CS5. 3V .T* ^ T0 'c . 4 ^TES O* h X Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Port Fourchon Development Plan, La Fourche Parish, Louisiana Washington, D.C. July 1978 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED PORT FOURCHON DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA Prepared by: Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric ^ Administration Department of Commerce i 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 6 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/draftenvironmOOnati TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS ± LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES v±i OUl I lr\t\T i i ■ i ■ i i i i ■ • i i ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ i i ■ ■ i i ■ ■ x - THE PROJECT AND ITS IMPACTS SECTION 1: GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1 A. SITE 1-1 B. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO THE TOTAL PROJECT 1-1 C. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 1-8 SECTION 2: PURPOSE OF PROJECT 2-1 A. AREA AND COMMUNITIES AFFECTED 2-1 B. NEED FOR PROJECT 2-1 C. ECONOMIC STATUS 2-1 SECTION 3: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 3-1 A. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3-1 B. STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 1: BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE- JUMP WATERWAY 3-3 C. STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 2: WIDENING OF BAYOU LAFOURCHE 3-9 D. STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCING THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 3-11 E. NON- STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 1 . . . . 3-13 F. NON- STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 2 . . . . 3-14 SECTION 4: PROJECT DESIGN 4-i A. ENGINEERING DESIGN 4-1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FEATURES . . 4-12 SECTION 5: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND PROCEDURES 5-x A. STATE PERMITTING PROCEDURES 5-1 B. LOCAL PERMITTING PROCEDURES 5-4 SECTION 6: SECTION 7: SECTION S: SECTION 9: SECTION 10: ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY &-i A. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS WHICH CANNOT BE SOLVED 6-1 B. MITIGATION 6-7 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ?-i A. LAND RESOURCES 7-1 B. VEGETATIVE RESOURCES 7-1 C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES 7-2 D. WATER RESOURCES 7-2 E. AQUATIC RESOURCES 7-2 F. AIR IMPACTS 7-2 C. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) 7-3 H. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 7-3 I. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7-3 J. HUMAN ELEMENT 7-3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 8-1 A. LAND RESOURCES 8-1 B. VEGETATIVE RESOURCES 8-1 C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES 8-1 D. WATER RESOURCES 8-2 E. AQUATIC RESOURCES 8-2 F. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 8-2 G. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 8-2 H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 8-2 I. MINERAL RESOURCES [J ? J. EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS o-j K. HUMAN ELEMENT 8-3 L. MISCELLANEOUS 8-3 FEDERAL AND STATE INVOLVEMENT 9-1 A. FEDERAL PROJECTS 9-1 B. STATE PROJECTS 9-3 C. OTHER AGENCIES CONTACTED 9-3 D. COMMENTS RECEIVED 9-4 E. EXISTING AND PROPOSED AREA-WIDE PLANNING AGENCIES 9-7 F. OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING CONSIDERED . . 9-8 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 10-1 A. AGENCIES 10-1 B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 10-4 C. PRIVATE PARTICIPATION 10-4 li EHVIRDNWOTAL DISCUSSION P AG E N Q, SECTION A: LAND USE a-i A. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT A-l B. IMPACT ON OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES . . . A-6 C. MAP INFORMATION A-8 D. GEOLOGY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY A-9 E. HYDROLOGIC ELEMENTS A-23 F. CLIMATOLOGY A-33 G. FLOODPLAINS A-38 H. WETLANDS A-41 I. WILDLIFE HABITAT A-49 J. FARMLANDS A-64 K. RECREATIONAL ELEMENTS A-65 SECTION B: NOISE IfPACTS b-i SECTION C: AIR QUALITY c-i SECTION D: WATER QUALITY d-i A. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS D-l B. PRESENT CONDITIONS D-2 C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS D-6 D. WATER QUALITY CHANGES D-8 SECTION E: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS e-i SECTION F:. SOLID WASTE WWBENT f-i SECTION G: HUMAN POPULATION c-i A. DESCRIPTION G-l B. ECONOMY G-4 C. INSTITUTIONS G-17 D. DISRUPTION OF SERVICES G-18 E. RELOCATION G-18 SECTION H: TRANSPORTATION h-i A. HIGHWAYS H-l B. RAILROADS H-l C. WATERWAYS H-l D. PIPELINES ' H-3 E. AIR TRANSPORTATION H-3 F. IMPACTS H-3 SECTION I: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 1-1 in SECTION J: HISTORIC PRESERVATION j-i A. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES . . J-l B. ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES . J-l C. GENERAL ARCHEOLOGY J-2 D. TYPES OF SITES AND LOCATION J-5 E. STATUS J-8 F. GENERAL HISTORICAL INFORMATION { G. EVALUATION OF SITES j' 10 REFERENCES r-i IV LIST OF FIGURES FIG. THE PROJECT AND ITS IMPACTS 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 3-1 3-2 4-1 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 The Bayou Lafourche transcoastal corridor The Lafourche corridor located between Terrebonne and Salvador-Barataria estuarine areas. Port Fourchon development plan Jetty improvement in Belle Pass Bayou Lafourche - Lafourche Jump Waterway The Bayou Lafourche corridor in relation to its flanking estuaries Shell road and bank reshaping under construction at Port Fourchon 4-2 Typical road cross sections at the Port Fourchon facility 4-3 Proposed channel and slip facilities at Port Fourchon EA6J Typical bank stabilization along Pass Fourchon at the Port Fourchon facility Navigation channel improvements in Belle Pass and Gulf of Mexico associated with the Port Fourchon facility Proposed rip-rap at intersection of Bayou Lafourche and the flotation canal at the Port Fourchon facility, Typical sections of proposed rip-rap at intersection of Bayou Lafourche and the flotation canal 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-6 3-4 3-6 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10 B W IROfE NT AL DI S CUSSION A-l Port Fourchon area A-2 Different environments and vegetation of the study area A-2 A- 3 A-3 The Port Fourchon study area in relation to the remainder of Lafourche Parish A-4 A- 4 Land use map of Lafourche Parish A-5 A-5 The Gulf Coast Geosyncline in the vicinity of Port Fourchon A-10 A- 6 The deltaic sequence in south Louisiana . . A-13 A- 7 The deltaic sequence in south Louisiana A-14 A-8 Contours showing depth to the top of the Pleistocene formations , A-15 A-9 Physiography of the study region A-15 A-10 Geologic columns from the Port Fourchon area .... A-18 A-ll Subsidence rates, subsurface faults, and salt domes in the Port Fourchon area A-19 A-12 Historic and projected shoreline retreat in the Caminada-Port Fourchon area A-20 A-13 Oil and gas pipelines and petroleum fields in the Port Fourchon area A-22 A-14 General hydrology of the Port Fourchon area A-24 A-15 Average salinity distribution across south central Louisiana A-25 A-16 Percentage of rainfall excess, South Central Louisiana A-35 A-17 Paths of hurricanes in the vicinity of the study area A-39 A-18 Storm surge from the Hurricane Betsy . A-40 A-19 Impounded area in Port Fourchon A-44 A-20 Schematic diagram illustrating morphological environ- ments and related vegetation associations A-44 A-21 Spoil fill being prepared for Port Fourchon development A-45 A-22 Port Fourchon beach A-45 VI LIST OF TABLES I&BLE PAGE NO, THF PROJECT AND ITS IMPACTS 2-1 The average effect of the location of a new establishment (offshore oil associated) in Port Fourchon 2-2 2-2 The average effect of the location of a new establishment (oilfield service) in Port Fourchon 2-2 2-3 The average effect of the location of a new establishment (port related) in Port Fourchon 2-4 2-4 Direct and indirect impact of the Port Fourchon development 2-5 4-1 Development program for Port Fourchon 4-2 6-1 Adverse effects on archeological sites of the area . . . 6-4 6-2 Degree of importance each archeological site should receive 6-5 ENVIFWP1TAL DISCUSSION A-l Geologic column of the study area A-ll A-2 Physical characteristics of depositional environments , , A-16 A- 3 Oil and gas production in Lafourche Parish compared to Louisiana (1970) A-21 A- 4 Hydraulic data at selected sites A-30 A- 5 Monthly tide levels in feet along the Central Louisiana Coast, 1958-59 A-31 A-6 Annual wave climate .summary for Coastal Louisiana .... A-32 A- 7 Monthly precipitation in inches, Southeast Division . . . A-34 A-8 Percentage frequencies of relative humidity observations at 6 A.M. and 3 P.M., during midseason months A-36 A-9 Frequency in percent of winds from various directions in the Gulf of Mexico A-37 VII WLL PAGEUP . A-10 Plants associated with environments located within the Port Fourchon complex A-42 A-ll Saline marsh as affected by spoil banks within the impounded area A-43 A-12 A list of vascular plants present in the study area . . A-47 A-13 Recreation provided in past years and for 1971-1979 Wisner Wildlife Management Area A-51 A-14 List of species of fish common in the study area . . . A-61 A-15 Participation by activity of persons six years and older, Region 3 A-66 C-l Average percentage frequency of occurrence of wind speed - July C-2 C-2 Average percentage frequency of occurence of wind speed - September C-3 C-3 Average percentage frequency of occurrence of wind speed - October C-4 C-4 Average percentage frequency of occurrence of wind speed - December C-5 D-l Hydrologic and water qualify data, lower Bayou Lafourche at Gulf of Mexico D-3 D-2 Hydrologic and water quality data, lower Bayou Lafourche 5.0 miles, south of Leeville, Louisiana . . . D-4 G-l Population increases 1960-1970, Lafourche Parish and Louisiana G-l G-2 Population characteristics of Lafourche Parish compared to Louisiana (1970) . G-2 G-3 Projected population - Lafourche Parish G-2 G-4 Population Lafourche Parish and Ward 10 G-3 G-5 Percentage distribution of employment by major industry in Lafourche Parish G-5 G-6 Payroll distribution in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, and the United States, January - March, 1972 G-6 G-7 Families at various income levels, Lafourche Parish, 1969 ' viii IABLE PA CE NO . G-8 Percent of families with incomes under $3,000 and $10,000 and over, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, and the U.S.A., 1969 G-7 G-9 Selected agricultural statistics for Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (1974 and 1969) G-8 G-10 Total commercial landings of fish and shellfish in Louisiana G-9 G-ll Quantity and value of commercial landings at certain Louisiana fishing ports (1971-1973) G-10 G-12 Volume of shrimp ' landings (Heads-off basis) reported in Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, Louisiana . . . G-ll G-13 Quantity and value of oyster landings, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana G-ll G-14 Total and average wages and employment in fisheries, canned and cured seafoods, and fish processing and packaging industries in Lafourche Parish G-12 C-15 OiL and gas production in Lafourche Parisli compared to Louisiana (1970) C-13 G-16 Petroleum, natural gas, sulphur, natural gas liquid, (Minerals in order of value), 1973-1974 G-13 G-17 Curde petroleum production and wells completed in Lafourche Parish, by area G-15 G-18 Manufacturers in the Port Fourchon area (1972) .... G-16 G-ZU Composite health status indicator, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, and nation (1971) G-18 G-21 Direct and indirect impact of the Port Fourchon development U-19 H-l Volume of freight traffic on Bayou Lafourche H-2 H-2 Major commodities shipped on Louisiana segment of Gulf Intracoastal Water Way in 1969 H-2 J-l Coastal Louisiana culture sequence and chronology . . J-3 J-2 Percentages of decorated sherds for two sites in the Port Fourchon area J-4 IX SUMMARY C x) Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( ) Final Environmental Impact Statement This document was prepared by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment. For additional information about the proposed action or this docu- ment, contact: Office of Coastal Zone Mangement National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 3300 Whitehaven Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 Telephone: 202/254-8000 1. TYPE OF ACTION ( x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION As part of the coastal zone management activities of the Federal government, the Secretary of Commerce administers and coordinates a coastal energy impact program (CEIP) under Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.). The CEIP pro- vides financial assistance to coastal states and units of local govern- ments within those states to mitigate the on-shore impacts of coastal energy activities. The proposed action is a loan offer for the amount of $6,300,000.00 to the Greater Lafourche Port Commission to fund the fourth phase of a multiport facility to accommodate the needs of the fishing/seafood in- dustry, recreation/ tourism industry, the offshore oil industry and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, Inc. (LOOP). Phase 4 consists of: a) Dredging a channel and slip and fill in Pass Fourchon as well as relocating and maintaining an entrance channel at Belle Pass; b) Making stone jetty improvements at Belle Pass ( Bayou Lafourche); c) Dredging and stabilizing a flotation canal; d) Making drainage improvements; and e) Constructing a bulkhead for docking facilities. xi New construction and improvements will require dredging a total of 2.957 million cubic feet of spoil which will result in an aver- age increase in elevation of 3.84 feet at the spoil sites. Phase 4 is described in more detail in Section 1, pages 6-7. The port facilities will be wholly owned by the Greater Lafourche Port Commission, a unit of general purpose government as defined in the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, Section 308(1X3). The system of user charges to provide the primary source of repayment of the loan over the 30-year life of the faci- lity is described in the project document files located at the Office of Coastal Zone Management at the above address. 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Short term benefits of granting a loan to construct Phase 4 of the port facilities are an increase in construction-related employ- ment and an increase in disposable income which will be spent for housing and services in the communities near the port site. Combined with the first three phases of the port development, the long term benefits of this action will affect the economic base of Grand Isle and local communities north of Golden Meadow in Lafourche Parish. The commercial marina, docking facility and warehouses should attract larger shrimp boats and seafood processing industries for a net increase in employment and tax revenues for the Parish. The five-ramp launch for sport boats should attract recrea- tional fishermen who will need services from the local communities. The bridge providing access to the beach should attract land-based day users to the area which will benefit the local economy. Phase 4 will result in the creation of 450 acres of land to provide a site for future industrial and commercial development. If this develop- ment occurs, the employment and tax base of the Parish would increase significantly. LOOP, Incorporated, estimated that employment for 250 permanent full time persons would be generated by the offshore oil port. Property tax generated by the LOOP facility was estimated at $32,000 to $49,000 annually. Short term costs will primarily affect water quality and wildlife habitat. There will be a temporary increase in turbidity and loss of benthic organisms as a result of dredging and onshore construction. The degredation of water quality will reduce the food supply for aquatic species and disrupt breeding and feeding activities of aquatic species and waterfowl in parts of Bayou Lafourche and Belle Pass. On- shore construction will disrupt the breeding and feeding activities of terrestrial species, though the habitat affected has already been disrupted by previous dredge spoil disposal. Long term costs of Phase 4 can be grouped into five areas: land use, flood problems, recreation, terrestrial wildlife habitat, fisher- ies habitat and special concerns. Land use changes involve loss of 55 acres of land for construc- tion of the T-slip and creation of 450 acres of dry land around the T-slip for the industrial/commercial site. The 450-acre site is currently a combination of brackish marsh habitat and old spoil disposal sites. Past spoil disposal has raised the land 6 to 12 inches; project-related dredging will raise the site another 3 feet. If development does not occur immediately at this disposal site, it will accommodate spoil from maintenance dredging for 20 years. As use of the port facilities increases, the rate of beach and shore- line erosion will increase as a result of wave wash from passing vessels . Storm surges and torrential rainfall will generate floods periodically at the project site. Past floods have attained depths of 10 feet or more in the project area which will be elevated less than 10 feet above mean sea level by fill. The proposed site is within the 100-year floodplain as mapped for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in May 1971. The project is not presently specifically designed to minimize potential harm to the floodplain, to meet f loodproof ing standards under the National Flood Insurance Program or to be in compliance with the Flood Dis- aster Protection Act. However, the facilities are located behind the beach which serves as a natural buffer to reduce the force of storm surges. Changes in recreational uses at the project site will result in the loss of revenues from current fishing and duck hunting activities when the 450-acre marsh/spoil site is converted to dry land. Pro- viding better access to the barrier beaches is anticipated to in- crease their use. Increased use will result in the loss of beach vegetation and an increase in the rate of beach erosion. Currently, the shoreline is retreating at a rate of just over 20 meters a year. As the land at the 450-acre site is committed to roads, ware- houses and other industrial/commercial uses, the habitat available for terrestrial species will be reduced. The conversion of the area from a migratory waterfowl feeding area to dry land is a more signi- ficant change in habitat than the loss of marginal habitat on re- vegetated dredge spoils. The long term loss in fisheries habitat will result from changes in the hydrology of the project area. Widening and deepening the channel at Belle Pass will increase the salinity in Bayou Lafourche and adjacent marsh/estuarine habitats. Two of the most productive estuarine areas in the United States are located immediately to the east and to the west of the project area; they are the Caminada- Barataria and the Timbalier-Terrebonne estuarine systems, respectively. Bayou Lafourche is hydrologically connected to both of these systems and serves as a passageway for the movement of marine organisms into and out of the estuarine areas at different stages in their life cycles. Increases in salinity will create a barrier to this movement of organisms, reducing the productivity of the estuaries. The impact of saltwater intrusion on the Tinbalier-Terrebonne system could be mitigated by restricting water exchange through the tidal streams which connect lower Bayou Lafourche and Timbalier Bay. Special concerns relate to identified endangered species and archeological sites affected by the project. The project will encroach on the feeding areas of the endangered brown pelican, bald eagle and peregrine falcon near the mouth of Belle Pass. The brown pelican, Louisiana's state bird, was only reestablished in the state coastal zone in the 1960's. The project area also is in the range of three endangered species of sea turtles, but the use of the project area by these species has not been established. Project construction will affect six archeological sites, but only two are significant enough to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. These two sites will be protected from being buried under dredge spoil during project con- struction. However, increased bank erosion, vandalism and main- tenance dredging will affect all the sites over the long term. 4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The no action alternative was rejected because of the economic benefits which would be lost. Port Fourchon is strategically located between the LOOP project site and the Lafourche trans- coastal corridor. In addition, the first three phases of the port are well underway; failure to fund Phase 4 will not eliminate many of the impacts of the project. Structural Alternative 1, the Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump Waterway, was rejected because of adverse impacts on archeological sites, saltwater intrusion into a municipal water supply and adverse effects on estuarine ecosystems which include parts of the Point~au- Chien Wildlife Management area and the Wisner Wildlife Management area Structural Alternative 2, Widening of Bayou Lafourche, was re- jected because of adverse impacts on the human environment, particu- larly relocation of existing facilities, residences and roads. In addition, widening the bayou would eliminate most of the land suit- able for development so that growth would encroach further on wetlands Structural Alternative 3, Reducing the Scope of the Project, was rejected because it would foreclose options for responding to future needs of the offshore mineral extraction industry. In addition, implementing this alternative might have the effect of overtaxing the planned facilities at Morgan City in adjacent St. Mary's Parish, described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Draft Supplement to Final Environmental Statement — Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana. Nonstructural Alternative 1, reducing the offshore energy acti- vities, was rejected because it would not be feasible in view of present national energy needs. Nonstructural Alternative 2, Expanding Other Existing Small Port Facilities in the Region, was rejected because it would result in increased boat traffic through waterways in environmentally sensitive areas of the coastal zone and would induce expansion into wetlands at many sites, rather than concentrating development and wetland losses at one site. 5. DISTRIBUTION Comments have been requested from the following Federal, state and local agencies and other parties: FEDERAL AGENCIES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of the Navy U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers U.S. Air Force Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transportation Economic Development Administration Federal Energy Regulatory Commission General Services Administration Marine Mammal Commission National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Coast Guard U. S. Department of Energy NATIONAL INTEREST GROUPS American Association of Port Authorities American Bureau of Shipping American Fisheries Society American Institute of Merchant Shipping American Petroleum Institute American Water Resources Association American Waterways Operators Barrier Islands Coalition Center for Natural Areas Coastal States Organization Conservation Foundation Environmental Law Institute Gulf South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation Izaak Walton League League of Women Voters Education Fund National Association of Dredging Contractors National Audubon Society National Fisheries Institute Natural Resources Defense Council National Wildlife Federation Shipbuilders Council of America Sierra Club Sport Fishing Institute STATE /LOCAL AGENCIES Advisory Board to the Governor's Council on Environmental Quality Capital Resources, Conservation and Development Project Central Lafourche Regional Planning Commission Community Improvement Agency Crescent Soil and Water Conservation District Greater Lafourche Port Commission Jefferson Port Commission Lafourche Basin Levee District Louisiana Coastal Commission Louisiana Department of Conservation Louisiana Department of Environmental and Development Control Louisiana Department of Highways Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Louisiana Department of Public Works Louisiana Historical Preservation and Cultural Commission Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission Morgan City Harbor and Terminal District President's Water Pollution Control Board Regional Planning Commission St. Charles Parish Environmental Council South Central Planning and Development Commissin, Thibodaux South Lafourche Regional Planning Commission South Louisiana Tidal Water Control Levee District State Soil and Water Conservation Committee Terrebonne Parish Police Jury Thibodaux Regional Planning Commission Water Resources Study Commission OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University Sport smens Committee, Morgan City Chamber of Commerce Dularge Hunting Club, Inc. Ecology Center of Louisiana Orleans Audubon Society Louisiana Center for the Public Interest Louisiana Wildlife Federation Howard Stark Company, Inc. Student Activity for Environment, Nicholls State University Woods and Waters Club WVUE-TV Individuals who requested copies of the document LIBRARY INFORMATION CENTERS Copies of this document were provided to the following libraries Assumption Parish Napoleonville, Louisiana St. Bernard Parish Chalmette, Louisiana Jefferson Parish Metairie, Louisiana St. Charles Parish Hahnville, Louisiana Lafourche Parish Thibodaux, Louisiana St. Martin Parish St. Martinville, Louisiana Orleans Parish New Orleans, Louisiana St. Mary Parish Franklin, Louisiana Plaquemines Parish Buras, Louisiana Terrebonne Parish Houma, Louisiana 6. COMMENT PERIOD This draft environmental impact statement was transmitted to the Environmental Protection Agency one week before the notice of availability to the public appeared in the Federal Register . Comments should be submitted to the Office of Coastal Zone Management within 45 days after the date of the Federal Register notice. THE PROJECT AND ITS IMPACTS SECTION 1: GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SITE The Port Fourchon development is a multi-purpose facility to be completed on a 586 acre site located in the Tenth Ward of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, where the waters of Bayou Lafourche meet the Gulf of Mexico. The project site lies within a larger tract of approximately 3,800 acres which is under the jurisdiction of the Greater Lafourche Port Commission. The Commission was established in 1960, with full powers of a port, harbor, and terminal district. The site is located at the seaward end of the Lafourche trans- coastal corridor, one of the most important and best established links between the inland areas of the coastal zone and the Cull of Mexico. This corridor is defined by Bayou Lafourche, an important water trans- portation artery, and by alluvial ridges along the bayou (Fig. 1-1). The Lafourche corridor forms a natural boundary between two major estuarine complexes, the Terrebonne system to the west and the Salvador- Barataria system to the east. Each of these systems is highly produc- tive and represents a major resource (Fig. 1-2). To maintain the integ- rity of these systems and provide for environmental management, these systems must be retained as natural entities. Development related to oil and gas industry and fisheries must therefore be concentrated to the greatest extent possible on the higher boundaries of the units rather than be allowed to disperse through canals, roads, and other hydrologic alternatives with resultant fragmentation of the system. The Port Fourchon development follows this principle in that it confines activi- ties and related primary and secondary impacts to an existing corridor. As shown in Fig. 1-3, the total tract is comprised of four major components. Component A is the project area. Of the 586 acres lying within this component, 55 acres will be occupied by the proposed T-slip and 450 acres of spoil-filled area will be committed to other aspects of the project development. Component B is an impounded wet- land 2284 acres in extent. As shown in Fig. 1-3, an existing commercial marina presently lies in the northeastern part of this component. Com- ponent C is a 1316 acre area consisting primarily of wetlands bounded by Belle Pass and Pass Fourchon on the west and east and by the Gulf shore on the south. There is presently some petroleum industry related activity in this component. Component D of the tract lies between Pass Fourchon and Bay Champagne. Nicholls State University presently main- tains a coastal and marine research laboratory in this component. B. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO THE TOTAL PROJECT It is proposed that the fourth phase of a multiport facility be implemented under the guaranteed loan provisions of the Coastal Energy Impact Program. The facility will accommodate the needs of: 1) the fishing and seafood industry, 2) recreation and tourism, 3) the offshore 1-1 u o i3 •H U U o o crj ■u CO rrj O a CO cd 4-1 cu a 3 o 4-1 crj O >i cfl pq a) H •H Pn 1-2 1 } & a J ? if V^^\ #> — J \ f => srf^ A jA u^BjiiV OD ^Sz®vu. /// h wSm peKj' / p^o' -f >fe§- - --• '// w ■'/// : - « M I fit ■ - IT- — .Ijjyt \u f/ff >Ts-y»i\ /# ^\ n/l' v^/ »r* JLfe^ ^\J ^»si^^ *■** O — _y^wv^r ■ o*il O- CO < LU < 1— re x < rrfiJf/:-, q ''-X ^x 1 1 Z LU LU jrfw /fe#JJl ^ UJ 5§gg; ^ UJ §§§§• »u 1 S — o Z LU ^ oo UJ X U < LU CO «3 Q Z LU < z LU LU o < z < 5 LU o < z < z LO < CO LO < LU < o z Q 3 CO H I;- 5// / l h II f r^ ; 1 1 I ^ II ^sj^j Z j^ O- < LU ^g5f^t oe -^Jf. -^r (— < W O// 10 LU < 1— *, LU z < I— £ LU Q ^s %-^JrJ . O X CO LU Q LU < LO Of —1 ^ e %^^^^M **> Uxi Cd LU Li- — ' f***^<*pi Q£ Q£ OH o at *^R u li^ S „ ^ o o o i— Z s ■ « < < < o K UJ ^^ .'J-^ 5 s 5 u =" ^^ Z ^i ^^ ^* K *^ ^tei§ eo ^^^v^ » < ^V \ A efcuo ^^^w^ ■>. 1 &i ■ ■ H 1 \\ 1 CO •H cd ■u ca 5-1 03 CQ I M O cd > cd CO fl cd +j 0) CU 4-J cd a o u o T3 ■H U U o • a co cd -l II o II a. II s^- II II 4-1 II B II 0) II l- II £. II w II •H II i— 1 II J3 II CO II 4-J II 03 II CD II II 3 1! 0) II E II II TO II II MH II o II II B II o II •H II 4-1 II CO II CJ II O II rH II II 0) II X II 4-1 II II <4H II o II II 4-1 II U II CD II CD 0) DO CO u 0) > CO II II II II CD II II £ II II II • II CO II 1 II CN II II CD II rH II X) II CO II H m « c o o co •H rH X 4-J c CJ u CO CO 1— 1 U C/J rH 4-1 •H X O w c o rH •H .— 1 CO 4-1 o> U u in 3 01 rH 4-1 u U w u o M u rH CO 4-1 0) CO 0) 4-1 CO B o rH •H r j 4J ^D >. CJ rH > 3 CO 1-1 u cu 4-1 1— 1 X 03 co c o u CD CN X a U •H M H Lh 0) CO CO en CO O CD O CN N O O 4-1 U CO ft. CD CO o CO T3 CD u rH 3 X en cj o o o CN XI 4-1 B CO CJ CO 4J < CO w in ^d O on cn rH O rH rH CN m in m in CO rH O -co- co •< •> rH rH co co n o cn - < n cji rj o> a\ r- iocn cn m O rH CN rH 00 m cn cn ct\ cn rH rH t— I cn t^- rH CO- CO- CO- CO- CO- »• rH •CO- mr^. |n ^£> v£> >>o^o vD rN - < IN rH ■co- O O O O o o o o cn oo oo cn «> co- CN -CO- ON n - < in rH CO- ON -l •H E XI <: rH o >-i cx B o 9 CD •H CD OJ M T3 4-1 rB cx 3 r^ 4J B a) CO CO X rH CO 0) B O X) 2 w CO Pw 3 CD •H XI Mh > rH | rH 4-1 < Uh o rH C/3 CO r^ rH CJ O CO <4-l 3 > o o B CO cu CD 4J o B rH U T3 CD 3 4-1 3 •H •H ^ cx !>, O 00 rH U3 rH a 4J kC O e co !H CO (0 O CO CO QJ o W PL, Cm J3 ^> U !> u r3 PQ 4-' U3 B H X. CJ !h CO OJ LO (J C£ jc: *j 3 OJ O rH CO ,0 CO m rH rH •H 3 CO O > < 4-» OJ o CJ z )H 1 3 > CO 9 u 0) 4-1 Oj a E CO a U o 05 0) o J-l p o M— I CO hJ P O CO PQ ro •H Fn 3-4 vessels are moored. Barges cannot be loaded to capacity and a reduction of speed is necessary in order to keep wave wash to reasonable limits, thereby preventing damage to moored vessels and structures. Movement of large oil barges and drilling equipment over the bayou is exceedingly difficult in the narrow waterway. On windy days, an extra tug is employed in an effort to hold the tow straight and avoid collision damage. Con- struction of the auxiliary channel would facilitate use of larger, more modern vessels used in fish and oil industries and thus eliminate the need to use circuitous routes by way of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) . b) General Design General design features are as follows. The completed enlargement of Bayou Lafourche would include a 9 ft by 100 ft channel from Lockport to Larose, a 6 ft x 60 ft channel from Larose to Golden Meadow, a 9 ft x 100 ft channel from Golden Meadow to Leeville, a 12 ft x 125 ft channel from Leeville to the Gulf, and a 20 ft x '300 ft channel from Belle Passe to the 20 it contour in the Gulf. From Larose to Leeville spoil, would be contained and effluent returned to tile waterway. from Leeville to the Gull , spoil would be placed along the east bank ol bayou Lafourche and be Lie bass. The Bayou Lafourche auxiliary channel would be 30.4 mi long, 12 It deep, and 125 ft wide. It would include a 12 ft by 125 ft stub channel toward Golden Meadow with a turning basin 1300 ft long and 600 ft wide. Spoil would be contained with retention dikes and spill boxes and effluent would be returned to the dredged channels. The Lafourche-Jump Waterway would provide a 12 ft x 125 ft channel. Where traversing wetlands spoil would be retained along the banks of the channel. Where traversing bays spoil would be placed on adjacent water bottoms . c) Site and Area Description The action does not include specific facilities other than the loca- tion of the channel which is given in Fig. 3-1. To achieve the objec- tives of the proposed Port Fourchon facility it is anticipated that the need for service to the fishing and offshore oil industry would be accom- modated by increased use or expansion of existing docking facilities and industries along Bayou Lafourche within the various communities. Bayou Lafourche is a narrow coastal stream flanked by natural levee ridges representative o[~ a development corridor. On either side ai~ the corridor exist major, highly productive estuarine complexes that grade from saline bays through saltwater, brackish water, and freshwater marshes into freshwater swamps (Fig. 3-2). Development along Bayou Lafourche includes agriculture on the wide ridges north of Golden Meadow. Between Thibodaux and the Gulf there are some fourteen communities with a total population of approximately 30,000. Toward the Gulf of Mexico communities are increasingly dominated by economic activities that are related to the fishing industry and off- shore services for the oil and gas industry. Continuous development ends 3-5 SALINE MARSHES - Typicol vegeiotr more than half of Louisiana's fisheries production and through export of detrital material play an important support role with regard to marine fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Equally important is the role of these systems as breeding and nursery grounds for shrimp and fishes. The marshes serve also as major winter- ing grounds for migrating waterfowl. Dredge and fill activities would destroy about 20,000 acres of wetlands and water bottoms. Of these approximately 2000 acres lie within the Point-au-Ghien Wildlife Management area and in the Wisner Wildlife Management area in Terrebonne ana 1 Lafourche Parishes respectively. The area encompassed by the Lafourche -Jump Waterway and auxiliary channel include a number of archeological sites. At least six sites would be directly affected and five sites are krjown to be present in the immediate vicinity of the proposed routes. Another major consideration is the effect of increasing salini- ties through saltwater intrusion in the Lafourche auxiliary channel. This effect would extend into the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the extent that it would interfere with its use as an industrial and municipal water supply for the city of Houma in Terrebonne Parish, 3. Beneficial Impacts The Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche- Jump Waterway alternative would provide more efficient and safer navigation into and out of the area. 4. Decision on this Alternative This alternative was rejected because of the severe nature of adverse impacts on wetlands and related uses. Present losses of wet- lands in Louisiana as a result of subsidence, saltwater intrusion, channelization, spoil disposal, impoundment, and other actions affecting water quality and the hydrologic regime amount to at least 16 sq mi annually. These losses represent a cumulative impact that seriously degrades the renewable resource base of the state and is of a magnitude that may attain material significance. 3-8 C. STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 2: WIDENING OF BAYOU LAFOURCHE 1. General Description of the Alternative This alternative would provide for widening of Bayou Lafourche from the Gulf of Mexico to the community of Larose where it intersects with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. a) Objective of the Action The objective of this alternative action is to provide for safer and more efficient navigation between the Gulf and the docking and service facilities along Bayou Lafourche that support the fisheries and offshore oil industry. Problems presently associated with naviga- tion were described in Section 3, B, 1, a). b) General Design The project would require a channel 125 ft wide and 12 ft deep. c) Site and Area Description The project would only provide for the widened channel. Increased demand for services to the fishing and offshore oil industry would be accommodated through increased use or expansion of existing facilities in the communities along Bayou Lafourche. See the first two paragraphs of Section 3, B, 1, c), "Site and Area Description" for a description of the Bayou Lafourche environment. d) Existing Use and Environment Physically Affected See Section 3,B, l,d), "Existing Use and Environment Physically Affected". 2. Adverse Impacts Construction of the widened channel would result in a major change in the environment. Many of the present service facilities are located immediately along and partially extend into the waterway. These facili- ties must be relocated. In many areas the road also follows the bank line and widening of the channel would necessitate relocation of the road and adjacent residences. 3. Beneficial Impacts Construction of the widened channel would provide for safer and more efficient navigation from the Gulf to the docking and service facilities along Bayou Lafourche. 3-9 4. Decision on this Alternative This alternative was rejected because of necessary relocations of facilities, residences, and roads 3 and the associated adverse cultural impacts. Due to the United width of natural levee ridges along Bayou Lafourche, this action would also eliminate a large portion of the most suitable existing land for development on one or both sides of the bayou and would partially force development into adjacent wetlands that bound the natural levee ridges. 3-10 D. STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCING THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 1. General Description of the Alternative This alternative would involve reducing the total scope of the project with implementation of Phases 1 thru 5 only, Phases 1 thru 3, which have already been completed, include limited docking facilities, a warehouse, a marina, a boat launch, roads, utilities, and a stone jetty at Belle Pass. Phase 4, under consideration for the immediate future, would include dredging of the "T-Slip," preparation of 450 acres of spoil area for facility sites with ditches and drainage structures, bank stabilization, and dredging of the flotation canal and construction of additional bulk- head for docking, Phase 5, to be implemented as the development progresses and funding becomes available, would include the addition of a Police and Administration Building, a sewage system ; and water mains and connections. Completion of Phases 1 thru 5 would provide complete multi-purpose facilities for steel-hulled shrimp boats, offshore survey and supply vessels, smaller fishing boats, crew boats, and pleasure craft, a) Objective of the Action The main objective of this alternative would be to reduce the ultimate size of the port and limit the kinds of activities that would be located there, The port would be limited to handling fishing boats, offshore service boats, and crew boats (including mineral extraction industry and LOOP related activities). b) General Design The facilities designs, site location, and impacts for Phases 1 thru 5 have been presented in Section 1 , "Project Description" of this statement . Under the project proper, the only facilities are the "T-slip" and adjacent sites, as described in Phases 1 thru 5 in Section 1, "Project Description. " c) Site and Area Description This is treated under Section 1, A, of this report. 2. Adverse Impacts Included in the two phases to be eliminated under this alternative (Phases 6 and 7) would be the dredging of Belle Pass to 30 ft x 500 ft, additional stone jetty improvements;, and additional bulkheading. Failure to implement these phases would foreclose the option of larger ocean- going vessels and repair and/or fabrication of large offshore drilling rigs and platforms, 3-11 This alternative would limit the port's ability to respond to future needs of the offshore mineral extraction industry. It would also limit to a considerable extent the kinds and intensity of activi- ties that would be conducted in the port area, 3. Beneficial Impacts Restricting the channel depth and width would reduce the poten- tial for saltwater intrusion and the rate of tidal exchange. This would have the beneficial effect of reducing marsh deterioration and erosion . Physical effects on the environment, including streams and water bodies for Phases 1 thru 5 have been discussed in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this statement, The direct and indirect effects of dredging related to the enlargement of Belle Pass including modification of benthic habitat, temporary reduction in water quality during construction > modification due to spoil disposal, and increases in saltwater intru- sion and tidal exchange would be eliminated. In addition adverse effects on water and air quality related to activities such as offshore rig and fabrication yards would be eliminated. 4. Decision on this Alternative The reason for rejecting this alternative is that it would foreclose options for responding to future needs of the offshore mineral extrac- tion industry. 3-12 E. NON- STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 1 1. General Description of the Alternative By reducing the amount of offshore energy activity in this area the projected need for the port may be reduced. This could be partially accomplished by reducing the rate of offshore leasing in the Federally controlled areas of the continental shelf. 2. Impacts This action would have the adverse impact of curtailing the national supply of oil and gas. It would also have major economic effects locally and regionally. This action would reduce traffic and product movement through the coastal zone with proportional reduction of associated primary and secondary impacts. 3. Decision on this Alternative This alternative was rejected because it would not be feasible in view of present national energy needs. 3-13 F. NON- STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 2 1. General Description of the Alternative Use of expansion of other existing small port facilities in the region could be encouraged through legislative or financial measures. 2. Adverse Impacts This action would have the adverse impact of increased boat traffic through waterways in environmentally sensitive areas of the coastal zone, as discussed under the "No Build" alternative. It would also have local adverse economic impacts, Induced expansion in areas of many existing ports would involve unmodified natural wetland areas, Greater distance and travel time to work sites would be required 3. Beneficial Impacts This action would have the benefit of concentrating expansion in the vicinity of existing development. 4. Decision on this Alternative The location of the proposed port at the end of the transcoastal corridor and in proximity to the LOOP facility indicates that benefits outweigh adverse impacts. 3-14 SECTION 4: PROJECT DESIGN A. ENGINEERING DESIGN The Port Fourchon project is a multipurpose facility designed to serve as a port and industrial park. The port is to serve the offshore oil in- dustry including the Louisiana Offshore Port (LOOP) for supertankers and Outer Continental Shelf drilling, to provide docking, unloading, and repair facilities for fishing boats, and to provide anchorage against Gulf storms other than hurricanes. Docking facilities will be in a'T shaped slip dredged into the port's property (See Fig. 1-3 in Section 1). Spoil from the slip will be deposited in the southern one-third (450 acres) of an impounded area to create sites for industries related to fisheries and oil and gas exploration and development. Such industries may include seafood processing industries, fabrication yards for offshore drilling rigs, and boat repair yards. The engineering design to meet the Com- mission's plans is summarized below in seven phases. The firms of Picciola and Associates, Inc., and J. Wavne Plaisance, Inc., under subcontract, conducted engineering invest igal iu us and studies involving fieldwork, drafting, and calculations necessary tor the dredging and widening of Bayou Lafourche and Belle Pass, the calcula- tion of the amount of filled material made available by these operations , the resulting elevations of the fill sites, and the stimated cost of these projects. The Division of Engineering Research, Louisiana State University (Whitehurst, 1974a) studied the Belle Pass area in relation to the proposed jetty system improvements and its effect on sediment deposition and erosion along the area's shoreline. The study was spon- sored by a NASA grant and by the Lafourche Port and Harbor Commission grant for support of graduate students, 1974, and state funds from the Division of Engineering Research, Louisiana State University. The project phases are described below. Table 4-1 summarizes the cost and status of these separate phases. Phase 1 - Phase 1 has already been completed by the Greater La- fourche Port Commission at a cost of $4.2 million. This phase consisted of the deepening and widening of Belle Pass to a channel 20 ft by 300ft, west of the existing channel from Mile 0.76 in Bayou Lafourche to a 20 ft depth in the Gulf of Mexico, and of a flotation canal which links Bayou Lafourche with the commercial marina, making it accessible to large shrimp boats. During this phase the commercial marina (with a capacity of 68 large shrimp boats) was constructed, as well as a docking facility and warehouse on Bayou Lafourche, a water distribution system with a 300,000 gal elevated storage tank, and a five-ramp launch for sportscraft. Other projects included in this phase were the construc- tion of levees for flood and hurricane protection, the extension of Highway 3090, and a bridge to provide access to the beach. 4-1 Table 4-1. Development program for Port Fourchon. Phase Description of Development Cost Status p c •H 4J O < U 0) X) 0) QJ 03 O (X o u 1 Construction of docking facili- ties, warehouse, marina, boat launch, roads and utilities 2 Stone jetty at Belle Pass 3 Roadway construction 4 A. Dredging (1) Proposed slip "c" (2) Belle Pass 2,700,000 cu. yds. of material B. Stone jetty improvements 60,000 tons of stones C. Drainage improvements 450 acres with ditches and drainage structures D. Flotation Canal (1) Bank stabilization 4000 linear feet (2) Dredging 292,000 cu. yds. of material E. Bulkhead for docking Total Phase 4 - 5 A. Police and Administration building B. Sewage system C. Water mains and connections Total Phase 5 - 6 A. Belle Pass dredging 30 X 500 B. Stone jetty improvements Total Phase 6 -" 7 Additional Bulkheading $4,220,700 Existing 2,100,000 498,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 Existing Under construction Planned Planned 500,000 Planned 175,000 175,000 800,000 $5,250,000 181,000 812,500 206,250 $1,199,750 4,000,000 2,000,000 $6,000,000 2,500,000 Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned TOTAL COST OF DEVELOPt-tENT - $21 ,768,450 Source: Greater Lafourche Port Commission, 1975 4-2 Phase 2 - This phase, completed in 1975, consisted of the improve- ment of the small jetty at Belle Pass, extending it outward some 500 ft into the Gulf of Mexizo. The jetty on the western side was extended a distance of 2100 ft from the existing shoreline (see Fig. 1-4). Uork was completed at a cost of $2,100,000. Phase 3 - Phase 3, under construction at the present time at a cost of $498,000, consists of a preliminary clam shell surface road that will allow easy access to future industrial and commercial develop- ment sites and to all port areas (Fig. 4-1, 4-2). Phase 4 - The fourth phase of the development program, planned at a cost of $5,250 ? 000, consists of: a) Dredging a channel and slip and fill in Pass Fourchon left descending bank, at a point about 1.7 mi above the mouth of the water- way, approximately 8 mi southerly from Leeville, Louisiana, in Lafourche Parish; and relocating and maintaining an entrance channel at Belle Pass (20 ft x 300 ft). (Figs. 4-3, 4-4, 4-5). b) Stone jetty improvements at Belle Pass (Bayou Lafourche). (Fig. 4-5) c) Flotation canal 1) Bank stabilization (Fig. 4-6 and 4-7) 2) Dredging d) Drainage improvements e) Bulkhead for docking Phase 4, parts a, b, c, d and e have been granted permits from the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899 (U.S. Congress, 33 U.S.C. 403, 1899); and under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (U.S. Congress, 86 Stat. 816, PL 92-500, 1972). The dredging of the 20 ft x 400 ft slip (approximately 55 acres) will produce two million cu yds of sand for filling approximately 450 acres, thus providing suitable foundation for future industrial and commercial development. The fill material will be allowed to settle before any type of construction commences. Drainage improvements to the site so created will be undertaken during this phase, as part of its preparation for development. Swale ditches dug with a small dragline will be provided throughout the area. Dredging will be primarily by hydraulic suction using heavy equip- ment for most additional work. The dredge material will be pumped into the area proposed to be filled, which is at present about 70% leveed 4-3 1 * A. 1 Oi <9 < 0> * ■:•: •:• Ft? v 3 _j O : : : :v FR iO . 1 H >■ ~7 X 1 1 \ >» tfcJ < 1 cc 1 d> cc a -- < :: c o •SED O r : _i p .c 2 3 F o b c Q. I LU ^ = UL ^2 0.027F 0.02 '/F ^ S ^^£PJ&£& EMBANKMENT I^^^^^^S^, TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION SCALE: 1" : 200 400' +5' MSL ■ \A'-A»! . Hill,-. -■ *mmm> o CM SPOIL AREA EXISTING GROUND +3.2' MSL -20' MSL TYPICAL SECTION A - A' SCALE: horz. 1" : 200 vert. 1 : 30 +5' MSL 400' O eg SPOIL AREA EXISTING GROUND + 2' MSL -20' MSL TYPICAL SECTION B - B' SCALE: horz. V : 200' vert. 1 : 30' Fig. 4-2. Typical road cross sections at the Port Fourchon facility. 4-5 240+00 228+00 216+00- 204+00- 192+00 PAGNE GULF MEXICO Fig. 4-3. Proposed channel and slip facilities at Port Fourchon. 4-6 Pass Fourchon AREA OF BANK TO BE RESHAPED PROPOSED RIP-RAP TYPICAL SECTION A - A' i Fig. 4-6. Proposed rip-rap at intersection of Bayou Lafourche and the flotation canal at the Port Fourchon facility. 4-9 SPOIL AREA PROPOSED RIP-RAP TYPICAL SECTION A - A SPOIL AREA AREA OF BANK TO BE RESHAPED TYPICAL SECTION B - B' 5i— FEET 10 Fig. 4-7. Typical sections of proposed rip-rap at intersection of Bayou Lafourche and the flotation canal. 4-10 (levees were constructed at an earlier date), with a number of sluice gates to allow water to run out from the site. Bulkheading along Pass Fourchon is planned during Phase 4, to aid the development of docking facilities and to prevent any further erosion or washing away of the existing bank. The work will consist of the back system with bumpers. The stone jetty improvements will consist of adding stones over the top of the stone jetty to increase its height, plus extending the east and west jetty into the Gulf for a safer channel entrance and to prevent rapid shoaling. The work at the flotation canal consists of placing rip-rap along each bank at its intersection with Bayou Lafourche and also on the south side of the Fourchon Road. Some of the existing bank will be reshaped as necessary for Lhe placement of the rip-rap. The dredging operation will consist of removal of 330 cu yds of material to be deposited along with approximately 360 cu yds of rip-rap along the project site shore- line. Phase 5 - Under phase 5 the Police and Administration building will be constructed. A 12-in water main with all necessary connections throughout the 450-acre development will be installed, and a sewage system will be built. This system will provide for extended aeration and tertiary treatment. Total cost of this phase will be $1,199,750. Phase 6 - Belle Pass will be dredged to 30 x 500 ft and the stone jetty will be improved. Pha3e 7 - Phase 7 consists of additional bulkheading as required to control erosional problems; the expected cost is 2,500,000. Permits for Phases 5, 6, 7 have not yet been requested to the Corps of Engineers. Applications will be submitted in due time, before any construction work in these phases is undertaken. 4-11 B. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FEATURES FOR PROPOSED ACTION The engineering design has taken into consideration the wetland environment in order to minimize any adverse impacts which may result from the project. The project is restricted to land which has pre- viously been used as a spoil disposal area, with resultant loss of wet- land habitat. Spoil will be deposited in a leveed, restricted area which will not allow suspended sediment to spread across the adjacent wet- land system. The banks of the canals will be stabilized by bulkheading to prevent erosion by waves or runoff. Additional spoil will be dredged from the adjacent, heavily traveled waterways in order not to modify other wetlands. C. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FEATURES FOR FUTURE PHASES During Phase 5 of the project, a sewage system will be installed and will provide extended aeration and tertiary treatment. This will provide for minimal adverse effect of effluent on adjacent waters and wetlands. In Phase 6, the stone jetty will be improved to reduce deteriora- tion of the channel. In Phase 7, additional bulkheading will be in- stalled to control bank erosion. By establishing a designated indus- trial zone, the port facility enhances cfentralization and industrial development and reduces chances of dispersion of such development through adjacent wetlands. 4-12 SECTION 5: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND PROCEDURES A. STATE PERMITTING PROCEDURES 1 . Requirements The State of Louisiana requires permits for a number of environ- mental factors that may be associated with construction of the Port Fourchon facility. These include: a) discharge into waters, b) emis- sions into the air, and c) waste facilities. a.) Discharge into Waters If any type of activity will discharge waste into the state's waters, a report to the Louisiana Stream Control Commission is required before construction starts. The report is to describe the proposed dis- posal system and the measures which will be followed to mitigate pollu- tion. Construction cannot start before a report has been submitted and granted a certificate of approval by the commission. The report must contain: 1) a description of the proposed action, 2) location of the proposed action and exact location of the point of discharge, 3) volume and concentration of waste to be discharged, 4) description of waste treatment system to be installed, or measures that will be taken to prevent pollution of the waters to be affected, 5) es- timated quality of improvement of the waste by the proposed treatment and measures that will be taken to control pollution, 6) an estimate of the rate of flow of the receiving waters, 7) an estimate of the altera- tion of the receiving water's quality by the proposed treatment work, and 8) any other data pertinent to understanding the proposed action. The report must be prepared and approved by a professional engineer duly licensed in Louisiana. The Louisiana Department of Public Health is responsible for deter- mining if the coliform content of wastes discharged is within their cri- teria of standards. b) Emissions into the Air If a facility will release matter into th,e air, a report must be submitted to the Louisiana Air Control Commission through the Louisiana State Board of Health. The report must be submitted before construction starts and Should describe the proposed action and measures that will be taken to protect air quality. The proposed construction cannot be started before the report has been granted approval and a permit has been issued by the commission. 5-1 The report should contain; 1) a description of the proposed action, 2) location of the proposed action, 3) location of sources of the emissions, the size of their outlets, the rate and temperature of the emission, and the composition and description of the air contami- nants being emitted, 4) description of measures for diminishing air pollution that will be utilized, or any other methods that will be used to prevent emission of undesirable levels of pollutants into the air, 5) estimates of how much emissions from the proposed action will alter the quality of the air, and 6) any other pertinent data for a good understanding of the proposed action. The report must be prepared and approved by a professional engineer duly licensed in Louisiana. c) Waste Facilities The Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration requires permits for construction of water supply systems, sewage systems, and solid waste facilities that might be associated with the Port Fourchon facility. The permit applications for these items should in- clude complete construction and operating plans and sufficient engi- neering data for project evaluation. 2. Status of Permits The future phase waste treatment system has not been designed in detail so a permit has not been applied for. There are no major emis- sions into the air anticipated and so a report has not been filed. Per- mits for water supply, sewage s /stems, or solid waste facilities asso- ciated with the project have not been applied for. Prior to construction all required permits will be obtained and all applicable procedures followed. In addition to permits, coordination with the agencies listed below usually takes place in a project of this type. 3. Coordination with State Agencies Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development - This de- partment is presently developing a coastal zone program. The Greater Lafourche Commission Development Program will be coordinated with state Coastal Zone Management goals. Louisiana Department of Public Works - The department may be called upon to provide engineering services or advice and would be in a posi- tion to insure coordination with other projects they may have in the area. Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission - The commission is concerned about any adverse effects the loss of the study area might have on fish and wildlife populations in both this area and in 5-2 adjacent areas. They strongly recommend that any activities in this area be coordinated with them. The Port Fourchon area is currently a research study area for the Wild Life and Fisheries Commission. Louisiana Air Control Commission - There are not any special air quality studies' in the immediate area being done by the commission, They have not held any public hearings because of violation of air quality standards by anyone in or near the study area, 5-3 B. LOCAL PERMITTING PROCEDURES 1 . Requir ements The site is in the jurisdictional area of the South Central Planning and Development Commission, the South Lafourche Regional Planning Commis- sion, and the Lafourche Parish Police Jury. The planning commissions serve as advisory and coordinating agencies. Powers of permitting rest with the Police Jury. 2. Relationship with Local Agenci es Contact with local agencies or governing bodies revealed the following project relationships: South Central Planning and Development Commission - On their present "Land Use" map the Fourchon area is still represented as part of the Wisner Wildlife Management Area, which it was, until it was deleted from the map in October 1971. There is a study for a model zoning ordinance and map for Ward 10, Lafourche Parish (where the Port Fourchon development is located). South Lafourche Regional Planning Commission - Their present zoning ordinance map of Ward 10, Lafourche Parish, where the Fourchon Area is located, is not presently in effect. According to Subdivision Regula- tions Ward 10, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, every subdivision of land within the Parish of Lafourche excluding incorporated areas shall be shown on a plot, and submitted to the Commission having jurisdiction for review and recommendations and forwarded thereafter to the Police Jury for grant or disapproval. Lafourche Parish Police Jury - At a regular meeting on November 9, 1977, the Lafourche Police Jury adopted a motion stating that no identi- fiable or potential conflict with any Jury regulations or proposed plans were found in the development plans for the Port Fourchon facility. (Parish of Lafourche Police Jury, 1977). 3. New or Additional Permits Any new or additional permits or procedures that are developed prior to construction will be obtained or followed. 5-4 SECTION 6: ENVIRONMENTAL SlfT-lARY A. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS WHICH CANNOT BE SOLVED L Land Constraints and Resources The facility site is located in the low-lying coastal zone where flooding from storm surge, high velocity winds, and torrential rainfall occur in association with tropical cyclones and hurricanes. During the hurricane season (late May to early November), the average number of storms to cross this part of the Louisiana coast is 0.76/yr. Storm generated floods may attain depths of 10 ft or more in the project area. The tract upon which the port site is located is surrounded by relatively fragile, estuarine areas that are high in biological productivity and are important from the standpoint of wildlife, fisheries, and recreation. There will be a direct land loss of approximately 55 acres due to construction of the T-slip (Fig. 1-3). Approximately 450 acres of marsh and old spoil areas will be filled with spoil material and con- verted to industrial and commercial development. Some additional land will be lost due to bank erosion from wave wash caused by pass- ing vessels. 2. Vegetative Resources Areas to be elevated by dredge material to 3.3 - 4.2 ft will be transformed from a wetland habitat to a terrestrial area. The marsh species (especially Spartina alternif lora and Avicennia ni^ida) will be unavoidably and permanently lost from this site. Spoil-associated species will be killed at the time and place of spoil deposition but will regenerate once deposition ceases. Construction of roads, park- ing lots, camp sites, and industrial areas will destroy any pre-existing or emerging vegetation within the planned Port Fourchon facility. Camping and recreation facilities near the beach will, in all probability, destroy the present beach vegetation. This will occur directly, through clearing, or indirectly, through trampling by heavy tourist utilization of the area. Areas behind the beach which are also scheduled for recreation may eventually lose their existing vegetation either directly or as a secondary consequence of vegetation destruction along the beach front. Dune vegetation is noted for serving as a first line of defense against wind and wave erosion and once removed, the coastal erosion processes can proceed farther inland. This kills the interior vegeta- tion by land erosion or saltwater intrusion. These processes will be especially effective against the present and projected terrestrial veg- etation which will occupy the higher spoil elevations required for the development plan, 6-1 3. Wildlife Resources Spoil coverage of the 450 acres to be developed will result in a temporary loss of existing vegetated spoil bank habitat for rabbits, small birds, and other animals which may occasionally utilize these areas as a habitat. Revegetation of newly deposited spoil will occur quickly, however, and spoil covered areas will have returned essentially to previous conditions as far as vegetation is concerned within one to two years after spoil is deposited. Construction of roads, buildings, warehouses, and other structures will permanently remove an area of spoil bank habitat over which they will be erected. The general quality of spoil banks as wildlife habitats will be reduced by the presence of structures, since activi- ties of man and wildlife usage of an area are partly incompatible. However, spoil banks are not prime habitat and are less ecologically important than marsh habitats. Some parts of the site, especially the Gulf shore, nearshore Gulf areas, and the rock jetties at the mouth of Belle Pass, are used by the brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis , an endangered species, as feeding areas. Although this species would be the most affected by the project, the area also serves as a habitat for two other endangered species, the bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) and the peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus ) (Aycock, 1976) . 4. Water Resources Turbidity increases due to the dredging and spoil placement will temporarily affect the water quality of Bayou Lafourche and/or the remaining brackish water environment within the impounded area. Pro- bable but yet undetermined pollutional impacts will result from the dredging itself and runoff from the disposal area. Dredging will modify the water bottom of Bayou Lafourche and the flotation canal. Salinity increase in Bayou Lafourche is unavoidable but salinity increase of adjacent marsh environments could be ameliorated by res- tricting water exchange through the limited number of tidal streams that connect Lower Bayou Lafourche and Timbalier Bay. There will undoubtedly be some water pollution derived from boat traffic, minor spills or bilge-pumping, or from industries to be located at the port. There is no way to assess the degree or nature of water pollution from these sources during the pre-project period, except to say that potential water pollution is likely to be of a minor nature, since pollution regulations will be enforced. Water quality standards of the State of Louisiana will be adhered to. 5. Aquatic Resources Adverse effects on aquatic resources will occur during dredging operations, consisting of destruction of benthic invertebrates living in the bottom muds of areas to be dredged and temporary turbidity increases caused by dredging which may affect primary aquatic production 6-2 for a short period. The areas to be dredged include a channel extend- ing into the Gulf of Mexico from the Belle Pass jetties to the 30 ft contour line, Belle Pass, Bayou Lafourche as far north as the flota- tion canal, the flotation canal itself, and a T-slip north of Pass Fourchon. These losses are only temporary, however, Dredged areas will be recolonized by bottom-dwelling invertebrates after dredging operations are completed. Any decrease in primary aquatic production caused by increased turbidities during dredging operations will be very short-term, 6. Economic and Social Impacts (Primary and Secondary) Summary of Population Projections - Population projections for the lower Lafourche Parish, and especially for Ward 10 where the proposed facilities are located, are difficult to assess, since it will depend to a great extent on such factors as construction of the Superport off the coast of Bayou Lafourche and development of the Port Fourchon facility. It is expected that since there exists almost total employment in the parish, all direct employment will cause workers to migrate into the parish (Gulf South Research Institute, 1974). Future Economic Activity and Land Use - Loss of 450 acres of spoil and marsh previously devoted to recreation, sport fishing, and hunting will cause some monetary loss to the local economy, which would be an unavoidable adverse environmental impact. Beneficial effects are discussed at full length under Section 2,C of this report. 7 . Recreational Resources The loss of 450 acres of recreational land to industrial and commercial uses would be an adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. However, additional recreational land would be made accessible within the 3,800 acres at Port Fourchon, including a large segment of sand beach. For additional recreational benefits, see Section 6, B, 3 below. 8. Archeological Resources Of the nine prehistoric archeological sites in the area, six could be adversely impacted by primary effects of the project (Table 6-1) . Included are sites 16 LF 7, 16 LF 82, 16 LF 83, 16 LF 84, 16 LF 85, and 16 LF 86, all of which could be covered by maintenance dredging spoil (Table 6-2). Of these, sites 16 LF 82 and 16 LF 86 are considered to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The remaining four are classed as slightly to moderately important; all have some potential for yielding additional scientific data that would contribute to a better understanding of the cultural history, cultural processes, and paleoecology of the area. 6-3 CO 0> M CO QJ »£> CO H 4-4 CO o QJ w ■u o r-l CO H QJ Xi eci QJ E 3 3 XI o S2 c CO 6 X) co qj CO •H CO 4-J H a] CO co 0) •H >H T3 u M ^ c u 3 03 c O g > H H 6 o w en C o T3 •H CD 03 to o nj U u CU •H UJ M 4-1 U 4-1 T3 c CO QJ H U CO H crj qj H 4-J )-l CO u QJ O c 3 « M Q 4-1 0) t-4 4-1 3 O 4-1 00 3 £ C CO P4 O -H QJ ^ 00 4-1 >•> (J •H PQ QJ CO CO >-i •X3 U Q rH QJ •H CO r-i CO QJ o QJ O CJ •H > a c 00 O QJ CO o u a c I— 1 QJ o QJ rH 4-J QJ PQ •H C £i >- O -H CJ pd O a co )-i § H w X CO pej O Ph rH ■U •H >> O CO rH a 4-» rH co co o cd 4-1 cu •u >. -H 4-1 O pa co 4-4 H o CU TJ C4 QJ QJ QJ QJ PQ •H P CO M u 3 QJ H PQ > X) < C O 55 •H CO Ps Ps X X Ps Ps X K> K^ K> S*" 4 f'N k*N »**N p'N X X s> s*^ s^* r*N t*^ »^s <• n en II a II w II II rH II CO II 4-J II CO II CO II O II c_> II II ^ II x> II II {>> II QJ II > II 5-i II 3 II CO II II CO II 0) II o II r-l II 3 II O II CO II a> II Pi II II rH II CO II u II 3 II 4J II rH II 3 II O II II II • • II 0) II o II r-l II 3 II O II CO II 6-4 II >j II o <4-t II -^ M O II C|t3 O II H 'H C h co II II Z CO 'H v 4-1 II pd x; tT3 -H rH a II O -H 4J CO cO II II P_, ,-H )-l 3 3 5? rH 01 CU <3 14-4 •H II H -H 4-t 4-t 4-1 II II 4-> CO O rH V-i >< co E P-i co 4-1 4-1 00 CO II M -H -H •h a. II H t/5 0) IE CO II II II II r-l II cO II 3 o II -H H O «H II 0) IZ -H «4-l II O -• cj > cO II CO J'H (DO II u y b! II 0) H cO II 4-> < E tS 05 CU rH II "H II CO W 4-i 3 II P co O II -H O >>X1 II co ~ cxi co II o II -H II 00 II O cu II rH H CJ II O II -< 4-t TJ CU II co ►J CO CU rH II cu H P 3 rH II PC -HO II cu O CU CO u II o (-1 E 4-t ii a rJ O XI 11 rt CXI CO O II 4-1 II i-> II o ii a. T3 ii e CU II -H >% n H O II cw Z 4-1 U II o oi E cu ii a) O rH P II s-< P-4 <£ II WD s ^ II 0) H CU rH ii P 4J rH n H -H CO II O CO 4-1 II S3 O ii H ii ii • II CN H 1 II v£> co II W II cu H II -H M ii -a co II 03 II H X X X PS rN X X X X j m vo p^OOONCOOOOOOOOOCO fePMrtlfefcr^fcr^rXH ,J .J hJ hJ rJ J hi rJ rJ II II II II II • II r^ ii I s * ii cr> ii H || II "II • II C II H || II "II CO || £- n § ii 5 " 2 ii "H || £ ii £ ii 2 " 2 II II !>. " _o 'I - II CU J! C ii £ ii r« 'I CO „ r« I' £ II 8 " 2 n £ 'I V) /I c 3 o UJ o if ■ J? < o o / f Z3H01VN u. - -j O I - - /* Jtg? — — I* — SIHdWSW ^ OblVO M It 3 <£> UJ 8 z UJ a z < i- Q (0 § a - 8 c o A o o pK 4J S-J O Pu M-l O >•, 4J •H C •H O •H > CD a •H CD c •H rH U c >■> CO o 0) O 4J 03 O a M-l H D O 0) .d H I < •H o i in I o CM I TS'W \a*\ 'NOI1VA313 A-10 x 0) 3 3 •H 4J C o o rJ M CO CO o X W II 03 II CU II u II CQ II II >-. II X II 3 II 4-1 II CO II II QJ 4P 4-1 c E 3 rH O CJ II o II -H II W) II o II rH II O II OJ II o II II II II II -H II < II II CU II H II 43 II ctj II H O c rJ o PC H PH P3 o O PC CJ o w CM I < OJ 00 CO 43 CO H 0) 0) CO 2 43 x a a co 4-1 •H 5-4 CO CU O > a •H a. o X E 4-1 X 3 4-J E rH CO CuO CO 4-1 CD o CU CO 3 O •H X X •H rH o >. M 3 3 > 43 >^ C cO u 4P QJ c 4-1 •H rH 5-i •> o >, cr CO CO CO X •H • r- 4-1 u 43 CO CO bO CO >. t— 1 5H 3 4-4 CU CO CO CO ^ 3 4-1 QJ 4C QJ w *■ 50 CO CO c 4-1 CO 3 CO 4-1 CO >, o 3 5- CO 3 QJ QJ ■U CO ■ r> o 5-i CU o o 3 CU X a OJ to •H •H rH 4-1 XI rH CO 4-1 CU 4-1 J-l a 3 3 E 5 M-l rH •H 3 •H 1 CU CO rC •H 5-1 CJ O CO QJ •H 4-1 CU 4-1 CO co 4-1 X a N o •> 4-1 CO rH X 4P .— 1 QJ 3 CO CU CO a 4J . », 00 CO CO 43 CU &0 rH 5-( O e co X rH S-i CO • «s >H c CO 3 CU X CU 43 CO •H QJ O 5-i OJ X C r-H QJ CO CU CO CO c •H M 3 3 CU r-\ >, E 4-1 4C 3 CO OJ E c 3 •H •H rH 3 CO •H CL rH •H CO c o E o cr jc CO CU 4-1 CO U-J CO . «s » * r> CJ «- to CO o r-4 3 4-1 O CJ 4J 3 CJ >> •H CO C U 4J >% u M •H CO 4C CO c 3 3 >-. >^ t > CU 3 o 3 u rH CO 4-> 3 X X 4-1 nH 3 CO )H cu 5-1 3 3 5-i O <-* CO CU CO rH •H o CU 3 >-l CO O 4= 4-1 >, CU CO rH 3 5-i o 4C 4P co a CJ o E E o a g O CO CO > CO M-l 4-1 43 o 4J o CO rH ec CJ 5-i OJ X 1 rH 3 CD E rH U CO CJ X »« 3 QJ CU •H CO •i i 3 X CO CO 3 4-» > O 3 ■U 4-1 •H •H 3 5-i CO rH r-{ cO CO rH 4J CU CU -i •H CO M en Pm pu A-ll X CD 3 C •H 4-J 3 o to r-J rH m xn c u- X UJ o o (J c PC CX P o PCS o «fc PC c_> CD o H Pm 43 w CO H •H 3 O CO 3 c o •r~) O M CJ W co 3 i— i 43 G P* CO mH X u o ex • oo u 3 ex 3 CO O 3 •H -H 4-> rH S-l 3 o o CX -H 4-J >H c cjj a) a »_] p w 3 rH rH O e CO 0) •u M ct! a o CO 3 ca o B •H 4J CO U 0) O XI CX -H S QJ cO rH +j X) o XI PU ■H S CO CX ■H X 0) 4^ i e 3 3 x o •H CO c r4 -H O U CX QJ 3 0) a) rH 00 X -H X CQ c o •H 4-1 • -H 5-4 CX CO O Z (J) u CX PQ QJ CO r. en rQ 01 E 4 cj )-i 3 O 3 CX -H 00 rH >-4 CO CO co S CO CQ CO CO X 4-J 4-) 4J CO 4J •H T— 1 t— 1 4-) •H CO •H kJ •H 3 X 3 o CO 0) CO OJ OJ ex o 4-1 E N CO cu n •H cd X OO •H >> X CO CO 3 3 CO rH CO X 4-J CO M •H iH CO CJ c rH X I4H CO CJ X •H CO 0) en CO CO CO a) CO CO X •H >. X X o r^4J 4-J r* CO c o 4-4 4-1 rH 00 <4-l CJ rH CO o rH 00 0) 3 CO a CO 3 * •H 3 X •H r-l CO CO -rH (-( CO 43 X u X OJ U »\ 01 >, 3 OJ OJ 42 • •> cO CO &0 cO . «■. CO 4J •H 3 CO 0) X c rH 3 CO <4-4 4-J CU 43 OJ •H u •H CO 3 •H CO 1 rO U-l ac 4-1 r4 4-J CO <4H u X •H rH 43 4-1 O cO CO OJ QJ 3 M •H CO 0) o u a> rH 4-1 CO O CO 0) cx M 00 rH cO 3 >n X. 1— 1 rH C/j Z /-S CO o ■^ &0 CO CX rH M 00 3 3 -H 3 H 3 cO 3 X O 3 c2 •H >-i CO 3 x: E co Pm 3 CO Oi PC O 4-J o rH X CO fn PL, r-4 s -^ U 3 cx O 3 O X u 3 o cO rJ o CJ 3 0) u o •H >> CO 1 X CO 3 ^ cO a CQ •H r3 u CO CO PQ cO >-, CO rH CO 14-1 CO -3 U C/j CO u Q >, CO 3 •H • E ^ •H O rH -H 0) )H >H 4J CH CO •H - r-i CO < 3 X • o CO o • rH P rH A-12 K u o •H N u o 4-1 n3 G cd •H CO •H C CD cj c CD 3 O" CU CO CO u iH O -a o ,n ■i-j M-l o I 60 •H A-13 X X 111 tu -1 Z-l Q. 5 s So IO u u Ui H< az< t- e c o •H 4J •H CO o a CD -d o CO o •H 4J CO •H QJ 4-1 o CO CO J3 o CO a •H CO >•. p-i c^j i -a aj H (0 o a. cl; U - CD >~ 1 — -H -H ' CD """I ^3 ~ C£L °^ co V V 3 3 CL . 1 — u ^ ■o S T3 2 T3 S ^ co ^ UJ ^ UJ 01 3 L. 01 CU II >, >, a >> X *U a. >, ^ CD °° e -h 1-. h c a. cu E 1- (fl c O X C ^ o ai x: -r^ 3 o c c C «,-H , U w en 1-1 4-1 ^ ^ « 'o W XI £ fe C X 2 2 ra S £ U M X a. 4-i 13 ■o ■o c 3 h 13 « to E E E Jj U E 0) 3 CO -t E C -H TJ ffl U u i_> i— 1 » c -C t O X 00 -H ^ UJ -u O <=c i — •o o ■u 3 m QJ CXI CD CD c_> c o o u > N 4-1 TJ cam T) -U >,T) • - c ■S| o J o 'S o a. u 3 tH tfl •-■ irt X 3 O S o 3" 3 3 3 o n > .-1 >- c 1 § a * ...^ > 3 co >- c ^ i ■ I o 01 > 3 rt E jj 0J -H (fl ^ M c cd ' — >*-4 C C ^ 3 UJ O 1M -0 cc: ra j3 c o uH in m CL > C 11 ■H C 4-4 I-" -H Li 3 U o> c c 0> o o o -u o *-> C OC l-i > « in oj C l-> C "H I- C n-t 3 C O « 1-4 u E 91 K C o a TJ O 0) > at c •H s (U ? 5?, 0, (A O ai a. a. C V 3 o *-» 3 VI w -O c ^ c a; w u ai 2£i ^ p: •a T3 U 3 3 "a « O TD O QJ V. l-> O ■O Ul M w Jj (0 iJ X u 3 jr * D. OJ u W 3 4J 01 ST ;;;; •H c 3 JJ OD H « «) CJ n jj h 5 P; -i e c u -o (-. !/) D. 1-1 ai iJ u 4J O « -H O. *J -H -. o a. c O l-i U > >, ^ E a. C £ E 00 o c ai 3 jO -H j*. o s: i-. n jo jj > -O ~H CL ■-» *-"■—'<—( V) » T) « O E O ™ UJ > V) . C * -H « n « >i (JD °° ■O 4J > T3 jj co « E 'H C C --i C r-4. ni 4-» CD C 4J CL O — 1 11 -H CO E u l. oi oi en (n V) oi tf) 4J O ° '"" l ° u 01 tn 00 VI X 4_i 1 D_ CL. CO £1 •a; U_ H UJ UJ UJ CO UJ CO UJ UJ CD CO UJ Q_ D* CD UJ Q 1 — oc —J cr uj Ci UJ =D > 1^ UJ ■=C -I 3=>^ ce: PQ t— CD C3 > UJ LU s: -) «=c ^ 1=1 < 1 UJ UJ X <— . cr: - i Cd CD CD or: CO ID CD 5 1^ — 1 UJ UJ ce: CO DD 3 z Q_ UJ XN303U-3Ud XN303U A-16 The Recent formation can be divided into seven depositional environ- ments. All of these facies are common in a deltaic cross-section and are distinguished by recognizable physical parameters (Table A-2). In the study area only the natural levee and marsh environment are present. Fringing the shoreline are reworked sand and shell beaches. Fig, A-2 shows the environments of the abandoned geomorphic features. Borings which were taken in the study area by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are shown in Fig. A-10. Elevations along the natural levees of Bayou Lafourche range from less than 5 ft MSL at Leeville to sea level at the mouth of Bayou La- fourche. The brackish marshes in the interdistributary basins are at or just above sea level. The marshes are inundated during high tides and south winds. The Bayou Lafourche delta Complex has undergone subsidence, consequently enlarging the bays, lakes, and marshlands in this area. Subsidence rates for Louisiana coastal areas have been established at 0.70 ft per century (Fig. A-ll) . The present seaward edge of the Lafourche delta complex is one of the most rapidly retreating parts of the Louisiana coastline. Retreat rate estimates vary from 20 m to over 33 m per year (Morgan and Lari- more, 1957) Gagliano and van Beek, 1970), The shoreline erosion rate for the Port Fourchon area was recently determined to be in some places 2J.86 to 30.48 m per year (Whitehurst and Self, 1974). Figure A-12 shows historic and projected shoreline retreat in the Caminada-Port Fourchon area. 2 . Subsurface Faults Subsurface faults found near the study area are shown in Fig. A-ll Surface expression is absent even though displacement along a single fault may be as much as 2000 ft or more at great depths. Faults appear to be related to the regional trend of the Gulf Coast Geosyncline. 3 . Salt Domes Related to the thousands of feet of sediment in the Geosyncline is the occurrence of salt domes (Fig. A-ll). The domes are cylindri- cal masses of salt that pierce through sedimentary strata from a mother bed at a depth of 20,000 ft or more. Economically, the salt domes are important for various reasons. Associated with the upthrusting of the salt stock, there is usually a peripheral upwarping of sedimentary strata adjacent to the dome providing structural traps for hydrocarbons. 4. Econo mic Geology In the vicinity of the study area and in the offshore areas the principal geologic resources are oil and gas (Table A-3) . The areas fronting the Lafourche Parish coastline contain 27% of the offshore oil wells drilled and 12% of the offshore gas wells drilled in the state A-17 3 o s -30 _J c (0 ai 2 -3b ** u. 0, a* -40 (.. c o *- n -45 > 0) UJ 15-L 1961 SSSEESSsSJgnTOKWZSaWR 15-LD 1961 LEGEND i§ i SILTY SAND LEAN CLAY 17-L 1961 sss ^ agiaB ''^^^ l! sga , ag« Fig. A-ll. Subsidence rates, subsurface faults, and salt domes in the Port Fourchon area. A-19 4-1 u o ;•- I XI nj c u a) 4-) aj U 4-J 01 a) c •H H o CO X) cu 4J o 0J ■I—] o u a • CO xi .—I I 60 •H o 4-1 A-25 LEGEHD <5 PPT 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 >25 PPT ^^ MAJOR FRESHWATER INFLOW C^ (BAYOUS, RIVERS, CANALS) ^">\ SECONDARY FRESHWATER INFLOW (BAYOUS, CANALS) ^ MAJOR GULF INFLOW (CHANNELS, ^ PASSES) tO Statute MHtes tt Kilometer* Fig. A-15. Average salinity distribution across south .Louisiana (Continued). A-26 Most important with respect to the project area is the interdis- tributary basin formed by the natural levee ridges of Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Moreau. This basin will hereafter be referred to as the Fourchon Basin. Natural levee ridges of Bayou Moreau separate the Fourchon Basin effectively from the Barataria-Salvador Basin to the east. Natural levee ridges of Bayou Lafourche, on the other hand, are inter- rupted in a number of places, thus connecting the Fourchon Basin directly with Bayou Lafourche and indirectly with the Timablier Basin to the west of Bayou Lafourche. Exchange of water with the Gulf of Mexico occurs through one or more intermittent tidal passes connecting the Gulf with Bay Champagne and Bay MarchandV, and indirectly and continu- ously through Belle Pass and Bayou Lafourche. Salinities of Bayou Lafourche are a function of a number of fac- tors. These include: the introduction of freshwater from the Missis- sippi River at Donaldsonville , salinity of water introduction through canals connecting Bayou Lafourche and the Timablier and Barataria Basins respectively, and Gulf water levels and salinities. ^ • Hydr ology of the Project Area To discuss hydrology of the project area, the Fourchon Basin has been divided into four smaller units shown in Fig. A-14, and numbered one through four. Each of these units represents a hydrologic entity with boundaries formed by natural and man-made features. Unit 1 occupies the northern half of the Fourchon basin. Rigid boundaries occur along the east and south sidej on the east is the natural levee of Bayou Moreau and the associated road bed of LA High- way 1 on the south side is a spoil embankment associated with the flo- tation canal that connects Bayou Lafourche and a commercial marina. To the west the unit is bounded by Bayou Lafourche; exchange of water is possible through a number of tidal creeks. Spoil embankments along Bayou Lafourche have led to partial ponding. The area is characterized by the broken marsh surface and numerous shallow water bodies associated with deteriorating salt marsh. Unit 2 is part of the project area and is totally impounded by spoil embankments and associated road beds except for one small outlet to the flotation canal. Exchange of water with surrounding water bodies is negligible. The area is almost entirely occupied by shallow waters. As a result of impoundment, water has become brackish. Unit 3 is a salt marsh basin bounded by spoil and an associated road bed to the west and by the natural levee ridge of Bayou Moreau to the east. Along the south side, it is bounded by a narrow beach ridge which protects it from direct Gulf wave action but which allows exchange of water through a tidal pass into Bay Champagne. The unit represents an estuarine sub-basin within the Fourchon Basin. Most of the area is characterized by salt marsh interspersed with numerous small lakes and tidal channels. Bay Champagne takes up the remaining area. A-27 North-south water movement has been partly interfered with as a result of the Chevron Canal, which is oriented east-west along the north side of Bay Champagne. The canal connects with Pass Fourchon and thus indirectly with Bayou Lafourche. At times, the tidal pass may be closed due to spit building across its mouth. Under such circumstances the Chevron Canal regulates water exchange. Unit 4 is separated from the Gulf by a low marsh ridge that occasionally is breached. Spoil embankments partly separate the area from Belle Pass and Pass Fourchon with water exchange regulated by intersecting location canals. Spoil deposition has resulted in destruction of most of the original salt marsh. Some marsh remains in the eastern half. Bay Marchand remains just inside the beach ridge along the southern margin, but it is being filled as a result of shoreline retreat. Since Pass Fourchon is closed at its mouth by a dam, water exchange is primarily with water derived from Bayou Lafourche. In general, the hydrology of Units 1 and 4 is regulated by condi- tions in Bayou Lafourche that include stage, salinity, and water quality, and by local precipitation and the degree of ponding. Unit 2 is an impoundment, but subject to overflow during high tidal stages. Ponding of local precipitation greatly reduces salinities. Unit 3 may shift from indirect dependency on Bayou Lafourche when tidal passes are closedj to direct exchange with marine waters when Bay Champagne is connected with the Gulf of Mexico. Marine effects can be overriding for all units when storm surges lead to flooding of the entire area. 3 . Major Tributaries Only one major stream, Bayou Lafourche, affects the project area. Bayou Lafourche originates at the town of Donaldsonville and flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Originally a distributary of the Mississippi River, the bayou was separated in 1904 from the Mississippi River by a dam; water is now pumped into the bayou at rates from 100 to 300 cfs with an average of 260 cfs. The length of Bayou Lafourche is approximately 102 mi. Water flow is confined between natural levee ridges but artificial canals provide for exchange of water with adjacent estuarine basins to the east and west. Near the Gulf of Mexico the channel bifurcates into Pass Fourchon and Belle Pass. Pass Fourchon, however, has been artificially closed so that all flow enters the Gulf through Belle Pass. Belle Pass has been enlarged by dredging to a 20 ft by 300 ft channel to improve deep water access as part of the Port Fourchon development program. Additional access work has been the building ol jetties at the mouth of Belle Pass. Bayou Lafourche can be separated into two reaches; An upper, fresh- water reach from Donaldsonville to the Intracoastal Waterway, and a lower reach from the waterway to the Culf which is subject to tidal effects and saltwater mixing. The upper reach is dependent primarily on water introduction at Donaldsonville and water exchange with the Company and Intracoastal Canal. A weir at Thibodaux is for water supply purposes. A-28 Adjacent to the project area, Bayou Lafourche presently has a depth of approximately 10 ft and a width of about 500 ft. The Bayou has been intensively dredged for navigation, Dredging in the reach from Leeville to the Belle Pass was completed in 1963 when a channel of 12 ft by 125 ft was attained. Predicted maintenance frequency of the section was ten years. 4 . Other Water Bodies Related to the Study Area The study area relates indirectly to water bodies of the Timbalier Basin as a result of linkage between the Bay and Bayou Lafourche. Timbalier Bay and its fringing marshes connect with Bayou Lafourche by means of Evans Canal and an unnamed pipeline canal farther north. Both canals are shown in Fig. A-14. 5 . Uses of Surface Waters Use of surface waters in the project area is limited to naviga- tion related to oil and gas industry, commercial fisheries, and recre- ation. The Bayou Laf ourche-Belle Pass channel serves as the main route to the Culf of Mexico for fishing vessels stationed at the towns along Bayou Lafourche. Many industries serving the well platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are also located along Bayou Lafourche. The channel further gives access to the Gulf for recreational activities such as deep-sea fishing. Within the project area, there are two more channels that serve navigation. The flotation canal connects Bayou Lafourche with a commercial marina adjacent to LA Highway 1. Pass Fourchon connects Bayou Lafourche with oil and gas storage tanks. 6 . Stages, Flows, and Tidal Effects Because of limited water input, stages in Bayou Lafourche and connected waters of the project area are primarily determined by lunar and wind tides. Average stages in Bayou Lafourche decrease in downstream direction from 5.2 ft at Thibodaux, to 1.1 ft at Leeville to 0.4 ft at Belle Pass. Near the mouth of Bayou Lafourche in the project area, the stage variation averages 1.4 ft. Extreme conditions occur in connection with hurricane passage or landfall. For example, stages associated with hurricane Betsy in September, \9(> r >, ran to approxi- mately 6.5 ft at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche. Flows in Lower Bayou Lafourche are influenced strongly by wind and tide. Connection with the Barataria and Timbalier estuaries provide for discharge increases over the water input from the Missis- sippi River at Donaldsonville . Flow measurements reported by White- hurst (1974) are shown in Table A-4. A- 29 Table A-4. Hydraulic data at selected sites. Cross Mile Sectional Number Site Area (ft^) Q (cfs) max (cfs) V (fps) V max (fps) 106 3 565 266 544 0.471 0.963 70 14 750 266 544 0.394 0.725 51 22 1550 456 899 0.292 0.580 26 32 2930 533 4770 0.182 1.59 *A11 minimum flows are 0.0 cfs; All minimum velocities are 0.0 cfs. (ft2)=square feet; Q (cfs)=adverse discharge, cubic fee_t per second; Q max (cf s)=discharge maximum, cubic feet per second; V (fps)=adverse velocity, feet per second; V max (fps)=maximum velocity, feet per second. Source: Whitehurst, 1974. 7 . Ti des and Wave Characteristics Tides affect the coastal area by controlling the rate of mixing of seawater and freshwater in this zone, influencing navigation depths in the sea level canals, and regulating the rate of disposal of waste in the coastal zone. Tides commonly inundate the lower coastal marshes to depths of 12 to 29 in. On the average their speed varies up to 3.5 knots during flood periods and up to 4.3 knots during ebb periods. The mean tidal level is from 0.4 to 1.2 ft, and the mean tidal range is from 0.9 to 2.5 ft. Monthly data on tides along the central Louisiana coast are shown in Table A-5. The normal tide along this coast is diurnal, but strong winds may change its character. Winds modify the tides significantly. During the winter months the marshes are rarely covered as a result of northerly winds of long duration which accompany very low tides. The lowest mean water levels occur from December through March and the highest levels occur in September and October. The Louisiana coast is known as a low-energy coast in terms of offshore waves. Generally waves along this coast are 3 to 5 ft in height with a period of 4.5 to 6 sec when wind speeds arc greater than 10 km/hr. They commonly approach the coastline from the southeast (Table A-6). A previous study (Becker, 1972) implies that during spring and summer the intensity of offshore waves is at its lowest peak but that during fall and winter it increases 2 to 3 times the low intensity. Direction of approach and longshore current velocity are important factors related to the erosion rates of the retreating shore- line of the Port Fourchon area and should be taken into account when considering the placement of structures for shore stabilization, hurri- A-30 Table A- 5, Monthly tide levels in feet along the Central Louisiana Coast, 1958-59*. Mean Mean Mean Highest Lowest High Low Water Individual Individual Month Tide Tide Level Tide Tide January .39 -.35 .02 1.5 -2.0 February .56 -.26 .15 1.6 -1.8 March .60 -.18 .21 1.3 -1.5 April .78 .09 .43 1.2 - .7 May 1.13 .40 .76 2.4 - .7 June 1.19 .18 .69 1.7 - .7 July .83 -.06 .39 1.5 -1.0 August .83 .11 .47 1.6 - .8 September 1.26 .69 .97 2.6 - .2 October 1.06 .39 .72 1.8 - .5 November .85 .07 .46 1.5 -2.1 December .37 -.62 -.12 1.4 2.2 Annual 82 .04 .43 2.6 -2.2 Source: *From Chabreck and Hoffpauir, 1962; Chabreck, 1972 cane protection, and navigational improvements. A recent report (Whitehurst and Self, 1974) observed that littoral current moved from east to west (waves approaching from east-southeast to southeast) . Wave diffraction was also observed occurring around the jetty at Belle Pass causing recession on the downdrift side and varying shoreline recession immediately west of the channel. The study concluded that shoreline erosion west of Belle Pass will continue at the present rate from natural processes; and that the 1200 ft dike extension on the proposed west jetty will retard wave action on the remnant island and at the mouth of the north-south canal to the west. It also indicated that the proposed jetty s>stem will offer safety to navigation in and out of Belle Pass at times of rough seas. A-31 Table A- 6. Annual wave climate summary for Coastal Louisiana, Wave Direction From Which Wave is Coming Wave Wave Height Period (feet) (seconds) East Southeast South Southwest Subtotals 3.0 4.5 13.4% 20.9% 7.5% 5.0% 46.8% 5.0 6.0 8.9% 20.6% 8.7% 7.6% 45.8% 7.0 7.0 1.2% 1.2% 0.8% 3.2% 8.5 8.0 1.4% 0.5% 1.5% 0.8% 4.2% Subtotals 24.9% 43.2% 18.5% 13.4% 100.0% *The percentages cited are relative to portion of time during the year when wind velocities exceed 10 kilometers/hour. Winds >10 kilometers/ hour prevail during 43.3 percent of the year on the average. Source: Becker, 1972. A-32 F. CLIMATOLOGY The Port Fourchon area has a humid, sub-tropical, marine climate associated with the latitude of the region and proximity of the site to the Gulf of Mexico. 1. Temperature Distribution The annual average temperature in the area is 69.2°F; the average temperature in January being 54.9°F, and that of July 80.7°F. The summers are hot with dominant southeasterly winds. Fall weather is warm and generally frost free. During November frontal fogs begin to appear, reducing visibility near the Gulf of Mexico. Winters are usu- ally mild and cool; cold fronts, which move southeastward through the area, are accompanied by high velocity northerly and northwesterly winds. The average frost- free period is 264 days extending from Febru- ary 27 to November 18. The greatest change in average temperature between successive months occurs from March to April and from October to November. 2. Rainfall Distribution Precipitation is high, averaging 60.5 in annually (Table A-7). July and August are the wettest months, with average monthly precipitation means of 7.37 in and 6.63 in respectively. Generally the summer and winter seasons are the rainiest. During the summer, moist Gulf air creates almost daily afternoon and evening thunderstorms. Monthly precipitation means for this season are 6.4 in. During the winter precipitation means are 5.2 in. Rainfall during the spring is 4.6 in, slightly less than that during the winter. Although autumn conditions regarding precipitation origins are very much like summer, the monthly precipitation means are 4.5 in. Precipitation is one of the most important environmental factors in the coastal zone because it controls the area and amount of water available (rainfall excess) for runoff into streams, lakes, swamps, and marshes. Rainfall excess (precipitation minus soil infiltration and evapotranspiration) for the study area expressed as a percentage of annual precipitation is around 27 in (Fig. A-16). The mean annual rainfall excess in the study area is 16 in (Gagliano et_ aj_. , 1973) . 3. Humidity Humidity is high all yeararound but it is highest during the sum- mer months because of abundant precipitation and because the prevailing winds have a long fetch over the warm surface (Table A-8). A-33 Table A-7. Monthly precipitation in inches (metric equivalents given), Southeast Division. Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Monthly Average: 5.89 4.70 4.90 4.31 4.50 5.27 7.37 6.63 6.40 3.23 3.74 4.96 Monthly Average (cm) : 14.96 11.84 12.45 10.95 11.43 13.39 18.72 16.84 16.26 8.20 9.50 12.59 Winter (DJF) Spring (MAM) Summer (JJA) Fall (SON) Annual Seasonal Average: 5.18 4.57 6.42 4.46 5.16 Seasonal Average (cm): 13.16 11.61 16.31 11.33 13.10 Source: Stone, James, et^ al . , 1973. ( v Data extracted and derived from National Climatic Summary.) «■ . • • A-34 CO CD crj ■y CO c CO CO C CO •H CO •H O CO J-i 4-1 c 0) O u O cn en en cu u X CD d •H CO U IH O CD 00 CO 4J a CD CJ M CD i-H I < 00 •H A-35 Table A- 8. Percentage frequencies of relative humidity observations at 6 A.M. and 3 P.M. , during midseason months. Relative humidity in percentage 0-29 30-49 50-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 January 6 A.M. 2 12 14 22 51 3 P.M. 4 25 42 12 9 8 April 6 A.M. 2 9 7 22 59 3 P.M. 6 30 44 9 6 4 July 6 A.M. 1 2 20 77 3 P.M. 25 mph. October wind speeds continue to increase over those of Sfptember, 13. 7% of which are >25 mph. The increase in wind speed continues into the winter months showing December with 23.1% of the winds being > 25 mph. Maximum wind speeds of over 120 mph generated by cyclones and hurricanes can be expected in the study area from late May to early November. A- 36 Table A-9. Frequency in percent of winds from various directions in the Gulf of Mexico; A. Monthly Data, B. Seasonal Data. A. Monthly Data. Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec N 19 13 12 10 10 4 4 4 6 13 18 12 NE 16 20 13 18 16 10 10 11 22 34 23 18 E 21 21 20 32 28 30 28 22 33 28 24 22 SE 17 17 27 19 17 23 18 13 13 7 11 16 S 7 10 12 7 6 6 10 8 5 2 6 8 SW 5 3 3 2 3 4 5 7 2 2 2 3 w 5 6 4 4 4 2 4 6 3 2 3 5 NW 10 10 7 7 5 4 4 5 4 4 7 7 B. Seasonal Data. Fall Winter Spring Summer 18 16 10 21 27 27 17 21 18 9 6 4 Source: Stone, James, et al. , 1973 (Data extracted from U.S. Navel Weather, 1970)~ ~ NE 26 E 28 SE 10 NW 5 A-37 G. FLOODPLAINS Flooding in the study area is primarily the result of storm surge from tropical storms. From late May to early November, tropical cyclones and hurricanes may cross the area. These destructive storms flood large areas of the marshes to depths of 10 ft or more. They cause severe damage, and change the environment by raising the salinity of the marshes, destroying wildlife habitat, and causing coastline erosion. During the hurricane season, the average number of tropical storms is 0.76/yr. The overall hurricane probability for any one day is 0,56% in June and July and increases sharply to 0.99% during the early part of August. The study area has been struck (in the period of recorded history) by 10 damaging hurricanes and 22 other hurricanes and tropical storms. The paths of several of these damaging hurricanes are shown in Fig. A-17. Flooding of the low lying areas at Port Fourchon occurs as a result of the storm surges associated with cyclones, The highest stage of water recorded for the area as a result of a hurricane was 9 ft above MSL at Leeville (north of the study area) in September, 1915. The area of inundation and conditions associated with the passage of hurricane Betsy in September, 1965 is presented in Fig. A-18. This illustrates how storm surge generation may cause direct flooding as a result of inland propagation of the surge across the marshland, and indirect flooding through upstream propagation of the surge on the Mississippi River. The proposed site is within the 100 yr floodplain as mapped for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in May 1971 (FIA, 1970). The project is not presently specifically designed to minimize po- tential harm to the floodplain, to meet flood-proof standards under the National Flood Insurance Program, or to be in compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act. The facility is however set back from the beach area which creates a safety buffer consisting of a natural vege- tation area. A-38 CD U 0) 01 G •H WD C CO a u o CO :=> 0) 4-1 M-l 03 a) 03 •u CO OJ .rs U-l o 4-) •H c •H a •H > oj 4-1 e •H to c 03 O •H 5-J H 3 CO /-s ,r: cn 4-i r- 03 C7\ H I <3 too •H A-39 CO ■M 0) pq GJ C 03 CJ •H U u w s O "4-1 0) M 5-i e o ■I-J CO CO H I 00 •H A-40 H. WETLANDS With comnletion of Phase 1 of the Port Fourchon plan the natural vegetation at the site is already undergoing significant changes. Much of the 450 acres planned for development was formerly an inter- tidal, regularly flooded saline marsh dominated by oyster grass ( Spar- tina alternif lo ra) , a species which occurs in almost pure stands along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. In Louisiana marshes it is sometimes associated with black rush ( June us roemerianus ) , black mangrove ( Avicen - nia nitida ) , and saltgrass ( Distichlis spicata ) (Woodhouse , Seneca, Broome, 1974; Chabreck, 1970; Penfound and Hathaway, 1938). Adjacent to the low marsh were the more elevated and better drained narrow levees and minor spoil banks along Bayou Lafourche, Pass Fourchon, and Belle Pass. Terrestrial species including shrubs, herbs, and grasses (Table A-10) occupied these landforms, but there were no large trees (Tobin, 1940; Aero, 1951-52). An oil tank farm and several small canals and rig cuts were con- structed below Pass Fourchon in the early 1950's initiating a change in the indigenous marsh vegetation. Some of the saline marsh was covered by spoil material and shell which either remained bare or was invaded by shrubs and grasses. In 1967 approximately 2007 acres of this saline marsh were im- pounded by levees and the area became progressively fresher as salt water interchange was terminated (Monte, 1975). This resulted in deterioration of the interior marsh since Spartina alternif lora required flooding by saline water (Table A-ll). A large, shallow lake developed in place of this marsh in the northern three-quarters of the impound- ment. The lake bottom was invaded by Widgeon grass ( Ruppia maritima ) , while brackish to intermediated types of vegetation (Spartina patens and Distichlis spicata ) began to replace the Spartina alternif lora along the fringes of the lake. Hurricane Carmen breached the levee in 1974 permitting saline conditions to return temporarily, but the levees were repaired within a few monLns. Had saline Gulf waters been allowed to resume circula- tion in the impoundment, the Spartina alternif lora marsh may have re- juvenated. However, under present conditions the impoundment will under- go succession to an intermediate-to-freshwater lake and marsh environment (Whitehurst, 1975). The western and southern perimeter of this impoundment and the land adjacent to Belle Pass and Pass Fourchon has been receiving large amounts of spoil over the past 10 years. These spoil deposits ele- vated the land mass, killed the established vegetation through silta- tion, and initiated a transitional phase. Normal succession on these spoil deposits is expected to culminate in a terrestrial species association (over 60% not wetland species) , including some bottomland hardwoods (Monte, 1976). By the time of field reconnaissance in January 1976 a great diversity of species including shrubs, grasses, and herbs already covered the spoil sites and only a few areas remained unvegetated (Fig. A-19) . As expected, no vegetation grew in the pro- ject area where the land had been paved with shell for roads, parking lots, houses, and other industrial uses (Fig. A-20, A- 21, and A-22) . A-41 c o -3 a u 3 O ft, u o QJ X 0) I < cO H saunQ qDF9g TTods ITodS qsaen co U qsji? W ^ O aAoa^uBn CD •U . 3 0) £ aAoaSuB^ c o u •H > c 0) OJ £1 E 4-> CO •H 2 2: o -a •H QJ <4-4 4J •H CD 4-J •H C U OJ o •H CO O CO CO CD X CO 01 4-1 rH c a CO E ^H o Ph a o u IX CJ PL, Ph Cm Ph Ph CJ Ph Ph Q Ph Ph Ph O P-, U Ph Q Ph CJ Ph Ph Q Ph cj Ph Ph CJ Ph Ph Ph O Ph CJ CJ Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph CJ Ph Ph Ph Ph u X CO 3 4-1 crj u tu E o CO •H rH O Uh •H E •H •H C c a> x CO •H 00 C CO 5-i C CO 00 O • Cfl 00 Pl. -H O CO >h PL CO O CO X -o au C ^ CO o I— I QJ 00 •H X CL CO CO < w < h m >^ co u CO CO o •H c ■H 00 SH •H > • CO CO •H 3 O >-4 00 O CO O X) •H -H rH rH CO O CO CO Q CJ Oh CO U o rH M-l •H c CO >H 3 a) a) +j a rH CO CO cu u Ph Ph Ph Ph CO ■U CO 3 3 l-i -H IW 4JH U CO CO CO ,D > a co M CO CO E O ai c >-i 3 • 3. E Du CO E co a o I • U 0) CO CO, H (U (0 01 >,a ai CO 4-1 CO -H «H CJ QJ 3 E O O CO 00 J-l E r^ CO XI O CO u >^ a qj x! PC M CO Ph CO 4-1 CO a •H co o- E CO -H •H •H >h rH CO X E a •h co 4-1 -H CO 4-1 •H CO CO CO QJ CO c c CO QJ 4-) a co co CO QJ CJ 4-1 3 CO >-J •H 4-1 rH >. CO 4-1 -H CO ,3 •H CJ CO CO CO 5-1 QJ •H 5-4 Sh o fa PQ Sh X E ex CO E 3 •H > 3 CO E •H CH 4-1 •H -H >-i r-i QJ cO o E Ph CO a' E •H Ph H CO O "*•>* 4-1 Ph 3 QJ CO QJ Ph Jh Ph Ph 3 O E E o 3 CJ QJ CO cO U -H 4J •h a >-i u a co CO a cj CO C •H oj >, d a co co s P^ co c •H E o Q n CO CO •H CO 1-4 QJ CO CO > U rC QJ CO O 3 OJj a CO a cu CO >-4 O X) u )H CO •H X QJ 3 CO 00 iH >-l CO QJ CO > CO 3 CO CO QJ ^ CO 3 H CO X QJ 4-J 4-1 X) X 1-4 4-1 3 CO CO QJ rH rH 00 CO CO >H OJ rH 00 |H Sh o rH oo o S-l X J=> CJ CO 4-1 X >> CO 4-1 CO E ^ X3 •H c X) O O )-4 QJ 4-1 o CO }H )h CO QJ Sh Sh 3 (-. CO u QJ 3 3 c Sh 4-1 3 O QJ 3 00 o 3 X 3 >. o a ^S ^ >. 4-1 QJ CO CO CO QJ A OJ QJ >, Sh i— 1 CO 3 Sh o CX E QJ o o x: 1 4-1 4-) CO CO X) CO 4-1 E C rH 4-J QJ 4-J 4-1 X 1 00 QJ CO CO CO 4-1 CO CO CO CO rH u CO rH c •H 4-J CO rH rH 3 OJ CO X X Sh rH rH 3 CO CO rH rH rH o CO >, CO QJ CO cO o CO CO CO QJ QJ CO •H •H PQ PQ PQ O W (JU a o o 2 a Ph Ph Pd Oh 1 Pi CO CO CO CO CO ^ 3 £v g II I 'I 3 ! ,7, I" CO II 2 ii P » S ii S " •H ' T: i' > i r i II rH " rt 'I ^ II ^ 'I cS " u II II •• II QJ II a II H II 3 II O II CO II A-42 cO CD u CO 13 CD T3 C 3 O a e a) x 4: X CO H C 0) CD 00 U 3 )-i ccj CD X Pu u 3 (D O a) CO On •H •H S s CO CD ^ u 3 CO CO 3 x cr co r-t •H o a CO ■u f^ 3 XI CD CJ T3 U CD CD 4J Ph a r-. CD m 4-1 o^ IH i— i CO to CD C/) r-l CO •H 2 XI CO CD U 5-< CO CO g 3 cr CD CO 3 •H iH CO CO CO •H O CO CD CD a •H CO O CD CO c o G -H •H ^» •H CD CO OO O ' 3 a CO g J3 O CO •H a ex 3 O cj ftf CO ON 0> i— I CO LO CN I + + + + LO i— I — i m i— I CN v •-< v CN —I v£> 00 -i ax co T3 co a) co > H s-i to c • x >-4 3 CO CD w co u ex! co 3 CO CO U g CO p 3 •H CO bC CO CO o o •H H •U CO T3 3 3 cr co cO H II II co oo + I ,H00 H 1 CN LO CN O O VD f^ r— I a\ ro o\ i— I LT) •— I CN O-N i — i o> r» CN o o , en o 1 v£> CN CN ON I CO CD u •H CO rH •H O a co -a CD CO CD CD W) +J •H CO 3 o •H CD > 3 P CO u •H +J cO T3 3 3 cr co 5-J CD u CO CO u o H U CO 3 -H 5-i Pn +J CO u 3 rH a, o co CO CJ CO + m ii r-- n c^ II II CD II +J II 3 II O II S II II II II CD II a II 5-i II 3 II O II CO || A-.43 Fig. A-19. Impounded area in Port Fourchon. Shrub grass, herb community invading spoil deposited over former saline marsh. |_ . Levee High Spoil Low Spoil Transitional Marsh Brackish to Fresh Lake I Shell I Road High Spoil MARSH ELDER EASTERN BACCHARIS BEARD GRASS GOLDEN ROD RATTLE BUSH WAX MYRTLE SALT WORT GLASS WORT CATTAIL WIRE GRASS SALT GRASS Low Spoil GOLDEN ROD SALT WORT GLASS WORT CATTAIL ROSSEAU CANE WIRE GRASS SALT GRASS OYSTER GRASS Transitional Marsh SALT GRASS OYSTER GRASS Brackish to Fresh Lake WIDGEON GRASS Fig. A-20. Schematic diagram illustrating morphological environments and related vegetation associations A-44 Fig. A-21. Spoil fill being prepared for Port Fourchon development. Fig. A-22. Port Fourchon beach. Erosion of the shoreline is resulting in reworking of the sand & shell beach and the destruction of vegetation (black mangrove). A-45 The beach along the southern perimeter of the Port Fourchon com- plex is approximately 250 ft wide and consists of reworked sand^and shell. This area is undergoing rapid erosion (Dantin, Vhitehurst, Durbin, 1974; Fig. A-22). The beach material is being moved inland by normal wave action and storm surges and is covering the interior marshland, natural levees, and spoil sites. Small dunes back of the beach are covered by beach grasses intermixed with the pre-existing marsh and natural levee and spoil vegetation. A dense stand of mangrove grows behind the beach adjacent to Pass Fourchon and along the blocked tidal channel which bisects the southern portion of the Port Fourchon complex. Scattered mangrove also occurs in the Spartina alternif lora marsh surrounding Bay Marchand. There are no direct economic or commercial uses for the vegeta- tion in the vicinity of the planned complex. However, the marshlands and estuarine areas are indirectly of great economic value. The exact monetary value (of a marsh land) per acre is difficult to access, although Cossalink, Odum, and Pope (1974) derived a figure of $4000 per acre per year "Based on the gross primary productivity (in energy terms) of the natural marsh using a conversion ratio from energy to do Liars based on the ratio of gross national product to national energy consumption." The value of spoil bank vegetation has not been inten- sively researched but it is believed to be approximately four times less productive than a saline marsh (Young, Odum, Day, Butler, 1974). In general, the vegetation of a salt marsh acts as an agent for controlling erosion by absorbing and dissipating wave and tidal energy, it also serves as a sediment trap, storm buffer, wildlife habitat, and estuarine nursery (Lagna, 1975). Spartina alterniflora marshes are an important component of any estuarine ecosystem for they possess high rates of primary production, and provide for energy flow and nutrient cycling.. Their annual primary production in southern climates such as Louisiana is as high as 2960 g dry wt/m^/yr streamside and 1,484 g dry wt/m 2 /yr 50 m inland. These high rates place the marshes among the most productive systems on earth (Broome, 1973). Detritus washing from these marshes constitutes one of the 5 major primary food sources for estuarine organisms (Walker, 1973), many of which are ultimately harvested by man. The extremely high primary productivity of Louisiana marshland is largely responsible for this portion of the Gulf of Mexico being called the "fertile fisheries crescent" (Gunter, 1967). Louisiana's saline marshes are of value to fur mammals and water- fowl in that they moderate the effect of tides and salinities. This provides a buffer zone which protects the more desirable animal habi- tats further inland (Palmisano and Chalireck, 1972). The only direct recreation or aesthetic use for the vegetation resources in this area would be by those who engage in collecting plants or who wish to study an area undergoing dynamic changes resulting from the actions of both man and nature. The well-developed grove of mangroves along the beach and tidal channel and the beach vegetation possess significant aesthetic value for those who appreciate this type A-46 of environment. Port Fourchon provides one of the few easily accessible areas for observing these particular associations along the Louisiana coast; however, no rare or endangered plant species are known to exist in this area (McGinnis, et al. , 1972). A list of the vascular plants present in the area can be found in Table A- 12. Table .A-12. A list of vascular plants present in the study area Common Name Scientific Name Bushy beardgrass Black mangrove Eastern baccharis Saltwort Sea-oxeye Flatsedge Salt grass Sandrush Pennywort Railroad vine Marsh elder Wax myrtle Roseau cane Palmetto Glasswort Glasswort Black willow Rattle bush Sea purslane Goldenrod Oyster grass Wire grass Cattail Andropogon glomeratus Avicennia nitida Baccharis halimifolia Batis maritima Borrichia frutescens Cyperus sp. Distichlis spicata Fimbristylis castanea Hydrocotyle sp. Ipomoea pes-caprae Iva frutescens Myrica cerifera Phragmites communis Sabal minor Salicornia bigelovii Salicornia virginira Salix nigra Sesbania sp. Sesuvium sp. Solidago sp. Spartina alterniflora Spartina patens Typha sp . Source: Coastal Environments, Inc. field survey. In summary, the study area serves as wildlife habitat for migra- tory waterfowl and other wetland fauna (See Section 1, K). The Greater Lafourche Port Commission has received three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits as follows: Date Permit Number Description of Action October 7, 1974 LMNOD-SP (Gulf of Mexico) 1242 Dredge Belle Pass to 20 ft Install and maintain a jetty A-47 Date August lb, 1976 Permit Number LMNOD-SP (Pass Fourchon) 6 Description of Action Dredge a channel and slip Install and maintain a road Fi 11 in Pass Fourchon July 13, 1977 LMNOD-SP (Bayou Lafourche) 702 Dredge in an area and install and maintain rip-rap and fill There is no state agency which permits activities in the wetlands. The Louisiana Stream Control Commission, the Louisiana Air Control Com- mission, and the Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration require permits for discharges into water and air and design of sanita- tion facilities, but they do not control land use. A-48 I. WILDLIFE HABITAT 1. Gener al Wild li fe Description The Port Fourchon project area may be described as a modified saline marsh zone at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche with a beach front on the Gulf of Mexico. The marshlands in the project area have undergone considerable change as a result of spoil deposition and impoundment. A large area (approximately 2284 acres) of former marshland in the northern two-thirds of the project area (above Pass Fourchon), which formerly contained large marsh lakes (as shown on the 1953 U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle) has been converted into a single, shallow, impounded lake fringed with spoil deposits. A smaller marsh area (1300 acres) south of Pass Fourchon, vegetated mostly by oyster grass ( Spar - tina alterni flora) and black mangrove ( Avicennia nitida ) , has likewise been affected by spoil deposition, although the interior of this marsh zone still receives tidal interchange with the Gulf via Bayou Lafourche, the Tennessee Gas Transmission Canal, and small, natural channels. The total area of functional marsh (approximately 600 acres) is, however, small as compared Lo the modified areas. Terrestrial wildlife habitats occurring in the Port Fourchon pro- ject area consist of: 1) the Gulf beach, 2) saline marshes, and 3) spoil deposits . Certain animal species utilizing these habitats may be closely associated with one habitat type, while other species, which are less exacting in their habitat requirements, may be spread over all habitat types. Terrestrial wildlife species occurring in the project area are discussed below under a) and b). Aquatic habitats in the project include: 1) the surf zone of the Gulf beach, 2) the jetties at the end of Belle Pass, 3) Bayou Lafourche, 4) small canals and bayous arising from Bayou Lafourche and entering the marsh, 5) the marsh proper, and 6) the large, impounded brackish water lake along Highway 3090. Aquatic animals, including fish and shellfish, and animals closely associated with or dependent upon aquatic habitats, such as shore birds, wading birds, waterfowl, and fur-bearing mammals, are the predominant fauna in the project area which may best be described as an estuarine environment. Aquatic animals occurring in the project area are discussed in more detail below. a) Game and Fur Mammals Virtually the only game species of mammal occurring in the project area is the swamp rabbit ( Sylvilagus aquaticus ) . Rabbit pellets were numerous in both marsh and spoil bank zones in the project area, indi- cating an abundance of swamp rabbits in these habitats. The Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, in a wildlife survey of Lafourche Parish (1975), estimated the rabbit population in salt marsh habitats as one rabbit per ten acres of marsh. It is not known to what extent rabbits are hunted in the project area. The Wisner Wildlife Management A-49 area (adjacent to the project area) has provided an average of 600 man/days of recreation in the form of rabbit hunting in past years (Table A-13) . Other game mammals, such as deer and squirrels, are absent from the project area because of the lack of suitable habitat. The raccoon ( Procyon lotor ) is hunted as a game animal in forested areas of Louis- iana, but it is unlikely that raccoon hunting occurs in the project area. Fur-bearing mammals which utilize salt marsh habitats include muskrats ( Ondatra zibethicus ), nutria ( Myocastor coypus ) , mink ( Mustela v ison ) , raccoons ( Procyon lotor ), and otters ( Lutra cana d ensis ). All five of these species may occur in the project area. Although there is some limited fur trapping in the area, salt marshes are not major trap- ping grounds and most trapping efforts are carried out in other marsh types (i.e., fresh, intermediate, and brackish marshes). It is also in these other marsh types that the above-mentioned furbearers reach their highest population numbers. Saline marshes may periodically contain good numbers of muskrats, however, the quality of muskrat pelts (as well as those of other furbearers) from salt marsh areas is low, a factor which further reduces the value of salt marshes as fur-producing areas . b) Non-Game Mammals No systematic survey of the non-game mammals of the project area has been conducted. Terrestrial mammals which are likely to occur here, however, include the nine-banded armadillo ( Pasypns nov emcinctus) and the marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris ) . Certain bats, especially the seminole bat ( Lasiurus seminolus ) , are probably nocturnal feeders on insects over the marshes in and near the project area. The Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ) is common in the nearshore waters on the Gulf of Mexico and inner bays near the project area, and very likely enters Bayou Lafourche on occasions. Other marine mammals may sometimes be observed offshore in the deeper Gulf waters or found washed upon beaches. On August 19, 1939, following a hurricane, Dr. George H. Lowery , Jr. of the L.S.U. Museum of Zoology found A9 short-finned pilot whales ( Glohicephala macrorhyncha ) dead on the beach 'several hundred yards west of Pass Fourchon on the delta of Bayou Lafource' (Lowery, 1974b). c) Game Birds Waterfowl and rails are probably the only game birds occurring in the project area in sufficient numbers to attract hunter interest. The impounded, shallow lake along Highway 3090 appears to be utilized heavily by waterfowl as a feeding area. This lake is also heavily hunted by duck hunters in the winter months as evidenced by the large number of A- 50 co 4 bO C QJ •H rH ■M rQ c CO 3 H S 5-J 03 OJ 1 — 1 >» en 4-1 01 > H ON r^ on 1—1 1 1 r— 1 •^ r-^ co CT. r*> l-H CO XI >-i O C U-l CO XI CO . — 1 CO J-i 1 U • 0) . — 1 CO CO > r^ QJ QJ cO >. Vj < — 1 < X) 4-1 01 U CO 4J 4-1 O CO C ffl 4-1 CX 0) g E •H u C 0) 4-» CO •H bO CO o> CO w >, X) C .2 $ TJ S •H > CU O 4-4 >-i -H a 0- > >> cO U CO ~-^ 0J . CO O CO > CO co H < no CL Qt ^ m rH CO CN in in m co en co m 000 m m m 00 >jd m m m m o CN CM 00 ^£> m 000 000 00 ^o m 0) cu CO o, OJ -H °. C M to ^3 CO <4) 4-» CO -H CO M J3 H O X* -H CO cO Q Od P4 to S-4 O > cO QJ TO C w 1-4 QJ XI 4-1 o ooooomoo omoinoi^-cNO r^- o 00 m O CN rH rH 1 — 1 . — 1 — 1 ci o o o oooomooo oooo Parish offshore waters arc among L ! u • most productive' in Llie Gulf Coast for sports angling, due in part to the numerous offshore oil and gas platforms. These platforms serve as artificial reefs, attracting and concentrating many species of saltwater fish. Several fishing rodeos arc held in the area from May to October. Every August the three-day Tarpon Rodeo on neighboring Grand Isle attracts thousands of visitors. The only State Park near the Port Fourchon site is located on the east end of Grand Isle, approximately 20 mi away. Grand Tsle State Park, 140 acres, offers access to the Gulf of Mexico and a beach. Jetties there can be used for fishing. A 3 mi beach stretches from Bayou Lafourche to Bay Champagne and offers opportunities for recreation. A small boat launch site has been built with funds provided through a grant from the U.S. Bureau of Recreation and is used by sportsmen in the area (see Fig. A-l) . Hunting is another popular sport in the area since Lafourche Parish has one of the finest hunting grounds in the state. The marshes are wintering grounds for migrating wild geese and ducks. The hunting season for both resident and migratory game opens in early September and continues for about five months through the winter. The Wisner Wildlife Management area is adjacent to the Port Fourchon area. The 26,000 acres of the Wisner Wildlife Management area are owned by the Wisner Donation Foundation and consist of low saline marshes with dense stands of oyster grass. Hunted species at Wisner are mainly waterfowl, rail, gallinule, snipe, and rabbits. Main fish species are speckled trout, flounder, redfish, black drum, sheeps- head, and croaker. Crabbing and shrimping are. also favorite sports for the people in the area. A-65 II II II II II m u ID H) II —| !=> Q II C II o II •H II 00 II OJ II oC II II »■ II u W) U CO II cu r- 01 >. II T3 On CO CO II rH i — i P P II o II II T3 II c li CO II II 00 II u II CO II CU II >, II O U CO II X r-- OJ >'. II •H On CO cd II CO i — I P G II II 00 II c II O II co II u II . II 4-J II ■H II > II •H II 4-1 II a II cd II II >, II rO II II c II o il •H II 4-1 II CO II a II •H II CJ II •H II 4-J II u II CO II Ph II II II II • II LO II rH II 1 II < II II II cu II rH II Xi II CO II Hi O U 00 oc cu >-, ON CO CO — ' p p H H < incoNH(*io>ioc?fOi£iiri\trooocooin io n o> vo oocyv o\vo^o>ONH-CX)COCNOHfOOO 00 r— icn CM r^ H h lA m CM Cj> CO CO (N (T> voinoocMLn cn n cn fOONOCNvOHCMHsfrHVOHNr^l CN rH ooomvoio— i vOOOCONCO'-I^MrgtOfOHCNlOl^OlOrO LnoocjNrHoocoLnrHr^ h ro co m cs c — i rx CO VO r-H LO i— i ^D -^Nr o> rx ^o lo mcNv£)r~.aNc v JOcNoo i — I i — I LO CJl CO CJN cn in cn r-H \o .in\oo\oo cn o m ^c coco cococoiONsrcxirocoHNMomcocoo r->.CNinr— lOcnr— ICM^OCN'— l>-H<}-r-Hr^.t— Ir-H ONmcNoor»»vom-j- O O vD 0> vj- CTn m r-H cn cn cn en cn ' CO H o 0) cu OJ CX rH u lo 3 CO 3 CO o CO rH -C CO CO o rH a 0) u (U o o CO rH o rH X) o QJ (X o Ph 4-J 00 Ph 1 « rH o T3 4-1 O 00 c 3 O 00 c •H 4_l 00 IH o 4-4 •H 00 c CO bo C 0) c CO •H o c •H 00 bo 60 OO QJ •H 4-1 -* W 00 •H rH C C c c CO T3 C a c c u H •H •H •H 4-J C a •H rH •H S >-. > rn rC M rC CU > c O 4-1 ■H CJ •rH cd CO ■H 00 4-J w a 4-J c £ •H r-4 rH •H CO •H 4-J •H O 3 CO PQ Q Ph Ph J2 cn < Ph £ s CU 3 C •H 4J c o A-66 LO u co 00 -. en co co -H 3> Q O (J w 00 0) >, On CO CO -H P P m ^ co r^ a) p^ o> co co -h £> p O S-i CO S 0) ^ ON CO CO *H P P T3 cu a c ■H 4-J c o o rH CO H H cj Or^^c^cnLOOO -Ntnino\iri'- i in r-~ i— i c^ cm vDOONHC)\HHnM(r>Hst'vD^( , 1f , 1C\OnsrNHHOOin o lO co OvocMCMCMoor- Lnr^c\iOLOr— vOCOmHstvOCTiO'- ^coNHCNst^vD- iOOmmooo>cT'LO rNrHooc^vo^OflciHoovCiOvfcncoffic^ r^-o-coooi^omcMcoi-noocooocor^voco 00 00 vO o> CM CM ro Jo CO XI 3 3 co CO 3 3 CO c 3 00 to CO c CO CO 3 13 CO 3 CO ro CO -o 3 3 CO CO t3 3 3 co CO 3 3 co Jo cO -3 3 3 co CO 3 3 CO >. co -o 3 3 CO CO c 3 CO > — i 3— < J— i S—i 5—i 3—i 5 — i 5— « S — i S— t ? — i S — i >— • 5— i 3— i 5 — i 5 — i 5 — t 5 — i S— i » — i > — i 5 — i S — i 9 — i V— « oioicuaiQjcucucuciiajQjcucucuajaicucucuajaJaicucucucu 3333333 3 333333333333333333 WCOWWCOCOWUlCOCOCOWCOWCOWt/lWCOC/ICOWMCOC/im w II u u >. CO II OJ OO 3 o cO rH 3 CO II II •H 4-J •H X) P-. •H II CO 3 T3 00 4-1 CO II u CO T3 CU > >•, 3 •H 0) CJ O rH u II B 6 CO u r4 •u cO CO ■P ^ ■M 3 •H 3 II CO CO J-j o •H cO u rH CO •H 4J CO CO O II CJ U U Pd FO 3 cj Ph 2 X x> II M > r- II o CO II c H II CD II 3 TD II CT c II CD CO II IH M II «4H O II II CD II 00 • • II cd CO II ■u Pu II C P II CD O II u M II u 00 II CD II O, C II o II CD •H II to 4-1 II CO a • II u CD >■ II CD U rH II > •H P II I LO l o CJ CD u •H P oocni— i CN0OCNCTvr^. OOOCMCNCOtHO r^o II CO II CD II e ii CO II *-i II II - II 0) II C II O II 4-1 II CO II w w ^s 2 2 w en co co 13 o H II •• II CD II CJ II U I 3 o CO II C-2 II C II 1 CO II •H II T3 CO II a> •H II QJ 3 II CX O II CO hJ II II TJ 0) II C M II ■H O II 3 -C II MH II O II cu II o II c • • II CU v£> II U , rH II CJ CO II c M II QJ II D T3 II cr C II a; CO II >-i M II m U II II a; II 00 • • II CO co II 4-1 a II c 3 II QJ O II o )-i II r4 60 II QJ • II a C M II o cu II a> •H ^i II &o 4-1 B II CO CJ QJ II M CU ■u II QJ >H CX II > •H QJ II < Q C/0 II II II II II II CN II I II U II CO H o H en 3 rH (X, O > -i On o rH -o 1 LO QJ rH OJ a C/3 tn OcNC^ rHinr^vOCNrHrHO cooovOrHrHcN-) II rH II r. II CO QJ II • C II r^ O II o H co II 0J II CJ II M II P II O II in ii C-3 II 1 c II 03 II "O •H II II c QJ II •H H II S O II X II 4-1 w II o M-l II 4-4 II QJ o II a II c II QJ vD II U •H a II < Q o II II II -i QJ a> (X CM CO LP) QJ CM i— 1 •H 2 II rH II II r. II c II CM QJ II • rH II rH O II II e II o II u II O 4-1 II II II u\ II • 0)1 II <£> II CM #\ II 03 II QJ II r^ B II • 03 II in •n II rH II r> II ON OJ II • c II -d- o II CO II qj II a II V4 || 3 II O II CO ll C-4 II 1 3 II 03 II TJ •H II 01 en II 0) •H II a 3 II w O II hJ II X) II 3 OJ II •H >-l II s o II x: II m CO II o 4-4 II <4-< II 0) C II a II 3 • • II 01 vO II >-i II 0) II ^ r-; II u w II G i— i II 0) II 3 TO II cr 3 II 0> 03 II u U II 4-1 o II II OJ II M II 03 w II 4J a II c 3 II QJ O II U J-j II S-t to II OJ II a 3 • II O r-4 II 01 •H 0) II 00 4-1 rQ II cC O e II M 01 0) II Oi J-i a II > •H 0) II eu CM w lO 0) CN I— 1 •H IS r-^00 rOvO ll 3 II 0) II rH II a n ii E II O II U II TJ II 01 II 4-» II O II 03 II r-l II 4-> II X II OJ II II 03 II ■M II 03 II Q II ' II II en ii r>- ll o> II II rH II 03 II II 4-1 I II 01 II II " II CO II 0) II e ii 03 II i-> II 0> II C II O II 4-1 II OO II II II •• II oi ll o II U II 3 II O II oo II C-5 Objectionable odors can be expected from the depostion of dredge material on land due to decomposition of vegetation and organic materials contained in the dredge spoil.. This would be a temporary effect which could be expected to disappear in 2 to 3 months. A potential for objec- tionable odors also lies in the anticipated fish processing industry; however, this is considered a manageable source through control over waste disposal. C-6 SECTION D: WATER QUALITY A. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS General and specific water quality criteria have been set for Bayou Lafourche by the State of Louisiana. For Lower Bayou Lafourche, water should allow primary and secondary contact recreation and should encourage the propagation of fish and wildlife. Dissolved oxygen should not become less than 4.0 miligrams per liter (mg/1), pH should be within the range of 6.5 to 9.0, and the monthly total coliform median (MPN) should not ex- ceed 70 per 100 and not more than 10 percent of the samples may exceed an MPN of 230/100 mililiters (ml). No standards have been set for chlorides, sulphates, and total dissolved solids (Louisiana Stream Control Commis- sion, 1973). Because of salinity, Lower Bayou Lafourche does not serve as a domestic or industrial water supply. D-l a. PRESENT CONDITIONS The water quality of Bayou Lafourche relative to the project area is first dependent on that of the Mississippi River and runoff from towns, agriculture, and industries along the hayou, since the base supply is obtained from shore sources. Changes in quality occur all along the course of Bayou Lafourche as a result of development on its natural levee ridges, exchange with water from adjacent estuaries, navigation, and exchange with Gulf of Mexico waters. As a result of the changing intensity of the processes that affect water characteristics in Bayou La- fourche, a wide variation of physical and chemical properties is encoun- tered in location and over time. Water quality measurements are made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, at two stations along Lower Bayou La- fourche. These are located 5 mi below Leeville and at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche. The project area is located approximately halfway between those two stations. Water quality data \'^r Lower Bayou Lafourche are shown i ii Tab 1 es D-l and I)- 2 . Temperature in 1975 showed a natural fluctuation between a low of 13.4°^ and a high of 32.2°G. No difference is apparent between the two stations referred to, therefore temperatures shown may be considered to be representative for the study area. Conductivity expressed in 1000 micro-ohms/cm is approximately 20 percent higher at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche than at the station near Leeville. This can be attributed primarily to higher salinities as a result of proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. Conductivity measurements vary greatly in Lower Bayou Lafourche. A study by Whitehurst (1974) showed average conductivity variations of 10,000 micro-ohms at Golden Meadow, 21 mi above the mouth of Bayou Lafourche. Near the project area, continuous salinities are available for the USCE gaging station at Leeville proper. Data from this station for the period of 1962 through 1968 showed a mean salinity at mid-depth of 17.4 parts per tho (ppt) with a variance of 10.5 ppt. Salinities of Gulf waters at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche are probably similar to those measured at the Grand Isle mine platform and are mainly affected by Mississippi River discharges. Salinities at mid-depth at the platform over the period 1962 through 1968 averaged 26.1 ppt with a variance of () -8 ppt. USCE data (USCE,, 197 2a) gives .i salinity range ol 23.4 to 2.8.8 ppt at the mouth o[ Bayou Lafourche. Dissolved oxygen is invariably higher at the mouth o\ Bayou Lafourche than near Leeville as a- result of greater turbulence and di lution of Bayou Lafourche water with seawater. Average dissolved oxygen concentration at the mouth of Ba w ou Lafourche was 7.5 mg/1 versus 6.8 mg/1 near Leeville. Even at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche, however, oxygen content showed considerable variation, ranging between a low of 3.9 mg/1 in September, 1975 to a high oi 10.5 mg/1 in July, 1975. The above readings show much improvement in water quality over conditions further upstream. Above Mile 33, oxygen contents are barely above the legal standard of 4 mg/1. D-2 II II II II II II II II II W II O Q II II i—l n II CO ON w h3 II CO ON o PQ ">««. il CM a o O II u o pi 2 II V o cu II 5 II o II H II >* o jg II •> > o U u CO U 1 — 1 o II CO o D »t S II T3 o Q Q § II o ^ a p~> II >> o fe II 4-1 II •H II H II CO II 3 II cr o ec5 II 1—1 w II U o H o II II H II o II u II 13 II >% W II II K B II H II II II • II ■H II II A II II W II 0) H II iH Q II CO II H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o o o m i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i o I m l l l l l I r^- — i o in I r^Lnr-HONCvi.— iGOCNr~)C\ia>CT\ i r^ ro r^ o • • • • I I .... vovo ^D oo cocooONOocoi^ONoooorvr^ oo o\ co oo cNO^rmr^coror^cNr^ Nrvoor^r^ooooc^oor^ en cooooNOON(N CNCMCMCMCMCNCMCNcnCMm o> CO CO CO CM CM CM CM oooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo CM'-"' s JCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMr-JCMCMCMCM oOMN^MncommcoNOHNiriHOinco^co ocMOmocnOsrNONbcricoincTiCNiiocn ^^-| r _ Hr _|^ ( ^ r _ l CM^-lO'-"— I— I ^ — ICO— l-WO— I r-l rH r^vDi— i r^ cm ^ oo n o - ifONHinc^rovDncovoooo 1 — 'fOCM— aNCjiOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-h— i ifiiniAu^ioioioio^in^LOirii/iioininiriiniriLnu*i J3 || LO || r- II on || II II « II W II S-i II , II e ii )-. II <: ii ii ii CO II • II C3 II CU II a ii n CO || D-3 1 0) 1 £ 1 u 1 u 1 3 1 O 1 *+-t i en i .J 1 3 1 O 1 >s 1 CO 1 PQ 1 >-i . 1 o cC 1 5 C 1 o CO 1 I— i •H W 1 * •H 1 CO 3 1 -U O 1 CO hJ 1 T3 1 >•> QJ 1 4-1 .— 1 1 -H — 1 1 H ■H 1 CO > 1 3 QJ 1 ex a> J 1 >-4 1 0J m 4-1 o CO £ x: 4-1 1 T) 3 c O CO w 1 U r •H en 00 QJ o t-H i-H •H O S u T3 o K^. ffl LO CN I Q ra H o o m H O > o CTv U o o o u o £ U lu o CrT, 1 — 1 UJ o H CJ o H P-i Ph a, O UJ <^ w CO o Q PQ 1— 1 O H w *r H W Q r^ m m I vo- ■— ioovoc^criOO>r>-r-^ vD vO vO vD oocoNi^i^i^oONr>.\or^ocooooco I ooooooooo i^ro-oooooooo ffi in i — o CNCNCNCNCNCOrOr- 4PO CN— ICNCNCNCNCNCNCNCO oo II U~l II r- II c^ ! . — i II li ri II w II u II QJ II QJ II a II •H II on II c II UJ II II *4H II O II II CO II a II M II o II u II II >> II B II u II < II II * II LO II • II P II II • • II QJ II U II U II 3 II o II cn II D-4 Measurements of pH at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche and near Leeville show 1975 averages of 8.1 and 7.6 . In both cases, variation is wide, ranging between 4.0 and 9.6 near Leeville and between 6. 1 and 9.2 at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche. Turbidity in Lower Bayou Lafourche is generally high as a result of the shallowness and the great volume of traffic. Turbidation de- creases, however, nearer the mouth because dredging u ?«? provided a deeper channel and mixing with less turbid Gulf waters occurs. Jormal tur- bidity levels in the vicinity of Golden Meadow are on the order of 25 JTU. Nitrate and phosphate concentrations for Bayou Lafourche could only be obtained as far south as Leeville. This is 5 mi north of the study area where the Bayou connects with the estuarine system through the southwestern canal. Average nitrate concentrations at this point were 0.87 mg/1. Average nitrate concentrations for Lower Bayou Lafourche is on the order of 1.0 mg/1 (Whitehurst, 1974). Total phosphate values along Bayou Lafourche fall rapidly south of Golden Meadow. Near Leeville lolal phosphate- concentrations were 4.52 iii;-,/ 1 . These values most prob- ably overestimate concentrations at the project area because of increased mixing with Gulf of Mexico and estuarine waters. D-5 C t ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1 , Water Temperature No changes in water temperature are anticipated.. Although some saltwater intrusion is expected as a result of channel enlargement, water exchange processes between the project area and Gulf of Mexico waters are such that this will not measurably affect the ambient tem- perature conditions. Anticipated industrial development in the project area does not include industries requiring thermal discharge. 2. Water Solids Content Water solids content is expected to increase temporarily as a result of increased suspension of sediments due to dredging, dredge ef- fluent, dike effluent, and surface runoff. A temporary increase in tur- bidity will result. Since much of the material will be sand and silt with associated high settling rates, increases in turbidity will be of short duration. Since flow in the Pass Fourchon and the flotation canal is limited to tidal exchange, the areal extent of the turbidity in- creases is anticipated to be limited mainly to those two water bodies. The use of gates in the diked area will limit turbidity increase from dike effluent. Associated with the resuspension of sediments due to dredging and spoil disposal, a temporary local increase in dissolved solids must be anticipated. This increase, however, is not expected to adversely affect water quality and biota. The majority of the spoil is produced through dredg- ing of the 20 x 400 ft slip and involves deposits laid down more than a thousand years ago. These sediments are unlikely to contain any toxic substances. Redredging of Pass Fourchon and the flotation canal is a repeat action that is not known to have produced unacceptable concen- trations of dissolved solids since the project area is not subject to industrial or other discharges containing heavy metals or other toxic substances. A dredging permit has been granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (U.S. Congress, 86 Stat. 816, 1972). Anticipated future maintenance dredging also is considered not to have long-term or severe short-term affects on water quality if adequate measures are taken with regard to potential future industrial discharge at the facility. Permanent changes in solids content of the water may occur as a result of further development of the area as a port facility serving commercial fisheries and offshore oil industry. Road construction and increased traffic will add road-associated pollutants to the water through local runoff. Increased concentration of boats will add D-6 pollutants of various sorts including oil and grease, ship garbage, and trash fish. Oil and grease pollution can result from minor accidental spills or bilge pumping. Anticipated industrial development includes fish processing, boat repair, and drilling rig fabrication yards. Two potentially serious problems are associated with this, The first is the disposal of shell- fish wastes, consisting largely of shrimp heads and shells. The second is the potential introduction of toxic metals or acids associated with materials used in fabrication of vessels and rigs. Whether this will be an actual problem will depend on waste disposal and processing programs and the degree of enforcement. Surface drainage design and treatment of storm drainage and industrial waste water are considered feasible measures to maintain acceptable water quality levels. 3. Nitrogen Saturation No significant change in nitrogen saturation is expected if adequate measures are taken for disposal of wastes and waste water from antici- pated seafood processing industries. Sewage will be subjected to ter- tiary treatment. 4 . Ha zardous Chemicals On the basis of expected types of industrial development, discharge of hazardous chemicals is not anticipated. 5. Pathogens No significant change in pathogens is expected because of tertiary treatment of sewage and limited increase of population in the project area. 6. Kut rophica t ion The nature of the project is not such that water impoundment or temperature changes will be caused, and therefore will not change the rate of eutrophication as a result of those possible causes. 7 . Taste and Odor Provided that satisfactory methods are applied in potential dis- posal of fish processing wastes, no taste or odor changes of the water are expected. D-7 D. WATER QUALITY CHANGES Changes in water quality due directly to project construction and maintenance are not considered to create conditions which are outside of permissable or desirable conditions as expressed by water quality stan- dards or general social opinion. Changes will not significantly modify present conditions associated with existing levels of boat traffic and existing docking facilities for commercial fisheries. Changes in water quality due to future development will depend on the nature of future industries. Whether the project will attract fish processing industry and oil rig fabrication yards cannot be accurately predicted. There will undoubtedly be some degradation of water quality derived from boat traffic, minor spills, bilge pumping, and industries. Yet the nature and extent of degradation is dependent on a large number of elements that are unknown at the pre-project period. Major among these are processing of industrial waste, discharge of surface water drainage, monitoring and enforcement, and adherance to discharge permits and criteria. Provided that the best available technology is used in waste processing, that surface water drainage is not direcLly dis- charged into adjacent waters, and that waste discharge standards are adhered to, potential water quality changes are not considered to create conditions that have an unacceptable adverse impact. Relative to the above consideration, the construction of a tertiary treatment facility subsequent to rather than commensurate with prepara- tion for development under Phase A may be contrary to desirable control over discharge of waste water. D-8 SECTION E: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS The project is not a waste water treatment plant. It contains a waste water treatment plant as part of Phase 5 development. At such time as it may be constructed, appropriate procedures will be followed in its planning, design, permitting, construction a and operation. E-l SECTION F: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Under the remaining phases of the project a limited amount of solid waste will be generated related to construction of necessary buildings for administration and utilities. This will be primarily construction waste, proper disposal of which will be the responsibility of the con- struction contractor. These materials are expected to be removed from the site by the contractor and disposed of according to state regula- tion at designated sites, or will be disposed of in containers presently available at the project site. Containerized waste is presently col- lected twice each week by Sugarland Disposal, Inc., of Houma , Louisiana, and waste is disposed of at a designated land-fill in Galliano, Louisiana The container system also serves present docking facilities at the commercial marina in the northern part of the project area. The system is expected to be expanded to accommodate ship garbage associated with future docking and terminal facilities along the proposed slips and solid waste associated with occupancy of the planned administration and utility building. A potential indirect effect of the project is the generation of waste related to the establishment of fish processing, rig fabrication, and boat repair facilities. Because it will be the responsibility of individual industries to dispose of solid wastes generated by such in- dustry, and because the exact nature of future industries is unknown, only limited predictions can be made at present as to future solid waste generation associated with industrial development. In general, it is expected that wastes that cannot be handled by the container system will be shell fish wastes (shrimp heads and hulls) and metal such as worn parts and fabrication remnants. It can be expected that metal will be collected at the site and removed at intervals by truck or barge for recycling. Shellfish waste disposal is a problem at several locations along Bayou Lafourche. No entirely satisfactory or economically feasible methods of disposal have yet been found, although considerable moneys and effort have been expended in search of such methods. Methods have ranged from disposal in Bayou Lafourche to land application. No appa- rent problems have resulted from disposal in Bayou Lafourche. Although the shell fish waste increases the biological oxygen demand, the aquatic ecosystem has not been streseed to the point that fish kills occur. A major reason that adverse affects of such disposal are limited is that much of the shellfish waste is consumed immediately by scavenging fishes such as catfish. F-l SECTION G: HUMAN POPULATION A. DESCRIPTION Lafourche Parish is among the state's largest (1141 sq mi) and ranks 12th in population. In 1975 it had an approximate population of 72,028 with an average population density of 58.4 persons per sq mi, or a gross density of 0.1 persons per acre. The majority of the parish population is concentrated in a lineal development corridor on both natural levees of Bayou Lafourche, the highest and most suitable land for residential use. Net density, considering only the most desirable land, is much greater than for the parish as a whole. The density of the developed area of Lafourche Parish is 250.3 persons per sq mi. The residential pattern for the parish is largely rural, with the city of Thibodaux, the parish seat, representing the most urbanized area (14,925 in 1970). Although the parish is rural in character, population increased at a rate twice that of the State of Louisiana for the 1960-70 decade. For the first five years of this decade the rate of growth for the parish is almost five times that of the State of Louisiana as shown in Table G-l. Table G-l. Population increases 1960-1970, Lafourche Parish and Louisiana . POPULATION GROWTH 1 Change 1960 1970 1960-1970 Lafourche Parish 55,381 68,941 +24.5 Louisiana 3,256,982 3,641,306 + 11.8 Source: South Central Planning and Development Commission, 1974a. In 1970 the population composition of the parish was 89 percent white and 11 percent non-white, or about the same ratio as that for the whole United States. Between 1930 and 1970 the white population grew at a rate of 2.1 percent as compared to 1.0 percent annua] growth I Or the non-white population. This is probably because of a wide divergence of immigra- tion rates. Population characteristics of Lafourche Parish as compared to Louisiana in 1970 are shown in Table G-2. G-l Table G-2. Population characteristics of Lafourche Parish compared to Louisiana (1970). Lafourche Population Parish Louisiana 1970 68,941 3,643,180 I960 55,381 3,257,022 Growth (Percent) 24.5 11.9 White Number 61,041 2,541,070 Percent 89.0 70.0 Non-White Number 7,900 1,102,110 Percent 11.0 30.0 Urban Number 26,753 2,406,150 Percent 39.0 66.0 Rural Number 42,188 1,235,156 Percent 61.0 34.0 Persons Per Square Mile 60.4 81.0 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973 Projected populations for Lafourche Parish through 1985 (using the cohort-survival technique), based on age, sex, and racial composition, birth rate and death rate for specific age-sex-race groups, and net mi- gration data, are presented in Table G-3. Table G-3. Projected population - Lafourche Parish. Projected Annual Projected Population Year Projected Population Rate of Increase Density per square/mile 1970 68941 1975 71906 1980 75593 1985 79175 .85% 49 1.00% 51 .93% 54 57 Source: Burford and Murzyn, 1972 G-2 Population for Lafourche Parish and Ward 10 (the location of the proposed development) for the years 1960 to 1975, and projected popu- lations for the years 1980, 1985, and 1990 are presented in Table G-4. Most of the population in this ward is concentrated in areas north of the site. The only concentration of population in the vicinity of the project is on Grand Isle, Ward 11 of Jefferson Parish; Grand Isle had a 1970 population of 2,236. Table G-4. Population Lafourche Parish and Ward 10, Lafourche Parish Ward 10 % Parish 1960 55,381* % change 24.1 1970 63,941* % change 4.3 1975 71,906** % change 5.1 1980 75,593** % change 4.7 1985 79,175** % change 5.0 1990 83,134*** % change 15,596* 28.1 20.7 -.7 18,831* 27.4 3.1 -.4 19,415*** 27.0 5.1 20,410*** 27.0 4.7 21,377*** 27.0 5.0 22,466*** 27.0 Source: *U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973. **Burford and Murzyn, 1972. ***Diversif ied Economic and Planning Associates, Inc., 1974 0-3 11. ECONOMY Lafourche Parish is one of the most productive parishes in coastal Louisiana. Its abundant hydrocarbon deposits and its estuaries comprise .1 significant part of the stale's most productive resources. Bayou La- fourche, the major inland waterway in the parish, provides the necessary support for its future industrial growth. Its natural scenic beauty of bayous, swamps, lakes, and marshes offers a unique setting for recrea- tional opportunities. The major commercial activities in the parish are agriculture and fisheries, mining, manufacturing, transportation, communications, con- struction, trade, finance, insurance and real estate, services and mis- cellaneous, and unclassified establishments. Employment is heavily concentrated around retail trade (20.1 "'), closely followed by manufacturing (15.02%), and oil and gas extraction (10.92%), (Table C-5). The total employment in Social Security con- corned jobs was 11,916 for the first quarter of 1972; this does not in- clude government employees, railroad employees, and self-employed persons Payroll distribution IOi Lafourche Parish shows that transportation, manufacturing (mainly food products), oil and gas, and retail trade, in that order, are the principal contributors of taxable payrolls in the par ish (Table 0-6) . A comparison of t lie present distribution of employment by industry division in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, and the United States is shown in fable 0-5. Lafourche Parish shows activity in transportation well above the state and the national level, but lower levels in finance and services . I . Income Lafourche Parish had its greater percentage of families earning over $7,000 aid over $10,000 in 1969. It also had a smaller percentage of people making below $5,000 and $3,000 than the state average (see Table 0-7 and G-8) . a) Agriculture Although the character of Lafourche Parish is rural, only 66,789 acres (0.49%) of the total 786,594 acres"" are classified as agricultural lands; this reflects the high percentage (65%)- of the land which is wet- land and undeveloped. Agriculture mainly takes place in the northern part of the parish; sugarcane is the principal crop. 'Discrepancies in total land acreage between these figures and those shown above are due to different sources of information. G-4 Tabic G-5 Percentage distribution ol employment by major industry in Lafourche Parish. LAFOURCHE PARISH 7///////////////////M LOU T S 1 ANA #&&$&$&&#&&& UN LIED STATES ^^^^ Industry AGRICULTURE, ^/ 2.30 FORESTRY, AND £ 0.6 FISHERIES f 0.4 CRUDE OIL, CAS, '/ggg //// ////////////< ">•« AND MINING Xv::;::;*:; 5.7j ST 1.02 CONTRACT WML/to r'b CONSTRUCTION frffiffij^^ f * ** MMMMMMl MANLI FACTLI RING %&#&&&&&&&&&&$&&&&&&: TRANSPORTATION W/////////////////////////MMM, 20.1 AND OTHER PUBLIC : 8&$8$&ffi^ 9.9 UTILITIES ^S^SS; 6.7 WHOLESALE TRADE W:%W:%¥:%W: 8.3 R ETA II, T RAD E ^^^^^^j^^m^^^j^^ 20.7 ^^^^^^^ 20. 1 FINANCE, INS., %4## 4 - 3 ggg& ft! 8 S ERV 1C ES %¥*yffx*:^^ 18.3 UNCLASSIFIED ^f °" 9 ESTABLISHMENTS & 1 '° ii 0.8 Source: Public Affairs Research Council, Inc., 1973; and the Census, 1972. 0-5 L5.02 20.2 32.3 U.S. Bureau of 13. ECONOMY Lafourche Parish is one of the most productive parishes in coastal Louisiana. iLs abundant hydrocarbon deposits and its estuaries comprise a significant part of the stale's most productive resources. Bayou La- fourche, the major inland waterway in the parish, provides the necessary support lor its future industrial growth. Its natural scenic beauty of bayous, swamps, lakes, and marshes offers a unique setting for recrea- tional opportunities. The major commercial activities in the parish are agriculture and fisheries, mining, manufacturing, transportation, communications, con- struction, trade, finance, insurance and real estate, services and mis- cellaneous, and unclassified establishments. Employment is heavily concentrated around retail trade (20.1 %), closely followed by manufacturing (15.02%), and oil and gas extraction (10.92%), (Table 0-5). The total employment in Social Security con- cerned jobs was 11,916 for the first quarter of 197'; this does not in- clude government employees, railroad employees, and sel f-employed persons Payroll distribution foi Lafourche Parish shows that transpor tation , manufacturing (mainly food products), oil and gas, and retail trade, in that order, are the principal contributors of taxable payrolls in the par ish (Table 0-6) . A comparison of the present distribution of employment by industry division in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, and the United States is shown in Table 0-5. Lafourche Parish shows activity in transportation well above the state and the national level, but lower levels in finance and services. 1 . Income Lafourche Parish had its greater percentage of families earning over $7,000 and over $10,000 in 1969. It also had a smaller percentage of people making below $5,000 and $3,000 than the state average (see Table 0-7 and G-8) . a) Agriculture Although the character of Lafourche Parish is rural, only 66,789 acres (0.49%) of the total 786,594 acres'" are classified as agricultural lands; this reflects the high percentage (65%) of the land which is wet- land and undeveloped. Agriculture mainly takes place in the northern part o\ the parish; sugarcane is the principal crop. 'Discrepancies in total land acreage between these figures and those shown above are due to different sources of information. G-4 Tabic G-5 Percentage distribution ol em pi oynienl by major industry in Lafourche Parish. LAFOURCHE PARISH 71 LOUISIANA :%% UNETED STATES ^mW\^ I/liifi... ^55^55^^ Industry AGRICULTURE, ^^ 2.30 FORESTRY, AND xj 0.6 FISHERIES f 0.4 AND MINING XvXyXXy; 5 - 7j ST 1.02 CONTRACT WMkmt, I'! CONSTRUCTION \jsSS^ V ' ' % MANUFACTURING TRANSPORTATION WMMMZMZMMfflMZL 20.1 AND OTHER PUBLIC : $ffi&8&^$& 9.9 UTILITIES s>sSvNS^ 6.7 wmwL. WHOLESALE TRADE &$^^£g% 8.3 ^ffl'W" 7 X 20>1 R ETA 1 1 , TRAD E W?&&&&^ 20.7 X\\\\\\V\^\\\^^^ 20. 1 FINANCE, INS., Mlllkv.V. 4 * 3 AND REAL ESTATE i^W> 6 ' 3 S ERV 1 C E S : : : : : : : : : $a^a^a 1^^Si$iSSS 18.3 vmvvwwvvwvvwm 19., UNCLASSIFIED ^ 0>9 ESTABLISHMENTS & 1 '° ^ 0.8 Source: Public Affairs Research Council, Inc., 1973; and the Census, 1972. 0-5 15.02 20.2 32.3 S. Bureau of Table G-6 Payroll distribution in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, and the United States, January - March, 1972 (thousands of dollars). Region Industry Lafourche Parish Louisiana United States Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries Crude Oil, Gas & Mining Contract Construction Manufacturing Transportation & Other Public Unclassified Establishments 373 2,955 1,014 3,121 5,015 123,627 146,921 363,846 257,942 1,484,882 7,837,779 41,146,012 Utilities 3,886 152,841 9,381,966 Wholesale Trade 1,026 138,782 9,316,346 Retail Trade 2,557 193,561 14,094,066 Finance, Insurance & Real State 862 93,847 7,655,764 Services 1,886 191,804 16,270,282 139 9,450 629,813 Total 17,819 1,419,694 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972. 108,074,852 G-6 Table G-7 Families at various income levels, Lafourche Parish, 1969. Families at Various Income Levels 1959 Number % of Total All families Under $1,000 $1,000-$1,999 $2,000-$2,999 $3,000-$3,999 $4,000-$4,999 $5,000-$5,999 $6,000-$6,999 $7,000-$9,999 $10,000 and over Income not reported Below poverty level* 13,099 100.0 825 6.3 1,576 12.1 1,678 12.8 1,886 14.4 1,772 13.5 1,437 11.0 1,181 9.0 1,746 13.3 998 7.6 1969 Number % of Total 16,279 100.0 4 36 2.7 765 4.7 936 5.7 979 6.0 1,184 7.3 1,203 7.4 1,420 8.7 4,247 26.1 5,109 31.4 Not Available 2,511 15.4 Source: Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, Inc., 1973 Table G-8. Percent of families with incomes under $3,000 and $10,000 and over, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana and the U.S.A., 1969. Percent of Families With Incomes Under $3,000 and $10,000 and Over Percent of Total Under $3,000 1959 1969 Percent of Total $10,000 and Over 1959 1969 Parish Louisiana United States 31.1 13.1 7.6 31.4 35.6 18.9 9.9 33.6 21.4 10.3 15.1 47.3 Source: Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, Inc., 1973, G-7 Selected agriculture statistics for Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, are shown on Table G-9. There is no agricultural activity in the Port Fourchon area because the nature of the soils is not suitahle. Table G-9. Selected agricultural statistics for Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (1974 and 1969). 1974 1969 Number of Farms 356 519 Average Size in Acres 573 394 Percent of Area in Farms 27.9 28.0 Value of Land and Buildings Per Farm $108,349 $90,295 Value of Farm Products Sold ($1,000) 34,395 7,442 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977. b) Fisheries The commercial fishing industry in Louisiana is among the largest in the United States. In 1973, Louisiana led all states in volume of landings. However, for the same year, Alaska led all states in value of landings, followed by California and Louisiana. Commercial landings of fish and shellfish in Louisiana were around 1.04 billion pounds, valued at a record of $96.9 million (Table G-10) . The principal commercial fish landing ports of Louisiana are at Cameron, Dulac-Chauvin , Morgan City, Empire, and Golden Meadow. Golden Meadow is just 20 mi north of the Port Fourchon area. These ports were among the ten most active commercial fishing ports of the United States, accounting in 1973 for landings of 329. 8 million pounds of fish and shellfish valued at $60.11 million (Table G-ll) . The leading species in Louisiana landings in the past five years were shrimp and menhaden. In 1973 shrimp landings were 58.6 million pounds valued at $44.5 million. In 1974 shrimp landings were 59.9 million pounds valued at $52.1 million. Lafourche Parish ranks second only to Terrebonne Parish in volume produce of shrimp along Louisiana's Gulf Coast (Table G-12). The third most valuable fishing in Louisiana is the oyster industry. In 1973, oyster landings in the state were 8.95 million pounds of meat valued at $5.5 million, representing an increase in both volume and value over 1972 figures. In 1974, oyster landings were 8.9 million pounds of meat valued at $5.7 million representing a slight increase over 1973 figures. G-i co OJ rC W T3 C CO x; 01 •H <+-! 1+-I O CO 0C C •H • T3 *--v C en 03 r^- H On i-H cO rH •H r^ u ON l-i rH 01 w g cO o C u cO •H i-H CO 03 •H •U 3 o o H .-J o rH CO H O H T3 C CO u en •H M-l rH I— I 0) rC c/: >-l 0) 4-) CO X. 3: to •H ■u P-, CO CO V-i 0) 4-J CO IS X CO co Ph CD Pn CO rH O cn on en rH v£> O r*- CN CN CN 00 CN o 00 CO 00 o CN CN ^D CO rH i-H 00 on rH ON CO T3 CO TD M co c m cO C cO iH co 3 co i— l 3 O 3 O O Pn O P o CN en rH ro oo o en r-- en m oo in On m On v£> vO 00 ON r^ ON oo oo co COCK CO g co H CO 3 CO rH 3 O 3 O O P-i O P r^ oo on r*~ r^ oo o O on O m m o m CN m m o CN ON CN ON ON m m CN en n en co TJ CO T3 U C XI C CO CO C CO iH CO 3 CO iH 3 O 3 O O P-i O P e is o • en | ■m r- II C on II 0J rH II e ii U - II ^ CN II co r» ll a c* II OJ rH || p II •> II • rH II C.O r — || • ON II PH || II G-9 II •H II CO II 4-1 II u II QJ II CJ II II u II CO II II CO II M II C II •H II 7J II C • II to /"-s II i— i ro II r^ II i— I a> II CO rH II •H 1 II a rH II u r-^ II QJ en II s rH II p >■ ' II o II CJ en II u II 14H u II o o II p^ II cu II p to II rH c II CO •H II > JC II 0] II T3 •H II C 4-4 II CO II CO II ^ C II 4-1 CO II •H •H II 4J tn II C •H II CO P II P o II o- 1- II II II II II II , II rH II rH d) II OJ II rH II XI II CO II H c 2 -> &0 4-1 M -H o u O) •H I (J CO rH P p e o 01 B CO u T3 0J M o CJ OJ o Z o o CN o o o 00 T3 0) X) M O a QJ o o o en o o CO o o en on o o m0 O O en o o CO OJ 00 o o o o UO CM tn st rH en en rH 00 SO CM CO CO CNI oo MD en CO o o o o o o o o o o CO o o r^ o o CO i/O en SJ CO II •H 4-| II 4-1 O II CO II rH P II QJ CO II u QJ II r-J II qj P II J3 CQ II 4-» II #s II s r-l II o O II jn •H II to r-l II QJ II o 4-1 II 4-1 c II rH II •XJ II QJ 4-1 II T3 O • II c CO II QJ 4J r» II 4J c o^ II c QJ rH II •H E II 4-) »\ II 4-1 r-l CM II o CO r^ II c P-, o> II QJ rH II QJ P II H r. II CO • rH II OO r^ II CO • cn II 4-1 p rH II CO II P , . II II QJ II • • O II QJ r-l II 4-1 P II O o II ^ oo II G-10 Table G-12. Volume of shrimp landings (Heads-Off Basis) reported in Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, Louisiana 1967-1971. Year Lafourche Terrebonne 1967 7,786,673 13,199,438 1968 7,165,628 10,937,655 1969 8,088,204 14,139,519 1970 9,902,675 15,629,867 1971 9,981,095 17,490,653 Source: Roy and Bordelon, 1974, In 1971, 2,363,900 pounds of oysters were harvested in Lafourche Parish; this represents the best year in quantity since 1964 and the best year in value ($1,031,267). In 1964, 2,374,000 pounds were har- vested with a value of $664,440 as shown in Table G-13. Table G-13. Quantity and value of oyster landings, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, Selected years (1967-1971). Year Quantity (pounds) Value (Dollars) 1964 2,374,000 655,400 1965 96,000 29,100 1966 161,400 73,800 1967 630,900 198,039 1968 1,240,200 399,892 1969 733,500 319,112 1970 404,800 160,600 1971 2,363,900 1,031,267 Source: Stone, James, et al, , 1973. The crab fishery industry is also important in Lafourche Parish. It has tremendous potential for growth since this fishery resource is bountiful in Louisiana waters. Other species caught in Lafourche waters include buffalo fish, carp, catfish and bullheads, flounder, drum, sea trout, snapper, Spanish mac- erel, crayfish, squid, turtle, frogs, and many others. Combined, these G-ll species have a meaningful volume and monetary value within the fishery resources. A large segment of the south Lafourche Parish population is employed in fishing or seafood related industries. Average wages and employment for Lafourche Parish in fisheries, canned and cured sea- foods, and fresh or frozen packaged fish industries for selected years are shown in Table G-14. Table G-14, Total and average wages and employment in fisheries; canned and cured seafoods; and fish processing and packaging industries in Lafourche Parish. Selected years (1968-1972). Year Fisheries 1968 Employment 98 Total Wages 557,563 Average Wages 5,689 1969 Employment 94 Total Wages 586,119 Average Wages 6,235 1970 Employment 72 Total Wages 505,641 Average Wages 7,023 1971 Employment 103 Total Wages 643,223 Average Wages 6,245 1972 Employment 261 Total Wages 2,434,528 Average Wages 9,238 Canned and Cured Seafood Fish Processing and Pack- aging Industries 72 113,582 1,578 79 157,690 1,996 81 188,591 2,328 69 184,168 2,669 59 188,813 3,200 Source: Stone, James, et al. , 1973 Many of the fishery resources are estuarine dependent forms, there- fore modification and destruction of marshes contributes to the decline of these resources. This decline, in turn, affects the economy of the parish and the state. G-12 c) Mineral F.xtraction The principal mineral resources in the study area are fossil fuels: petroleum, natural gas, and natural gas Liquids. Sulphur is also mined. For a number of years the extraction of crude oil and natural gas has been a major industry in coastal Louisiana and has brought a number of related petrochemical industries into the state. Fossil fuels are rap- idly being depleted onshore increasing the need for offshore exploration and production in order to meet the nation's energy demands. The volume of oil and gas production for Lafourche Parish in 1970, when it ranked third among the parishes in the state in the value of mineral production, is shown on Table G-15 and G-16. Table G-15. Oil and gas production in Lafourche Parish compared to Louisiana (1970). Crude Oil Condensate Cusinghead Natural (Barrels) 3 (Barrels) 3 Cas b Cas b (Mcf) (Mcf) Louisiana (000) 787,138 117,699 1,104,941 6,691,805 Lafourche Parish (000) 117,674 8,272 138,586 296,994 Percent of Louisiana 14.9 7.0 12.5 4.4 a b 42 Gallon Barrel; 15.025 pounds per square inch absolute. Source: Louisiana Department of Conservation, 1972. Table G— 16. Petroleum, natural gas, sulphur, natural gas liquid (Minerals in order of value), 1973-1974. 1973 1974 Lafourche $439,940 $582,091 Louisiana $8,150,000* * Louisiana, 96.4% of total mineral production value was crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids. Source: Louisiana Department of Conservation, 1976. G-13 Production figures for offshore areas fronting the Port Fourchon area, when compared to Louisiana offshore totals, represent 31.5 percent of the total production and account for 8.5 percent of the state total tax revenue derived from offshore operations (Table G-17). As indicated before in Table G-5, 10.92 percent of the total work- force in the parish representing a payroll of $2,955,000 was involved directly in mining operations in 1972. Indirectly there are many jobs, such as construction and transportation activities, associated with the petroleum industry. d) Manufacturing Included In manulaetur Lug are: food and kindred products, sugar, raw cane sugar, cane sugar refining, paper and allied products, paper mills (excluding building paper), machinery (excluding electrical), farm machinery, transportation equipment, and ship and boat building and re- pairing. Manufacturing accounted for 1,790 employees in the first quarter oi 1972 in the parish. This represents 15.02 percent of the total 11,916 persons employed at the time. Manufacturers in Lafourche Parish and in the area around Port Fourchon are shown in Table G-18. e) Retail and Wholesale Trade The retail and wholesale trade segment of the economy accounted fur :,231 jobs, 27.1 percent of the estimated work-force in Lafourche Parish for the first quarter of 1972. f) Services Services employed 13..20 percent of the work force in the parish in the first quarter of 1972.. This section accounted for the lowest paid job in the state; the average weekly wage was $91 in 1972. g) Economic Growth Projections of economic growth are somewhat difficult to assess because of the many variables involved and unpredicated changes that might occur in the area. Mineral resources, on which a large segment of the economy is dependent, are rapidly being depleted posing a danger to the parish of becoming more economically depressed. The development of the superport off the mouth of Bayou Lafourche could, on the other hand, mean more em- ployment opportunities resulting in additional parish income (Gulf South Research Institute, 1974). The development of the Port Fourchon facility is another factor which would economically contribute to the growth of the parish. G-14 II o II r^ II o> II rH II I II oo II co II o> II rH II 43 w •H u CO Ph 0) u u s o II 4-4 CO r-l II XI II 0> II 4J II CD II II II II P. 6 o u 03 II II II rH II rH II 0> II X II C II CO II II c II o II •H II ■u II o II 3 II X II O II U II a II II s II 3 II CD II rH II O II U II 4-1 II 01 II a II II at II X II p II u II u II II II II II II II • II II r^ rH II II 4 II II II oj II rH II 43 II CO 0) c o •H 4-1 w 01 r-l 01 O M Ph D CO X PQ 0) O X rH O 3 Ph O M O 0) X) 00 o> CO rH 4J rH O -H O V-. Ph q u-h w O rH rH U 01 « r^ m CO r^ m oo CN rH CO LO CO \D rH 00 O vO CM rH CM CM co rH oo m r^ o oo Nt vD v£> 00 U0 O rH rH CM CM N CM v£3 rH rH m CO CO CO On rH rH rH CO r^ CN O O m co in co cm r^ o H CO OJ u ON rH CO 4-J O H OJ U O 4J C 0) U rH Ol Ph CO 0) u r-l < 42 < 0) 03 •H C m c X) rH o LH o C o CO 42 O 42 CO 4J 43 OJ o a 42 H e rH r-l CO Vh U 0) •H 03 3 C 3 M Ph H M o cO O CO Ph •H Ph S 42 4= X) 03 4-» 4-1 c 4-1 •H 4-1 :>> 3 3 CO rH 3 U CO O o U o a O PQ OO CO O Ph Ph O II r>- ii ON II rH II II » II 03 II Ol II C II •H II S II II «4H II O II II 3 II cO II Ol II U II 3 II PQ II II •> II 03 II r*. II Ol II > II U II 3 II CO II II >. II y> ii 4J II 03 II 3 II X II C II rH || II II rH || OJ II U II Ol II C II •H II S I II X II C II CO II II •« II CM II r-» ll ON II rH II II - II (2 II O II •H II 4-1 II CO II > II H || 01 II 03 II C II O II O II II 4-1 II O II II 4-1 II (2 II CD II e ii 4-1 II U II cO II a n 0> II p ii it 03 CO II rH C II Ol CO II U •H II u 03 II CO •H II 43 3 II O II e r-l II o II rH II rH •• II CO OJ II 00 O II U II CM 3 II i- 700 A.D. 400 A.D. BAYTOWN BAYTOWN WHITEHALL ? ROANOKE s K O u. GUNBOAT LANDING MARKSVILLE HOPEWELLIAN- MARKSVILLE 200 A.D. MAGNOLIA MANDALAY £ i ^ ?-■-■ SMITHFIELD LABRANCHE JEFFERSON ISLAND I / : t BEAU MIRE TCHULA TCHEFUNCTE 250 B.C. LAFAYETTE GRAND LAKE ' PONTCHARTRAIN POVERTY POINT 1000 B.C. GARCIA BEAU RIVAGE POVERTY POINT BAYOU JASMiNE RABBIT ISLAND o LATE ARCHAIC PEARL RIVER COPELL BAYOU BLUE < 3000 B.C. o ce < MONTE SANO MIDDLE ARCHAIC ARCHAIC AMITE RIVER BANANA BAYOU ? EARLY ARCHAIC ST. HELENA ? 9 LATE PALEO PALEO-INDIAN JONES CREEK VATICAN STROHE o i EARLY PALEO ? AVERY ISLAND ? -1 PRE-PROJECTILE POINT ? ? ? ? ? J-3 analysis would seem to confirm this, except for the "Mound ville types'' and Fatherland incised which connote a later Mississippi period occupa- tion. 16 LF 8 - No data. 16 LF 9 - No data. 16 LF 34 - Mclntire gives this site an initial occupation during the early Mississippi period. Table d - 2 supports this statement. Percentages of decorated sherds for two sites in the Port Fourchon area, 16 LF 7 and 16 LF 34. Table J- 2 SHERD 16 1 ,F 7 7 .5% 22 .5% 35 .0% 15 .0% 16 LF 34 Fatherland Incised Moundville Types Fort Walton Types Manchac Incised Plaquemine Brushed Unclassified Decorated 20.0% 15% 15% 65% 5% Source: Mclntire, 1958 Newman (1973) also briefly mentions each of these four sites. He describes each as a shell midden and gives tentative dates to three of them: 16 LF 7 - Baytown to Plaquemine culture. 16 LF 8 - Coles Creek to Mississippian . 16 LF 34 - Plaquemine culture. Finally, Philip Phillips (1970) in his monumental work on the lower Mississippi Valley mentions two of the Port Fourchon area sites. He places 16 LF 7 and 16 LF 34 into the Bayou Petre phase of the Mississippi period . J- 4 D. TYPES OF SITES AND LOCATION In addition to the above mentioned four sites, the archeological survey conducted for this impact statement, by means of pedestrian and boat search, revealed five new sites in the Port Fourchon area (Fig, A-2). The following summary is derived from all of the sites, both newly discovered and previously reported: 1 6 LF 7 - This site is located immediately west of the west jetty of the Belle Pass channel (29 o 04»55 u N Lat., 90°13'44"W Long. - NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 Sec. 34. T.23S, R.22E). The site has been destroyed by wave action and shoreline retreat. When first reported, it was listed as beach wash. During this survey no evidence, aside from scattered oyster shells, was observed along the beach west of Belle Pass. Currently, spoil deposits are being dumped onto the beach so that any further at- tempt at locating scattered sherds or stone would probably prove fruit- less. 16 LF 8 - This site is located along the beach bordering the Gulf of Mexico in front of Bay Marchand (29°05'37"N Lat., 90*12 * 005"W Long. - Center of Sec. 26, T.22S, R.22E). The coordinates originally delin- eating the site location were 29 t '05'15"N, 90 c 12' 05"W, and would place it about 2,000 ft out in the Gulf from the present shoreline; there is probably an error in the original coordinant location. Again beach retreat has played havoc with the site. During the course of this survey only two sherds were collected along the beach at Bay Marchand and represent what is left of a midden formed on the Lafourche delta farther out in the Gulf. 16 LF 9 - This site is located east of Pass Fourchon (29*06' 23"N, 90°10'18"W - Sec. 7, T.23S, R.23E) along the beach between the pass and Bay Champagne. The original location (probably in error) is listed as 29°05'49"N, 90°10'35"W. The site is in the same state of preservation as 16 LF 7 and 8, and only wave-washed artifacts may be expected. Nothing was found by the survey team. 16 L F 34 - This site is located along the east bank of Bayou Lafourche (29° 12' 50"N, 90°13'35"W - SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Sec. 3, T.22S, R.22E). It was located when canal dredging revealed its presence. Mclntire described it as a series of small middens on the natural levee of Bayou Lafourche. This survey's crew did not visit the site, but it is listed as "destroyed" by the Louisiana Archaeologic Survey and Anti- quities Commission. 16 LF 82 - The site is situated on the west bank of Belle Pass (29*05' 50"N, ~90'13 f 50"W - south central portion of Sec. 2?, N-Central portion of Sec. 27, T.23S, R.22E), and extends for approximately 1.4 km along the bank. The site was found during the course of the CEI survey, and can be described as a wave-washed oyster shell midden. No evidence J-5 of in situ material could be seen. The site is about 0.3 to 0.5 in high and about 3-6 m in width. Much ceramic material was obtained and ana- lyzed. 16 LF 83 - This is another oyster shell midden, similar to 16 LF 82, but it is located on the west bank of Bayou Lafourche (29° 07 '40"N , 90° 13'07 n W - SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sec. 10, T.23S, R.22E). It ranges from 6-9 m in width and is about 15 m along the bank. The site is totally wave- washed with shell and much pottery is scattered along the banks. 16 LF 84 - Although tentatively recorded as a site this location is at a pipeline crossing on the west bank of Belle Pass (29 U 06'12"N, 90° 12'30"W - E 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Sec. 23, T.23S, R.22E). A lengthy (about 300 in) pile of Rangia euneata shells has been placed along the bank to help shore it up, and these Rang i a arc definitely not part of a midden. However, sherds washing out of the Rangi a shells were located along the northern portion of the pipeline crossing. Also associated with the sherds, but minor in comparison to the amount of Rangia, were oyster shells. The oysters and the artifacts may be eroding from a midden pres- ently covered over by the Rangia pile. Another possibility is that the Rangia used for the pipeline crossing were removed from another Indian midden, at some unknown location, and transported along with the sherds to the bank of Belle Pass. 16 LF 85 - The CEI survey located a small (10 m long by 1 m wide) oyster shell midden on the south bank of the small bayou which courses through the marsh between Belle Pass and Pass Fourchon. The site is lo- cated at the confluence of the bayou and Belle Pass (29 c 06 ' 30 :: N, 90°12* 05"W - S 1/2 of MW 1/4 of Sec. 23, T.23S, R.22E). The mouth of the bayou has since been silted in, however, so the site appears to be located on a little cove along the east bank of the pass. The site appears to be wave-washed, with only a few in situ material remains. 16 LF 86 - Immediately across Belle Pass from the northern portion of 16 LF 82 the survey party located a badly disturbed oystershell midden (29 C 06'11"N, 90°12*55"W - SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sec. 22, T.23S, R. 22E). This midden lies to the north of a slip dug for an oil well lo- cation, along the east bank of Belle Pass, and has an extent of approx- imately 30 to 40 m and a width of about 15 or 20 m at its widest point. The midden cannot be seen from the pass, and was only located hv walking back from the pass's bank. Two levees have been constructed over the western portion of the site and run parallel to each other and to the bank of the pass. A small canal (assumed to be a pipeline canal) lias also been dredged through the site, with the spoil deposits from this canal adding to the levees. It was the artifacts and oysters washing out of the levees which first brought the site to the attention of the survey team. To the east of the canal cutting through the site, a large area could be seen con- taining scattered oyster shells and artifacts; however, dense marsh grass prevented determination of this area's exact dimensions. From J-6 what was seen, the area extended back from the large, westernmost levee for about 15 or 20 m. No measurements as to the depth of this deposit could he determined, but the midden in this area seems to be in situ. In addition to these prehistoric archeological sites the CET survey located the remains of a shrimp boat washed up on the beach fronting Bay Marchand. Although a shrimp boat is of little archeo- logical value, its widely scattered wooden remains are interesting and may be a popular place for beach parties or campers. J-7 E. STATUS It may be emphatically stated that sites 16 LF 7, 8, and 9 are totally destroyed, with only slim bits of evidence for their presence remaining. Site 16 LF 7 is currently having spoil deposits from Belle Pass dumped upon it, so it is doubtful that it will yield any further information. Sites 16 LF 8 and 9 may contain some highly wave-washed artifacts, but their scientific study potential is small. 16 LF 34 was not visited by the CEI survey team; however, it lies well beyond the project area. 16 LF 82 and 83 are wave-washed sites with little to offer strat Lgraphically , but much to offer materially. They are fine col- lecting areas for artifacts and the data which can be gained from hori- zontally controlled collection of such artifacts should prove extremely beneficial. They are most highly important for that reason. 16 LF 84 is so small and wave-washed that it is questionable how much in! oi nu t ion c:\\\ be gained from if. However, the fact that it is completely reworked has not been confidently established, and in situ artifacts and midden may still remain. If that proves to be the case, a high priority should be given to the site. Finally, 16 LF 86 may prove to be the most significant site in the area. Aside from the western portion which has been dredged and leveed, the remainder of the site appears to be in fairly good condition. Al- though surface artifacts were not very plentiful, there may be more ma- terial still in place below ground. The site is also very important in thai it may have been the camping area for Indians who utilized the Belle Pass region. The aerial dimensions of the site suggest such a possi- bility. The site is also immediately across the pass from 16 LF 82, and thus some definite relationship between the two is highly probable. J-8 F. GENERAL HISTORICAL INFORMATION The historical role of the Bayou Lafourche area centers around the bayou's use as a main artery for transportation and commerce in south- eastern Louisiana, connecting the Mississippi River with the Gulf of Mexico and the many towns along its flanks to one another. The entire Lafourche area was settled by Spaniards, by Germans from the German coast, and by Acadians from Canada in the eighteenth century. The Acadian influence is the most strongly reflected in the present day pop- ulation. The name Lafourche (the fork) is one testimonial to French in- fluence; it is derived from the configuration in which the bayou flows from the Mississippi River at Donaldsonvil le . In 1904, this flow was cut off by the partial construction of a lock and dam system intended to control flood waters. A pumping station was finally built in 1955, allowing the bayou to once again distribute Mississippi River waters. The flanks of the bayou are extremely fertile and have been farmed from the earliest days of its settlements. Sugarcane farming is especially productive and this activity is a viable part of the landscape and the lifestyle in the area. Bayou Lafourche was also active during the Civil War as it was recognized for its wealth and closeness to New Orleans. The nearest known historic sites are the Cheniere Camanada, lying approximately 4 to 5 mi east of the proposed port site, and Jacko Bay Camp, 5-2 to 7 mi to the northwest. According to Swansea (1975), the settlement at Camanada may date to the Spanish period in Louisiana when Fort Blanc was established in that area. The settlement prospered in the early 1800' s when sugar plantations thrived in the area. Before the severe hurricane of 1893, Cheniere Camanada was heavily settled by fish- ermen with a population of about 2,000 people, the most populus area along the Louisiana Gulf shore at the time. Over 1,000 people were drowned in the storm of 1893 and the community was largely abandoned until the 1930's when a highway was built into the area. Jacko Bay Camp was a fishing and hunting settlement located around two small bays on the northeast shore of Timbalier Bay. Twenty-seven structures are shown on the 1894 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey, Timbalier, Louisiana quadrangles. The structures were probably all built above the marsh level on pilings. Neither o\ these historic sites is within the near-vicinity of the proposed port facility. The sites will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. J-9 G. EVALUATION OF SITES The results of the survey and study were reviewed with representa- tives of the SIIPO and I he Greater Lafourche Port Commission. Of the historic and prehistoric sites known to exist in the general vicinity of the proposed project, four represent possible candidates for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. These are the Cheniere Camanada settlement, Jacko Bay Camp, Site 16 LF 82, and Site 16 LF 86. The first two are historically significant, while the latter two prehistoric sites have in s itu material and potential for contrib- uting significant information to culture history, cultural processes^ and paleoenvironmental conditions of the area. Possible adverse effects could occur at six of the prehistoric sites as a result of the project if precautionary measures arc not taken. Sites 16 LP 7 and 16 LP 86 could be affected by spoil disposal. While 16 LP 7 is already so badly degraded and of such minor importance that protect ive measures are not warranted, Site I 6 LP 86 is ol Nat ional Reg- ister caliber and will be excluded from designated spoil disposal areas. Pour sites on the west bank of Belle Pass (16 LP 82, 16 LP 83, 16 LF 84, and 16 LF 85) might be endangered by future disposal of spoil resulting from maintenance dredging. This adverse impact will be averted by designating the sites as non-spoil areas. As in most cases, secondary impacts related to accelerated erosion and vandalism, which may affect the form of the sites (16 LI'' 82, 16 Id' 1 83, 16 LF 85, and 16 LF 86), are more difficult to deal with. The sites are too large and erosion too far advanced for structural measures, such as rip-rap or bulkheads, to be effective. Instead, a program of systematic data and artifact collection to be conducted over a period of years has been recommended . Survey monuments or reference points will be established (in places safe from erosion), and systematic surface collec- tions and observations will be made at least once a year. The collecting will be controlled by area and referenced to the survey monument. In the event that special features are exposed by erosion, they will be systematically excavated and recorded. The program will be conducted by qualified archeologists and the data deposited in the custody of the Louisiana Archeo 1o ( j, ical Survey, Department o\' Culture, Recreation and Tourism. J-10 REFERENCES Aero. 1951-1952. Ammann International Corporation. San Antonio, Texas . Algermissen, S. T. 1969. Seismic Risk Studies in the United States in Fourth World Conference of Earthquake Engineering. Santiago, Chili. January 13-18. Algermissen, S. T. and I). M. Perkins. 1976. A Probabilistic Estimate of Maximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States. U.S. Cov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C. Angelle, J. Burton. i976. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commis- sion Director. Personal Communication, January. Aycock, S. Ray, Jr. 1976. Fish and Wildlife Service, Assistant State Supervisor. Letter dated January 23. Bahr, Leonard M. , Jr. 1974. Geological and Geographical Description oi the Louisiana Coast, In Environmental Assessment of a Louis- iana Offshore Oil Port and Appertinent Storage* and Pipeline Facilities. Vol. II. Center for Wetland Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Becker, R. E. 1972. Measurements of Coastal Louisiana's Shoreline, llydrologic and Geologic Studies of Coastal Louisiana, Coastal Resources Unit. Report No. 15, 16 pp. Center for Wetlands Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Bernard, H. A. and R. J. LeBlanc. 1965. Resume of the Quaternary of the United States, edited by H. E. Wright, Jr., and D. G. Frey, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New York, p. 137-185. Broome, Steve. 1973. Stabilising Dredge Spoil by Creating New Salt Marshes with Spartina Alternif lora. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of Soil Scientists, Society of North Carolina, pp. 136-149. Buford, R. L. and S. C. Murzyn. 1972. Population Projections by Age, Race, and Sex, for Louisiana and its Parishes. Occasional Paper No. 10, Division of Research, College of Business Admin- istration, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Chabreck, Robert H. 1970. Marsh Zones and Vegetation Types in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 113 p. Chabreck, Robert 11. 1972. Vegetation, Water and Soil Characteristics of the Louisiana Coastal Region. From Bulletin No. 664. L.S.U., Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. R-l Chabreck, Robert H. and Clark M. Hoffpauir. 1962. The Use of Weirs in Coastal Marsh Management in Louisiana. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the South East Association of Came and Fish Commission. Vol. 16, pp. 103-112. Coleman, J. M. 1966. Recent Coastal Sedimentation (Central Louisiana). Technical Report No. 29, Coastal Studies Institute, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Dantin, E. J., C. A. Whitehurst, and W. T. Durbin. 1974. An Investi- gation of Environmental Factors Associated with the Current and Proposed Jetty Systems at Belle Pass, Louisiana. Division of Engineering Research, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 40 pp. Darnell, R. M. 1967. Organic Detritus in Relation to the Estuarine Ecosystem, Tn Estuaries, C. H. Lauff (ed) , American Association for the Advancement of Science. Publication No. 83, pp. 376-382. Day, J. N., W. G. Smith, P. R. Wagner, V 7 . C. Stone, and C. Wilmer. 1973. Community Structure and Carbon Budget of a Salt Marsh and Shallow Bay Estuarine System in Louisiana. Center for Wetland Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Publication No. L. S.U .-SG-72-04. Diversified Economic and Planning Associates, Inc. 1974. South Lafourche Regional Planning Commis*sion. Comprehensive Plan, Ward 10, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Federal Register. 1974. Vol. 39, No. 251. December, Washington, D.C. FIA. 1970. FIA Flood Hazard Boundary Map, No. H 22 057 0000 04, August 6, Washington, D.C. Fisk, Harold N. 1944. Geological Investigation of the Alluvial Valley of the Lower Mississippi River. War Department, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Ford, James A. and George I. Quimby, Jr. 1945. The Tchefuncte Culture, Mississippi Valley. Memoir of the Society for Ameri- can Archaeology, No. 2, Menasha. Frazier, D. E. 1967. Recent Deltaic Deposits of the Mississippi River: Their Development and Chronology. Gulf Coast Association Ceo- logical Society. Vol. 17, pp. 287-315. Gagliano et al. 1972. Environmental Atlas and Multi-Use Management Plan for South-central Louisiana. Center for Wetland Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Gagliano, S. M. , P. Light, and R. E. Becker. 1973. Controlled Diver- sions in the Mississippi Delta System: An Approach to Environ- mental Management, Tn Hydrologic and Geologic Studies of Coastal Lousiana. Report No. 8. Center for Wetlands Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. R-2 Gagliano, Sherwood M. , and J. van Beek. 1970. Hydrologic and Geo- logic Studies of Coastal Louisiana, Geologic and Geomorphic Aspects of Deltaic Processes, Mississippi Delta System, Vol. II. Center for Wetland Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Gagliano, Sherwood M. , Richard A. Weinstein and Eileen K. Burden. 1975. Archaeological Investigations along the Gulf Intracoastal Water- way: Coastal Louisiana Area. Report submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Gosselink, James G. , Eugene P. Odum, R. M. Pope. 1974. The Value of the Tidal Marsh. Center for Wetland Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Publication No. SC-74-03. Greater Lafourche Port Commission. 1975. Port Eourchon Development Program - A Title IX - Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance Program Action Plan. Prepared for: Economic Development Administration, U.S . Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Greater Lafourche Port Commission. 1977. Letter dated October 25, 1977. Guillespie, M. C. 1971. Analysis and Treatment of Zooplankton of Estuarine Waters of Louisiana, In. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Louisiana. Phase IV. Biology, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, New Orleans, Louisiana Gulf South Research Institute. 1974. Port Fourchon Development Program. Final Report. Prepared for: Greater Lafourche Port Commission, Galliano, Louisiana. Gunter, Gordon. 1967. Some Relationships of Estuaries to the Fisher- ies of the Gulf of Mexico, Tai G. H. Lauff (ed).. Estuaries. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, D.C. pp. 621-638. Hosier, C. R. 1961. Low-Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States. Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 89, p. 319-339. Johnson, David B. 1973. Selected Soc io-Fronomic Considerations, In Louisiana Superport Studies. Reeommenciat ions for the Environ- mental Protection Plan. Report No. 3. Center for Wetland Re- spurces, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Kolb, C. R. 1962. Distribution of Soils Bordering the Mississippi River from Donaldsonville to Head of Passes. Waterways Experi- ment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Technical Report 3-601, 61 pp. R-3 Kolb, C.R., and Jack van Lopik. 1958. Geology of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain, Southeastern Louisiana. Technical Report No. 3-483, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 2 volumes. Lagna, Lorrain. 1975. The Relationship of Spartina Alterniflora to Mean High Water. N. Y. Sea Grant Institute, No. 4 SSGP-RS-002. Light, Phillip. 1974. Hydrology, Ln Environmental Assessment of a Louisiana Offshore Oil Port and Appertinent Storage and Pipe- line Facilities. Vol. II. Center for Wetland Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Little, Arthur D., Inc. 1971. Issues Relevant to United States Ports; Interpretative Study of the Development and Operation Experience of Selected Foreign Deep Water Ports. Report Commissioned by the Institute of Water Resources, Alexandria, under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. LOOP, Inc. 1974. Environmental Baseline Study, Prepared by Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Lou is i an. i Department of Conservation. 1972. Louisiana Oil and Gas Production. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Conservation. 1976. Louisiana Oil and Gas Production. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Education. 1971 and 1973. One hundred and Twenty Second Annual Report Bulletin No. 1205. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Geological Survey. 1974. Interstate Gas Map of Louisiana. Published by Department of Conservation. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana Power and Light Co. 1974. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Units 3-4. Waterford Steam Electric Station, 1973-1974. Taf t , Louis iana . Louisiana State Planning Office. 1976. The State of the State in 1976. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission. 1974a. Louisiana State Parks Plan, 1975-1990. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission. 1974b. Outdoor Recreation in Louisiana 1975-1980. Louisiana State Comprehen- sive Recreation Plan. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana Stream Control Commission. 1973. State of Louisiana Water Quality Criteria, 66 pp. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Urban and Community Affairs. 1977. Letter to Greater Lafourche Port Commission from Vivienne Francis, Assistant Secretary, Office of State Clearinghouse, October 10, 1977. R-4 Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. 1975. Parish Survey, Lafourche Parish, District VIII. March 31, 1975. Lousiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. 1976. Personal Communi- cation, Charles Shaw. January, 1976. Lowery, George H. , Jr. 1974a. Louisiana Birds. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. L.S.U. Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Lowery, George H. , Jr. 1974b. The Mammals of Louisiana and Its Adjacent Waters. L.S.U. Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mackin, J. G. 1961. Canal Dredging and Silting in Louisiana Bays. Publication of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas. Vol. 7. Austin, Texas. McGinnis, J. T. , T. A. Ewing, C. A. Willingham, S. E. Rogers, D. H. Douglas, and D. L. Morrison. 1972. Final Report on Environ- mental Aspects of Gas Pipeline Operation in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes to Offshore Pipeline Committee. Battelle, Columbus Laboratories. Mclntire, William G. 1958. Prehistoric Indian Settlements of the Changing Mississippi Delta. Coastal Studies Institute Series, No. 1. L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Meo, Mark, John Day, T. B. Ford. 1975. Comparative Cost Evaluation of Selected Waste Water Treatments in Louisiana's Coastal Zone. Center for Wetland Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. pp. 19. Mineral Industry Surveys, Bureau of Mines. 1970. Crude Oil, Refined Products, and Natural Gas Liquids, 1970. Final summary . Washington , D. C, Monte, J. A. 1975. A Study of Impounded Marsh Areas and Areas Which are Subject to Impoundment. Unpublished paper. Monte, J. A. 1976. Man-Induced Diversification of Wetland Vegetation in Bayou Lafourche Subdelta of Louisiana: Spoil Banks. Abstract, International Meeting Geophysical Union. Morgan, J. P. and P. B. Larrimore. 1957. Changes in the Louisiana Shoreline. Trans. Gulf Coast Association, Geological Society, 7lli Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 303-310. National Audubon Society. 1976. Blue List of American Birds. Neuman, Robert W. 1973. Archaeological Assessment of Water Resource Planning Areas 9 and 10, Louisiana. Report submitted to the National Park Service in Tallahasee. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Odum, E. P. and A. De La Cruz. 1967. Particulate Organic Detritus in a Georgia Salt Marsh-Estuarine Ecosystem, In Estuaries, American Association Advancement of Science. Washington, D,C. No. 83, pp. 383-388. R-5 Palmisano, A. W. and Robert H. Chabreck. 1972. The Relationship of Plant Communities and Soils of the Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Proceedings of the Louisiana Association of Agronomists. Parish of Lafourche Police Jury. 1977. Letter from Robert H. Simmons, Director of Department of Public Works, November 10, 1977. Penfound, W. T. and E. S. Hathaway. 1938. Plant Communities in the Marshlands of Southeastern Louisiana. Ecological Monograph. Vol. 8, pp. 1-56. Phillips, Philip. 1970. Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 60, 2 Pa n :., Canib r i dgo • Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, Inc. 1.971. Statistical Profile of Lafourche Parish, Baton Rouge, Louisiana- Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, Inc. 1973. Statistical Profile of Lafourche Parish, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Roy, E. P., and E Bordelon. 1974. Selected Shrimp and Seafood Statistics for Louisiana and the United States. Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness. Information Series No. 33. L.S.U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Russell, Richard J. 1940. Quaternary History of Louisiana. Bulle- tin of Ceological Society of America. Vol. 51, pp. 1199-1234, New York. Saucier, Roger T. 1974. Quaternary Geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Arkansas Archaeological Survey. Research Series, No. 6, Fayetteville . South Central Planning and Development Commission. 1974a. Overall Economic Development Program. Fiscal Year 1972-1973, Vol. I, Thibodeaux, Louisiana. South Central Planning and Development Commission. 1974b. Existing Regional Land Use Map. Thibodeaux, Louisiana. Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1974. The Late Prehistory of the Natchez Region: Excavations at the Emerald and Foster Sites, Adams County, Mississippi. Unpublished Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge . R-6 Stone, James e_t aJL. 1973. Louisiana Superport Studies; Recommenda- tions for the Environmental Protection Plan. Center for Wet- land Resources, L.S.U., Baton Rouge , Louisiana. Swanson, Betsy. 1975. Historic Jefferson Parish, from Shore to Shore. Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, Louisiana. 176 p. Tobin Survey, Inc. 1940. Aerial Photographs. San Antonio, i? .is. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972a. Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche- Jump Waterway, Louisiana. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. New Orleans District. 39 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972b. History of Hurrican Occurrences Along Coastal Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1973. Inventory of Basic Environmental Data, South Louisiana, Mermentau River Basin to Chandeleur Sound with Special Emphasis on the Atchafalaya Basin, New Orleans, La. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975a. James F. Roy Acting Chief, Planning Division. Personal Communications, December, 1975. Enclosure with letter, December 19, 1975. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975b. Hydrologic and Water Ouality Data Print Outs. Lower Bayou Lafourche at Gulf of Mexico. New Orleans, Louisiana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976. Letter to Coastal Environments signed by James F. Roy, Acting Chief, Planning Division, (LMNPL-RW) , Personal Communication, February 12, 1975. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1972. U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration. County Busi- ness Patterns, Washington, D.C. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973. Characteristics of the Population. Census of Population: 1970. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Vol. I, Part 20, Louisiana. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1977. Census of Agriculture Louisiana State and Parish Data. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Vol. I, Part 18. U.S. Congress. 1899. Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899. 30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. U.S. Congress. 1972. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Public Law 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1344. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1931-1971. Climatological Data - Louis- iana. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. R-7 U.S. Department of Commerce. 1975. Louisiana Landings, Annual Sum- mary, 1973, In Current Fisheries Statistics No, 6422, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1976. Letter to Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District (FSE 211 GB) . Signed by William H. Stevenson, Regional Director, March 3, 1976. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1971, 1972, 1973. Bureau of Commer- cial Fisheries. Fisheries of the United States, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior. 197A. U. S. List of Endangered Fauna. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1975. HUD Circular 1390.2, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1976. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1976. Letter to U.S. Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. Signed by Kenneth E. Black, Regional Director. March 8, 1976. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1977. Most U.S. Alligators Come Off Endangered List. News Release. Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Geological Survey. 1894. Timbalier, Louisiana. 15 minute quad- rangle, scale 1/62,500, surveyed 1891. Walker, R. A. 1973. Wetlands Preservation and Management of Chesapeake Bay: The Role of Science on Natural Resource Policy, Coastal Zone Management Journal. Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 75-101. Whitehurst, C. A. 1974. A Parametric Study of Water Resources. Vari- ables in a Delta Region of South Louisiana. .. Bayou Lafourche. Division of Engineering Research, L.S.U. , Baton Rouge, Louisi- ana, Vol. I. Whitehurst, Charles A. and R. P. Self. 1974. Sediment Transport and Erosion in the Fourchon Area of Lafourche Parish, In_ Research Monographs. Division of Engineering Research. RM3 . L.S.U. , Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Woodhouse, W. W. Jr., E. I). Seneca and S. W. Broome. 1974. Propaga- tion of SpartLna AlLerniflora for Substrate Slab i I i zat ion ol Salt Marsh Development. Technical Memo 46, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. 54 pp. Young, C, E. Odum, J. Day and T. Butler. 1974. Evaluation of Regional Models for the Alternatives and Management of the ALehafalaya Basin. Bureau of Sports Fisheries. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. R-8 •U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1978 0-261-238/181 TiffiBSawJwii AOD007Q