siphon

3. Fort Proctor
4. Magnolia Mound
5. Seabird Colonies and Wading Bird Rookeries
6. Development Corridor
7. Pipeline Corridor
8. Critical Areas of Shoreline Erosion
9. Submerged Grass beds
10. Deep Migratory Passes
11. Oyster Grounds
12. Prime Furbearer Marsh
13. Forested Ridges
14. Waterfowl Concentration Areas

RESOURCE USE CONFLICTS

There are a number of resource use conflicts within the parish. Conflicts develop,
generally, between users who wish to change the natural landscape in order to pursue
their activities and users who wish the landscape (i.e., habitat) to remain in a natural
or barely altered condition. The former users are usually developers (including
residential, commercial, and industrial interests), shipping and transportation inter-
ests, and the oil and gas industry. The latter users are sport and commercial
fishermen, trappers, and those having recreational interests. Both categories of users
are necessary in today's economic and social order, and, their conflicts can be
minimized by wise coastal planning and management. One of the goals of the St.
Bernard CMP, as contained in the ordinance, is 11 ... minimization of adverse effects of
one resource use upon another ... ", and this goal is set in a general framework of
balancing development and conservation. This is a clear directive to the CMP to
provide conflict resolution to users and to mitigate impacts. The following discussion

eems lish 40 -.0004
Island St. Jos:phPoiUL_
-lie I " .0 ==
Lake Pontchartrain f. jar go ...01
Po@nt A v Lb so so Grand Island Isle aux Pitre
South Point Au. Herbes

Gree ot
Di OYSTER-11
foiritthe
at Ile
ef Malhe4i iux POIln*tjt Pass Island
heiPoint
.11@1 it w S

d
Iliga/ Point
eau 100" #41' Ole -C9
C 90 .000"
Lake Borgne oolo

OYSTER-2
Point aux Marchett/s
04

310

B
for Point !7114,

39
olet

@'@Kenilwort

16
-2
v I I r .7-
S--l Comfort Isla,#'

1. le J,
3
S. ALBIR'i@ /nNw

Q4
@,-@"Pomt Lyd,a

N" GH A,,,,
SURME L, . 4 s C@ .1 Z@.
C
N? kint Chico
SEA TURT-1 'ST?N2 n,1-12: :Z,@
R
REAK ")UCK A.
Gardner Island
',3hEP MIGRATORY T`3A-, n(11@1@1(-,, :10)

OYS-2 PRIVATE LEASED OYS","ER
oys-i PUBLIC OYSTER SEED GROUNW8 Point Gardner
UNIOUE BOTANICAL SPECIMENS Point Fortuna ST.
PRIMARY FISH AND SHELLFISH NURSEY GROUNDS -0
ozamT-qmu-ePci'n1 PLA

Figure 3-4. Potential unique and particular areas in St. Bernard Parish (after B & A I
1979).

3-16

briefly outlines the nature of resource user and natural habitat maintenance conflicts
in St. Bernard Parish.

The Petroleum Industry

St. Bernard Parish lands contain considerable amounts of oil and gas reserves which
have been under development for a number of years. Evidence of these extraction
activities is available in the form of the many rig cuts, pipeline canals, drilling rigs,
and other hardware. Canal dredging for access to new areas to be drilled and for
pipelines has caused salinity intrusion and primary and secondary land loss. Seismic
operations have occasionally caused oyster and other wildlife mortalities. Spills of oil,
drilling muds, and other chemicals sometimes impact habitat and especially affect
those species unable to move, such as oysters. Pipes and other hardware lost or
abandoned in water bodies have become snags for fishermen's nets and are responsible
for fishermen suffering economic loss. These are some of the examples of conflicts
which occur in the wetlands of the parish.

Navigation

Navigation and waterborne commerce are major financial interests operating in St.
Bernard Parish, especially along the Mississippi River and the MRGO. The Port of
New Orleans, one of the busiest ports in the country, and its spinoff industries situated
near the parish, are major employers for the area. However, the MRGO, completed in
1963, has contributed to substantial saltwater intrusion into the St. Bernard Parish
wetlands and Lakes Borgne and Pontchartrain. The canal is continuously widening at
an alarming rate through erosion, thereby further contributing to land loss in the
parish. A partial solution to the saltwater intrusion problem lies in the diversion of
Mississippi River water into parish wetland areas to dilute and retard intrusion of
saline waters. However, the commitment of the waters of the Mississippi River to
navigation uses, as evidenced by the proposed deep draft channel, may hinder other
uses of the river water. These conflicts are much in evidence along the MRGO and the
Mississippi River but are also felt in most parish wetlands.

Development

The landforms of the parish are dominated by a pattern of higher lands (natural levees)
along existing and abandoned channels of the Mississippi River with lower wetlands
(interdistributary basins) between the levee ridges. Development has concentrated

3-17

along these ridges, and higher lands available for new development are becoming
increasingly scarce. Consequently, development of the lower, marginal, flood-prone
lands on the backslope of the natural levees is occuring along the wetland/ridge
interface adjacent to already developed areas. Wetlands near the base of the levees
are being reclaimed and developed, and as developable habitat dwindles, flooding
increases, thereby prompting a call for even more levees and pumps.

Water Quality

As urbanization encroaches on lowlands, sewage and storm runoff cause pollution
problems in the adjacent backswamps, marshes, and estuarine water bodies. Water
quality in the Mississippi River is of concern because clean Mississippi River water is
needed for freshwater diversion into the wetlands. Because oysters tend to accumu-
late coliforms, an indicator of sewage pollution, polluted diversion waters can cause
the periodic closure of oyster beds by the Department of Health and Human Resources
when standard coliform levels are exceeded.

Space Conflicts

Because there is little ridge land available, the competition for it is intense, especially
in the lower reaches of the parish where the ridges are already narrow but becoming
narrower because of subsidence and erosion. Transportation networks (roads) compete
for space with recreational usage, including marinas. This conflict for space is
especially evident along the levee ridge from Reggio to Delacroix.

Conflict Resolution

Resolution of the conflicts described above is a major goal of the CMP. The
performance standards, goals, and procedures described in Chapter VII are designed to
provide a measure of resolution to the conflicts and to insure that one user does not
unnecessarily impact or hinder other users.

MEL'

'AI
A6.lb

Apt

AL,

X,
Tma

'C"ll 1,1011111-i
@V@ t7t,`@@,
Tw

_,g, AWWWWL

CHAPTER IV: SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

St. Bernard Parish has been developing rapidly over the last thirty years. As the
population changed, so did the land use and economic base of the parish. With the
increase in population, there came a need for more developable land, houses, and
services. The population doubled in size during the 1950-60 period, and in 1960-1970
increased by 59%. There has been an additional population increase of 25.2% during
1970-1980. Table 4-1 summarizes the past, present, and projected future population of
St. Bernard Parish.

At the present time, the 1980 census shows that the population is 64, 097, with 94.9%
white and 3.7% black. Most of the population is concentrated on the high levee ridges
of Management Unit 13 (the Urbanized Area) and Management Unit 3 (the Lower
Urbanized Levee). The character of Management Unit 13 is an extension of the New
Orleans Metropolitan area to the northwest with a number of parish residents
commuting there for employment, education, and cultural services. The remainder of
the population resides in Management Unit 3, stretching from Poydras to Verret and
from Verret to Hopedale and Delacroix (Management Unit 11 - Semi Urbanized Levee).
Unit 3 still retains some of its rural characteristics and has potential for further
development because of its leveed vacant land areas. Over the years, the character of
these management units has changed slowly from rural to urban. In 1950, 24% of the
population was urban and 76% rural. By 1980, the population changed to 94% urban
and 6% rural (B & A 1 1979). This change in Units 3 and 13 is attributable to the
limited extent of high ground in the parish. Because the demand for land suitable for
development is great but the availability limited, the population of St. Bernard will
increase in density in the developed area.

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT

As the population and population density increased, the nature of the economic base of
the parish changed. Agriculture and fishing, which had been the basis of the economy
in St. Bernard Parish from early times, began to be replaced by economics associated
with oil and gas production. The new economic base for the parish includes shipping,
manufacturing, residential development, and chemical and petroleum production. This
type of development requires large tracts of land which must come from areas
previously utilized by the agricultural, fishing, and trapping interests.

4-1

4-2

Table 4-1. Post, Present, and Projected Population of St. Bernard Parish.

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

11,087 32,186 51,185 64,097 80,054 92,260
(projected) (projected)

Source: Segal et al. 1976

4-3

Table 4-2 shows the average employment by industry from 1969-1970. The manufac-
turing and trade industry employs nearly 55% of the people in the parish. The major
industrial employers are Kaiser Aluminum, Amstar, Murphy Oil Company, and Tenneco
Oil Company, which are all located in the Urbanized Levee Management Unit (13).
The Semi-Urbanized Management Unit (3) supports the Shell Oil Gas Processing Plant,
Union Texas Petroleum Gas Processing Plant, and Southern Natural Gas Company
Operation Plant. Although the percentage and total number of workers in the
manufacturing and trade industries have decreased slightly in the last few years, these
industries are still important to the parish's overall economy. The number and
acreages of farms have also decreased, but the agricultural income has increased.
This income is derived from livestock, truck farming, and horticulture speciality
farms. The fisheries industry, like the agricultural industry, is still an integral and
vital part of the economic base of St. Bernard. The published employment figures for
this industry are misleading, due to the fact that most of the commercial fishing is
done "in season" or on a part-time basis, and is, therefore, not incorporated into the
employment statistics.

The projected employment in St. Bernard Parish for the year 1995 is shown in Table
4-3. These projections were derived by performing a linear regression analysis on the
historical employment data available from the Parish Data Bank, Ruston, Louisiana
(B & A I 1978a). It was found that this method indicated high correlations in some
areas like government, finance, services, and trade, while the others did not achieve
reliable correlations. Adjustments were made in the manufacturing, mining, trade,
agricultural, and construction sectors to compensate for the unreliable estimates. The
projected mining employment was reassigned to manufacturing based on the fact that
energy reserves are decreasing and those people would probably seek employment in
the expanding manufacturing field. Other adjustments were also made in the
agriculture and construction areas, due to the fact that in the construction industry
employment fluctuates, whereas in the agriculture sector, employment was expected
to stabilize. All other employment sectors were based on the linear regression
analysis.

FUTURE LAND USE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS

The existing land use of St. Bernard Parish was presented in Chapter 11. Results of
studies pertaining to the future land use needs and requirements are derived from the
Regional Planning Commission (1978a), B & A I (1978a), and Segal et al. (1976).
Recommended land use standards are shown on Table 4-4. It is recommended that the

Table 4-2. Average Employment by Industry for St. Bernard Parish.

Year Total Manufacturing Mining Construction Trade Transportation Finance Services Government

1969 7475 4161 147 334 1906 295 202 430
1970 7503 4234 148 410 1754 316 201 441
1971 7385 4026 121 603 1587 351 211 487
1972 8079 3887 264 801 1703 359 247 651 168
1973 8212 4233 169 784 1422 415 260 737 189
1974 8622 4445 131 779 1554 424 280 814 196
1975 9240 4214 153 740 2181 660 365 652 105
1976 10425 4547 135 949 2533 664 346 1183 68 41
1977 11579 5005 137 891 3124 710 360 1253 100
1978 13428 5253 192 907 2189 983 374 2918 610
1979 13948 5167 174 982 2490 993 408 2936 740

*No data available

Source: Office of State Planning 1982

4-5

Table 4-3. Projected 1995 Establishment Based Employment - St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana.

Agriculture 30**** Trade 3,487***
Government 3,624 Construction 726**
Transportation 723 Mining 300*
Finance 319 Manufacturing 5,000*
Services 1,573 Total 15,781

Adjusted
Averaged
Average Employment Projection
Estimated

Source: B & A 11978a

4-6

Table 4-4. Land Use Standards for St. Bernard Parish.

Residential 99 acres/1,000 population

Commercial 5 acres/1,000 population

Industrial .2 acres/manufacturing employee

Recreation & Cultural 5 acres/1,000 population

Public/Semi-Public 1.5 acres/1,000 population

Source: B & A 1 1979

4-7

residential acreage be approximately 99 acres/1,000 persons (B & A 11976), based on a
projection of 3.2 persons per household for 1995 (Segal et al. 1976). Commercial
acreage should be approximately 5 acres/1,000 persons and industry needs 0.2
acre/manufacturing employers. The recommended land use standard for recreation is
5 acres/1,000 population for recreation and is based on the regional average for
existing acreage of parks. The American Public Health Association (1960)
recommends that 1.6 acres of land be allotted for each 1,000 people for public and
semi-public use, with the majority of the land being used for schools and the remainder
for general community facilities such as streets, sewer lines, and power lines.

PROJECTED LAND USE

The Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, and St.
Tammany Parishes has completed a comprehensive regional plan which has been
technically designated as the "Managed Growth Plan" (Regional Planning Commission
1978). This "Managed Growth Plan," with an implementation target for the year 1995,
assumes that growth can be "allocated" so that increased and decreased densities may
occur at various places within the region. Selective development of new areas of the
member parishes are encouraged, as is the revitalization of older urban centers. It is
anticipated that St. Bernard will receive some of its future development from the
expansion of the New Orleans area eastward along St. Bernard highways. The
development that is expected to occur is generally in accord with the parish's natural
environment. The 1995 projections for the type and areal extent of specific land use
purposes are shown in Table 4-5.

4-8

Table 4-5. Categories of Projected Land Acreage Representing the Existing Cordoned
Areas for St. Bernard Parish.

LAND USE ACREAGE
Low Density Residential 2,304
Medium Density Residential 523
High Density Residential 157
Public and Semi-Public 356

Parks & Recreation 842

Commercial 857
Industrial 1,508
Vacant 2,593
Streets 3,020

Source: Regional Planning Commission 1978

rAl

'vn

AL,

AP
ftl*

. .. . .. ....

CHAPTER V: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

The coastal wetlands of St. Bernard are a dynamic system undergoing constant change,
due to a combination of natural processes and man-made actions. The environment is
experiencing rapid modification which, if left unchecked, win destroy the productive,
resource-rich wetlands and affect the economic, cultural, and natural habitat values of
the parish. Statewide, saltwater intrusion, subsidence, and erosion are resulting in an
increasing rate of wetlands land loss (Figure 5-1). Between 1955 and 1978, St. Bernard
Parish lost approximately 27,800 acres of land through shoreline erosion, canal
dredging, flooding of impounded areas and abandoned reclamation sites, and breakup
and flooding of former freshwater swamps and marshes (Wicker 1981). Major
environmental problems which must be addressed with a coastal management program
are saltwater intrusion, erosion, subsidence, and flooding.

Saltwater Intrusion

Salinity changes (especially saltwater intrusion into former low salinity to freshwater
habitats) may be attributed to subsidence, erosion, navigation channels and pipeline
canals and, perhaps most importantly, the cessation of periodic flooding of the
wetlands by the Mississippi River. Saltwater intrusion, especially into deep, fresh-
water swamps and marshes, accelerates wetland erosion because it destroys the salt-
intolerant plants, and salt-tolerant plants are either slow or are unable to colonize
these deeper-water, organic habitats. Wave and tidal action on these unconsolidated,
unvegetated flats wash away the soil. As these processes continue, they create larger
areas of open water which are susceptible to the influence of Gulf tidal waters,
thereby increasing flushing action and erosion, as well as permitting saltwater to
progress further inland.

Channelization alters marsh salinities by disrupting sheet flow over the marsh,
accelerating the removal of freshwater and providing direct linear routes for saltwater
intrusion. Sheetflow, the gradual overland flow of water that distributes nutrients and
flushes out detritus, is very important to the maintenance of marsh productivity.
Man-made channels are straight, deep, disrupt sheetflow, and prevent freshwater from
reaching the outer portions of a marsh. These canals accelerate the loss of freshwater
from upper marsh areas. On the flood tide, and during periods of drought, saltwater is

5-1

5-2

legend LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE
LOSS aC/Mi 2 /yr LAND CHANGE RATES 1955-1978

very severe (@4) ALL VALUES AVERAGED OVER THE GROSS LAND AREA WITHIN EACH
7.5 MIN. TOPOGRAPHIC OUADRAN.L.
severe (2-4) El GAIN
moderate (1-2) 0 so

low (0-1 0 25 so

Coastal Zone Boundary

BATON
ROLIGE

LAKE LAFAYETTE
CHARLES Ole NEW
ORLEAN

0-1,

Gulf

or
COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS, INC. ii4exico
[E:E1 -2

Figure 5-1. Land loss in the Louisiana coastal zone, 1955-1978 (after Gagliano et al.
1981).

5-3

returned to the marsh in exchange for the freshwater that is absent or that was short-
circuited out of the area through the canals.

The MRGO is by far the largest man-made channel in St. Bernard Parish. Salinities
along its course went up immediately in 1963, the first year of operation. Data
collected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reveals a threefold increase in
salinities along the MRGO since its opening. This saltwater intrusion has caused the
formerly fresh and intermediate marsh between Lake Borgne and the East Hurricane
Protection Levee (along the 40-Arpent Canal) to become brackish to saline, and all
freshwater swamps outside the protection levees are either dead or dying.

Another factor responsible for saltwater intrusion is the decreased flow of freshwater
to the wetlands. Prior to the extensive construction of levees on the banks of the
Mississippi River, river floods deposited nutrients and sediments in the marsh and
produced large zones of low-salinity waters due to the mixing of river and Gulf waters.
Construction of the levee system began in 1717, and proceeded gradually until 1880.
Levee construction was accelerated from that time until the 1930s. There is evidence
of a gradual increase in salinities concomitant with extension of the levee system. As
salinities increased, the oyster-producing zone moved landward. This landward
migration of the oyster-producing zone is not due to an intolerance of Gulf-strength
salinities by oysters but, rather, is a response to increased predation by oyster drills
and diseases in waters having salinities greater than 15 ppt. Oysters are a convenient
indicator species for a discussion of the effects of increasing salinities because they
are immobile organisms, but these effects are not limited to oysters. Other mobile
fish and shellfish have shifted their zones of abundance according to their salinity
preferences. In the long run, the increasing salinities have decreased the acres of
prime low-salinity nursery grounds.

As higher salinities have moved inland, the boundary between brackish and saline
marsh types has shifted landward. In the period from 1941 to 1968, this shift of higher
salinities was reported to have moved inland from 2 to 5 miles (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1974). Between 1955 and 1978, St. Bernard Parish lost approximately 20,200
acres of fresh marsh, 10,300 acres of non-fresh marsh, and 5900 acres of swamp
(Wicker 1981). Expansion of the salt marsh has resulted in a decrease of habitat for
waterfowl and furbearers. The two most important furbearing animals, nutria and
muskrat, prefer to feed on plants that grow in marshes having lower salinity.

5-4

Erosion

Land loss due to erosion and subsidence is accelerating as the number and size of
water bodies increase. Major natural erosive forces in St. Bernard are wind-generated
waves and violent storms, especially hurricanes; while the man-made erosive forces
include canal and borrow pit construction and ship-generated waves. Wind-generated
waves continuously erode the shorelines of Lake Borgne, Chandeleur Sound, the
Chandeleur Islands, and other large, interior water bodies such as Lake Lery.
However, the greatest amount of shoreline erosion can occur in a very short time when
these exposed areas are subjected to burricane-generated waves. Hurricanes are
especially destructive to the marsh environment when their wind-generated waves
scour interior marsh ponds and "eatouts" and floodwaters flush out the organic debris
leaving deeper water bodies and a broken marsh surface.

Ship-generated waves, along with strong tidal currents, are probably the primary
causes of bank erosion along the MRGO. Studies by coastal engineers have shown that
the greatest destruction in confined channels is caused by large, fast-moving, ocean-
going vessels. However, even the slowest moving ocean-going vessels create waves
which violently lash the canal bank and adjacent marshlands. This erosive action
removes the marsh substrate by flushing out surface materials and by causing large
sections of the bank to cave into the deep channel. A further discussion of this
problem and the impact of the MRGO on adjacent wetlands can be found in St. Bernard
Parish: A Study in Wetland Management (Wicker et al. 1982).

Subsidence

Subsidence (sinking of a portion of the earth's surface) is a pervasive process in coastal
Louisiana and results from the loading of deltaic deposits onto the continental shelf,
downwarping along the Gulf Coast Geosyncline, and compaction of newly deposited
sediments (i.e., natural levees). Natural and man-made levees tend to subside into less
dense marsh deposits and are sometimes found buried beneath marsh level. The
natural levees of Bayou Terre aux Boeufs below Delacroix have subsided noticeably
even within the twentieth century. Coupled with the land subsidence processes is a
gradual rise in sea level (tide gauge records indicate about one foot in the last
century). In the absence of sediment input (i.e., Mississippi River alluvium) to offset
the subsidence processes, the natural levee ridges will be lowered to marsh level and
the existing marshes will sink below sea level.

5-5

Localized subsidence associated with reclamation of wetland habitats for agriculture
or development is a problem in the parish for all but the highly inorganic (mineral)
natural levee soils. Figure 5-2 illustrates the subsidence potential of St. Bernard
Parish soils and can be a useful guide to the economic and engineering problems
associated with wetland reclamation.

Subsidence potential refers to the maximum possible loss of surface elevation after a
soil with organic or semi-fluid mineral layer is artificially drained and dried. After
drainage and air drying, the organic layers in most soils lose more than half of their
original volume in the first one to three years. The loss of groundwater buoyancy,
consolidation, and compaction account for the initial subsidence. The lowering of soil
surface levels will continue at a uniform rate after the initial subsidence due to the
biochemical oxidation of organic materials. This subsidence will continue at a rate of
up to one inch or more a year until the water table or mineral material is reached.
The soils with semifluid mineral layers and without organic layers have a potential for
subsidence due to consolidation and loss of water after drainage, but have little or no
subsidence after drying. The five major categories of soil subsidence potential are as
follows:

1) NONE - Soils that have no subsidence potential. These include mineral
soils that contain no organic or semifluid mineral layers.

2) LOW - Soils that have a subsidence potential range of 0 to 3 inches when
drained. These include mineral soils with firm subsoils and thin mucky or
semifluid clayey surface layers.

3) MODERATE - Soils that have a subsidence potential when drained of 3 to
16 inches. These include soils that contain thick, semifluid minerals layers
and soils that contain organic layers with a total thickness of less than 16
inches.

4) HIGH - These are soils with a subsidence potential of 16 to 51 inches when
drained. These include soils that contain organic layers with a total
thickness ranging from 16 to 51 inches.

5) VERY HIGH - Soils with a subsidence potential when drained of 51 inches
or greater. These include soils that contain organic layers of more than 51
inches.

There is a close correlation between soil types and soil subsidence potential and
consequently land loss. Those areas with organic soils and a very high soil subsidence
potential will have a high potential for land loss.

eems lish
Island St. Joseph Point
Lake Pontchartrain 'oe 0
earl -
A Riverjs Isle aux Pitre
po'nt Grand Island
Au. Herbes go
South Point ........

UL ne Pointthe
elf Malhewreux Point 4' Petit Pass Island
Shell Point
.111, it w S

d
eau Alligator Point V,
C
.4 4P
90 Lake Borgno

47 Point aux Marchettes
qr

Mart
310 4P
B-
roctor Point
401
N

A
v rA

Vomtort Island

NONE

MODERATE

HIGH
Point Lydia
VERY HIGH %Point Chico

Gardner IslapA.-I
.01

.".001 A@

omt Gardner
oint Fortuna ST
SOURCE: Burk and Associates, Inc. 1978
o z a mri qfflTe ro I'M PLJ

Figure 5-2. Subsidence and land loss potential in St. Bernard Parish (after B & A I
1978).

5-7

Flooding

Another major environmental problem confronting St. Bernard Parish is the constant
threat of flooding. Figure 5-3 shows the flood-prone areas of the parish indicating
that almost 98% of the area is susceptible to flooding.

Flooding can occur in nearly all of St. Bernard Parish because of its low elevation and
proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. Flooding occurs primarily as a result of hurricane
tidal surge entering from the Gulf and excessive rainfall that accompanies hurricanes
and severe thunderstorms. Preservation of wetlands can lessen the impact of flooding
in two ways. First, the wetlands can function as a buffer to storm surge by dampening
the force of the hurricane-generated waves. Second, wetlands inside the base of the
storm protection levees can serve as holding basins, or reservoirs, for water collecting
inside the leveed fastlands either from hurricane surges overtopping the levees or from
excessive rainf all.

Theoretically, the protection levees, drainage canals, and pumping systems are
designed to protect lives and property inside the levees from flooding. However, there
is always the possibility that this system can not effectively function under the most
severe flood-generating conditions, and the presence of a wetland buffer zone between
developed areas and the Gulf of Mexico can offer an added measure of protection. For
this reason, it is essential that a viable marsh habitat be maintained outside the levees
and a healthy swam p-bottomland hardwood forest be preserved inside the base of the
protection levees in the low-lying (near sea-level) areas (Wicker et al. 1982, Roberts
1980).

eerns fish
Island St. Joseph Point
Lake PontChartrain -OC R1 C 0. so womm-MM@ w M -00000
earl -
RiverJs Isle aux Pitre
Po,nl
South Point Au- Herbes Grand Island
Gree rteTiyLe
Di lp@d
Z f . P 6@ . at ne Malhewreux Point 4e Petit Pass Island Point the
it w S Shell Point A
<

ea Alligator Point V
C
N
C'N.

47 Point aux Marchettes
01
A
Mart
310
roctor Point 44
_j

ol
39)
t
7

U
Rwgri ornfort Island
44 A
7r
FLOOD PRONE AREA

OL,
hn
@_INNP.,nt Lydia
APoint Chico

ardner Isla

oint Gardner

oint Fortuna
SOURCE: Housing and Urban Development 1975 ST.
MR, 777r, PLA

Figure 5-3. Flood-prone areas in St. Bernard Parish (after Department of Housing
and Urban Development (1975).

-Ail

Ail-

-40*

4M.

4:v;

AWL,

CHAPTER VI: GOALS, POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT UNITS

The Coastal Management Program for St. Bernard was developed in response to a set
of established goals. The goals were derived from St. Bernard's Statement of Policy as
contained in the ordinance.

STATEMENT OF POLICY

The Parish of St. Bernard is part of both an environmentally sensitive, resource-rich
coastal area and an important, developmentally oriented urban core. With these
factors in mind, the parish declares the following as its policy toward management of
its coastal resources:

1. To promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the
inhabitants of the parish of St. Bernard.
2. To bring about the coordinated, efficient, and economical development of the
parish.
3. To protect, develop and, where feasible, restore and enhance parish resources.
4. To support and encourage multiple use of resources consistent with
maintenance and enhancement of renewable resource management and
productivity, with the need to provide for adequate economic growth and
development, and with minimization of adverse effects of one resource use
upon another without imposing undue restrictions on any user.
5. To develop and implement management programs which are based on
consideration of the resources, environment, and needs of the people of St.
Bernard Parish.
6. To establish goals and plans for St. Bernard Parish, based on economic,
environmental, and social needs which will guide activity in conformance to
this Statement of Policy.
7. To establish separate guidelines for wetlands which recognize that:

a) The wetlands of St. Bernard Parish, although part of a larger estuarine
ecosystem, stretching from Lake Maurepas to the Chandeleur Islands, consist
of a series of distinct geographic units. These units have been combined into
appropriate districts to facilitate management of these areas.

6-1

6-2

b) Individual permissible uses for each wetland management unit are based on
a balance of economic, environmental, and social priorities and needs for each

area.

c) The primary goal for future use of parish wetlands is to maintain them in
their natural condition and to restore, when possible, those areas that have
deteriorated due to natural and cultural factors. A major aspect of these
restoration activities should be the preservation of the parish's archaeological
and historical resources. Maximum utilization of the renewable and non-
renewable resources of the wetlands is encouraged so long as high productivity
is maintained and the ecological balance of the wetlands is not further
disrupted.

MANAGEMENT GOALS

The management goals for St. Bernard's Coastal Zone were developed in an effort to
achieve the aims of the Statement of Policy. In formulating the goals, factors relating
to both the wetland and ridge areas were considered. The St. Bernard Coastal
Management Program has the following goals:

1. Attain proper use of parish resources through a balance of conservation and
development.
2. Identify areas with unique characteristics and develop methods to maintain

them.
3. Determine the degree of development intensity suitable for an areas of the
parish.
4. Enhance the biologically productive and physically protective aspects of the
parish's wetland environment.
5. Enhance cultural and recreational opportunities in the parish by the
development of ecologically sensitive facilities within the context of a
comprehensive program.

6-3

PERMISSIBLE USES

Permissible uses are those uses which may be undertaken in each management unit,
but which may be subject to permit requirements and conditions of the parish
ordinance or the Cosatal Management Program.

The policy and goals will be implemented through the issuance of Coastal Use Permits
and other means. Coastal Use Permits will normally be required for local uses in all
environmental management units except Unit 3, the Lower Urbanized Levee; Unit 11,
the Semi-Urbanized Levee; and Unit 13, the Urbanized Area, if these uses have no
direct or significant impact on coastal waters. In environmental Management Units 3,
11, and 13, uses are subject to existing parish zoning codes and ordinances.

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Introduction

There have been several major research efforts to document the environmental
baseline conditions of St. Bernard Parish (CEI 1972), to devise an acceptable coastal
zone management program (CEI 1976; B & A I 1978a; 1979), and to recommend
wetland management measures to restore and retain habitat diversity and productivity
(Wicker et al. 1982). In order to access environmental conditions and recommend
structural and non-structural management measures, the parish was divided into
management units according to the common physical or cultural features which
characterize each unit. The number labels and boundaries of these management units
vary slightly in the previously cited studies primarily because of the differences in
scope of the individual reports (Figure 6-1). The management units (B & A 11979) are
discussed in the following section of this chapter. Table 6-1 is an environmental
summary of each management unit.

A recently proposed Coastal Zone Management Plan for St. Bernard Parish (B & A 1
1979) delineated 13 management units (see Figure 6-1 for explanation of discrepancy
between units shown in the two B & A I [ 1978a, 19791 reports), which could be
grouped into three major management unit categories; urbanized, transition, and
wetland. The Urbanized Management Unit category (Unit 13) includes the leveed
(between the Mississippi and hurricane protection levees) Mississippi River natural

MAJOR MANAGEMENT UNIT POLICIES
MAJOR MANAGEMENT UNIT POLICIES
=IDEVELOPEMENT URBANIZED (FASTLANDS)
CONSERVATION
TRANSITION
PRESERVATION
WETLANDS
MRGO SPOIL MRGO SPOIL rv C
NF

-7
'13
IT

1978, 1979
B&A, INC-

CEI 1972 13 - WAS INCLUDED 141TH UNIT 3
in B&A, INC. 1978

CORRELATION OF MANAGEMENT UNITS AMONG VARIOUS MANAGEMENT STUDIES
MAJOR MANAGEMENT UNIT POLICIES
[E= FASTLANDS MANAGEMENT UNITS IN MANAGEMENT UNITS IN MANAGEMENT UNITS IN
INTERFACE CEI 1972 B & A, 1 1978; 1979 CEI 1976, WICKER ET AL. 1982

WETLANDS A. Urbanized Levee 113. Unnamedl; Lower Urbanized Levee #-f. Urbanized Levee
+B. Semi-Urbanized Levee #11. Semi-Urbanized Levee +g. Semi-Urbanized Levee
MRGO SPOIL #C. Upper Spoil -10. MRGO Spoil Area +h. Upper Spoil
D. Lower Spoil *10. MRGO Spoil Area +i. Lower Spoil (Now Middle
Spoil)3
#D. Lower Spoil -10. MRGO Spoil Area #u. Lower Spoil
+E. M dified Wetland 12. Modified Welland +b. Modified Wetland
a F. Bi0envenue Marsh *1. Bienvenue- Proctor Point Marsh *a. Bienvenue Marsh
*J. Proctor Point Marsh *1. Bi envenue- Proctor Point Marsh #a. Proctor Point Marsh
#K. Undivided Saline Marsh #1. Bienvenue-Proctor Point Marsh *o. Lower Proctor Point Marsh
G. Central Wetland *2. Central Wetland *c. Central Wetland
li. Lake Lary Marsh 4. Lake Ler d. Lake Lary Marsh
d@ Marsh
e #1. La Loutre Wetland - Unname *j. La Loutre Wetland
K. Undivided Saline Mar h 5. Bayou Terre Aux Boeufs Welland # *s. Middle Bayou
:K. Undivided S line Mars r
a sh 5. Bayou Te re Aux Boeufs Welland # *t. Bayou Terre Aux Boeufs
Welland
*K. Undivided Saline Marsh *6. Lake La Fortuna *n. Lake La Fortuna
. ... ... V11 *K. Undivided Saline Marsh *7. Lower La Loutre Welland *r. Lower La Loutre Welland
*K. Undivided Saline Marsh *7. Lower La Loutre Welland *v. Lower La Loutre Natural
Levees and Spoil Banks
H. *8. Biloxi Marsh Biloxi
*9. Bay Boudreaux - Bay Eloi *k. Bay Boudreaux
*1. Christmas Camp Lake
*m. Eloi Bay
*L. Unnamed Lake Area *14. Unnamed Lake Area p. Lake Borgne
t

. .. .......
U M Proposed Utilization Proposed Utilization Proposed Utilization
CEI 1976
WICKER ET AL. 1982 +Development +Urbanized (Fastlands) +Fastlands
#Conservation #Transition #Interface
E@ i@@ k

n *Preservation *Wetlands *Wetlands

NOTE: lUnit 3 in B & A, 1 1978 was subdivided into Units 3 and 13 in B & A, 1 1979.
2Unit was not labeled in B & A, 1 1978 but Labeled Unit 2 in B & A, 1 1979.
31,ower spoil called Middle Spoil in CEI 1976
Figure 6-1. Names and locations of management units as presented in various studies
of St. Bernard Parish. 6-4

Table 6-1. Environmental Summary

Shore- Flood Soil Sub@ Public Ser-
Archaeological Significant Fisheries Trapping Waterfowl line Saltwater Vulner- sidence vices (roads,
PLANNING SUB-AREA Sous Vegetation Elevation Hydrology Historical Sites Ecological Features Institutional Value Value Value Erosion Intrusion ability Potential levees, etc.) Other Pertinent Factors

1. Bienvenue-Proctor Organic Brackish marsh 0 to 11 Tidal, MRGO, Lake 9 Archaeological 1bird rookery, None Very high Moderate Moderate C C C VH None Proctor Point marsh is a potential
Point Marsh Borgne 3 Historical productive oyster beds in to high preservation area. Very high
Lake Borgne recreational potential.

2. Central Wetland Organic Brackish marsh, 0 to 11 Tidally drained, but 3 Archaeological None None Low to Moderate Low L M M M-VH Roads Freshwater management area via
cypress swamp in greatly altered by Historical moderate Transmission Violet siphon project. Potential
poor condition MRGO spoil bank Lines port development, potential im-
poundment area.

3. Lower Urbanized Primarily mineral Bottomland hard- 1 to 51 Drainage from ridge 4 Historical Bottomland hardwoods Schools, None Low None N N L N Inadequate Inadequate levee protection,
Levee (Poydras to clays & loams woods & cypress into 40 Arpent Canal on ridge churches, roads, and sewage treatment at
Verret) swamp fire stations the present time.

4. Lake Lery Marsh Organic Brackish marsh 0 to I' Tidal drainage 4 Archaeological Important trapping & None Moderate High High M M C VH Transmission Primary impact area from future
through old drainage waterfowl area Lines Caernarvon freshwater diversion
canals project.

5. Bayou Terre aux Organic Brackish marsh 0 to V Primarily natural 9 Archaeological Important shrimping None Very high High High M C C VH None Area in great need or marsh man-
Boeufs Wetland tidal drainage area agement structures.

6. Lake LaFortuna Organic Saline marsh 0 to 11 Natural tidal 6 Archaeological 3 bird rookeries, None Very high Low Moderate C C C H None Prime shrimp and oyster
drainage important shrimping producing area.
oyster area

7. Lower LaLoutre Primarily Brackish & saline 0 to 51 Natural tidal 3 Archaeological LaLoutre ridge is impor- None Very high Moderate Moderate C C C VH None Area in great need of marsh
Wetland organic marsh, dying oaks drainage 3 Historical tant erosion & storm management structures.
dying oaks on buffer, oyster area
LaLoutre ridge

8. Biloxi Marsh Organic Brackish marsh 0 to V Natural tidal 16 Archaeolopical Probably most stable State Very high High Very high M M C VH None Extremely valuable marsh
drainage some and remote section of Wildlife area for waterforwi, trapping
semi-impoundment St. Bernard marsh left Management and fishing.
from waterfowl & fish- Area
eries standpoint

9. Bay Boudreaux- Organic Saline marsh 0 to 11 Natural tidal drain- 22 Archaeological Prime ovster area but None Very high Low High C C C H None Formerly most productive oyster
Bay Eloi age, large lakes & decreasing in value, leases in Parish; area is
bays geese concentrations, essentially wilderness and has
excellent fishing, 7 excellent fishing.
known rookeries

10. MRGO Spoil Area Combination Disturbed fresh Variable Gravity drainage 3 Archaeological Good waterfowl & None None High in Moderate M L M M None Corps has spoil easement for
organic & marsh, shrubs, 10-15, from land-locked rabbit hunting in cer- areas spoil disposal.
mineral willow thickets in places spoil ponds tain areas

11. Semi-Urbanized Primarily Hardwood forest 1 to .51 Drainage from ridge 2 Archaeological Important saltwater & Schools, None Low None M M C M-N Roads, Natural levee is subsiding, salt-
Levee mineral along road, ag- to marsh through 3 Historical storm barrier churches Transmission water intrusion killing many oaks
riculture, brack- major bayous Lines along ridge.
ish marsh very
close to road

12. Modified Wetland Organic Dead cypress 0 to 11 Greatly altered, None None None Low Low None to N L M VH Road, Although area is of little
swamp, brackish drainage through Low Transmission ecological value, many technical
marsh in poor drainage canals in- Lines & engineering problems would
condition to Bayou Bienvenue be involved if it were to be
developed.

13. Urbanized Area Primarily Cleared, some I to 101 Forced drainage 4 Historical None Schools, None None None N/A N/A L N Roads, Area of intense development.
mineral clays hardwood forest via pumping stations churches Transmission
and drainage canals fire stations Lines

Shoreline Erosion Soil Subsidence Potential
Saltwater Intrusion
NOTE: All wetland areas are important fishery nursery areas. Those with salinities ranging from 5 to 15 1)pt are most important. Flood Vulnerability VH Very High
H High
Source: B & A 1 1979 C - Critical M Moderate
M - Moderate L - Low
L - Low N - None
N - None

6-5

6-6

levee lands stretching southeastward from the St. Bernard-Orleans Parish boundary at
Arabi to Poydras. The vast majority of this unit consists of commercial, residential
and industrial developments. The southeastern portion of this unit contains a limited
amount of acreage in low-lying bottomland hardwood forests situated near sea level
inside and adjacent to the East Hurricane Protection Levee. However, this area is
being rapidly cleared and drained for residential and commercial development in the
wake of the southeastward extension of the Judge Perez Highway (a hurricane
evacuation route for the lower portions of the parish) to Verret.

The Transition Management Unit category includes the leveed (between the East and
West Hurricane Protection Levees) Bayou La Loutre ridge stretching eastward from
Poydras to Verret (Unit 3) and the unleveed portions of the Bayou La Loutre ridge east
of Verret and the Bayou Terre aux Boeufs ridge south of Verret (Unit 11). The portion
of this unit between Poydras and Verret (Unit 3) really should be considered as part of
the urbanized unit. It is protected from flooding by Hurricane Protection Levees and
is undergoing rapid residential and commercial development, especially on the cleared,
former agricultural lands, since the extension of the Judge Perez Highway to Verret.
The low-lying (near sea level) portions of this unit at the base of the Mississippi River
natural levee and adjacent to the hurricane protection levees consist of healthy fresh
marshes and bottomland hardwoods on the west side of the La Loutre Ridge and
stressed marshes and bottomland hardwoods (including baldcypress swamps) on the east
side of the ridge. This latter area went from a fresh to an intermediate-to-brackish
water environment when the hurricane floodgates were breached. With recent
restoration of the gates, this area should return to a freshwater environment subject
to impoundment and flooding during heavy rains. However, the entire unit (between
the protection levees) is being rapidly developed and the long-term restoration of the
interior (within the levees) wetlands is doubtful.

That portion of the transition management unit (also labeled semi-urbanized levee -
Unit 11 [B & A I 1978a] ) stretching east and south of Verret along the former
Mississippi River distributary levees of Bayou LaLoutre and Bayou Terre aux Boeufs is
very low-lying and unprotected by Hurricane Protection Levees from flooding from the
southeast. While there is some linear small town development along the higher
elevations of these natural levee ridges, subsidence has decreased the width and
elevation of these levees in recent years. Plans for future, long-term development of
these ridges must seriously evaluate the cost of preserving the developments against

6-7

storm surge and the natural degradational processes (i.e., subsidence and erosion)
dominant in this portion of the abandoned Mississippi River-St. Bernard Delta Lobe.

In summary, it can be stated that the artificially leveed (by Mississippi River and East
and West Hurricane Protection Levees) natural levee ridges of the Mississippi River
and Bayou LaLoutre are the most suitable lands in the parish for development because
of their elevation, flood protection measures and tranportation infrastructure. The
natural levee ridges of eastern Bayou LaLoutre and Bayou Terre aux Boeufs have been
developed largely by commercial fisheries, trapping, and petro-chemical interests, but
they are not leveed and are therefore subject to flooding from hurricane storm surges.
Future intensive development of this latter area should not be encouraged because of
the continuing natural subsidence of the levee ridges and the tremendous costs of
providing flood protection to such a narrow, low-lying, and exposed ridge community.
Almost all urbanized and transition areas (leveed and unleveed natural levee ridges
[Units 3, 11 and 131 ) was considered suitable for development by CEI (1972) and were
labeled as fastlands in the 1982 CEI study (Wicker et &1. 1982).

It should be noted that the 1982 CEI study recommended that the low-lying, existing
and former wetlands near sea level between the base of the natural levee ridges and
the hurricane protection levees be considered as an interface or buffer zone between
the urban/industrial fastlands and the productive/protective wetlands (Wicker et al.
1982). While these areas can be developed, they are subject to flooding during heavy
rainfall because of their extremely low elevation, flat topography, and impounded
nature. By leaving them in wetlands, they could serve as a buffer zone and be used to
filter urban runoff before it is introduced to the wetlands and estuaries outside the
protection levees. This buffer zone could also serve as a recreational area for urban
inhabitants and increase habitat diversity by constituting the only freshwater
environment in the parish likely to be maintained over the long term.

The wetlands of St. Bernard Parish constitute those lands outside of the hurricane
protection levees, and extending away from the base of the natural levee ridges,
excluding the MRGO spoil retainment areas (Unit 10 in B & A 11979) southwest of the
MRGO. Historically, the wetlands graded from saline marshes along the perimeter of
the abandoned Mississippi River-St. Bernard Delta, to brackish-to-intermediate, and
finally to fresh marshes in the interior portions of the parish adjacent to the cypress
swamps located at the toe of the natural levee. Saltwater intrusion via canals,

6-8

abandoned Mississippi River distributaries, the MRGO, and eroding marshland channels
has diminished the natural habitat diversity to the extent that there are virtually no
freshwater marshes or cypress swamps in the parish and only very limited expanses of
intermediate marsh. Most of the fresh-to-intermediate wetland environments occur
inside the hurricane protection levees and in isolated wetland pockets between the
natural levee ridges and spoil deposits. Some fresh to intermediate wetlands also
occur in the poorly drained areas of the MRGO spoil between the spoil retention
levees. Brackish marshes comprise the wetlands along the gulfward base of most of
the hurricane protection levees and natural levees of the LaLoutre and Terre aux
Boeufs. Large expanses of saline marsh are located gulfward of the brackish marshes
and constitute the largest habitat category found in the parish other than open water.
(For a more detailed discussion and maps of recent vegetation delineations in St.
Bernard Parish see Chabreck and Linscombe 1978 and Wicker et al. 1982.) Table 2-1
illustrates the changes in habitat types in St. Bernard Parish between 1955/56 and 1978
(Wicker 1981). These data are derived from a synthesis of habitat areal measurements
obtained from planimetering the habitat maps of the parish (Wicker 1980; Wicker et al.
1980).

Land loss (i.e., the conversion of land to water) in St. Bernard Parish between 1955/56
and 1978 amounted to approximately 27,800 acres. About 4800 acres of land (i.e.,
marshlands) were lost as a direct result of MRGO construction (B & A 1 1979);
approximately 1800 acres of land were lost because of other types of canal
construction, borrow pits, and flooded impoundments; the remainder of the loss was a
result of natural shoreline erosion along channels, ponds, lakes, canals, and barrier
islands. This latter land loss occurred because of wave erosion and marsh breakup
resulting from faunal (primarily muskrats and geese) eatouts, hurricanes, subsidence,
and saltwater intrusion into freshwater swamps and marshes. Approximately 100 acres
of bottomland hardwood forest and fresh-to-intermediate marsh will be destroyed
during 1982 if borrow material is extracted southeast of Verret to elevate the West
Hurricane Protection Levee between Verret and the Caernarvon canal (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1981). Leveed impoundments and saltwater intrusion in the
northwestern portions of the parish also contributed to land loss as the fresh marsh and
cypress swamps died in these areas.

The largest amount of land loss appears to be along the MRGO channel (variously
labeled as F, Jq K; 19 7, 9; and a, e, o, v, r, m [see Figure 6-11 ) because of shoreline

6-9

erosion associated with ship wakes in the Lake Lery unit (variously labeled as H, 4 and
d) because of faunal eatouts and hurricane scour, and in the interior, formerly
freshwater swamps and marshes (variously labeled as E, G, 1; 12, 2, and b, c, j).
Shoreline erosion also has been extensive along the Chandeleur Islands because of wave
action. The same type of wave action coupled with natural subsidence (and/or sea
level rise) has resulted in continuous shoreline erosion (usually on the shore exposed to
dominant wind direction) in the gulfward, saline marshes. Finally, the easternmost
portion of the Bayou LaLoutre ridge (variously labeled as 7 and v, r) has experienced
limited amounts of land loss as abandoned reclamation areas were flooded by saline
gulf waters between 1955/56 and 1978 (Wicker et al. 1980).

The wetlands of St. Bernard Parish are a valuable natural resource which will be
restored to and/or maintained at their most productive level where possible, practical,
and/or economically feasible. These wetlands perform a number of important
functions. Through food chain production and provision of general habitat and nursery
areas, they support Gulf Coast fisheries and a local trapping industry, as well as
provide recreational opportunities for area residents and visitors. They partially shield
the urban areas and the hurricane protection levee systems of St. Bernard Parish from
wave erosion and hurricane storm surge, and they provide water treatment to improve
the water quality of runoff from the urbanized natural levee ridges.

However, restoration of the easternmost wetlands (i.e., saline marshes) is not practical
at this time because of their exposure to storm and marine erosional processes, natural
subsidence and sea level rise and distance from a sediment input source. The better
management strategy for these wetlands is to restrain future land loss related to canal
dredging by prohibiting new canal dredging through wetlands where possible, or
ameliorating the impact of new as well as existing canals by implementing canal bank
erosion control measures.

The Chandeleur Islands are under Federal control as the Breton National Wildlife
Refuge and are considered to be Federal lands. For management purposes, islands in
Chandeleur Sound which are not part of the refuge are considered to be part of
Management Unit 9. Land loss along the Chandeleur Barrier islands may be diminished
by certain types of structural measures such as construction of sand fences,

6-10

revegetation of unvegetated flats and beach dunes, beach nourishment, and other types
of shoreline protection structures. Prohibition of canal dredging within the island
complex will also lessen land loss.

Wetlands north of the MRGO could be protected from future land loss by structural
measures such as construction of a sheet pile barrier along the MRGO north shore and
closure of most channels joining the MRGO. However, this is an expensive procedure
and may not be feasible. Other land-loss preventive measures include beach
nourishment and construction of buffering barrier islands along the Lake Borgne
shoreline in areas of severe erosion. Deteriorating wetlands within this area can be
restored via hydraulic filling of recently developed open water areas to mean sea level
and revegetation of these sites. Artificial revegetation may be necessary where
natural revegetation is not sufficiently rapid to prevent wash out of fill material.

All of the wetlands north of the MRGO and southeastward of the Bayou Terre aux
Boeufs ridge are brackish to saline and should be managed and maintained as such.
Wetlands in the Lake Lery (Unit 4), Central Wetland (Unit 2), and LaLoutre Wetland
(Unit 7) units previously contained fresh-to-intermediate marshes and cypress swamps
and small expanses of bottomland hardwood forests near the levees. The present trend
toward conversion of these wetlands to more saline marshes can be retarded by
controlling water levels and salinity fluctuations through the constructive utilization
of existing levee and spoil deposits, flap-gate and double flap-gate weirs and
freshwater input. A more detailed discussion of wetland management for specific
purposes is contained in the recently completed report: St. Bernard Parish: A Study in
Wetland Management (Wicker et al. 1982). In areas where water levels and salinity
regimes can be effectively controlled over a long period of time, it may be possible to
reestablish and maintain fresh-to-intermediate wetlands. In other areas, an effective
wetland management plan can establish a viable brackish-to-saline marsh habitat and
retard the rate of land loss by establishing a more uniform vegetative cover.

The MRGO spoil bank (Unit 10) is contained within retention levees; the outer levee
serving as a hurricane protection levee. Portions of the spoil are well drained, and
natural succession toward upland or natural levee vegetation is occurring. Other
portions of the levee are less well drained and attract waterfowl and aquatic
furbearing animals such as otter and mink. While this area could add greatly to the
habitat diversity of the St. Bernard Parish, its location adjacent to a major
transportation corridor (i.e., MRGO) makes it a prime candidate for industrial
development.

6-11

Discussion by Unit

MANAGEMENT UNff 1 - BIENVENUE-PROCTOR POINT MARSH

Loeation Map

.00.
L.A.

S-h P.O.

'(7

Geomorphology

This unit is part of the interdistributary marsh-estuary system which borders the south
shore of Lake Borgne. Construction of the MRGO severed this unit from the expansive
wetlands to the west, and it is now heavily influenced by marine processes associated
with the MRGO and Lake Borgne.

6-12

soils

The soils are basically organic peat and muck on the surface with slightly firm to
semi-fluid gray clays on the bottom.

V!Metation and Wildlife

The brackish-to-saline marsh and estuary system provides habitat for crabs, shrimp,
and a variety of fishes. The predominant vegetation is sedges and grasses, especially
three-cornered grass, wiregrass, and saltgrass. The marsh area provides a suitable
environment for fur-bearers such as nutria, raccoons, and muskrat, as well as for
alligators and various birds and waterfowl.

HydrqjM

Under natural conditions, tidal channels leading from Lake Borgne alternately flooded
and drained the marsh. With the MRGO construction, the original drainage pattern
changed drastically. The MRGO has cut through many of the existing tidal bayous,
disrupting water circulation, increasing salinity, and creating great fluctuations in
water levels.

Land Use

This area is in close proximity to the massive MRGO spoil area (Unit 10) and to the
urbanized and transition areas (Units 3 and 11) in St. Bernard Parish. Its value as an
estuarine nursery area is high, and it is rich in recreational potential. The marshlands
in this unit are the first line of defense against storms and hurricanes coming across
Lake Borgne.

Transportation

Ocean-going vessels use the MRGO stretching along the southwestern border of this
management unit, while sport and commercial fishery vessels travel through Bayous
Yscloskey, St. Malo, and LaLoutre.

6-13

Cultural Resources

There are eight prehistoric archaeological sites in this unit: Shell Beach Bayou, Bayou
St. Malo, two mounds, three shell middens, and a combined shell mound and midden.
Battery Bienvenue (16 SB 84), an historic site constructed in the nineteenth century on
Bayou Bienvenue, is still also relatively intact. For further information on these sites,
refer to the Cultural Resources section.

Unique Ecological Features

Privately leased oyster beds and primary fish and shellfish nursery grounds for blue
crab, croaker, menhaden, and brown and white shrimp are located along the fringes of
Lake Borgne. There is also a wading bird rookery consisting mostly of Herons, Egrets,
Ibises, and Anhingas located on Bayou Grand below Proctor Point.

Environmental Considerations

This area has very high soil subsidence potential and is flood-prone. There is a critical
amount of shoreline erosion along the MRGO and Lake Borgne, and salt-water
intrusion via canals, bayous, and the MRGO.

Management Unit Goals

The management unit goals are based on the unique environmental characteristics of
each unit. The goals for this unit are:

Maintain lakefront beach and marsh habitat with emphasis on maximizing use as
fish nursery grounds.
Conserve natural habitats.
Restore southern section of marsh along MRGO.
Promote recreational and commercial fishing.
Protect existing wading bird rookeries.
Encourage habitat diversity and increased marsh productivity by supporting the
Corps of Engineers' efforts to locate a major freshwater diversion structure in the
vicinity of Bonnet Carre and utilizing the resultant freshwater.

6-14

Permissible Uses

The permissible uses are those uses which may be undertaken in Management Unit 1,
but which may require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations. The
list is not all inclusive.

oil and gas pipelines*
trapping
waterfowl hunting
navigation and shipping
MRGO dredging*
boating

historic site restoration

The activity may be disruptive and must be, to the maximum extent practicable,
consistent with the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program.

6-15

MANAGEMENT UNff 2 - CENTRAL WETLANDS

Location Map

R-, 11

'0 A

Geomorphology

Unit 2, the Central Wetlands, constitutes the northern flanks of the Mississippi River
and Bayou LaLoutre levees. It is located between the urbanized, semi-urbanized, and
transition units (Units 3, 11,13) and the MRGO spoil area (Unit 10). Originally, this
area was partially covered by cypress backswamp grading into fresh and intermediate
marsh toward Lake Borgne. Since the construction of the MRGO, these wetlands have
greatly deteriorated (become more saline and converted to open water) due to
saltwater intrusion.

6-16

soils

This area contains swamp soils which have organic matter from one to several feet
deep overlying firm to semi-fluid clays. There are also marsh soils along the northern
fringes of the unit which are characterized by the peat and muck associations.

Vegetation and WUdlife

Because this unit has been modified greatly, less than 13% of the cypress swamps are
in good condition. The surviving cypress and bottomland hardwood forests are mainly
inside the back hurricane protection levees where the water quality is now controlled.
Swamp red maple, cypress, tupelogum, dwarf palmetto, swamp elder, and baccharis
characterize the swamp. In the brackish marsh areas, wiregrass, saltgrass, and three-
cornered grass are the dominant species. MRGO construction evoked changes in the
wildlife composition of this area, most notably a decrease in the population of fur-
bearing animals. While nutria, raccoon, and muskrat can still be found in this area,
they are not as abundant as before the MRGO was dredged.

Hydrology

This area was once connected with Lake Borgne via shallow, sinuous tidal channels, but
this drainage pattern has been modified greatly by man. The greatest modifier is the
MRGO channel and spoil deposit area. At the present time, this unit has water
exchange connections with Lake Borgne via the Lake Borgne Canal (Violet Canal)-
Bayou Dupre, Bayou Bienvenue, and Bayou Yscloskey@Shell Beach Bayou. Freshwater
reaches the unit from rainfall and point discharge sources located at the Violet Siphon
and pumping station #4.

Land Use

This area is principally an estuarine nursery, fishing, and hunting area and a great
source of recreational and cultural resources.

6-17

Transportation

Commercial and sport fishermen and trappers use the interior channels for fishing and
reaching trapping areas. Larger vessels use the Lake Borgne Canal-Bayou Dupre
channel and Bayou Bienvenue to reach marinas and unloading facilities.

Cultural Resources

There are three archaeological sites consisting of shell middens and mounds in this
unit. There are two historic sites in the area. The Proctor Sugar Mill (16 SB 87),
visible from the highway, was one of the first sugar mills in the state, but all that
remains is the smoke stack. The Lake Borgne Canal Redoubt (16 SB 89) is reported to
have been built by Andrew Jackson as part of a defense strategy for New Orleans.

Unique Ecological Features

This area is a primary fish and shellfish nursery ground for shrimp, crabs, and other
fishes. This area has decreased in productivity since the building of the MRGO
because of the increase in salinity.

Environmental Considerations

This management unit has been modified greatly by man's intervention, as well as by
natural processes which have induced rapid deterioration of the wetlands. Drainage
and pipeline canals are major man-made features which have modified substantially
the hydrologic regime. Subsidence and flooding potential are very high in this area.
Management goal objectives recognize both this unit's natural function as part of Lake
Borgne's estuarine system and its potential socioeconomic function because of its
location adjacent to the urbanized levee.

Management Unit Goals

The management unit goals are based on the unique environmental characteristics of
each unit. The goals for this unit are:

6-18

Emphasize multiple-use management with possible controlled development from
Paris Road to Violet Canal.
Emphasize conservation and limited development below Violet Canal.
Enhance productivity of brackish marsh by freshwater diversion through Violet
Canal.
Water level management of suitable areas for enhancement of waterfowl and
fishery resources.
Improve furbearer habitat.
Maintain existing cypress trees in a healthy condition.

PermLqsible Uses

The permissible uses which may be undertaken in Management Unit 2 may require a
permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations. The list is not all inclusive.

oil and gas pipelines*
oil and gas drill sites and exploration*
waterfowl hunting
boating
archaeological site preservation
recreational development
residential and commercial development in subunit one* (see Wicker et al. 1982,
for location of subunit one)

These uses may be disruptive and may require permits.

6-19

MANAGEMENT UNIT 3 - LOWER URBANIZED LEVEE

Location Map

smth Pmt G-d W-d

4, r

37@

Geomorphology

This unit is the natural levee ridge created by Bayou LaLoutre when it was a main
distributary channel of the Mississippi River.
f4 -

Soils

The soil is primarily the Commerce-Sharkey association. It has a silty clay loam
surface and a gray clay subsoil.

6-20

Vegetation and Wildlif e

This unit consists mainly of the natural levee vegetation association. Live oaks,
pecan, and hickory grow on the higher elevations. In lower-lying, less well-drained
areas, the more common species are water oak, sycamore, willow, wax myrtle, dwarf
palmetto, and baldcypress.

Hydrology

The hydrology of this unit is characterized by the filled channel of Bayou LaLoutre,
which is one of the Mississippi River's abandoned distributary systems. Man-made
drainage canals convey runoff from the ridge to the 40-arpent canals where water is
discharged from the unit via pumps and floodgates.

Cultural Resources

There are six historical sites in this unit and no known archaeological sites. The
historical structures include Old St. Bernard Courthouse, Overseer's House of
Sebastapol Plantation, St. Bernard Cemetery, Kenilworth Plantation, Contreras, and
the Ducros Museum.

Land Use

This unit is not as densely populated as Unit 13, the urbanized area, but contains the
same types of land uses. The land uses include: medium-density residential,
commercial, industry, agriculture, recreation, and public facilities.

Transportation

The major arterial roads are Louisiana Hwy. 46 (St. Bernard Hwy) and Louisiana Hwy.
39 (Judge Perez Highway) which disect the unit. All other minor roads stem from
these major highways.

6-21

Unique Ecological Features

The bend in the Mississippi River at Caernarvon offers a point source for freshwater
diversion into the Lake Lery Marsh Unit. Because Unit 3 is among the highest
elevated,land in St. Bernard Parish, it serves as a prime development corridor for
future growth in the parish.

Environmental Considerations

Subsidence is a problem in the low, less well-drained backslope areas of Unit 3.
Flooding, mainly from intense rainfall, does occur frequently in some areas even
though the unit is leveed and pumped. With urbanization there are also problems of
waste disposal, sewage disposal, and water pollution.

Management Unit Goals

The goals, as follow, are based upon the environmental characteristics of the unit.

Promote low-density residential and supportive multiple-use development.
Establish transition zone between densely developed urban zone and lower ridge
area by preserving remnant wetlands.

Permissible Uses

The permissible uses are those that may be undertaken in this unit, but which may
require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations. The list is not all
inclusive.

Medium-low-density residential
commercial and industrial development
conservation of forestlands
agriculture
archaeological and historic site preservation
transportation corridor development
utility corridor development
recreational development
waterfowl hunting and fur trapping

6-22

MANAGEMENT UNIT 4 - LAKE LERY MARSH

Location Map

S.@ P-1

PC 0,0C

Geomgr
phology

These marshlands developed as an interdistributary basin between the Mississippi River
distributary channels during the St. Bernard Delta lobe growth. Bayou LaLoutre
carried the main flow of the Mississippi River with Bayou Terre aux Boeufs serving as
a significant distributary.

soils

The soils are either peat or muck underlain by slightly firm to semi-fluid gray clays.

6-23

Vegetation and Wildlife

The marsh environment is rather homogeneous with the most abundant species being
three-cornered grass and wiregrass. The estuarine water bodies provide nursery
habitat for fish, crabs, oysters, and shrimp. Both commercial and game fish species
inhabit this area along with wading birds, alligators, and other reptiles. Commercial
fur-bearing animals such as muskrat, nutria, and raccoons are still abundant.

Hydrology

Lake Lery is the dominant water body in the unit. The natural drainage patterns of
the marsh have been modified by drainage canals, pipeline canals, and flood protection
levees.

Land Use

This area is used primarily for recreational hunting and commercial trapping.
Commercial and recreational fishing, shrimping, oystering, and crabbing are also
common to the unit.

Transportation

Because there are no roads in this unit, transportation routes are confined to water
bodies. Commercial and sport vessels travel along Bayou Terre aux Boeufs, while
sport and recreational boats use the interior navigable water bodies, including the

Caernarvon Canal.

Cultural Resources

There are six archaeological sites in this unit, four are shell middens and two are
reported to be earth mounds. These sites are associated with the former Mississippi
River distributaries.

6-24

Unique Eeologieal Features

This management unit is a primary fish and shellfish nursery ground for shrimp, crabs,
oysters, and fish. There are privately leased oyster grounds located along the northern
and eastern shores of Lake Lery.

Environmental Considerations

Flooding and subsidence are major problems along with saltwater intrusion and land
loss. Marsh loss is occurring at a rapid rate.

Management Unit Goals

The suggested goals are based upon the environmental characteristics of the unit, and
are as follows:

Conserve natural habitats with emphasis on fur trapping, waterfowl hunting, and
commercial fishing.
Restoration of wetlands by freshwater diversion and control of water and salinity
regimes.
Effectively block all unnecessary canals and rig cuts and control water access.

Permissible Uses

These uses may be undertaken, but may require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or
Local Regulations. This list is a guide and not all inclusive.

trapping
waterfowl hunting
commercial fishing (shrimping, crabbing, etc.)
oil and gas pipelines*
archaeological site preservation
freshwater diversion site

boatino-
C,

These uses may be disruptive and may require permits.

6-25

MANAGEMENT UNIT 5 - BAYOU TERRE AUX BOEUFS WETLANDS

Location Map

-,dab-

8@ Nim

'iz_

Geomorphology

This unit is part of the low-lying estuarine marshes south of the Bayou LaLoutre and
Bayou Terre aux Boeufs natural levees. The area was created through deltaic
deposition of the Mississippi-St. Bernard Delta Lobe.

soils

The soil is primarily organic peat and muck several feet deep, overlying slightly firm
to semi-fluid gray clay.

6-26

Vegetation and Wildlife

The marshes of this unit are brackish to saline and consist of three-cornered grass,
oystergrass, saltmarsh grass, wiregrass, and blackrush. Some of the common fish in
this area are croaker, lined sole, spot, and spotted seatrout. Marsh clams, oysters,
shrimp, and crabs are commonly found here. Waterfowl is abundant along with such
fur-bearing animals as nutria, mink, and muskrat.

Hydrology

The hydrology of this unit is dominated by tidal processes with many tidal channels
meandering through the marsh. Typical tidal bayous such as Middle Bayou serve the
water exchange between the marshes and lakes.

Land Use

These marshes serve as a first line of defense against storms and hurricanes
approaching from the Gulf. Oyster production, fisheries production, and harvesting,
waterfowl hunting and trapping and recreational activities are the typical land uses of

the area.

7@ransportation

Both sport and commercial fishing vessels use the navigable bayous and lakes. Bayou
Terre aux Boeufs is the largest navigation corridor.

Cultural Resources

This unit includes nine archaeological sites consisting of mounds and shell middens.
These sites are all eroding rapidly, subsiding, or have been damaged by dredging
operations.

Unique Ecol9gical Features

This area is a primary nursery ground for shrimp, crabs, and other species of aquatic
organisms. There are also privately leased oyster grounds in this unit. Although the
American alligator is widespread throughout the coastal area, peak concentrations

6-27

occur in the Delacroix Island area westward of this unit towards the Mississippi River
and Plaquemines Parish.

Environmental Considerations

Marsh deterioration and land loss due to the processes of subsidence and erosion are
major problems. Storms and hurricanes seem to have a major role in the erosional
processes by opening marsh areas and enlarging lakes and ponds. These processes, in
the absence of the former sediment deposition and land building processes, have
contributed to land loss.

Management Unit Goals

The management goals based upon the unique environmental characteristics of the unit

are:

Maintain brackish to saline marsh habitat.
Conserve natural habitats, especially waterfowl concentration areas.
Promote fishing (commercial and recreational) and hunting.
Reduce saltwater intrusion.
Restrict construction of pipeline and rig cut canals.
Maximize benefits from the proposed freshwater diversion structure at Caernarvon
by retention of freshwater and controlled marsh management techniques.

Permissible Uses

Permissible uses are those uses which may be undertaken in this environmental
management unit, but which may require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local
Regulations. This list is not all inclusive.

trapping
waterfowl hunting
commercial fishing (shrimping, crabbing,
oyster and fin fishing)
recreational fishing
oil and gas pipelines*

6-28

-- oil and gas drill sites and exploration*
-- archaeological site preservation
-- boating
* These uses may be disruptive and may require permits.

6-29

MANAGEMENT UNff 6 - LAKE LA FORTUNA

Location Map

R.@ 11
8@ P"I

Geomorp

The management unit represents the distal portion of the Mississippi River-Bayou
Terre aux Boeufs distributary system. Although much of the area is now submerged,
there is still evidence of the channels and natural levees that were once predominant
in the region.

Sons

The bottoms of the lakes and bays are characterized by submerged marsh soils, mud,
and mussel shells. These marsh soils are composed primarily of organic clays, silty
clays, and peat.

6-30

Vegetation and Wildlife

Oyster grass and saltmarsh grass are the dominant vegetation type of this saline marsh
habitat. Many waterfowl and wading shorebirds are found in this area either as
permanent inhabitants or transients. The most abundant wildlife are the saltwater fish
and shellfish. Some of these species include- fringed flounder, spot, anchovy, spotted
seatrout, menhaden, and oysters.

Hydrology

Tidal action dominates the hydrologic system of this environmental management unit.
The large bodies of water, such as Lake Machias and Lake La Fortuna, act as a
transitional areas between the inland marshes and Breton Sound. Salinity levels
fluctuate between 10 and 20 parts per thousand, depending on the season and other
factors (i.e., rainfall). Since the construction of the MRGO the salinity has increased,
posing a threat to the natural oyster reefs and private oyster beds found in the area.

Land Use

This area is an estuarine nursery ground f or fish and shellfish. It is also heavily
utilized for recreational purposes. There are some oil and gas fields in the unit.

tation

There are no roads or railroads in this unit. Nautical transportation for ocean-going
and commercial fishing vessels is along the MRGO channel.

Cultural Resources

There are six archaeological sites in this management unit, all of which are
prehistoric. Site 16 SB 33 is sinking, while sites 16 SB 12 and 16 SB 34 are wave-
washed middens, and three other sites are reworked beach deposits. An excellent
example of a subsurface archaeological site in a wetland area is 16 SB 12, the Mulatto
Bayou Site. A canal was dredged through the site exposing large quantities of
materials, including human and animal skeletal remains, wooden implements, and
pottery which dated back 1000 years.

6-31

Unique Ecological Features

There are two wading bird rookeries located here. One is located along the southwest
shore of Lake Machias and the other is located near the Raccoon Island area. The
more common birds at these rookeries are Herons, Egrets, Ibises, and Anhingas. The
area is also a primary fish and shellfish nursery ground. Commercial oyster production
is extensive in the unit. The MRGO is a deep migratory pass for many fish and
shellfish entering from Breton Sound.

Environmental Considerations

The natural processes of subsidence and erosion have been accelerated by man-made
processes. The MRGO has had significant effects, especially with regard to increased
salinity levels. For a more complete study refer to MRGO Study, Environmental
Considerations of an Expanded Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (CEI 1973). Further
channelization for pipeline canals and oil exploration have disected the marsh area,
further exposing it to wind and wave attack. These channels contribute to the
accelerated marsh deterioration and land loss.

Management Unit Goals

The management unit goals are based upon this unit's unique characteristics and are as
follows:

Conserve natural habitats with emphasis on commercial and sport fishing.
Reduce marsh deterioration by restricting excavations and requiring backfilling of

canals.
Reduce erosion by shoreline stabilization.
Utilize any freshwater from the proposed freshwater diversion structure at
Caernarvon to lessen the salinity gradient and improve fishery productivity.

Permissible Uses

Permissible uses which may be carried out in this management unit, but which may
require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations, are listed below.
The list is not all inclusive.

6-32

commercial fishing (shrimping, crabbing, and
f in fishing)
recreational fishing
public oyster seed grounds
private oyster leases
waterfowl hunting
oil and gas extraction*
oil and gas pipelines*
archaeological/historical site preservation
boating

These uses may be disruptive and may require permits.

6-33

MANAGEMENT UNrr 7 - LOWER LA LOUTRE WETLANDS

Location Map

8.* P-

Geomorphology

This management unit includes the wetlands lying directly below the large bend in
Bayou LaLoutre. Its origin and development are associated with the Mississippi River-
St. Bernard Delta progradation processes. Since the abandonment of the old channel
of Bayou LaLoutre by the Mississippi River, the deltaic plain has been tilting toward
the east and subsiding. The subsidence and gradual invasion of marshes by saline Gulf
waters are the dominant processes in this unit.

sons

The surface soils are organic peats and mucks overlying slightly firm to semi-fluid
silty clays and sands.

6-34

Vegetation and Wildlife

Brackish-to-saline marsh grasses dominate the area with three-cornered grass,
oystergrass, saltmarsh grass, black rush, and wiregrass being the predominant species.
Some of the fish species common to the unit are spot, croaker, menhaden, striped sole,
and southern flounder. Shrimp, oysters, and marsh clams are also very common.
Waterfowl, wading birds, and fur-bearing animals also occupy this environmental
management unit.

Hydrology

When Bayou LaLoutre carried the major flow of the Mississippi River into this region
it built the marshes of St. Bernard Parish outward toward the Gulf through distributary
channel deposition. Today, the dominant hydrologic pattern is the tidal exchange
between Lake Borgne and Chandeleur Sound, through sinuous channels and bayous.

Land Use

A large portion of this unit, along the Bayou La Loutre levees, was once used for
agriculture, but due to saltwater intrusion, soil oxidation, and subsidence, it is no
longer suitable for such use. The area is now largely an estuarine nursery ground with
high recreational value.

Unique Ecological Features

Leased private oyster grounds are found in this area, in addition to the area being a
primary fish and shellfish estuarine nursery ground.

Transportation

Commercial and sport fishing vessels travel the waters of Bayou LaLoutre, while
smaller recreational boats use the shallow canals, lakes, and tidal channels.

Cultural Resources

Four archaeological sites are known to exist along the lower banks and in the
associated wetlands. On the natural levees of lower Bayou LaLoutre there are six

6-35

sites. Three sites represent prehistoric occupation associated with ancient stream
channels, while the two historic homes and cemetery site are representative of past
settlers who located along the banks of Bayou LaLoutre.

Environmental Considerations

Man's impact upon this management unit can be seen clearly on aerial photographs.
Canals for drainage purposes, transportation, and oil exploration have contributed to
the problems of land loss, subsidence, and saltwater intrusion.

Management Unit Goals

The management unit goals are as follows:

Maintain brackish-to-saline marsh with emphasis on commercial and sport fishing.
Reduce erosion by shoreline stabilization along the north bank of the MRGO.
Limit construction of structures on natural levee ridges.
Maintain existing water control structures in pipeline canals to decrease saltwater
intrusion.

Permissible Uses

Permissible uses in this unit may require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local
Regulations. This is not an all inclusive list.

hunting
recreational fishing
commercial fishing and shrimping
private oyster leases
MRGO navigation and shipping
oil pipelines*
boating
archaeological/historical site preservation

These uses may be disruptive and may require permits.

6-36

MANAGEMENT UNIT 8 - BILOXI MARSH

Location Map

ads "at.
Lak.seal.swonsh, ...... Laasaaaaaaaaaa=
R.- I
flarla Pa. Grand Island

Zit

Ce. aa

Geomorphology

This area was formed by delta deposition along the perimeter of the distributary
channels of the Mississippi River-St. Bernard Delta Lobe. Erosional processes
associated with the degradational. cycle of this delta have diminished the area and
uniformity of the marsh surface.

soils

The soils of this unit are predominantly organic peats and mucks overlying slightly
fluid to semi-fluid gray clays.

6-37

Vegetation and WUdlife

Brackish-to-saline marsh vegetation dominates this area. In the slightly brackish
marshes, wiregrass is the dominant species, while in the saline marshes, oystergrass,
blackrush, and wiregrass; are the dominant species. Fish common to this unit include
spotted seatrout, spot, Atlantic croaker, black drum, and red drum. Although fur-
bearing animals are present in this unit, they are generally less abundant than in the
lower salinity brackish marshes where three-cornered grass is dominant.

Hydrology

There are numerous intertidal bayous which convey estuarine waters through the
marsh from Lake Borgne and Chandeleur Sound. The management unit also contains
numerous estuarine lakes interconnected by tidal channels.

Land Use

Most of this unit is in the designated Biloxi Wildlife Management Area which offers
commercial and recreational opportunities for fishing and hunting. Oyster leases are
also abundant in the Biloxi Wildlife Management Area and along 14 miles of Lake
Borgne shoreline. Clay which is used in the manufacturing of cement is another
resource found in this unit, and the major source is found along Bayou St. Malo, on the
southeast side of Lake Borgne. Gas wells are also numerous in the unit.

Transportation

The dominant modes of transportation in this unit are the natural and man-made
waterways which are used by both commercial and sport fishermen.

Cultural Resources

The 16 known archaeological sites found in this unit consist of shell middens, shell
mounds, or earth mounds. Of all of the sites in this unit, only the Magnolia Mound
Site is included in the National Register of Historic Places.

6-38

Unique Ecological Features

Le Petit Pass, located on the northern tip of this unit, is an important deep migratory
pass for the many estuarine fish and shellfish larvae entering into Lake Borgne. The
entire area is also a primary fish and shellfish estuarine nursery ground. Leased oyster
grounds are located in Lake Borgne adjacent to this management unit. Peak geese and
duck concentrations are found here during fall and winter because of the management
of vegetation and water levels in the Biloxi Wildlife Management Area.

Environmental Considerations

This management unit is under continuous attack from marine forces. Water bodies
are constantly enlarging, especially during severe hurricanes. Natural subsidence of
the marsh surface is another major problem for this unit.

Management Unit Goals

The following suggested goals are based upon the unique environmental characteristics
of the area:

Conserve natural habitats with emphasis on waterfowl management, fur trapping,
and commercial fishing.
Regulate water levels through water control structures and diversion of
freshwater.

Permissible Uses

Although this list is not all inclusive, the following permissible uses may be undertaken
in the area, but may require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations.

Biloxi Wildlife Management Area
waterfowl hunting
recreational fishing
fur trapping
oil and gas extraction*
boating

6-39

-- archaeological site preservation
-- commercial fishing (shrimping, crabbing)
I

F
*These uses may be disruptive and may require permits.

6-40

MANAGEMENT UNrr 9 - BAY BOUDREAUX - BAY ELOI

Location Map

J@Ild WI'd

L... &-".

Geomorphology

This unit is the outer perimeter of the Mississippi River-St. Bernard Delta Complex
and is characterized by geomorphic features and patterns representative of a drowning
marsh. Round lakes are eroding into open bays, and double row islands are all that
remain to indicate the location of the old distributary channels.

sons

The marsh areas. are composed of organic clays, silty clays, and peats with fine sand
underneath some areas. Shell reefs found here are mainly composed of oysters in a
matrix of silt and clay.

6-41

Vegetation and Wildlife

In the saline marshes, oystergrass is the dominant vegetative species, but saltmarsh
grass and blackrush are also present. On the large islands, usually on the Chandeleur
Sound side, large expanses of black mangrove can be found. Many fish species are
abundant in the area, including Atlantic croaker, red drum, black drum, spot, striped
mullet, bay anchovies, menhaden, sand seatrout, and scaled sardines. Marsh clams,
oysters, and large quantities of brown shrimp inhabitat this wetland environment.

Hydr

One of the most interesting hydrologic features of"this unit is the partially drowned or
drowned remains of the natural levees of the old Bayou LaLoutre channel on both sides
of Fishing Smack Bay. Tides dominate the hydrology of the whole region and what
were once freshwater distributary channels are now estuarine tidal channels. These
tidal channels and passes are often deeper than the 3-6 foot deep lakes and bays
because they are subjected to more rapid currents and scouring action.

Land Use

Commercial oyster production, fishing, shrimping, and recreational activities make
this unit a valuable estuarine management area.

Transportation

Commercial and sport fishing and trapping vessels use the deeper tidal channels, bays,
and lakes to navigate through this unit.

Culttwal Resources

There are numerous, prehistoric archaeological sites in this management unit including
shell middens and wave-washed beach deposits. The fact that 25% of the unit's
recorded sites has been obliterated by wave action is a strong indication that the
untold numbers of sites that existed previously may have been inundated or washed
away before the relatively recent days of archaeological site recordings (Gagliano et
al. 1978).

6-42

Unique Ecological Features

This management unit has many distinct and important unique ecological features.
There are two seabird colonies consisting mainly of gulls, terns, Black Skimmers, and
Willets in this unit located on Point Chicot and Isle au Pitre. There are also five
wading bird rookeries on the eastern side of this unit located on Mitchell Island, Martin
Island, Conkey Cove, Anderson Point, and Island West of Deadman Point. Some wading
birds which roost here are Herons, Ibises, Egrets, and Anhingas. There are also two
areas of peak geese concentrations located east of Biloxi Wildlife Management Area
near Turkey Bayou and Chino Bay. Deep passes in the unit (Deep Pass, Grand Pass,
Three Mile Pass, and Nine Mile Pass) are important migratory pathways for many
estuarine fish and shellfish larvae. There are many privately leased oyster beds and
public seed grounds located throughout the management unit. North Island, Freemason
Island, and New Harbor Island contain shorebird nesting colonies.

Environmental Considerations

Submergence of the wetlands (through subsidence and sea level rise) and erosion seems
to be the predominant natural processes affecting the area. These natural processes
are greatly accelerated by man-made processes and human modification of the
environment. Many archaeological sites are being eroded or are already submerged.
Higher salinity waters are moving inland as the land erodes, and the oyster grounds are
threatened by oyster drill predation and disease which accompany the higher salinities.

Management Unit Goals

The following suggested management unit goals are based upon the unique
environmental characteristics of the area:

Conserve natural habitats with emphasis on commercial and sport fishing and
trapping.
Stabilize marsh and outer islands through shoreline stabilization.
Enhance wilderness character by limiting construction.
Prevent surface disruption by dredging on North Island, Freemason Island, and New
Harbor Island.

6-43

-- Encourage potential for freshwater diversion and utilize the resulting freshwater to
combat rapid erosion and saltwater intrusion.

Permissible Uses

These permissible uses are not all inclusive. The uses in this unit may be undertaken
but may require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations.

commercial fishing (shrimping, crabbing,.
Menhaden purse seining)
recreational fishing
public oyster seed grounds
private oyster leases
waterfowl hunting
oil and gas extraction*
oil and gas pipelines*
boating
MRGO navigation and shipping
archaeological, site preservation
oyster cultch transplants
trapping

These uses may be disruptive and may require permits.

6-44

MANAGEMENT UNIT 10 - MRGO SPOEI, AREA

Location Map

R- I

Geomorphology

This unit is a by-product of the dredging of the MRGO and subsequent spoil deposition.

soils

The soils represent an inverse version of the surface and subsurface soils of an
undisturbed geologic core. The spoil material is excavated from the 36-foot-deep
MRGO channel and is composed of old interdistributary basin-fill.,and tidal flat clays.
Underlying this spoil material are organic peats and mucks.

6-45

Vegetation and Wildife

Where there is no continuous spoil deposition for maintenance purposes, the spoil banks
are being colonized by plant species characteristic of higher, better drained sites but
tolerant to brackish water spray conditions. These include waxmyrtle, baccharis,
willow, hackberry, and many herbaceous perennials and annuals.

Hydr

This spoil bank has altered the natural drainage patterns and hydrologic regimes of the
surface marsh areas through which it traverses. There are pockets of freshwater
trapped on the spoil banks because of rainfall and poor drainage.

Land Use

At present, there is no land use occuring on the spoil except the natural succession of
plants and the deposition of dredged materials. This area has a potential for
recreational, commercial, and industrial land uses.

rtation

There is no existing transportation system within the unit. The area has potential as a
transportation corridor because the spoil is higher than the surrounding marsh and
provides a more stable base for road construction.

Cultural Resources

In the middle section of the spoil unit, two sites, an earth mound and a shell midden,
were reported prior to the construction of the MRGO. However, since that time, both
sites have been buried under spoil, leaving no substantial trace of their existence. A
portion of the Mulatto Bayou site is still distinguishable, but it was partially dredged
during construction of the MRGO.

6-46

Unique Ecological Features

There are no designated special or unique ecological features in this environmental
management unit.

Environmental Considerations

Subsidence and continual deposition associated with maintenance of the channel are
the major problems concerning this spoil area. Because the subsurface soils consist of
peats and mucks, the spoil areas are unstable and tend to flow laterally and subside
under their own weight.

Management Unit Goals

The following suggested goals are based upon the unique characteristics of the spoil

area:

Promote multiple-use recreational and commercial development.
Encourage bank stabilization.
Support marsh building projects by the creative use of spoil obtained during
maintenance dredging.

Permissible Uses

The permissible uses are those uses which may be undertaken in this unit but which
may require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations. The list is not
all inclusive.

hunting
oil and gas pipelines
oil and gas extraction
MRGO navigation and shipping
trapping
waterfowl hunting
archaeological site preservation

recreational and commercial development

port and industrial water dependent development

6-47

MANAGEMENT UNIT 11 - SEMI-URBANIZED LEVEE

Location Map

*04

ft.ft
S-1 P-

NUT.-

Geomorphology

This unit was once the distributary channel-levee complex of the Mississippi River
which branched eastward and now forms the Bayou Terre aux Boeufs and Bayou
LaLoutre natural levee-channel complexes.
,4-

soils

The soils are primarily of the Commerce-Sharkey association. The area is mainly
Sharkey soils with a dark gray clay surface and a gray clay subsoil.

6-48

Vegetation and Wildlife

The typical natural levee vegetation on the slightly lower, less well-drained ridges
consist primarily of water oak, sycamore, and black willow. The understory shrubbery
is characterized by dwarf palmetto, blackberry, elderberry, and deciduous holly.

Hydrology

The basic hydrologic structure of this unit is characterized by the old abandoned
distributary channels of the Mississippi River. Both Bayou LaLoutre and Bayou Terre
aux Boeufs once transported large amounts of fresh water and sediments to the delta
front. Now, these channels are tidal streams possessing saltwater wedges during
periods of low rainfall. Man-made canals drain the urbanized levee areas.

Cultural Resources

There are two existing historical sites and ten known archaeological sites in the unit.
The two existing historic sites include the ruins of the Proctor Sugar Mill and the Solis
Plantation House where sugar was first granulated in Louisiana. The 10 archaeological
sites consist of shell mounds, earth mounds, and shell middens.

Land Use

The land uses in this area include low-density residential, commercial, and industrial
development, agriculture, public facilities, and forested lands.

Transportation

There are two major roads in this unit: Louisiana Hwy. 300 (Delacroix Road) and the
continuation of Hwy. 46 to Hopedale.

Unique Ecological Features

The forested oak ridges along Bayou LaLoutre are the unique ecological features of
this semi-urbanized levee unit.

6-49

Environmental Considerations

The area is flood-prone. The natural levee ridges are slowly subsiding due to natural
processes, and land loss is occurring at the base of the natural levees along the levee-
flank depressions.

Management Unit Goals

The following management unit goals are based upon the characteristics of the
environmental management unit:

Encourage residential and supportive structures comparable to existing
development.
Promote continuation of "rural" charcter by discouraging large-scale developments.
Maintain area as transition zone between leveed area and wetlands.
Promote protection from saltwater intrusion through structural measures such as
ring levees, dams, and flap gates in strategic locations.
Plan as a growth area for future development as demand warrants.

Permissible Uses

The permissible uses are uses that may be undertaken in this unit, but which may
require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations. This list is not all
inclusive.

archaeological and historical site preservation
commercial development
medium density housing
recreation
transportation corridor
utility corridor
agriculture

6-50

MANAGEMENT UNff 12 -MODIFIED WETLAND

Location Map

Geomorphology

This area was originally a freshwater backswamp which developed in the upper
distributary basin of the Mississippi River-St. Bernard Delta Lobe. It has been
modified by leveeing and land filling and is no longer representative of a natural
habitat.

soils

The surface soils vary from organic peats and mucks to pumped-in sand fill. In some
places, especially near Paris Road, the organic peats and mucks are 10 to 15 feet deep.

6-51

Vegetation and Wildlife

This unit was once a freshwater swamp and marsh environment, which served as a
habitat for wildlife typical of a freshwater swamp. Modification by man changed this
unit to the extent that it is now mostly open water of lower quality with some aquatic
plants, and small flood-tolerant shrubs.

Hydrology

The hydrologic pattern has been modified greatly by drainage and filling activities and
no longer functions as part of the natural hydrologic system. Water exchange through
tidal channels was once active in this environment, but Bayou Bienvenue is now the
only major tidal channel connecting this unit to Lake Borgne. Water flow has been
impaired (i.e., impounded) thereby causing habitat deterioration and land loss in this
unit.

Land Use

The natural resources have been greatly reduced because of human modifications. The
high soil subsidence potential is a major constraint for intense development. The
primary land use for this unit is landfill.

Transportation

One of the most important transportation arteries-- Louisiana Hwy. 47 (Paris Road)--
goes through this unit.

Cultural Resources

There are no known archaeological or historical sites in this unit.

Unique Ecological Features

There are no unique ecological features in this unit.

6-52

Environmental Considerations

Since the turn of the century, this unit has been slowly deteriorating as a result of
human modifications, most of which are irreversible. The soils and subsurface
conditions present severe constraints for future development.

Management Unit Goals

The following suggested management unit goals are based upon the unique
environmental characteristic of the unit:

Maintain as buffer zone between other wetland zones and developed leveed areas.
Reserve for possible development if future need warrants.

Permissible Uses

The permissible uses are those uses that may be undertaken in this management unit,
but which may require a permit pursuant to Federal, State or Local Regulations. This
list is not all inclusive.

land ill
urban runoff disposal
trapping
recreational fishing

6-53

MANAGEMENT UNff 13 - URBANIZED AREA

Location Map

Ns. "RT

R.-
8MLh Pmt G-d W-d

Geomorphology

This unit consists of the natural levee ridge of the Mississippi River. It was created
during overbank flooding of the Mississippi River during St. Bernard delta progradation
and during flood stage when layers of sediment were deposited adjacent to the main
channel. Natural levee elevations approach 15 feet in the northern portion of the unit,
but elevations and levee width decrease seaward.

soils

The soils of this unit are primarily of the Commerce-Sharkey association. They consist
mostly of a silt loam or silty clay loam surface and a silty clay loam subsoil.

6-54

Vegetation and Wildife

Most of the existing natural hardwood stands have been cleared for agriculture. The
stands which remain are in the lower-lying,. poorly drained toe of the natural levee and
consist of trees such as live oak, pecan, American elm, hickory, and green ash. Fauna
native to this habitat include deer, opossum, raccoon, and a variety of birds.

The basic hydrologic structure of this unit is the Mississippi River channel and natural
and man-made channels draining the backslopes of the natural levee.

Cultural Resources

This unit contains four historical sites and 14 archaeological sites. The Chalmette
National Military Cemetery, Chalmette National Park, LeBeau House, and George
Villere House comprise the historic sites. Chalmette National Park is on the National
Register of Historic Places. The 14 prehistoric sites consist of earth mounds, shell
middens, and shell mounds.

Land Use

Unit 13 is the most densely populated of the three natural levee units (Units 3, 11, 13).
Land use includes residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational developments,
agriculture, and public facilities.

Transportation

The major artery traversing this area is St. Bernard Highway (Louisiana Hwy. 39) from
Chalmette to Hopedale. Paris Road (Louisiana Hwy. 47) intersects Louisiana Hwy. 39
in Chalmette which is one of the major throughway connecting the parish to New

Orleans.

6-55

Unique Ecological Features

The Violet Siphon, which is diverting Mississippi River waters into the deteriorating
wetlands of Unit 2 (Central Wetlands), is contained in this unit. There are no unique
areas in the unit.

Environmental Considerations

Sewage and waste disposal are the major problems facing the urbanized areas of this
densely populated section of St. Bernard Parish. Portions of this management unit are
subject to flooding during periodic heavy rainfall when the drainage canals and pumps
can not remove water from the area quickly enough.

Management Unit Goals

The goals are based upon the environmental characteristics of the unit, and are as
f ollows:

-- Promote urban development consistent with existing parish zoning ordinances and
sound urban planning.

Permissible Uses

Permissible uses are those uses which may be undertaken in this unit. Under normal
conditions these uses do not require a local coastal use permit. This list is not all
inclusive.

high-density residential
industrial development
commercial development
agriculture
archaeological and historic preservation
transportation. corridor

-77-77-

-4TII"

IPSLAL

Ile,
4K
lk @,*@ I - - -1 %@@
jr,w
JA
-4, wwff
40,
"of
v

A\\
A
It
t
-40

t
A

"411,

F 7,

CHAPTER VII: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

INTRODUCTION

Administration of the St. Bernard Coastal Management Program will be the responsi-
bility of the St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission. The Planning Commission staff
will handle the daily business of administering the program including grant matters,
developing and negotiating contracts, accounting for expenditures, and, in general,
performing such duties as are necessary for the efficient implementation of the

program.

Issuance of permits and field monitoring will be handled by the parish's Department of
Safety and Permits. Additional monitoring will be conducted by the Planning
Commission staff during the course of their normal duties. Monitoring will insure that
permit conditions are being followed and that the conditions actually result in lowered
adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission staff may recommend
additional performance standards for the purpose of conditioning permits as their need
becomes evident.

PERMIT ADMINISTRATION

General

Authority for the issuance of local Coastal Use Permits derives from the St. Bernard
Parish Coastal Management Ordinance (hereinafter called "the Ordinance!')
(Appendix 1). The permit procedure as outlined in the Ordinance is illustrated in
Figure 7-1.

Permits are required for uses of local concern (Table 7-1) which occur in areas defined
as wetlands or in areas below the 5-foot contour (above mean sea level). Fastlands
(lands completely leveed as of the effective date of the ordinance) are excluded from
permit requirements. Activities in Management Units 3, 11, and 13 (urbanized natural
levees) do not generally require permits, while activities in the other management
units do generally require local use permits. If there is doubt about the need for a
permit, Article 5 of the ordinance prevails.

The applicant will obtain the permit form and regulations from the Department of
Safety and Permits (hereinafter called "the Department"). The standard U.S. Army

7-1

Submit to Admini.4trator with r- State Use
lic Hearing 2 days use determination Local/State I iew and Determination
(and recommendations if state use) I@ev
ptional)

Obtain Permit Form
from Department of Safety Safety and Permi Planning Comm PlarWng Commission Review
and Permits Application Review

Department of Wety and
Permitsj Grants
(denies Or cond[itions permit)

Appeal to
Police Jury
(optional)

Appeal to Louisiana
Coastal Commission
(optional)

Figure Permit flou chart.
@
nit to Admn,4 to with
ij
k'erm "on MSa e
omrne ti__ if state ose)

ent.
@Iep
t-y
art- of
Per G
..Or Xxhti:. pe
[@A
0

7-3

TABLE 7-1 COASTAL USES REQUIRING A PERMIT

A coastal use permit shall be required for a coastal use of local concern,
as defined in the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of
1978 (Act 361). Uses or activities occurring in areas 5 ft or more above
mean sea level or in fastlands do not require a coastal use permit unless it
can be shown that the use or activity has a direct and significant impact
on coastal waters. Uses of local concern include, but are not limited to:

1) Privately funded projects which are not uses of state concern.
2) Publicly funded projects which are not uses of state concern.
3) Maintenance of uses of local concern.
4) Jetties or breakwaters.
5) Dredge or fill projects not intersecting more than 1 water body.
6) Bulkheads.
7) Piers.
8) Camps and cattlewalks.
9) Maintenance dredging.
10) Private water control structures less than $15,000 in cost.
11) Uses on cheniers, salt domes, or similar land forms.
12) Any other coastal uses which directly and significantly affect coastal
waters, and are in need of coastal management but are not uses of
state concern and which should be regulated primarily at the local
level. The St. Bernard Parish Police Jury shall have the power to add
other coastal uses to this list as recommended by the Department of
Safety and Permits and the Planning Commission.

7-4

Corps of Engineer 404 permit form will be utilized. After submission to the
Department, that office, in conjunction with the Planning Commission staff (herein-
after referred to as "staff") will review the application to determine if the use is one
of local or state concern. Within two days of receipt of the permit application, the
determination of state or local use and any available comments will be forwarded to
the Administrator, Coastal Management Section, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for their review. An interagency Memorandum of Understanding is being
prepared to insure coordination of permit decisions. This will be required for
concurrent decisions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on applications for uses of
local concern, such as dredge and fill projects in one water body.

Uses of Local Concern

If the use is of local concern, the staff will then conduct an environmental review of
the permit application. The review will be subsequent to Article 6 of the ordinance
and this program document and will insure that the activity represented by the permit
is consistent with all pertinent parish policies, goals (including management unit
goals), and performance standards. The staff recommendation is then forwarded to
the Department. The Department shall then grant, deny, or grant with conditions, the
permit application based on the Planning Commission staff recommendations.

The permit procedure is pursuant to Article 8 of the ordinance which specifies notice
within 10 days, provides for a public hearing and notice, and specifies time limits for a
decision. Notice of the decision and public inspection and review are further required
within specified time limits (Figure 7-2). The applicant or any aggrieved party is
eligible to appeal the Department's decision to the St. Bernard Parish Police Jury and
subsequently, to the Louisiana Coastal Commission.

Uses of State Concern

If the use is one of state concern, as specified in Act 361 of the 1978 legislature (as
amended), then the initial permit decision will be made by the Administrator, subject
to appeal to the Louisiana Coastal Commission. The St. Bernard Parish Planning
Commission staff may submit recommendations to the Administrator concerning a
particular permit. application. Adherence by the Administrator to the comments and
this document will constitute a basis for consistency with the approved St. Bernard
Coastal Management program as required by Act 361 of 1978, as amended. Uses of
State concern include but are not limited to:

D A Y S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

,Receipt of Application
To DNR &*Planning Commission

Notice of Receipt

File for Public Hearing (optional)

30-days Notice of Public Hearing

Public Hearing

Decision of Department of Safety and Permits

Filing of Appeal (10 days)

Planning Commission Recommendations

Decision of Department of Safety and Permits

Appeal Filing

Appeal Heard

Police Jury Decision

Notice of Decision

Decision Published

Permit takes effect (Permit in effect for I year)

Appeal Notice

Figure 7-2. Permit time lines.

7-6
(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.

Performance Standards for Uses of State and Local Concern

Performance standards are designed to minimize impacts and do not specifically
prohibit activities. However, there may be instances where the impact cannot be
sufficiently minimized to permit it to occur, for example, disruption of habitat which
is critical to threatened or endangered species. Performance Standards of Uses of
State Concern in addition to applicable Louisiana CMS Standards, are the preferred
criteria St. Bernard Parish expects the State to consider in making decisions on permit
applications for uses of State Concern. It is these standards that the staff win use
when submitting their environmental review comments to the State on application for
uses of State concern.

Pipeline Regulations

Pipeline Codes

In addition to the specific requirements set forth in this section, all plans, specifica-
tions, materials, and the installation of any pipeline for which a coastal use permit is
required shall comply with the Uniform Standards Association Standard Code for
Pressure Piping, U.S. AS B31.8 Code, in connection with gas pipelines, and U.S. AS
B31.4 Code, relating to liquid petroleum transportation piping system, where applic-
able and such amendments thereto as are approved by the Police Jury of St. Bernard
Parish. Should any provisions of said Code conflict with the requirements of this
Section, the latter shall prevail. Any required excavation or dredging shall conform to
the provisions of Dredging and Filling discussed below.

Road Crossings

Any pipelines layed under parish roads shall have an earth covering a minimum of
three (3) feet deep. If excavations are required, they shall be tamped in 6-inch layers
and backfilled. Pipelines constructed under hard-surf aced, parish-owned roads will be

7-7

encased where same is required under the U.S. AS Code referred to hereinabove.
Adequate drainage shall be maintained at all times during the installation of pipelines.
Markers will be installed to mark the location of all pipelines on parish-owned roads
and rights-of-way or other public projects.

Water Crossing and Burial Depths

Pipelines crossing a drainage ditch, canal, bayou, lake, bay or sound under the
jurisdiction of the Police Jury will be laid under the following specifications when
water level is:
0. 0 feet to six (6) feet -6 f ee-L, of cover
six (6) feet to ten (10) feet -4 feet of cover
ten (10) feet to ad inf initum -3 feet of cover

Markers will be installed to mark the location of any such pipeline crossing in such a
way as not to constitute a hazard to navigation.

In no event will a pipeline be layed in the bed of an existing natural waterway or
drainage canal. Crossings of such waterways are permitted if pipelines are buried to
the above specified depths.

Levee Crossings

Any pipeline which crosses a levee within the jurisdiction of the St. Bernard Parish
Police Jury will be constructed in accordance with the latest applicable regulations
and specifications of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
and the Lake Borgne Basin Levee Board.

Required Annual Inspections

The owner of any pipeline constructed hereunder will conduct an annual inspection as
may be required under the U.S. AS Codes, and upon doing so, the owner will notify the
Police Jury in writing that this inspection has been made and of the results of said
inspection in writing.

Completion of work

All pipelines will be completed by returning the land crossed to as near its natural
state as existed prior to construction. Where natural revegetation will occur with
little or no erosion in the interim, it will be acceptable to utilize this method on

7-8

completion of said pipeline. Where pipelines are constructed in wetlands or other
sensitive areas, the following wetlands regulations will apply.

Wetland Regulations

1) Pipelines will be sited to minimize disruption of wetlands. Existing pipeline
corridors will be used where feasible. When pipeline canals must be dug,
backfilling with dredged material is required to restore the marsh to as near its
natural state as possible.

2) The push ditch or shove technique of laying pipeline is required. Exceptions to
this policy should be granted only if the applicant shows that the pipe diameter is
too large to be laid with the push ditch method. In this case, the floatation canal
method will be allowed, but in all cases the width of the altered area is to be

minimized.

3) Bulkheads composed of clam or oyster shell, rip-rap, wood piling, or concrete
mats are required at all natural waterway crossings. Bulkheads must be
constructed across pipeline canals at their junction with lake or bay shorelines or
at navigable waterways. When constructed in the marsh, the length of the
bulkhead extending into the marsh on either side of the canal must be at least one
half the width of the canal. These bulkheads must be maintained and inspected
annually. Repair work will be the responsibility of the corporation that initially
constructed the bulkheads. The parish Police Jury will be notified at the time of
inspection and will provide a parish inspector on maintenance inspections.

4) The parish has the perogative to suggest a different route for a proposed pipeline
if the alignment crosses certain areas of the marsh where the parish does not wish
to have pipelines laid. This may include beaches, barrier islands, oyster beds,
submergent grass beds, prime waterfowl and furbearer marsh, archaeological or
historical sites, endangered species' habitats, forested ridges, or other sensitive or
unique areas of significant ecological value which the parish may identify.
Whenever possible, canals should be constructed parallel, rather than perpen-
dicular, to the direction of existing water flow and tidal drainage. Normal
surface tidal flow will not be altered by any construction work referred to
hereinabove. The Planning Commission will review all proposed pipeline routes
upon submittal of the permit application and make recommendations to the
Administrator with copies to the Police Jury.

7-9

5) Any oil spills or leaks must be cleaned up immediately by the corporation that laid
the pipeline. Upon discovery of any oil leakage, the Department must be notified
immediately.

6) All old pipe, lumber, machinery, or other equipment will be removed from the
marsh when dredging is complete; junk and "hookers" that have become lodged in
the bottom of waterways will be removed or clearly marked as navigational

hazards.

7) Access to the pipeline during construction and maintenance activity will be
limited to an area 100 feet on either side of said pipeline's centerline.

Drilling and Wellsite Development Standards

Directional drilling or the use of existing waterways are strongly encouraged by the
parish as an alternative to dredging new rig access canals. Directional drilling should
be used unless it can be shown by the applicant that it is not feasible due to geological
or engineering constraints, or due to regulations governing proximity or placement of
wells, enforced by any Federal or state regulatory agency.

Access to drillsites will be by the shortest possible route, except where said routes
cause disruption, disturbance, or damage to wetlands within the parish, to flora or
fauna, or to oyster leases or other pre-existing activities. In such cases, an alternate
route may be used which minimizes the above noted disturbance or damage where
possible, or, if acceptable to all parties, mitigating agreements may be made. Access
will be at high tide to minimize dredging. Access by board road will be encouraged
and is the preferred method of reaching drilling sites in wetlands.

Any dredging or filling required will be executed according to the policies of Dredging
and Filling discussed below.

During operations at any wellsite within the parish, sewerage and refuse generated by
the operation personnel will be stored until it can be transported to a state@-regulated
disposal facility. No sewerage, refuse, litter, or other foreign substance such as oil,
cuttings, drilling fluids, etc. will be deposited, discharged, or otherwise placed in the
wetlands or waters of the parish unless adequate treatment is provided according to
the provisions of the state health code for such substances.

7-10

Board Road Conditions

1) Culverts will be placed where streams and sloughs are crossed by the roadway
embankment and at other locations to promote or maintain sheet flows. The
maximum spacing between culverts will be 500 feet. The openings of the culverts
must be maintained so as to permit free flow of water.

2) Contents of mud pits and other drilling residues will be removed from the site and
disposed of in a lawful manner when drilling operations have been completed.

3) Ring levees will be degraded by restoring the material with which they were built
into the areas from which it was removed, and the area leveled to as near
preproject conditions as practicable after mud pits have been cleaned.

4) Broken boards and other extraneous construction materials will be removed from
the site when the road is abandoned by the permittee. All plastic sheeting will be
removed from areas of the roadway from which the boards are removed.

5) No hydrocarbons, substances containing hydrocarbons, drilling mud, drilling cut-
tings, and toxic substances will be allowed to enter adjacent waterways and
wetlands.

6) The road fill placed in wetlands will be degraded when the location is abandoned.
The material will be deposited into the borrow areas or ditches, and the area
restored to as near preproject conditions as practical using the material available
in the road fill.

7) Should changes in the location or the section of the existing waterways, or in the
generally prevailing conditions in the vicinity, be required by the public interest in
the future, the applicant will make such changes in the project concerned or in
the arrangement thereof as may be necessary to satisfactorily meet the situation
and the permittee will bear the cost thereof.

Explanation. These board road conditions ensure that sheet flow and water
circulation are maintained, and that toxic substances or pollutants are not allowed to
enter into wetland habitats.

7-11

Dredging and Ming Standards

Dredging activity will be conducted in such a manner as to minimize the environmen-
tal impact of such products as sediment, spoils, or other discharges which may be
created by said activity. Where it is impossible to avoid such impacts, mitigating
agreements and procedures will be recommended which are agreeable to all parties
involved, including but not limited to lease holders or landowners within the dredged or
filled area, the applicant, and the St. Bernard Parish Police Jury and its authorized
agents. Turbidity screens are required near oyster beds or in other areas if turbidity is
deemed to be a problem.

Spoil banks and other fill will be constructed in such a manner as to permit
revegetation and natural water flow patterns, to avoid impoundment of water, and in
cases where deposit of dredged material must be made in open waters, to decrease
water depths by no more than 0.5 feet unless new emergent land areas (i.e. artificially
created wetlands) are created which do not impede normal currents nor create a
navigational hazard.

Wherever permitted dredging in wetlands increases or facilitates saltwater intrusion,
such dredged areas will be sealed, plugged, or otherwise restricted from such intrusion
at the completion of operations serviced by the canal created. The parish may
recommend that the dredged canal to be backfilled upon completion of operations to
prevent loss of wetlands or eliminate a channel for saltwater intrusion.

Seismic Standards

Explosives: charges in excess of 50 pounds should not be used except pursuant to
written authorization from the Police Jury. When requests for the use of such charges
are needed, the size of charges to be used, and the depth at which they are to be
suspended or buried should be included. Should multiple charges be used, the total
amount of explosive should not exceed 50 pounds without the above information
submitted to the Administrator.

The placing of explosive charges on the bottoms of the water body is prohibited. All
charges not detonated in holes below the bottom must be suspended and detonated at a
point not below a level midway between the surface of the water and the substratum
underlying such water; or detonated above the surface of the water. No such charges
should be detonated nearer than five (5) feet to the bottom of water bed.

7-12

The preferred policies of the preceeding paragraph will not apply to trial charges and
charges for determining position and water speed; provided that such charges are not
over 5 pounds, and not fired more often than absolutely necessary.

Minimum required depths of charges detonated in holes below the bottom or bed of the
inland waters and in the Gulf of Mexico within the gulfward boundary of the State of
Louisiana inside the Parish of St. Bernard as shown by Acts 32 and 33 of 1954, will be
as f ollows:

5 pounds or less 20 feet below the bottom
Up to 20 pounds 40 feet below the bottom
Up to 30 pounds 50 feet below the bottom
Up to 40 pounds 60 feet below the bottom
Up to 50 pounds 70 feet below the bottom

No part of the charge will be above the minimum depth.

These minimum depths will not apply to trial charges and charges for determining
condition of the weathering layer; provided that such charges are not over -five (5)
pounds and not fired more than absolutely necessary.

Pipe Standards

1) All pipe used in geophysical operations must be removed by the party using such
pipe at least six (6) feet below the bottom or water bed before finally leaving the
shotpoint. 2) All parties using pipe must have clearly stamped at each end of each
joint the name or abbreviation of the name of the company using the pipe. 3) All
pipes, buoys, and other markers used in connection with seismic work will be properly
flagged in the daytime and lighted at night according to the navigation rules of the
U.S. Engineers and Coast Guard.

Discharge and Transportation of Explosives

No explosives will be discharged within 1000 feet of a fishing boat operating in the
lakes, bays, sounds, or other inland waters inside the coast line as designated and
defined by the Federal Government Agents under applicable Acts of Congress, or
within the gulfward boundary of the State of Louisiana, inside the parish of St.
Bernard, as shown by Acts 32 and 33 of the 1954 Louisiana Legislature, without notice
being given to such boat so that it may move from the area.

7-13

No shooting will be allowed in heavy fog due to danger to boats in close proximity.

The use, transportation, and storage of dynamite, caps, and any other type of
explosives will be in accordance with all Federal, state, and parish regulations
pertaining thereto.

Persistent gas and water spouts caused by drilling or shooting operations of seismic
crews will be stopped by permittee as soon as possible after they occur.

No explosives will be discharged within 250 feet of any oyster reef or bed approved by
the Director of the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and the Chief of the Division of
Oysters and Water Bottoms.

Marsh Buggy Operations

Marsh buggy operators must stay within a 200 feet right-of-way, 100 feet on either
side of the shot line. Where possible, efforts will be made to avoid crossing land-
locked marsh ponds where tracks would open ponds to tidal flow. Efforts should be
made to minimize the number of traverses of a single path.

Protection of the Environment

Surveys are to be conducted by Seismic Personnel to provide maximum feasible
protection to the environment except where mutually agreeable mitigating arrange-
ment has been made for specific damages.

No explosives will be discharged in the vicinity of an active bird rookery or nesting
area, nor within the perimeter of a feeding or nesting area of any other species which
is considered endangered or threatened, without the prior written approval of the
State DNR/CMS, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, National Marine Fisheries, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service. Copies of these approvals will be provided to the
parish.

Operations should not disturb any natural or man-made channel or land ownership
markers, and personal permission of each landowner or lessee on whose land a survey is
planned, is required.

7-14

Survey crews are to remove all right-of-way or other markers of any kind, pipes, trash,
litter, and any other foreign objects from the site of their operations upon completion
of operations. Garbage, litter, and sewerage are to be stored according to the
provisions of the health code of the State of Louisiana and regularly disposed of during
operations at a State@-inspected disposal site.

ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING

General

The Department of Safety and Permits has primary authority under the ordinance for
monitoring and enforcement of uses of local concern. Inspectors in the Department
will inspect permitted operations to determine that the activity is being conducted in
accordance with the permit and any conditions which may have been part of the
permit. The Planning Commission staff will assist by reviewing activities encountered
during the course of their normal duties. Observations will be reported to the
Department for verification and enforcement.

The Department has the authority, under the Ordinance, to revoke or suspend permits
and may order a permittee to cease all activities. Violations will be referred to the
parish's District Attorney by either the Department or the Police Jury for prosecution.

Activities Above the 5-Foot Contour or in Fastlands

Under normal conditions, activities occurring at or above the 5-foot contour or in
fastlands do not require a permit. However, if it can be demonstrated by the Planning
Commission that the activity will have a direct and significant impact on areas which
do require permits, such as wetlands or coastal waters, then a permit will be required.
This demonstration will generally involve a showing that the impacts extend beyond
the project site and are somehow carried to other areas. The carrier mechanism
generally involves water, e.g., effluent from the project, or air, e.g., air emissions.
Specific examples are the location of a major facility such as a power plant, a refinery
or chemical plant in fastlands or above the 5-foot elevation which discharge effluents
into the water or air which then impact wetlands or coastal waters. Runoff from
residential areas located in fastlands would constitute another example.

7-15

IMPLEMENTATION

General

Although the permit procedure outlined above constitutes a major means of implemen-
tation of the goals and policies of the St. Bernard Coastal Management Program, there
are other avenues which will be pursued by the Planning Commission and its staff.

Funding Uses

Foremost among these additional avenues is the use of coastal management funding
for various activities designed to strengthen the program. These activities include,
but are not limited to:

1. Studies and reports on various aspects of parish coastal management.
2. Interagency coordination, including the funding of personnel in other parish
agencies, to implement portions of the program.
3. Azency personnel and public education.
4. Implementation of special area management plans.
5. Contract personnel, should the need for such expertise arise.
6. Staff in-house projects designed to improve an element of the program.
7. Routine staff administration.

Mitigation

An additional element of program implementation lies in the use of mitigation
associated with permitted activities which may help to carry out the goals and policies
of the parish. This will be especially important in special management areas and in
wetlands. The principle of mitigation holds that if something of value, e.g., wetlands,
is to be irrevocably harmed by an activity, then the sponsor of the project or activity
should make restitution in an approximately equal amount. The restitution often takes
the form of donated wetlands which are put in public ownership and managed to offset
the loss. Other forms might involve requiring measures for better management of
other wetlands.

Consistency

A final tool for implementation lies in the use of consistency (as contained in the state
and Federal CZM Acts) to require that state and Federal activities and projects be

7-16

consistent with the goals and policies of the St. Bernard Parish Coastal Management
Program. The review for consistency conducted by state and Federal agencies
requires that this document, including all goals, policies, and standards, be considered
by the agencies involved in project planning. This may require modification or
mitigation as part of the project. It will, at a minimum, require notice to the Parish
Planning Commission by the lead state or Federal agency as to how the project or
activity has achieved consistency. If the project scope covers more than one parish, a
copy of the consistency statement, submitted to the State, must be sent to the Parish.

SPECIAL AREAS

Introduction

Special Areas are defined by Act 361 (the State and Local Coastal Resources
Management Act of 1978) in section 213.10 which states:
Special areas are 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, salt water intrusion or the like; unique, scarce,
fragile, vulnerable, highly productive or essential habitat for living
resources; ports or other developments or facilities dependent upon access
to water; recreational areas; freshwater storage areas; and such other
areas as may be determined pursuant to this Section.

Guidelines promulgated pursuant to Act 361 provide that any person or government
body can nominate a special area in the coastal zone providing that they show that the
area has unique and valuable characteristics that require special management proce-
dures. These rules provide for an administrative review of special management areas
by the Administrator of the Coastal Resources Program. The Administrator may,
after public hearings, determine whether or not to designate the area as a special
area. The guidelines and priorities of uses adopted by the Administrator for a
designated special management area must be sent to the Louisiana Coastal
Commission which has sixty days in which to review them. In the event the
Administrator and the Commission are unable to agree on a set of guidelines and
priorities of uses for a designated special area, final resolution will be by the

Governor.

7-17

An incentive for the designation of Special Areas lies in Section 213.10(E) of the Act
which states:

The Secretary is authorized to assist approved local programs and state and
local agencies carrying out projects consistent with the guidelines, related
to the management, development, preservation, or restoration of specific
sites in the coastal zone or to the development of greater use and
enjoyment of the resources of the coastal zone by financial, technical, or
other means, including aid in obtaining f ederal funds.

St. Bernard Parish Designation Procedure

Any person may nominate an area for designation as a Special Area by sending to the
Planning Commission a statement in writing giving the area to be nominated (with a
map), the reasons for nomination, and how the area should be managed. The Planning
Commission may, on its own initiative, nominate an area.

Upon receipt of a nomination the Planning Commission will determine if the area
nominated;
a) is in the coastal zone;
b) has unique and valuable characteristics;
c) requires special management procedures different from the normal coastal
management process; and
d) is to be managed for a purpose of regional, state, or national importance.

If items a) through d) above are fulfilled, the Planning Commission will compile or
develop a concise statement containing:
a) A discussion of the area nominated; including, for example, its unique and
valuable characteristics; its existing uses; the environmental setting; its
history; and the surrounding area.
b) The reasons for the nomination; such as any problems needing correction,
anticipated results, need for special management, and need for protection or
development.
c) The social, economic, and environmental impacts of the nomination.
d) A map showing the area nominated.
e) The reasons why the area nominated was delineated as proposed and not
greater or lesser in size or not in another location.
f) Proposed guidelines and procedures for management of the area, including
priorities of uses.

7-18

g) An explanation of how and why the proposed management program would
achieve the desired results.
h) How and why the designation of the area would be consistent with the state
coastal management program and any affected local programs.
0 Why and how the designation would be in the best interest of the state.

The statement on the proposed special area, with nomination, win be sent to the
Police Jury for their consideration. Notice of the Police Jury's consideration of the
nomination will be published 10 days prior to the Police Jury meeting. If the
nomination is approved by the Police Jury, it will be sent to the Administrator for his
review pursuant to Special Area guidelines (Appendix C4 of the Louisiana Coastal
Resources Program Final EIS).

Designated Areas

Portions of or all of three of the most seriously impacted wetland management units
are herebv recommended to the Administrator for designation as Special Areas
(Figure 7-3) subject to the condition that the parish provide the management program
and be the management agency. The three units are: 1) Management Unit 2 (the
Central Wetlands), but deleting subunit 1; 2) Management Unit 1 (Bienvenue-Proctor
Point Marsh); and 3) Management Unit 4 (Lake Lery). These areas are recommended
for designation due to existing impacts, their nearness to development, and their
potential for restoration. Additionally, the Lake Lery management unit will be
positively impacted by the Caernarvon freshwater diversion project which may require
additions or changes to the management plan. Any such changes will be submitted to
the Administrator for his approval.

The special management plans for these three units are contained in the report: St.
Bernard Parish: A Study in Wetland Management (Wicker et al. 1982). The structural
portions of the management plans will be implemented through grants, mitigation, or

other means.

Highest priority uses for these three units are all non-destructive uses, such as fishing
and trapping, while lowest priority are destructive uses such as dredging. A list of
permissible uses for each unit is contained in Chapter VI of this report.

Iish
W-d St Jo,eph Po-
Lake Pontchartrain 6 earl . . @ - - - - - -0-*1 % , 11
River is AIP
A- We a.. P.1"
South Point Grand Island

Gr@
Di

at ne Po..tth-ede
I e f Shelf Po..t Malhe,,e,. Po,ni a,., 1- "al,d
it w

Alf,gato, P-t
1-h Wand

Lake Borgne
5t-.
Po-ht a- Ma'Chefte,

arhn lSland

e Ro.1t

io S si-d

\C-f.d Wand

3fL
A.
44
elaer I
P-1 L,d,. Old Harbor
sland Shoal

0 Gard- w.>

-t Gard-
-t Fo,h-
Mp.
OM
PLAQUEMINES PARISH Errol
Shoal

Figure 7-3. Areas recommended for designation as special areas.

7-20

PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF USES OF GREATER

THAN LOCAL BENEFIT OR IMPACTS

Introduction

Many activities and uses which occur in St. Bernard Parish are of a magnitude such
that they are of interest and concern to regional, state, and Federal governmental
entities. These activities have benefits or impacts which extend beyond parish
boundaries and which may have overlapping local, regional, state, and/or Federal
jurisdiction and responsibilities.

While parish governing bodies will require full consultation and consideration in the
implementation of such uses and activities, they recognize other agency responsibil-
ities and jurisdictions.

The uses being discussed here generally fall into three categories: national interest,
state interest, and uses of regional benefit (URB).

National interests are expressed in congressional legislation and are thoroughly defined
in Chapter VI of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (CRP) Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). They are generally expressed in terms of the affected

resource and are:
1) Air and Water Quality
2) Wetlands and Endangered Species
3) Flood Plains and Barrier Islands
4) Historic and Cultural Resources
5) Fisheries and Other Living Marine Resources

Uses of state concern are clearly expressed in Act 361 of 1978, as amended, are
contained in Section 213.5A(l) and generally include:

1) Uses of state concern: 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 will
include, but not 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.

7-21

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 trans-
mission of oil, gas, and other minerals.
h) Energy facility siting and development.
0 Uses of local concern which may significantly affect
interest of regional, state or national concern.

Uses of Regional Benefit are those which affect more than one parish or state and
generally include:

1) Interstate natural gas transmission pipelines.
2) Major state or Federal transportation facilities such as highways
and expressways.
3) Major state or Federal transportation facilities such as deepwater
ports and navigation projects.
4) Public wildlife and fisheries management projects.
5) Public utility or cooperative energy generating plants.
6) State parks and beaches and other state-owned recreational
facilities.

Requirements

Act 361 requires that local programs have "Special procedures and methods for
considering uses within special areas, uses of greater than local benefit, and uses
affecting the state and national interest" (Section 213.9C(3)(c). The purpose of the
requirement can be traced to a goal of the Act " ... to ensure that appropriate
consideration is given to uses of regional, state, or national importance, energy
facility siting and the national interest in coastal resources" (Section 213.8(c)(12). The
requirement also has roots in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
which states "Prior to granting approval, the Secretary will also find that the program
provides ... for a method of assuring that local land and water use regulations within the
coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional
benefit" (Section 306(e)(2).

The point of the exercise is to insure that local programs have procedures which give
adequate consideration to regional, state, and Federal activities and not arbitrarily
restrict such uses. This does not mean that local governments must acquiese to
regional, state, or Federal entities, but rather that they give objective and compre-
hensive consideration to the proposed activities or use before arriving at a decision.

7-22

Procedures

In-submitting its permit application, the sponsoring entity of a use or activity which
purports to be a use of regional, state, or national interest or benefit will note that
fact on the permit application. This will reserve the right of the sponsoring agency to
make a formal presentation to the Planning Commission staff before it arrives at a
recommendation. The Department of Safety and Permits will not issue the permit
until the presentation, if requested by the sponsor, has been made. If the decision is
adverse, the sponsor may appeal to the Police Jury and has the right to make a
presentation. The sponsor may then appeal to the Louisiana Coastal Commission if it
desires. This procedure insures a full and comprehensive hearing opportunity for the
project and further insures that the project is not unreasonably restricted.

INTERAGENCY COORDINAINON

During implementation a number of different approaches will be used to insure that
affected agencies at the local, state, and Federal levels are kept informed of pertinent
local activities and that their concerns are given adequate consideration. Activities of
other agencies which require coastal use permits will be reviewed through the
procedures discussed in Procedures for the Consideration of Uses of Greater than
Local Benefit or Impacts above. However, it is the intent of the St. Bernard CMP to
coordinate as early as possible in agency planning to insure that parish concerns are
addressed at an early stage of project planning. In this manner, consistency of agency
activities with the St. Bernard CMP will be much easier to achieve than if it is
addressed late in the life of the project or not at all.

To achieve this goal of early coordination of multiagency jurisdictions and projects,
the St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission hereby requests that all agencies
undertaking activities which may affect or impact St. Bernard Parish notify the
Commission of their intentions, uses, or projects, and actively involve the parish in
agency planning. The St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission is on the Federal
Regional Council's mailing list, receives the minutes of their meetings, and attends
when they're held in New Orleans.

An integral part of the Coastal Management Program is the St. Bernard marsh
management plan (Wicker et al. 1.982), a strategy to arrest deterioration of the
wetlands through structural and nonstructural measures. In the implementation of this
project, the St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission will strive to solicit participation

7-23

from all appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. An example of this effort was
demonstrated when the Planning Commission obtained the necessary permits for
construction of three water-control structures in the central wetlands. Federal and
state agencies, with respective areas of expertise, became actively involved. Discus-
sions of potential problems resulted in a few design changes and the development of a
pre- and post-contruction monitoring program. The St. Bernard Parish Planning
Commission will supply quarterly reports to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and National Marine Fisheries Service. These will
include continuous water level data and the results from a monthly sampling program.
This procedure will be followed throughout this project and is an example of the type
of agency coordination which works to the benefit of all.

In anticipation of the potential economic development activities of the St. Bernard
Port, Harbor and Terminal District, a memorandum of understanding is also being
prepared. Although the activities will fall under section 213.13 of Act 361 "Deep
water port commissions and deep water port, harbor, and terminal districts, as defined
in Article 6, Sections 43 and 44 of the Louisiana Constitution in 1974, shall not be
required to obtain coastal use permits. Provided, however, that their activities shall
be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the state program and affected
approved local programs." This memorandum will facilitate coordination during early
planning stages and thereby achieve consistency requirements.

To insure that multiparish coordination occurs, memorandums of understanding are
being executed with both the St. Tammany Parish Coastal Program and the City of
New Orleans Coastal Program. This will formalize our commitment to discuss
projects having multiparish impacts and will involve projects with uses of local
concern or state concern, as well as those of regional and national interest. The St.
Bernard Parish Planning Commission has reviewed the Coastal Zone Management Plan
of both parishes. Staff will develop and maintain regular routine contacts in all three
adjacent parishes including attending meetings in those parishes and inviting
participation in St. Bernard deliberations.

In the consideration of permit applications determined to have multiparish environ-
mental impacts, the Planning Commission staff a.lso will notify and discuss appropriate
recommendations with the Coastal Management Programs of the affected parishes.
Any agreed upon recommendations will be incorporated into the environmental review
submitted to the Department of Safety and Permits. Should it be decided that the
project's potential impacts would be of concern to another governmental agency, their

7-24

advice will be solicited and their comments incorporated into the environmental
review. This interagency coorporation will result in an increase in the quality of
technical and scientific information available for the environmental assessment of a
permit application.

The procedure described in Procedures for the Consideration of Uses of Greater than
Local Benefit or Impacts above in this section will insure adequate consideration and
coordination of projects or activities having regional, state, or national interest. It is,
in essence, a coordination and information dissemination mechanism.

CHAPTER VHI: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

PAST EFFORTS

St. Bernard Parish has been active in Coastal Resource Planning since the inception of
the local program's component in late 1976. Since that time, an advisory committee
composed of a balance of conservation and development interests has been in official
existence and has met regularly in open session. Through this mechanism, the parish
governing body has insured that all viewpoints are represented and heard. Indeed, the
public participation efforts of the parish are a model of local involvement.

Numerous presentations to the Police Jury by the Planning Commission staff,
consultants, state and local officials, and others in open session on coastal manage-
ment matters over the years have made CZM a by-word in the parish. Grants, both
Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) and program development, have been widely
publicized, and numerous technical reports have been completed and circulated. The
Violet Siphon project received considerable publicity as a freshwater diversion model
which other local governments could emulate in implementing projects requiring state,
Federal, and local coordination. Planning commission staff members have made many
presentations to schools, civic organizations, and other parish agencies as part of their
work schedules. Newspapers in the parish have routinely carried coastal management-
related activities in their pages further insuring that the word was spread.

These ef forts by the parish, coupled with state level public participation endeavors,
insure that adequate program exposure has occurred and that all interested parties
have been afforded an opportunity to participate.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION UNDER AN APPROVED

LOCAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Citizen input into the CMP will be primarily through the Coastal Advisory Committee
which will continue to function in its present format. The committee will be the
initial public forum for planning activities, grant requests, and review of development
plans as they relate to coastal management. The Planning Commission staff will
present coastal-related planning and grant matters to the advisory committee for their
advice and will incorporate their suggestions into coastal management activities as
much as is feasible.

8-1

8-2

Other forms of public participation will involve notices and hearings pursuant to
Article 8 of the ordinance and the appeal process (Article 12). In addition, the
Planning Commission staff will report periodically to the Police Jury on progress under
the CMP.

Additional public education and feedback will occur through presentations to groups
within the parish by the Planning Commission staff and by distribution of materials
and reports to all concerned citizens.

REFERENCES

American Public Health Association
1960 Planning for the Neighborhood. Chicago, Illinois.

Burk and Associates, Inc. (B & A I)
1976 Unique Ecological Features of the Louisiana Coast. Prepared for
Louisiana State Planning Office, Coastal Resources Program, Baton
Rouge.

1977a Recreational Potential Along the Louisiana Coast; Proposed New and
Expanded Sites for Recreation. Prepared for Louisiana State Planning
Office, Coastal Resources Program, Baton Rouge.

1977b Potential Preservation and Restoration Areas in the Louisiana Wetlands.
Prepared for Louisiana State Planning Office, Coastal Resources
Program, Baton Rouge.

1978a Coastal Zone Land Use Plan, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Prepared for
St. Bernard Parish Police Jury.

1978b Louisiana Coastal Resources Atlas, St. Bernard Parish. Prepared for
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge.
54 pp.

1979 Coastal Zone Management Plan, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Prepared
for St. Bernard Parish Police Jury.

Chabreck, R. H., and G. Linscombe
1978 Vegetative Type Map of the Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Louisiana
Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Baton Rouge.

Coastal Environments, Inc. (CEI)
1972 Environmental Baseline Study. Prepared for St. Bernard Parish Police
Jury.

1973 Environmental Considerations of an Expanded Mississippi River-Gulf
Outlet. Prepared for St. Bernard Parish Police Jury. Vol. 1.

1976 Resource Management: The St. Bernard Parish Wetlands, Louisiana.
Prepared for St. Bernard Parish Police Jury.

1977 Environmental Impact Assessment of the Freshwater Siphon at Violet, St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Prepared for St. Bernard Parish Police Jury.

R-1

R-2

Coastal Environments, Inc.
1979 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Wetland Management Program,
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. A Program to Arrest Wetland
Deterioration and Enhance Fish, Wildlife, and Recreational Resources.
Prepared for St. Bernard Parish Police Jury. Unpublished.

1980 Environmental Assessment of Water Control Structures for Flood Control,
Forty Arpent Canal, Violet to Verret, St. Bernard Parish. Prepared for St.
Bernard Parish Police Jury.

1982 Recommendations for Freshwater Diversion to Louisiana Estuaries East of
the Mississippi River. Prepared for Coastal Management Section,
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge. In press.

Coleman, J. M. and S. M. Gagliano
1964 Cyclic Sedimentation in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. Louisiana
State University, Coastal Studies Institute, Technical Report No. 16.
Baton Rouge.

Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism
1981 Louisiana State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Part 1.
Information Base for Executive Decision. Office of Program
Development.

Department of Housing and Urban Development
1975 Flood Hazard Boundary Map and Flood Insurance Rate Map. Federal
Insurance Administration. Department of Urban and Community Affairs,
Baton Rouge.

Eardley, A. J.
1962 Structural Geology of North America. Harper and Row, New York.

Frazier, D. E.
1967 Recent Deltaic Deposits of the Mississippi River: Their Development and
Chronology. Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies
17.

Gagliano, S. M., R. Muller, P. Light, and M. Alawady
1970 Water Balance in Louisiana Estuaries. Louisiana State University, Coastal
Studies Institute and Department of Marine Sciences, Hydrologic and
Geologic Studies of Coastal Louisiana, Report 3.

Gagliano, S. M., R. Weinstein, and E. Burden
1978 Preliminary Study of the Cultural Resources of the St. Bernard Parish
Wetlands, Louisiana, An Approach to Management. Prepared for St.
Bernard Parish Police Jury.

R-3

Gagliano, S. M., D. Wiseman, R. Weinstein, and K. McCloskey
1979 Cultural Resources Survey of the Mississippi River -Gulf Outlet, Orleans
and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New Orleans District.

Gagliano, S. M., R. Weinstein, E. Burden, K. Brooks, and W. Glander
1979 Cultural Resources Survey of the Barataria, Segnette, and Rigaud
Waterways, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New Orleans District.

Gagliano, S. M., K. J. Meyer-Arendt, and K. M. Wicker
1981 Land loss in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. Transactions, Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies 17:287-315.

Gagliano, S. M., C. Pearson, R. Weinstein, D. Wiseman, C. McClendon
1982 Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Criteria for the
Identification of Submerged Archaeological Sites of the Northern Gulf of
Mexico Continental Shelf. Preservation Planning Series. Prepared for
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Guillory, V., C. Hocutt, and J. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 Endangered Freshwater Fishes of the Southeastern United States.
Proceedings: Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
3 2(1-97-9-):70 3-714.

Lindsey, J., K. Patterson, and A. Bertrand
1976 Citizen Perception of Coastal Area Planning and Development: A Study of
the Attitudes and Knowledge of Louisianans. Center for Wetland
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
1978 A Guide to Wildlife Management Areas. Wildlife Education Bulletin 116.

1979 Unpublished data. Seafood Division, Survey Section. July.

Louisiana State Planning Office
1982 St. Bernard Parish Data Bank. P.O. Box 44426, Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Geological Survey
1981 Oil and Gas Map of Louisiana. Department of Natural Resources, Baton
Rouge.

Lowery, G. H.
1974a Louisiana Birds. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

1974b The Mammals of Louisiana and Its Adjacent Waters. Louisiana State
University Press, Baton Rouge.

Mangum, A.
1978 Personal communication. Letter with enclosure, "Soil Mapping Units that
Meet the Criteria for Prime Farmland." State Conservationist, Soil
Conservation Service, Alexandria.

R-4

McFatter, D. L.
n.d. Threatened, Endangered or Possibly Extinct Vascular Plants in Louisiana.
Louisiana Forestry Commission, Baton Rouge. Unpublished list.

Morgan, J. P.
1972 Impact of Subsidence and Erosion on Louisiana Coastal Marshes and
Estuaries. In Coastal Marsh and Estuary Management. Louisiana State
University @-chool of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Baton Rouge.

Newman, C. J., G. W. Cry, E. L. Caso, and B. R. Jarvinen
1978 Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean 1871-1977: NOAA.
National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina. p. 170.

Office of Conservation
1978 Louisiana Annual Oil and Gas Report. Department of Natural Resources,
R. T. Sutton, Commissioner.

Office of State Planning
1982 Parish Data Bank, Computer Print Out, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

O'Neil, Ted
1949 The Muskrat in Louisiana. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission,
New Orleans.

Planning Services Incorporated
1962 The Comprehensive Plan, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, Population and
Economic Study. Prepared for St. Bernard Parish Police Jury.

Regional Planning Commission
1978 The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Area Wide Plan. Jefferson,
Orleans, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes.

Roberts, D.
1980 Hydrology Supplement to the Environmental Assessment of Water Control
Structures for Flood Control, Forty Arpent Canal, Violet to Verret, St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Coastal Environments, Inc. Unpublished.

Segal, H. S., G. A. Saussy, F. M. Wrighton, D. C. Wilcox, and R. L. Burford
1976 Projections to the Year 2,000 of Louisiana Population and Households.
Division of Business and Economic Research, College of Business
Administration, University of New Orleans.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
1970 General Soils Map, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, SCS, Alexandria, Louisiana.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1970 Inventory of Basic Environmental Data, New Orleans - Baton Rouge
Metropolitan Area. Prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer Topographic
Laboratories, Washington, D.C.

R-5

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1974 Deep Draft Access to the Ports of New Orleans and Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, Draft Environmental Statement. U.S. Army Engineer District,
New Orleans.

1980 Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activity. Extract
Reports of the Lower Mississippi Valley Division and Mississippi River
Commission, Fiscal Year 1980.

1981 Engineeri g Section Chalmette Area Plan - Chalmette Extension
Hurricane Protection Project,_Verret Borrow Area Mitigation Plan. New
Orleans District, Engineering Section.

U.S. Department of Commerce
1980 Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Proposed Louisiana
Coastal Resources Program. Prepared by Office of Coastal Zone
Management and Louisiana Coastal Resources Program, Baton Rouge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1980 Endangered and Threatened �pecies of the Southeastern United States.
Region 4, Atlanta.

Weinstein, Richard
1982 Personal communication, Senior Archaeologist, Coastal Environments,
Inc., Baton Rouge.

Wicker, K. M.
1980 The Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region Ecological Characterization: A
Habitat Mapping Study. A User's Guide to the Habitat Map . U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 78-07. Slidell, Louisiana. 45 pp.

1981 Habitat Degradation and Management Alternatives in St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana. In Proceedings - Seventh Annual Coastal Society Meeting,
Galveston. in-press.

1982 Personal communication, Senior Geographer, Coastal Environments, Inc.,
Baton Rouge.

Wicker, K. M. et al.
1980 The Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region Habitat Mapping Study. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Slidell, Louisiana. FWS/OBS - 79/07. 464 maps and
areal measurements.

Wicker, K. M., G. Castille, D. Davis, D. Roberts, D. Sabins, R. Weinstein
1982 St. Bernard Parish: A Study in Wetland Management. Prepared for St.
Bernard Parish Police Jury, Baton Rouge. In Press.

Wiseman, D., R. Weinstein, and K. McCloskey
1979 Cultural Resources Survey of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, New
Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. Prepared for the U.S. Army
Corps o Engineers, New Orleans District. Contract No. DACW 29-77-D-
0272.

AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE ST. BERNARD PARISH
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEKENT PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR
THE REGULATION AND CONTROL OF COASTAL USES OF
LOCAL CONCERN.

BE IT ORDAINED, by the St. Bernard Parish Police Jury, the
governing authority of said Parish:

ARTICLE I - PURPOSE

SECTION 1: The St. Bernard Parish Coastal Zone Management
Ordinance is hereby enacted. The purpose of this ordinance is
to implement a Coastal Zone Management Plan that will maintain
a balance between conservation and coastal use in St. Bernard
Parish.

SECTION 2: This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the state
and local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (Act 361). This
Act establishes the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program which
allowed for a coastal use permitting system to be created at both
state and parish levels of government. This ordinance establishes
a coastal use permitting system for St. Bernard Parish.

SECTION 3: The Parish of St. Bernard does hereby certify that
the Local Coastal Zone Management Plan adopted pursuant to La. R.S.
49:213, its guidelines, rules and regulations, is consistent with
the Louisiana Coastal RLsources Program, its policies and objectives,
and that the Parish of St. Bernard Local Coastal Zone Management
Plan shall be interpreted and administered consistently with such
policies, objectives, and guidelines.

ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS

SECTION 1: .Coastal use-of local concern - shall mean any use
or activity within the coastal zone whicYi his- a direct and signifi-
cant impact an coastal waters, but is not a use of state concern
and should be regulated at the local level.

SECTION 2: Coastal Zone - shall mean that area defined in the
State of Louisian_a__R_.-S-._V9_-M3.4, as amended and 213.3(4) and includes
all of St. Bernard Parish.
SECTION 3: D:Partm n Safety and Permits - shall mean the
i spons% t 01 0
local department , le r receiving and ruling on Coastal
use permit application.

SECTION 4: Environmental Review - shall be an analysis to
determine if the proposed coastar -use is consistent with:

1) achieving the management unit goals of the appropriate
unit

2) achieving the overall management goals

3) the statement of policy
SECTION 5: Esviry - shall mean a semi -c los edscoastal body
of water which ha s ree connection with the open ea within
which freshwater measurabl y dilutes sea water.
SECTION 6: Aguieved ParLy - shall meantany person adversely
affected by any p erm t action taken pursuant o this ordinance.

SECTION 7: Manaremept Goals - shall mean the gonla developed
Y po ic_y_-wfiY_ch shall assist the parish in de-
from the statement o no,
veloping a coastal zone minuigement plan.
SECTION 8: Management Unit Goals - shall mean the goals for
each unique management unit daveloped by working within the frame-
work of the management goals and the statement of policy.

SECTION 9: Person - shall menn any individual, corporation,
partnership, association, municipality or political subdivision
of local or state government.

SECTION 10: Statement of Policy - shall mean the position of
St.. Bernard Par i sh-T-e-g--a-r-ding the management of its coastal resources.
from which is formulated the management goals and management unit
goals.

SECTION 11: Uses of State Concern - shall mean 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 re-
gional, state or national concern.

SECTION 12: Variance - shall mean a modification of the literal
provisions of this ord-inance granted when strict enforcement of this
ordinance would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique
to the property on which the variance is sought. A variance shall
not be granted except where is shown that:

1) exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist, and
2) there will be ho detriment to the coastal zone management
plan or to neighboring landowner rights.
SECTION 13: Wetland - shall mean any low lands which are gen-
erally covered with measureable amounts of water, such as marshes,
swamps, wet meadows, sloughs, and river overflow lands, and are
capable of supporting characteristic wetland vegetation.

SECTION 14: Administrator - shall mean the administrator of
the Coastal Management S@_ction within the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources.

SECTION 15: Fastlands - are lands surrounded by publicly owned,
maintained or otbe7@7@isevaUdly existing levees, or natural formation,
as of the effective date of this ordinance or as may be lawfully
constructed in the future, which levees or natural formations would
normally prevent activites, not to include the pumping of non-toxic
water for drainage purposes, within the surrounded area from having
direct and significant impacts on coastal waters.

ARTICLE 3 - POLICY

SECTION 1: The policy reasons for developing a coastal zone
management plan for St. Bernard are:

1) To promote the health, safety, convenience and general
welfare of the inhabitants of the Parish of St. Bernard.

2) To bring about the coordinated, efficient and economical
development of the Parish.

3) To protect, develop, and, where feasible, restore and
enhance its resources.

4) To support and encourage multiple use of resources con-
sistent with maintenance and enhancement of renewable
resource management and productivity; with the need to
provide for adequate economic growth and development:
and with minimization of adverse effects of one resource
use upon another without imposing undue restrictions on
any user.

5) To develop and implement management programs which art-
bsio4ed on consideration of the resources, environment,
Land needs of the people of St. Bernnrd Parish.

6) To establish goals and plans for St. Bernard Parish, based
oit economic, environmental and social needs which will
y,ulde activity in conformance to this Statement of Policy.
7) To establish separate guidelines for wetlands which recog-
nize that:

a) The wetlands of St. Bernard Parish. although part
of a larger estuarine ecosystem, strectching from
Lake Maurepas to the Chandeleur Islands, consist
of a series of distinct geographic units. These
units have been combined into appropriate districts
to facilitate management of these areas.

b) Individual permissible uses for each wetland manage-
ment unit are based an a balance of economic. environ-
mental. and social priorities and needs for each area.
c) The primary goal for future use of Parish wetlands
is to maintain them in their natural condition and to
@estore, when possible, those areas that have deter-
3-orated due to natural and cultural factors. A major
aspect of these restoration activities should be the
preservation of the Parish's archaeological and his-
torical resources. Maximum utilization of the renewable
and non-renewable resources of the wetlands is encouraged
so long as high productivity is maintained and the
ecological -balance of the wetlands if not further dis-
rupted.

ARTICLE 4 - MANAGEMENT GOALS

SECTION 1: TheManagement Goals for the Coastal Zone of St.
Bernard are designed to achieve the policy aims. The management
goals are:
1) Attain proper use of Parish resources through a balance
of conservation and development.

2) Identify areas with unique characteristics and develop
methods to maintain them.

3) Determine the degree of development intensity suitable
for all areas of the Parish.

4) Enhance the biologically productive and physically protective
aspects of the Parish's wetland environment,

5) Enhance cultural and recreational opportunities in the
Parish by the development of ecologically sensitive facili-
ties within the context of a comprehensive program.

ARTICLE 5 - COASTAL USES REQUIRING A PERMIT

SECTION 1: A coastal use permit shall be required for a coastal
use of local concern. as defined in the State and Local Coastal Re-
sources Management Act of 1978 (Act 361). Uses or activities occuring
in areas 5 feet or more above mean sea level or in fastlands do not
require a coastal use permit, unless it can be shown that the use or
activity has a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. Uses
of local concern include, but are not limited to:

I ) Privately funded projects which are not Uses Of state
coricern,

2) Publicly funded projects which are not uses of State
concern,

3) Maintenance of uses of local concern.

4) Jetties or breakwaters,

5) Dredge or fill projects not intersecting more than 1
water body,

6) Bulkheads,

7) Piers,

8) Camps and cattlewalks,

9) Maintenance dredging,

10) Private water control structures less than 15,000 in cost,

11) Uses on Cheniers, Salt domes, or similar land forms,

12) Any other coastal uses which directly and significantly
affect coastal waters, and are in need of coastal manage-
ment but are not uses of state concern and which should
be regulated primarily at the local level. The St. Bernard
Parish Police Jury shall have the power to add other coastal
uses to this Ust as recommended by the Department of Safety
and Permits and the Planning Commission.

ARTICLE 6: ADMINISTRATION

SECTION 1: Any person who intends to conduct an activity in
the coastal zone that is a coastal use of local concern must first
apply for a coastal use permit from the St. Bernard Parish Depart-
ment of Safety and Permits.

SECT10N 2: The Planning Commission of St. Bernard Parish shall
conduct an environmental review of each application for a coastal
use permit. In conducting the environmental review the Planning
Commission or its staff shall;

1) determine whether or not the proposed coastal use is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal
Zone Management Plan of St. Bernard.

2) Determine whether or not the proposed coastal use is con-
sistent with the management unit goals of the unit where
the coastal use will occur.

3) Based upon the effect of the proposed coastal use on the
environment as deter-mined by the policies. management goals
and the appropriate management unit goal, the Planning
Commission shall issue either a 1) favorable 2) unfavorable,
or 3) favorable with modifications, environmental review
to the Department of Safety and Permits.

SECTION 3: The Department of Safety and Permits shall grant.
deny or grant with modifications the coastal use permi t applications
based on the dnvironmental review by the Planning Commission and
shall have the authority to monitor activites in the Parish to ensure
that the terms and conditions of the permit are being carried

out and is enpowered utider articles 13 and 14 to revoke or cui;pend
permits and seek penalties.

ARTICLE 7: PROCEDURE FOR PERMIT APPLICATION

SECTION 1: The following procedure shall be followed in
applying for a coastal use permit:

1) All applications shall be made on a form designated
by the Department of Safety and Permits.
2) All applications shall be submitted to the St. Bernard
Department of Safety and Permits.

3) All applications shall be accompanied by the following:

a) The application fee, based on the estimated cost
of the proposed coastal use as determined below:

Cost of Project Fee

0-4,999.00 $20.00 (Twenty)
5,000 - 24,999.00 $50.00 (Fifty)
25,000 99,999.00 $100.00 (One Hundred)
100,000 above $500.00 (Five Hundred)

b) Maps showing the location, size, and dimension of the
real property used and access routes to be used.

c) Copies of all applications, approvals and/or denials
made concerning the coastal use by State or Federal
agencies.
d) A detailed description of the coastal use activity.
e) An acceptable surety bond of $5,000 to ensure adjustment,
alteration or removal should the Department of Safety
and Permits determine it necessary may be required.

ARTICLE 8: PERMIT PROCEDURE - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

SECTION 1: Within two (2) working days of receipt of a coastal
use permit application, the Department of Safety and Permits in con-
junction with the Planning Commission staff shall:
1) Deter-mine whether or not the proposed coastal use is one.
of state or local conern, and

2) Send this determination together with a copy of the appli-
cation and all attachments to the Administrator of the
Coastal Management Section within the Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources.

SECTION 2: Within ten (10) days of receipt of a coastal use
permit application, the Department of Safety and Permits shall publish
notice of such bpplication in the official journal of the Police
Jury, stating the nature of the proposed coastal use, and estimated
cost. The notice shall state that all interested persons may make
comments or suggestions in writing concerning the application to the
Department of Safety and Permits within twenty-five (25) days of this
publication.

SECTION 3: A public hearing on a coastal use Permit application
shall be held ift

a) there is significant public opposition to a proposed coastal
uue or

b) it is requested by local or state government officials, or

c) ten (10) or more interested persons residing in the Parish
make a written request for a public hearing within fifteen
(15) days of the date of publication of the notice to the
application.

SECTION 4: Public notice shall be given at least thirty (30)
days in advance of a public hearing. Notice shall be given to all
interested persons and shall contain the time, place, and nature of
the hearing and the location of materials available for public in-
spection.

SECTION 5: The Department of Safety and Permits shall make a
decision on the coastal use permit application within thirty (30)
days from the receipt of the permit application unless a public bear-
ing is held, in which case the decision shall be within ninety (90)
days. The Department shall either grant, deny or grant with modifi-
cations the coastal use permit application. If the permit is denied
or granted with modifications, the applicant shall be informed in
writing of the reasons for this action.

SECTION 6: All decisions made pursuant to this ordinance shall
be published in the official journal of the Police Jury within seven
(7) days after said decision has been made, and all decisions shall
be made a part of the official Police Jury Record.

SECTION 7: Permits issued under this Article shall take effect
seven (7) days after issuance.
SECTION 8: 'The permittee shall notify the Department of Safety
and Permit- in writing within two (2) days of commencement of work
and again two (2) days before completion of the project.

SECTION 9: Permits issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be
available for public inspection during the business hours of the
Department of Safety and Permits.

ARTICLE 9: TERM OF PERMIT

SECTION 1: A coastal use permit shall remain in effect for
one (1) year from the effective date of the coastal use permit.
SECTION 2: The Department of Safety and Permits can grant
a coastal use permit for a longer period of time. if conclusive evi-
dence is shown that the coastal use will continue for more than a
year under ordinary circumstances.

SECTION 3: A coasta 1 use permit may be renewed for a period of
time not to exceed the duration of the first issuance of the coastal
use permit, as granted by the Department of Safety and Permits under
Section I or Section 2. To receive a renewal the applicant must show:

1) that substantial progress is being made or
2) that events beyond his control have hampered the progress
of the coastal use in order to receive a renewal of the
coastal use permit.

ARTICLE 10i SPECIAL PERMIT

SECTION 1: The Department of Safety and Permits after cunuulta-
tion and written comment from the Planning Commission may issue a
special permit in variance with the provisions of the Ordinance when
it determines that a strict application of this Ordinance will cause
undue hardship. Such permit shall not be issued unless the Depart-
ment of Safety and Permits makes written findings that:

1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
apply to the subject property which do not apply to other
properties within the coastal zone, and

2) The special permit will not be detrimental to the coastal
zone management program and/or neighboring landowner rights.
SECTION 2: A permit issued under this section shall not take
effect until fourteen (14) days after issuance thereof.

ARTICLE 11: EMERGENCY COASTAL USE PERMITS

SECTION 1: An emergency is a grave situation that poses an
immediate danger to life, health or property. An emergency coastal
use permit is usually for corrective action that cannot await one
of the other permit processes.

SECTION 2: An application for an emergency coastal use permit
may be made by letter (when possible) or by telephone or in person
to the Department of Safety and Permits Office. The nature of the
emergency and the propoped coastal use must be described.

SECTION 3: The Department of Safety and Permits shall deter-
mine if an emergency exists. If an emergency exists and the Planning
Commission determines that the proposed coastal use is consistent
with the policy and goals of the Coastal Zone Management Plan, an
emergency coastal use permit shall be granted. The emergency coastal
use permit shall remain in effect only as long as the Department of
Safety and Permits determines an emergency- situation exists.

SECTION 4: A coastal use permit application on an approved
form must be filed with the Department of Safety and Permits within
seven (7) working days of the approval of the emergency permit. Once
a7 emergency situation terminates, the coastal use permit applica-
t@on is subject to the normal filing requirements and the normal en-
viron.ental review based on the Policies and management goals as
stated in Articles 3, 4, and 5.

SECTION 5: The Department of Safety and Permits shall prepare
a written report on all emergency coastal use permits issued. This
report shall be submitted to the Police Jury and remain available
for public inspection.

ARTICLE 12: APPEAL

SECTION 1: Any aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the
Department of Safety and Permits concerning a coastal use permit.
The appeals shall be made in writing to the St. Bernard Parish Police
Jury within ten (10) days of the Depar*tment of Safety and Permits's
decision. If a permit grant is appealed, the Police Jury may sus-
pend the permit until the appea 1 has been decided.
SECTION 2: The appeal hearing shall be held within fifteen (15)
days of the date of receipt of the appeal and notice of such appeal
hearing shall be given by publication in the official journal of
the Police Jury not less than five (5) days prior to the bearing.

SECTION 3: In all appeal hearings by the Police Jury the
@oastal use permit application shall be examined to determine if it
is consistent with appropriate management unit goals and management
goals. The coastal use shall also be examined in light of the

policy aims of the St. Bernard Coastal Zone Management Plan. The
decision of the Department of Safety and Permits and the Planning
Commission shall be regarded as prima facie correct, and the burden
of establishing the contrary shall be on the appellant.

SECTION 4: The Police Jury shall decide an appeal within seven
(7) days of the appeal hearing and notice of said decision shall be
made by publication in the official journal of the Police Jury. The
decision of the Police Jury including the Department of Safety and
Permits decision as to whether the use is one of state or local con-
cern, may be appealed to the Louisiana Coastal Commission.

ARTICLE 13: SUSPENSION, REVOCATION

SECTION 1: A permit shall be suspended for noncompliance or for
violation of the permit and/or this ordinance. The permittee shall
be notified of the suspension by the Department of Safety and Permits
and the reasons for it, and be ordered to cease all activities author-
ized under the coastal use permit. The notice shall advise the
permittee that he will be given ten (10) days from receipt-@of the
notice to respond to the reasons given for the suspension.

SECTION 2: If the permittee fails to -respond lhis,,coastaltuse
permit shall be revoked and he shall be notified of the revocation.

SECTION 3: If the permittee responds to the suspension, the
Department of Safety and Permits shall reinstate, modify, or revoke
the permit within ten (10) days of receipt of the response. The
permittee shall be notified of the action taken.

ARTICLE 14: PENALTIES

SECTION 1: A violation or a failure to comply with the pro-
visions of this ordinance shall be p=isbable by a fine of not less
than $500.00 dollars, or by imprisionment for not more than 90 days,
or both.

SECTION 2: Each day a violation or a failure to comply occurs,
a separate offense is committed.

SECTION 3: A person who violates or fails to comply with the
provisions of this ordinance may be required to restore the affected
areas to its condition prior to the illegal coastal use.

ARTICLE 15: SEVERABILITY

SECTION 1: This ordinance is severable. If any part is de-
clared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ordinance shall not
be affected.

ARTICLE 16: EFFECTIVE DATE

SECTION 1: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days
after approval of the St. Bernard Parish Coastal Management Program
by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.

EXTRACT OF THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE POLICE JURY OF THE
PARISH OF ST. BERNARD, STATE OF LOUISIANA, TAKEN AT A REGULAR
MEETING HELD AT CHALMETTE, LOUISIANA, IN THE POLICE JURY CHAMBERS
ON TUESDAY OCTOBER 5. 1982 AT ELEVEN OICLOCK A.M.

On motion of Mr. Henderson, seconded by Mr. Licciardi, it was moved to adopt
the following Resolution:

RESOLUTION 122-82

WHEREAS, St. Bernard Parish and its residents have derived great benefit from
the renewable resources of the Coastal Wetlands within the parish's boundaries since
prehistoric times; and

WHEREAS, the impact of man's activities and natural forces have been
demonstrated to be bringing about deleterious effect on said renewable resources when
unmanaged; and

WHEREAS, the Parish Police Jury, being aware of the deterioration of the
wetlands, has actively pursued and utilized Federal, State and Local monies to plan for
and implement management activities beneficial to the parish wetlands since 1976;
and

WHEREAS, a draft of the St. Bernard Parish Coastal Management Document was
adopted as a Policy Statement by the Police Jury in 1979; and

WHEREAS, the State of Louisiana has had its Coastal Management Plan (as
delineated by Act 361 of 1978 and amendments) approved by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management pursuant to Federal statutes and guidelines of its resources; and

WHEREAS, the Parish Police Jury is desirous to fulfill its obligation to protect
the health and welfare of its residents through 'Wise multiple use management of its
resources; and

WHEREAS, a revised draft document entitled the St. Bernard Parish Coastal
Management Program Document has been prepared for the parish for submission to the
administrator of the State Department of Natural Resoruces/Coastal Management
Section for the purpose of obtaining and approved local programs, with all tl.-ie
benefits, authorities and obligations attached thereto; and

WHEREAS, said program document contains a policy, management goals and
performance standards consistent with achieving protection and enhancement of the
parish's wetlands and resources, securing health and welfare of the citizens of t'he
parish, and permitting wise multiple use management of parish resources.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, to adopt said St. Bernard Parish Coastal
Management Program Document as the Policy Statement of the St. Bernard Parish
Police Jury, and further

BE IT RESOLVED, to implement said Local Management Program upon approval

BE IT RESOLVED, to transmit said document to the State Administrator along
with all comments, responses and amendments as generated at and from the required
hearings for that purpose, and finally

BE IT RESOLVED, to enjoin said Administrator to review and grant the Parish of
St. Bernard approval of the Program Document as an approved local program
consistent with Federal and State laws, regulations and guidelines promulgated for the
purpose of establishing Local Coastal Zone Management plans, authorities,
administrative guidelines, permissable uses and performance standards.

The above and foregoing having been submitted to a vote, the vote thereupon
resulted as follows:

YEAS: MESSRS: Knobloch, Gorbaty, Ponstein, Munster, Licciardi, Landry
and Henderson.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: None.

NOT
VOTING: MESSRS: Guillot, Gonzales, Cusimano, and Ponstein.

And the Resolution was declared adopted on the 5th day of October, 1982.

CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Police Jury held at Chalmette,
Louisiana on the 5th day of October, 1982.

Witness my hand and the seal
of the Parish of St. Bernard
on the 5th day of October,
1982.

DAVID B. FARBER
SECRETARY TREASURER

"14

T,71 I

ag d

ao@

Wl*

fill NMI 11111
A 3 093