D-RI52 726 MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS FRESHWATER 1/1DIVERSION TO LAKE PO..(U) ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT NEWORLERNS LA D L CHEM APR 84
UNCLASSIFIED F/G 13/2 NLmmhhEmhmhmhhhIiiiilIiiiiiiiIIEIIEIIIIIEEEIIIl--EIIIIIlII~llEEElllllEI
- 150 3-15 2-21
;HZ 111111,1 F25 4 1 6
US Army Corpsof EngineersNew Orleans District
Mississippi and LouisianaEstuarine Areas
I
Freshwater Diversion toLake Pontchartrain Basinand Mississippi Sound
Feasibility Study
L.Aj
\D turo SAE4' poved tot publ raeI'sm
Public Views and Responses1 , 4. ... ........,
;- ..- .- -. .-.., ..- ... , ., ,, ,- .." , .., -.-- ., : -: -: . : ..- .: -, ". -,: : -: : , ., .-., ., C T E-- -:i !
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAGE ote Oate antorod
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ' FRED INSTRUCTIOSBEFORE COUPLETM G FORMIE mEPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RE1CIPiENT'S CATALOG NUfN"Ea
1
..T.. d . ,4-A - <7 )64. TITL--E (and Sub"fo) S. TYPE OP REPORT a PERIO COVEREO
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTMISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS STATEMENT (FEIS)
Freshwater Diversion to Lake Pontchartrain Basin S. PERFORMING OR*. REPORT ,UMS--and Mississippi Sound, Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4
7. AUTHOR(e) 0. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMER(e)
DENNIS L. CHEW
9. PErFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASKU.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICTP.O. BOX 60267 LMNPD-RENEW ORLEANS, LA 70160-0267
It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
APRIL 1984OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY . 1U98E4Of,'A49sWASHINGTON, D.C. 20314 FEIS 143
14. MONITORING A09NCY MAMIE & AOORIESSQil different from Controltna Oli~ee) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (at this raport)
UNCLASSIFIED
Ile. DECL ASSI IC ATION/DOWNO RAINGSCHEDULE
it. OISTRI§UTION STATEMENT (of thi. Report)
Accession For
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION INLIMITED NTIS-ORA&IDTIC TABUnannounced 0Justification
17. oSTRIBuTIoN STATEMENT (*I th...t,,act entered in Block 20, It diff.rent from Report)
ByDistribution/Availability Codes
Is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Avail and/orDist Special
QUALITY
,, KeY OROS (Continue an reverse * ,da 11noCe*sary aid Idntity by block numb.e 0)
COASTAL WETLANDS FISHERIES SUBSIDENCEEN'1I RONMFNTAL IMPACTS FRESHWATER )IVERSION WI LL I Fi..EROSI)N MARSHESESTUAR I FS SALTWATER INTRUSION
* 0, A11111AcCentanu swpmo .1*11 Fneoery mad fdiWily by block number)
1he stlidv area has experienced land 10sS ,inJ 5altWt ter ilt tSi u t i dti t r.ltut.ti 1'prot esses such as subsidence and erosion, as well as m-r,'s deve opmutt LK a I-- . -
vities including leveeing, channelization, and p~t-rolcum txploratior. T'nt* ~v.i rimiis natural processes an~d man' S act iViit? cs hve l r: 1'ebat
;1,1i i.ittiral distributary ' .)w which historlt.l v providt', tic-,, w.Itcv, ,rt -r a t, .ili nutrients to the esthrint .rtas, I'hls has tts- it,. Lil , ., -i i. -- fresh, intermediate, and brackish marshes t., ,ote . . i'.,rsh tx.. ;' .itd Ii.,
DD W31h a EtIo 0or9 mo SOl' IS O0SOLE TE.'7i"T :'X)I Iz aA~ lo ,'.1
.01 n.................................................................................................................
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAO[(lea Dat. Enered)
20. ABSTRACT (CONTINUED)
ialso cause4.-tle loss of substantial areas of wooded swamp. Saltwater intru-sion and loss of wetlands have adversely affected the productivity of wild-life and fishery resources. Influx of saline waters is particularly harmfulto the American oyster, due to increased predation and disease. Thousandsof acres of formerly productive oyster reefs in the area lie largely unpro-ductive due to excessive salinities. One way to ameliorate loss of wetlandhabitat and rate of saltwater intrusion is timely introduction of fresh waterand associated sediments and nutrients into the study area. A total of 13potential sites were evaluated for diversion of fresh water. Based on theresults of this study, it has been recommended that fresh water from theMississippi River be diverted into Lake Pontchartrain at a site adjacent tothe Bonnet Carre' Spillway. This site is located at river mile 128.5. Im-plementation of this plan would save approximately 4,186 acres of marsh and6,355 acres of wooded swamp. Additionally, average annual oyster productionin the study area would increase by about 7.5 million pounds.
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TmiS PAGEfW?,en Data Entered)
........................................-.-... .*.-~t"*.. ..-... .o-
APPENDIX L
PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page
Section 1. Public Involvement Program Summary L-1
Section 2. Comments and Responses L-5
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation L-6
United States D)epartment of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service L-7
United States Department of Commerce, L-8Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
United States Department of Commerce, L-9National Marine Fisheries Service
United States Department of Commerce, L-10Office of the Administrator
United States Department of the Interior,National Park Service, Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park L-12
United States Department of the Tnterior, Office of L...
the Secretary, Office of Environmental Project Review L-13
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Pul-licHealth Service L-15
United States Department of Housinp anO UTrhan Development L-17
United States Department of TransportationFederal Tlighway Administration IL-18
United States Environmental Protection Agency L19
i] -
7-'- l. ,i'. -'-- - "'. -i- "-. -. . i'. i" .l- i i-i.--.-'i ii-f." l'. "--iir .,'.i~ i~ 'i-~ ll 'f fT.-'] .' -'.i • - -i' 7:1 -i. : -. -ii lfJ . .- i~ iJ ,i-i -.- i " . l-i ."
TABLE OF CONTENTS
State Agencies
Item Pae-
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, Bureau ofPollution Control L-21
Mississippi Department of Wi1ld'flF Conservation, Aureauof Marine Resources L-22
Mississippi State ClearinRhouse for Federal Programs, Office
of the Governor L-23
Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism,
Office of Cultural Development, State Historic PreservationOfficer I,-24
Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Office
of State Parks L-25
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Covernor's CoastalProtection Task Force L-26
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Lan,1, 1Water,and Research, CHS Administrator L-27
Louisiana Department of Transportation and ,nevolopment, nfficr ofPublic Works L-28
ii
. .. . . , - . ,i.... .. . . . . . .. - .
TAPT OF CONTENTS
Organ izat ions
I tem
A. J. S. Inc., Mary T. Slavich L-29
City of New Orleans, City Planning Commission L-30
Environmental Defense Fund L-35
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory L-41
Jesse S. Cuillot, Law and Notarial Office L-45
Leajie of Women 'oters of Louisiana L-4 7
Louisiana Oyster Dealers & Crowers Association L-49
National Wildlife Federation L- 5
Regional Planning Commission, lefferson, Orleans, St. Rernar.,
and St. Tammany Parishes L-56
Slidell Sportsmen's League L-68
St. Bernard Parish Police Jury L-69
St. Charles Parisb Council L-70
St. Charles Parish, Department of Planning and Zonn, L-73
St. Tammany Parish Police Tury L-74
Tulane Law School, Oliver A. 'oucl: L-75
Wildlife MIanagenent Institute L-77
iiti
... 1
TAPLE OF CONTETTS
IndividualsItem Page
James C. Burns L-78
.noch T. .altermeri L-80
Newman F. Gaines L-81
!ryon Lee 'ninyub L-82
Ronald I. Ricca L-83
John Joseph Ross L-84
LT.T OF FXIIRTTTS
1. Summary of P7u,l c 'Teet ing held in Pestrehan, TLouis ana
2. qummary of Public Meetinp held in New Orleans, Louisiana
3. Summary oF Public meeting field in ulfport, Missisqippi
4. Form Letter, East Rank Fishermen's Assoeiation
iv
. " .. .[. .".-. .%.5-o.-....-.......-..--.-".-.-....-..-.............-........-.. .........-...-
HISSISSIPPI AND LOUIS TANA AREAS STEDY
Report on Freshwater Diversion
To
Lake Pontchartrain Basin And Mississippi Sound
APPENDIX L
PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES
L.O.I. This appendix provides information on t1he public involvement
program conducted as part of the planning process. The views of
Federal, state, and local agencies and interested groups an.i individuils
on the tentatively selected plan are included. Responses to the views
are included where applicable. Summaries of the three ptil-lic meetings
held in December 1983 are also included in this appendix.
Section 1. PUBLTC TNVOLVMEFNT PROGRAM SUMMIARY
L.1.1 The initial public meetings on the Mississippi and Louisiana
Estuarine Areas study were held on 1 acd F erunry 107q in Ciifport,
rississippi, and New Orleans, Louisiana, respectively. At those
meetings, Incal interests expressed a need to redutce saltwater intrusion
and to improve fish and wildlife productivity.
L.1.2. Petween "farch l7P and July lR, a series o,' informral reetnos
were held with representatives of Federal, state, and local agencies.
The meetings provided forms to discuss the status ana direction of the
study. A briefing on the Mississippi and Louisiana Estiiarine Areas
study and the Louisiana Coastal Area study was piven at 1ofr,t metinos
on 25 August 19l and 21 January 1982. The !!ew Orleans District
maintained coorination with the Administrator, 'oastal Mfanagemer
Section, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. The district
discussed the freshwater diversion studies at the Louisiana Ufniversities
Marine Consortium symposium on coastal erosion and wetlands modification
on 5 and 6 Octoher 198I.
L.l.3. Several Federal and local apencies actively cooperated in the
study by providing advice or assistance. The NMI', provided commercril
Fisheries catch statistics. The UST'WS, under an interacencv ;'p reement,
cooperated with the New Orleans District in determining fitire ha4bitat
changes with and without the project. These two acencieq were a'i-siqte"-
by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDUF'I in
conductlne the impact assessment and habitat evaluation prcedrure, qan4
in developing methodologies for estimating benefits to conrcrial 3fish.
and wildlife. The UqS"'0 and LP",F provided advice and ata u' "z - in
conducting the recreation studies and evaluating benefits to, port
fishin, and hunting.
L--1
. .................................-..;
L.1.4. A two-state interagency ad hoc proup was convened in May and
June 1982 to consider salinity goals in the study area. The ad hoc
group made recommendations on the desired salinitv conditions. The
signed Memorandum for Record is Exhibit 1 of Appendix B, Plan
Formulation. Participants In the ad hoc group meetings were USPI!S,
LDWF, NMFS, Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation, Bureau of
Marine Resources, Department of "atural Resources, UTS Foo and Drug
Administration, and Louisiana Department of Health and Human
Resources. The study status and direction was discussed with the St.
Bernard Coastal Zone Advisory Committee on 29 July 1982.
L.1.5. The tentatively selected nian was presented to nomerous state
and local agencies and groups from May 1983 to April 1984. The meetings
are listed below:
State and Local Agencies and Interested Croups Date-
Governor's Coastal Protection Task Force May 26, 1981
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Department of Transportation and Development
St. Charles Parisi Council President June 7, 1I ,
St. Charles Parish Coastal Zone Advisorv Committee July .R, 1QR3
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Area Committee June 2p, 183
Orleans Parish
St. Tammany ParishSt. Charles ParishSt. John the Baptist Parish
Livingston Parish
Tangipahoa Parish
1,-? -:
........-...-. ....--.-.-.-....--.... .- ,- ...-..... ,.-....-i.--'.
Harrison County Board of Supervisors September 27, InI3
Hancock County Board of Supervisors September 29, 1983
Louisiana Oyster Dealers and Growers Association October 8, 19R3
St. John the Baptist Parish Planning Department October 14, 1983
City of New Orleans Planning Commission/Regional October 18, 1Q83Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans,St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes TechnicalStaff
Jefferson Parish Rod and Oun Club November 18, 1981
East Pank Fishermen Association November 23, 1983
December 8, 1081
Public Meeting - Destrehan, Louisiana December 6, 1983
Public Meetinp - New Orleans, Louisiana December 13, 1Q3
Public MIeeting - Gulfport, Louisiana December 15, 1983
St. Bernard Parish Coastal Zone Advisory Committee June 3n, 19s3
Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson,Orleans, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes January 11, 19R4
Health and Human Resources Committee of theSt. Tammany Police Jury Februarv R, ]QPI
Memhers of Mississippi State Legislatureand r-overnnr's Aide February R, 10PI
Slidell Sportsmen's League February 23, 1984
Lake Pontchartraln nasin Area CommitteeTechnical Staff April 13, 1QR4
L-3
C
4 4
4 C 0
- ~3 0
CC C2 QC.CO ~. I
4~CCt I- C.
C, C- C~C. C --V C.-* i
:3.-'.- '- 44 C-C.. 0
z CC 3U 4 - -
AC .3 C0. 4aS 'C- - I
\'.~ 2C- 4
- . i CCC 00 4
Cr-C - C *'C CCC- -; M~g ±
C-.-,- - -- 3' ~ 4.2z ~~'~-' CCC C-.4 -. C.,r'.C~~ -,
-- 444 -3
4? ,C3
'k4
... CC. 4. - -ZCC ~ 4;CC,:
4 C~ -. 0
KS . - -'-4 43
3 2 4
*1
4-
a
V < V 10, (a41 41 - (aV (a 41 41*0 - 41, 5 (a* V (a 4, - -
4, 61 41 61 V4, Cj 4, 6 It 4144 4,. 0 6 41 .4,41 0. Id (a S S£ C 6 41 6 -
41 61 0-10 -. 6 6 .4, -(a 0 41 41 I 3.t 3 Cl .4, 6
1~1 .4, 0-(a (a 1~ 416 5 41 ... 6 5o 0~ S 0 41 5
- 61 0 10 0Cl 61 - 4, 1041 (.4 6 V C 0 1S 41 C 41 61
It .4, (a 61 (a..41. (a 6 41S (a S .4, 5 .. 41- (a (a 6 = (aS . .0 41I. - .4, 5 (a - ,C S.41 - 61 0 4, 6 Vo 41~- 4, .- S4, 3 (a 4, 1., 4, .10 411o 41 - S (a11 (a .41 0. 61 1.1 -
(a C It 3 41S 6 .4, 5,o 10 661..'4,..1- - - - 0
1.1 *4, 41 - 5 -(a C .0 (a 1.1 CE -~ 4, 6 6 (a
41 C (ao - - 41(a - 0 - 5 40
4, 6 1.. 5 6 It- 0 0 -, C- 40 5
-0 - 0 (a- C V 10 6?(a - 41 41S (a 61 6
- V - - 0 4, 10- S 6 6 0.4 41V (a
* 0 - 41 4, 0 4,- 0 (a .C 3 6 -
C - .4, 4, 10C 4, - 61 (a 41 V
* (a 4. 0S V 40 a 4, Vo - 4, 41 (a 41
1.2 - - & V 10 541' 6 (a 4, V 41 - -10 6 41 6 41 *.1 10 ItC 41 41 6 - 614, It .4. l~ 3 41 4,It C 4, C - r -62 C 6 C C 41 4 10
61 4,. (. .4 10 4,
1. 41 'I0 V CS It 4,
- 4141 4, >. 0
1..> 4, .. ,4, 41 01061 (a
- 041 610 01.1 (a>414,641 411.4, -It 41(a 010>..-141(a41 61 641 4,61 60.4,*.'66110641 ~010 010>. C -
415 1010
VO(a 4,0161 66416.4(a4,It104,61It41 41 0411041-.0610 (a>. It>61416 4,C.-110.4, 4,.
ItO 5664141.1.4, 10 *~~1 0<10...661It041341It1 1041 4,
.4,0.0 > 5411. 41>
104154,- 0It(a 1 4,4,1041.504110614141641(
~~>41 4,6.141 06141(a41 (a5
0 4, 6 6 - 41. 10 (a .4, It ~O 5.0 (a It 10 10
10 6106161041410.0
6510614,0.10 -Cl.. .1041CC 65 4110610 614, 10-.. '0104,41--'66041 10.4,0 -61616ItC 04,0616 61.1240 414110 I CO It-. 1010 0 6
CL10C~''S.4,41 4'10a.-3..-o~~o .0 .4, 41y 4,
-0 64,10411041... 61~4, 4, >06641614, 310... a010 41 41> .4, .4,61 (~41610.4, 4160... - 410 ~7r
'.4010411004, ..- 61 -.61-=0106 610~V >104,0
6It10.Cl 0114. 41 41>0106.-.4, 4,6 6106
64,06 CIt41 0641.1010 .5-S 0(a41
V .4, 41 4, .4, 4, 41 .- 41 a41 41-606161> St~~1(a4,6 CIt (a
100.4,04, 6.-I>0 0661 aaS61~661 aSL
I...61 1051.4, aw It411 06V0....61 0.5
10 01066 310.10541-.
41a. 41 6141 050 6 .514,4,
.6(a4, 1041 61~ 41061ItIt41 - 405
>106 1036.0 41 5414154, CO 61IC
0 V (a C 0 .. 6 It It 6 '510 a -- . a .15 -04,0 *6161~0101 6.46-10
00
-s 6,.414141 416.01(a NOV (a616 6 CC
106411.010 64, 0.4160..-16110411010 5..C6t1416.4,5 6615 (a6
Old:i £41600V00 4161L~V S a 6 '6 It 6 5 : C 10 6.
6
V 4. O 4) 0
~~~~~ 0. V .4 C C - V4 0 .. t . C K . V 0 C 0o 0 0 44 4- c I )C C O 4
S.C 4.0 01 0M w - .. a o . 04
4-.4 g) 0.0 .0 ,.4 C 4. C S. 0 0 w x K -
Cv v. C, It 10 IV.44 ~ C 4o -. t'-''" 0
4 - 4 4-C 0 C 4) - - .
- 4 4 0 V 5 0 C 0 4 - 4 CF. .4 o C 0
V 0 C -.4 CC C 0 .. - C ti C .0
4- ~~0 0c C .4 c 0 v C
o ~ . VW tc o' ' . . 0 a0 4 0
-~~l 4) >0 C 0a . 0 m40 0 . C
0 x
40 0 0 -0- VC C 40 0 0 4) 0. . 4 0 C 04 1. a4 4) 0 0
V 4 ) .. ~ 0 4 w. -0 .- 0 a ) =4 4 C9 .4 4. 0-
4 w 0. V. 4" 144 C) >, 4) 4 ) - £ -
0 C 4 0. Va 0 0 0 Ct . 0 C Cc .4 U M bO.-~~ 0 - -4 4 -4 . V 4 A) C 0 z)C 4 C
4-C: 3 ) C 0 . 0 . 0 4 - u 4. 0 44 ,4. ~ ~ ~ ~ . 0 CIV 00 4 ) 0 'V..4 4 44) 0 C 4rC
W 0 0 4. 4) 0. CV.4 0
a, 0 4 01 01 a4.4..v4 0 V r' 4 0 0 V 4- .9 t- 0) 0 4-
o - c0 40 440u4)~~4r 01 .-. W0 4 - C 0 - C- 4).. 0 0 .
C~ 44 C = ") I. I 0 4 C CI , .4 4. 4- C. wo4 Vu V r., o)4 VV . 4 0 4. 4
4.0 A lu 0 w Cw - 4 .4 44-~ ~~ C- 0V .4 . 4) C 4
4.~~ C w 4. k) 9> w. U- ) 4 . - .w- 04 0- "' -4 r. 00 U0 4 .C 4- 4- 0 0 r) w0 . :.- 44. 4 - -) .4 EC
40 -4 4~4 0 r 4- 4- "- =. ' .- 4 ..4~I m.- 44 w >4 >1 a - 0 0 - ) C
4 4 4 .. o - 0 0 V 4 -. 4 4 440 n4 4- V OV 0 44 -£ a) C V)0 C C C 0 C
4:40~~~~ w. 4 C 0 0 - w-C C 4 44 K .
V~ ~ w4 V4~ 4 . 0 ( 4 0 4- w) 4 1 >44
z00 .4 0 10 14 C. .0 4- 0.4 r- 02 4-4 V c)- 4. 0
0 4- 401 m .4 C0 444 00 44. CC 'Va
0C 04 4. .40. C ) od .0 44 r 0w0 4) 0 *.44 0 H 44 044
w)444 C, 04 V 0- CO -400 4-404 a) >) C40~~~ £00 90. w 04004 r4 c004 0444
~0 4 0.0-4.4 )0. .4. C 0 0 CL0 aC )..0 .044-OC.-44 0-4> 0- u444 CC 4-0> c004 4 V
34. 00 4).0 4444 04.4 - 4:4C -. 4 )0 C. 94. 0 44 4.-4 '.0 04.1 Cc
4-44).4)0 .V., AZ4) 0.) 0-W3 00) b.00 .
4)~ ~~~~ 00 4 004 . E4 .4 0 0 0. 4"00- 1 C C W4 ) ... o C. 4 00 4 V~4- 044 0.4)44- 0.4 a0 >0 a 004
r)-V4 40 C oU V 4 v0.- 4
C 3 .4a- UCM4-C~oC 0 4)44 Q) 00V
- -C
-- -0 - .....E.
*.. - 0- " " - -'0 0
•. - to,
.-., 0.
• , ].. C c - a
-~ to to C '.-._
to to to.
to .- -. o U
- 'C---."--."•-- ' - -"-"•"-"-. "-. """. "".-"--"'"-"""- "-0- :,2 ' :,-. .- ' ,' -. "-: -,:
Q - 0 1.
.. . - . . .4 - - - - - , - - - '" , .4-
' -. -
. ..' '.-.' - 4-' 7
4 o'... .. .-
m u Z
a. a
. >• - -I _- .
4' 4.- , ,/ , >4....
F. 4 4 .-
41_- " ' '- 2.
, " 4' . - 4' C '" 5 =
-- 0
E L,
,, - -:g ' ; . 'o - V ... . * *,4, ' 4. -
"- I - -I 4> -,_ 4, 4'-4' , , Z -0 ,.4'
"~~~~~ o L. t , w 4) 0C .0,
4-.- 4 U... b .4 V "
V 2,
. ..- . . .. ... ...... .... . ..- . .4' , 4'... . ....... C.. -W. . 4,.4,.
.,. .. :. -¢ .: :, : : . .,- .,- . .,. : .o 0 ._,.- ..,_. . ...... C...... . .. . ... . ... . 44
vV 0- o ~0
.V - .4 3. 0 C U 00
0~~~ ~~~~~ 0 04 -4 . 3 4 .43 V 0 43 4 U 0 0 U C0 c u 0C
3.
0 ~ ~ C 0 ' . 02 .
U 4 .. 4 C0 0 M a43 W-- I o U 4
CM U ~ U C 0 ~ 4 - 43 43 0 43 'V .4- 0 0.00 0 43 - .43 C 2 0£
o U U Ct 0 43 0 VU U - 4 C - U - 2U
'V~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ U 0 3 U CW - 3- C C ' . U 4
0~~~ 43 U U 0 C 0-U00 U 0 U-m 0 0.c 43 4
-~~ ~ C 0 3 U - 0 C 3 - 4 3 3 - 0 U - U C
43'.~~~~~ ~~~ 43 'V 0 3 0 00 4 3 £ 2 0 C - 04
- 4 0 0V U 0 C. d, ' 4 0 43 4. U - U00
0- C. R 3 0 003 . U C t 0 C U
'V~~ £ U 32 4 t C ' t U C 3 4
U C U U 0 U 0 3 0 E V3 U W I4 0 C U
0 ~ ~~ ~ m-0 0U 0 U. 0 C3 U 4
2 £ £ C £ ' 3 -- 0 43 £ m m c m CC 4
> m 0I "M 3- 0 3 U 0 U 43 C 43
V-t 0 C - C 43 U0 Cz -. 'V 0 C 44
- 0 3 4 0 0 0 C: 0 0 3 U £
U0 C. r 'V C -1 0 0 1 3'£ - 4
E V 4 t . 4 0 IO 3
U-U~ ~ 43 0C1C 0 O 4 U ' wI0~~~~~ ~~ 2- C w- 4-Z 3 4 0 0 0 C. 4 3~
- 043.0-43
Li c3>-3- 0 0 4
00 z 404 4 I C:.-44
1.-. 004 C C C£ U3, C m
F. S~ 0 m-7EUm 0 1-0.0-O- Q 3-40 43.4U0 C. C. 04- I
43.03- ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 0.OU'03 C3..UU.
C4
z. 4 1 4
4 4. a I o
c4. 4 . >
a. 4. aS
IL4 4
In. 4. 4
.> . .4 . . . . . . . .
I I .P! _ n , i ' , ,
• -'!
El.i 0.
0 -0,
_ •C ..C
. C. S
0. C CoC C. ' -
46 .0.Z. -V
• " " " " " " " " " " " " " " '" " ' " " ' ' " '" " "
" " "" " ' " '" " " ' " " " "' " " " ' " " " " "4 " ',
. • - . " . -
- 0 C C 00
r 0c 1 Q)
C, TI 44 ~'TI
4904
41 > 4 Q)
0
N 00
N ~ ~ Q 'TI ---1.0
o~1, 404 2
0,1(C) ~ Q E) U CAa"' 'o m'
00 C)"
w 0
6 n3
Im
cnn
,A 00
0 2"
;a ; c)) c 4.-
(N~~~~ -')).) f0 4
* ~ ~ ~ ~ u o~ >0 ~ )4f-.--. 4>
C r ,
4,w 0 44
10 01.4 0 '4.0
0C . - - -
440 v4 '. 0 0 v
010 0 cC
CCW 1 .1 0
ic01. 0 ',
>.~ ~ V>0 110
~Q 00g
01 6 C 440.
- 00 0C0 j m44 00.14.
.40 20 C L
r > 4a 1
w m 01 r
14 0 0.
0 0 01.l
u 11" .u10 lO.4
-. 8-*~ *.-.. .
- .
jS
C t C 0 4-
C 4-
Cl 0
f-C
'Cc
4-.
C4- 4. 4)4,4
C
C
0
C C
C C 0)
0
5 4-4t 2.4.4)4-. C-
4,
0) UC C~
C) C.~-Cr-
0-04.00)CCC .4) 0.
- 4)020 '1-.0 C U 0 0 0
2 - - .'C >4 '4.44-COO
gt *0 C
0 v. 4-
0' 00
*~) C) 0 0 0. 4-04.
- -' ,..- --
SECTTON 2. COM'4ENTS AND RESPONSES
L.1.5. The draft report and EIS were coord'inated with other Federal,
* state, and local interests. Three public meetings were held: at
festrehan, Louisiana, at New Orleans, Louisiana, and at Culfport,
[. Mississippi. The three public meetings summaries are Exhibit 1, 2, and
3. The tentatively selected plan was favorably received, hut some
concerns were expressed for Mississippi River water quality and the
effect of the diverted water on the Lake Pontchartrain fishery.
L.I.6. Commercial fishermen based at the Rigolets have expressed
opposition to the project. The commercial fishermen are members of the
East Bank Fishermen's Association. They related the proposed project to
previous spillway openings, which have adversely affected the 1'rown
shrimp harvest in Lake Pontchartrain. About 100 form letters of
opposItion have been received. A copy of the form letter is Exhibit
4. Comments from Federal, state, and local agencies and interested
groups and individuals and responses to those comments are in qectlon 2.
L-4
m0 0
w00 0
- £
C 03
03 0M.1:
13 0
c- r
m 0- V3 0
A.. . A . .
LA AL~0.-A Ad
GA C
0)0
0- E4--0
* 0-L~ 0)-0)---
o 0
0) At.,-
30)
&I >4.-A
0-A - 0)
>44- 4-A
= 0) 4-'
'- A-' C
0-0At .4-A
0 t~ 0,0)0)V LX.4-" 0) LA -0 .~Vx 4 .ac --0)LOLA~aA,~
0,4- - 4-, V'->0)4- 4-AC HA4A)0 AA 4-A AL -0)4--~4-A - .-- A- --'4 .0~ 0) .4-0) = -0.0)4-4- '4 24- ALL -0.00- 4- 0 00, .4- 07 -~ - Li
4-AC (4-& A
4-LA 0.~ 4- CC
'-LAL 0 0>4-
o E.-0. ccLn4-~c *A
hi .44~ALA C ICLA'A0 --- 4- 0) ,ALA I.A COLA
SAL L1- 1.0)4 44 LA
Z 0,4- E >~ - 0)L ->o a> -o .-. A. aL 4-
F: AAC ~ ~Z~V§7- 1-U i~ -LA C 4-Ail4L 0-a AL >0)0)hi ~ 0)04- C *~LL 10-0)1--Li
0 -A.J-, 0)4-A.-.ALA ILL LA-- 1. .A-C 0, >L 0,LALL-.-CaLA La
o ~ ALVL V-LA -CAL>t 0 4-0,4-. 4- 4- CAL>> LAS)a. -~ 0 0) -a~ tV,-.AE - CON L..-r A-CtLAALAL.
-J .~ --- C.L.L LA LAAL0)CCL-L4- -~ >0-4-~ C .CLA.-> >,-L0)C-C CCaALL-CAL,-,-A
44>0 LI 0) 4-0)LC-L4z Z Z LA0. -- ,->>ata~ 1w ~ 4--A-'- L >0.>> -A4-LAO.) LA >~0) LL'-'A -A0)LAr 0 t'---- 4-CL- LA-.'4.-> >, ALLAA-LCaLA. -AAC - -z - - CS~.Lo o-~ 4-lAO C 1-LAALCCLa.~LSACC)-. 4- LA--44 A'..>0- *-L~-A 1-- 4-1-1-A -a C LAY4-TLALLA0- 4- '4 0 a -C 4- Sr L 5, a '4z a CC~ >LCCLL
hi * 0 4-> AL -L 0)1-C0)
C ~LAAILhI 4- 0 4- 1-aL A EaL0)--- A
U AL 4-LA-- AALLS .- ALC.I-. 0- C 4-Afl LA 0)3 0)> 4-A4 3 -; LV .,~ ~ CCC0),1
- 4- C C L4-AL *-L CC A> AL L3VI 4- 4-LL.L 0) LALACA C ,.L>SLALAA- -'5'>o ~A 4 - 0>0, LLiL-.-~- LAhi *LLO .Z .- C.! C SaCLALA.LC0) -- A-
0)4-CA LA AL ALVLA 0 0)L03LI- 4-LA> 0 4- *-AC4- -4-4~--LA 4~Z ~L~2 I 3-,>>> 0D L 4-CL CL') - -CC LAAOCLA 4- E-' Al0(44- CC C CL>, A
- .- E>~-- C 4-4-LiAC 0)>, 0) C LiC> F4% AL-La 4- -, AS>C 4-0 0 0)
- 0.4 * L C C 0)1'W -- 34103 0) .- AL0-AL. .4- A) 1-0)A-CLC~LrSsar ASS 0)3~LA
A'-,--
4J UU4C a4 0- .
4-40 I- U4-u W E d
04 I'dO I' n 134
0 00 0.->I- c . t
0 434 4 1 XI - It-4c 41 4110 0 a
Va t In4.C 0 ~ ~ 4- L0 41 4411
M0r' xI L 4.. 11 0I '"1 1 a-.04 Ut' ,40f L 1'I 0 "' C "
r ~ .C 04L * LW C) 0,j a.40 Cr ( N40 4
cn rC.4 4 0 111 0 31 cC4 4 10 . 04 M'
I.0- C m m4 44 :) M M:
0- ."-4m C.Cwr - a 4-1- ".,1
-1 r, C. 44I 44(04
4- 0 0I .- - E~n l i a0 C3 v.- CD
44 C~ ~~~~~~~ CD~ '-n 44
'S 4'5C U'00144
40D o4.44 &. 044 U 4 C" 0 4' 41 4 L0)0cl *
U>4, LIO 4 4410 1-41 C 4C '40: 41'.1,II ft
mc I, u -0 '04-. W O 40- C 4 44-r14. CC'- V 4 C4 44' '
cn ,- mV0 0 Cu 0C"4 - t 41 4 .1044-4-4 C a-)4 C j 400-40 4 14 4 U 010- 4.41.1t
0-4 LO-l -I. - L: 3 '4,4.44 1) lTvI0 I 04U >, U ) a 4'0 0- > Q4 44 ).1'.' I
00 L C Cc > 4 L0 40 ." 0- 44 131 VI- -. 44114
0.4 V1 CV 04 I l- .. ' 044 C '- .4o 5u
Cv 0) InO 04 u CoIC- 41.140 4 44 W Q) 410M)00~ ~~~~~ L) na4- 40 4-.a CnlfL C 104 1 140(4
UC E .C w4.4 - ., LW LC4 4 L 44 U' C00 0 ,.' ' I 4a * 30 40 In 4 41 41 40 04 400
044 0 IC 0 0-> 04 (0414 0414,4 441141'i44CU L C W- 4 l W 0 ''4 's.- 's L U t' 44 444 441 1041
1o a4 - a
a 4
4'~ ~ 0 4 4
~~0 0 It a0-C 4
It 44 m4 > 0
0. 00t 4 0 -
- - . M 4
02. 00 - 0 r
-j -- -v a 0 0
cc 02 n- C -
C 0c
A - b', 4' I 4
>4 4
0 a 0' p
r- aC' 0- 0- m t - 0
a' a It 44' 0 0 4
z~~~ ~ ~ ~ 4' 4' 444 4' m .M 0 P 0Oi 0 t 0.04
0- a , 1- 0 a C 3t 1
4' 44 4' 0 V
.1 11 11 4, 0 - It 4
4- 4- 0 r4Ct 0 0, . ' - 4
Vo 4' -1 4, 1 t r 4 I0 4' r ) 4 4
>' 4 4-0 WE
0 . It 0 40 0 c 0 a 0 0 a
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ..,c..., hI ~~!..... ~ ---
I
ti .
c;mcIw-c
I -
a c
E )0 C'
2C 1C~~3 a. t 4 .
OLL 0, C '0 . 032
3 O 4 Uo
,ao C on a C9LC4 L, 0' -
4J4
wC m.u0-O- V C) >0 3 C 33
-o
oo -0L
c. I
-~~ c ,
cr I c' C Cu 'oS o. at cioCCC
C u
0 z oC Ecm
oo L C Ccc u L
s a c.(5~~~z o.OA0F- ; 6 -
-4 -- C... C
2C oI CC 'C cCr ct aC~ t
L a: C . 5
w C
(5 E c aC
AC C 8C'? Fai 37o
oI.. C CC~ c
0
C -bCn C U C A -,
o oc
0. 0
C '2
C'0 4'
0 42:~
044- C44-,~ 4-
- .2 E44 ' 40 '04-0)04-044- +20 4-'4- >a 4-42 0444 -- U.4- L A 04 - -~ -- r-. 44 0 4- +2 4- 0040..- 4-4-'4-U.C4 4- 4204 4440'4~'CC0 04 V~* 4- a3 0 .- .UO 4-42 V4- 04-.- 0 04 -a440C.-CO.j4-a- 4-4- +2.4- U U N0 -~o44 4-420.04-04- U.-' -4- ~ >. Oj 0 4. U
0~4-V -. 4 U 4~ 244U,4- 4AC4-4-0A 044- 0 -~0. 44 44-04= OA4-42 '0 04 0
4- 4-40 4-4-C4.2.- o''o= a 42 4- zC U0.4244-4-C. >404 3 4- 4-C -.- 42Q44.-44.04 -~=0 a-4-44---vC-0044 V-C 4-4- . ~- UC - -AC42 42.4-AU 440>4 4-
.a 4- 44 0 42 - 04 a7 Va r'VO--- V.4-04 Cfl~4-4- 420> C 4- No'a- 0.4 '-'.c a- o ~ a 0440 a 04404242 -'.4-Ojoj 42 A 42 a--' - 0.a- V~'-a-.4.44-C ~C4- C 44-a- 0 .004- 40 4- O4flCC.-C U C AL- - 4-4- '4-~4-E04 420(4-- 4-C 0 244- a-"' C-A-.-- .,-04.-. C 424-44 4-0.* 4, - .4442 a-0'4. O4~>,44-4042U 444-4.4 -~ -U
~ 0~~ 4-4-c 4-4- 0 ~-54-~4-0 . 4 - ~ ~ g> in-.-- 0- 4-CC ia-C
4
0- 004-4. c40 04 00- 0-, 0-4- 04 4- *a44~4 - 4- 4.4 - U~ 40 444.4,4 .- '04.-004~t44)424- 04-A 4-. a, 4-0 - 4- U4-C 04 04a-44-4A4-a-a-4~.4-4---a4- 0442 4-4-4 - 4>-~ 404-AG 4-42flU 04- >.C- +240 44 4-4-C~ *4-44a.4r4fl 04424- 44-0 4.. .4 a->121 4- >140 4-A4-'414 *4 -- 44 4- >aa- -,-.- 04 4-44 54-444- 4-4- >10>0.4.0 ~a-04-'- aA44 a-Q 4.4 4-U C4,2 ~4) '- . 04-CC 4-0.-k. +404 C >14-421(4-4.40 a-V a-444-----'or~ 4-~ 4-4- - o~4- C..J .- 4-4-.44.. -- V 004 .C 4>4 4A4.~444-4- '~ .. CCa-4-a-a-r~-4.444 a-CC aU A-44420 .- 04~( 4 = 4.24- CC4"
VO --- 004.2A-,-0~.-4- 04 42 4-I.
-- - 2~424'4- 040'.--o---- 4-440 U 4-.. 4-4- a- 3 ~4---0.Uaa ia =4-4- a'.- a-4-00> a- 0 4-4.OV4-04 4-a- a CC-.- AC 042+2-...- 04 04-4- V044-CCI'4404-. a- a-C4- 44-A 44(4 4-' 0.0440.4-042.- O4C A 040404 0.I 4-0~-a- 04'.- 4.2CC 424.9 ,44-44A4-' 43.. a-c 4-04->--- 4-42 44. .- 04 44 Q.
0. .4-,c 4-44442 .-- 44 a-40 4-044- I 0 0 '4144. 4-3 00- 4-00.- 4-Va 04--4 *-.4'14C4' 4--.- V 04 4-42 0004+24. .42 CC--a- aa- >1>0.4-C 04 4- 4-CC -4.- . r o424- ~a-C..., 0.044- 0tJ~L- 04-4.4- 424-42C--U 044-44-42a-04.-4404 -0 4-440'0 0)0 4.2>4-C V4- t~a--04CC 4-0-V 4-04£44- >04404441 >3--- 04 4-44 4- 4-VO '-*'--4-4---424-42 4.44-4- 4-0L.2~CC C 42--Ca- 04-004 a- 31n 44,4 044- 0442 ~ 00. 4-4- 4-4- a--a-a-4- -- A-- a-, 4- 4-4-3 0.424-0401004 4-a-Win -
0.
444-'4-4-'>1-V-- 4-04- L. C -- 0..- U
5-Cin.-. 4-4- 4-04040 4-A >-4.-0 '4-040 (4-.- .04nru 4 £44044 4-34-04 '4-na- - C,4-4-C) C) 4-00' 04. >Ea-~~--- '4- 0.44-44- 4.4~. 442 0' 004044-4 4- -.a- A004'4242. .0 4- 44.4
- .. C0.-...-0 '-0 " .44- 4~4-)2' 4-4 "042Z~>a-.-' 0-- a- -V
- . . .. - . . . . -......
rr:
I-
C
a) .WV-a, .4 0 W,.
i -- ' " . - D C. ,r.
Ela a ,
0-ao a, >-a 44 "
-.-:
41
.4' 4 0 S. 0
OD 4''-
U. 4-4j V -"...
.{w cOu wE v
MCI o
-w OC =C
4..
co .
Z,..
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . i i4
w. a *4
t' L .0 ' 4'D00 4 .. o
Cu
OK
.4"
1< 2C-K
I - .- '-. -
Zr -
K.
SC.-s
i~ 0 r~= ~ -c .7
a ~ -mu.
Cu.
I
Ti i r W, C, a ~ * * *- .
., IF 1, .V
r t 't V o - r V V t ,3
on d,~ T,4V ~ >,
:3.- >E Q C, V 17 3-
Tm 1- .- '0x .4
'- V ft. a,~02 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 1 1" rd~ ~ w~ kv4- )1 3'A- . ,~d
5 C > .4) 1 * V 0 .. 0 L C AD- I q4 . 3
o. elC4 0, w A . 0 4> .*..-. 3 -2
C V C'C732 ao 423)' 4r vd J. m 1 0
4' d'4 % . L 4
0- z 0 - r
0 . a 0 cr c
-C F-~-.- 0 Nr 4C 0
L. 60 0 0.z4)6 r ,. a a. , r 1.
- .. LLL4) oc ID c
4)*I..4> 07, .0 ) .C-"*4 4) elo4 E)C44 40
L ~ ~ 4 r d)U -. ; 4
*'rLS. orC.-;
*-A-.-C ~ ~ I r-:-c -- ~ w 4
------ ------ -----
U)
Zx
Itt
il-
4-
'1%~
S -~
. . . a . . .
z 0,
1 0 1
I-.~~ 4, 3
- - - -.-. - -. -~ , - - . -
C C C. C- .4 .C Ci C. -
- C. C C C C C.C C~ C.. C C C C 3
C. C C
C C.. C. C. -
- CC CC
C. C CC C.
C. C.- C-. '
C. C. C . C. C
C C. '~ C. C. C. C.-- C C-- C C -- CC- C .4 C C4 C- C £
CC CC. 4 .C C
C C.. C C C, C4 - C. - - C.' C. C.- 3 C. C. 3
E- - C. - C - - - - C- - C - - C - C C--
C- C C C. C- C. C C -- . C C.
C C -< CC C - C- C-- C C C. -, C- - C. C. C -C C.- - C.
'C; - - C. C CC CC C. '4C.
C - CC CC C-3 CCC C. sC. C. C.- CC.
C C C. C 3'CCC C C CCC-..CC'C. C...C C. C4~--~C-. C. C3CCCCC. C. C CC
- - .4 C.4C-.4C.-CC. C-- CC.CC-.-.-CC.C- CCC.C.C.C CC. (-CC-C-C. .C- C-C-CC. CCC3 C 32CC
C- - -t C. C. -- U - - C C'' .4 CC-.-. .40
43C. .CC.C
'-C CC-CCCCC-.--CCCC.C ~ CCC 9
O CC-C CC. CC-.-CC, C.
1 C C.S'.4>CC 2CC.
O 434-C. 4-.-.-C 2-z CCC.C CCCCC.3EC.-C 2
4 CC-C C
- C-C-~ .w,:;: 4-C-CC C. -
Cu ,a)'i~ :.1~ C -- C QCC.- C
-f C'.- '-CC-4.-C m i
C. CC CC
o
.4.4 -- -~4 C - C..- - - .4
C:C CCC i~
~Sv4tbni~fr
~.4 C.. t-..-t..a.-.-& ~t.-a.2
4tC.
.w
0 .o
C'..
IC. 2 LII H- LI-I LU @ 3.. L,
,' <" 0'
S -- o @4 L LI 0- Cq - H-. .@.. .
-2 H U) " I" 2 • 3".'"-C
o0- H- - H- H @4.. . .... . @"
o o
H- ~ ~ z: <4 0_ > U0 L ') 0 4'
ac aU <- 0) In 0C U U L H 2
S" o c) ... ... . . H- .. : 32~~ w :: - C a C C) U)
< In o o ;L < < 32 o- H . JS
H "- '" - 0-- -L- ". >- a L<4 H-) C In0 @ 2
02 ) Cz H- Ct U) C w
02 3 2 L 4 LUW 2 -z4 H- H- C' 0- 32j _I- H
32 In - 0 0
0 -' 0 j - 0U IO 0 ClitU3 H @4 C ) H - 0 U
- - - r r- - -
r
H
3 LU -C U) L~ 0I - - H LUH U) U) H U) H H H
2- H C 32 H H U) H C .- U--J Z 2- 21 LU H CL H H H HLU 0 H H 01 H Z H CL -CL ~ LU - 32 U) U) LU H H 01 LU - LU- LU H LU - 2- H 52 C C CV fl CH LU LU - CL U) U) U) 11 C H U; ICC Z CV C; H - LU LU H
- C LI - LU (LI LU U) CC H LU H CD CC. LU - -H H C CC) (4 CL U) H H 01 C CV H HLU IL C CL 3Vt- C) LU C 21 LU 0 LU H H
H H LU LU H CL HLU C CL 21IL H 21 - LU H 01 CCH H H U) LU FL U)
- LU 21 LU U) H LU C) LULU U) CC 0o 01 - 0 H U C 01 LU LU H C F -
LU LU H C LU U) LU CCL HU) CL 21 I 21 U) U)H 52 LU 01 0 0 LU LU- Cl 0 I H U) H 0C U) H U) 21H CC H -CC LU 52 H H
C 01 0 LU LU U-U 01 - - C) HH Ho LU LU HO S C U2 52
0 LU U) LU C L-LC LU U) H U) CC
C
H CC 3 CC 2- U) CLC CL X LU U
52 HH LU H
LU C C CC U)
2- -L LU H H U)-J H 21 C ~
H C - CL -523 H
LU 52LU CC CL H
C U) LU H
A.
I
-- -~
4
I-
wo o Li>ti 0O 0- -it-4i fit) ,44t t
00 -i to- a to,-- ,ut tt< i~i-,-. 4 0,-~n -0OE-..~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ to-io,>0nnnl >to-a cn, n/ oK00~ ~~~~~~~~ wti0.i 0-tO -n---- 4 C tC tti 4i 4ttn
COG) tin-i-tin 0>4) s--i~-o nV-1n1 0~.~ ,tt- 1 0o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~L aIi-nio.C<-o-- .i .L ~ a, -- ~t o --
inS> .-- 0-i-->f1, t _0in~~~ I fnn-n-s00sC P I ,ncwii Io
t~~i- o-i o,- as , s iii L .C,T-
n-w> I- s- wi mt- r M Is-i si 41 a > ot1.i 4- i t
.c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : in oioo 2-- c iin iit -,in ,-- o -o c i si ini -i Uo Q ,,-~0 4,- u i. i- *i I~tiitfU Ii~~-i U- ,-ic n*i-iC -ut -ttoaiito-,i-i W oo s-4- s It C o,1un, 0
c0. 1-34i E win)ni 4.0 .2-i wi~nt< co- oi-in0- cto ~ ~ ~ ~ c u2 c-n-i ifsn- ot-.-iC1~C4 00 -it, 2:-s
4--U ii ,-14 , > Oointtoi in --- . ,-,nittou
n-iinu iSiC 0 tno -- ,3--oo--. ,-oo ISC -,- EC
in s- u int Iit-ii-i4.n-t on -Uin .i.i I
s- ~ ~ ~ w 4di CCi - -in f 4 Li04 , t 4 i , n40 c c
4,0 cU in-ItttntL--- o F-n04> ~CC -- CtoE C~~it~-iEC. *ni 04 C~nC at~ 40 -in-in O in
4-to- inoit inw- w 2 ~ 434 c->C 44iU- iit044 - I-i a. in s n- , I. w-- z a t. 1 t-ti. t
0.4-i in C-fi .40 E notn ~ .3 >i o aiin
in .Cs . n . . . . -i ~ - t o - -.si .i .o ,n 4 0 . . .. . . . .i
I c
o ~ C o 2 4
4,~~ ~ 20i. 1
.4 4, - 4, 0 0
0 0 1 0
01 403U t
U 'a.0 w 02 >
3c 4, 020 -Iw4 2 o wm-
00 a 0U 0
C) 0 U 2 4, -.c . :
wt m, 4, E 4, 4 - ,
-w . 0 . 0 2 U2 . 4
u 0 4
- 1~0- 1, U 1 ~ 02
0 -w o1 1 V U
2~I 1 0 a U00 0V 0 . 00
m. U 0 U ~f 0 0 , 4 , -0
41 -C - m0 4, 2 0, 0-2t 4,
3c, 0 .
I.w -x -2 ,,2 V-4w. 2 U a W 3 U wIMu10 - , W U -z w, 0 2
U 0- 1 0 UIC) ~ W Z .I* 4
-t°--
wo
C C
W w0oo
1. - - , 0. .
-W W-- c. 0,
W) 0- W 0 >
0)31 C 1E E. ) --- 00 0) C M W), W)() .- 44C--,0.
.- I w I 0 Cx- 0
0) I. 0 0 0) W 1. 00 1 0 M -- , Uoo E be) 0) - t )
0 .. ° 0 > 0 Wa .0 0
. ... CO 0 01" 01- 4.- LO ........... . .0) .. . o .... .. ..,.
0. 0. 04 >04 0 0)0. )t001)--tL.- 0) a tOn - 0 =".
" . " . ) o ". C. . o , -.C 0. CIV0 W"0)- 0 .0C C 0" " 3" t- ", .
C- - ' ' 0. .... 0) " " C 0 ) 0 ) ) C 0 . )0 C.. . .. . . . .. .), f, 0. . 0) -0
2 0 0 ) 0 O 0 C 0)0 000 0 n O o . .-, - C ) ) - 0 C -
.C 0 0 , M , EOC.- - .0)t 0)>31 WC0 W4 M. 00). . 04 , 0
W.4- W .OC U. a 4 - >JOW-0) 00 > O C L 43- .
00C W,- C. 4-0-- ) W . C)- 0 .C-C- 0 - 0 )00)-- )0- 0 0. C4C . 4O.4.4- WC 000)Ct. C,.-- - C
0-04 0 0C >1> 34 COb u-) 0 )0 )~~'..0 ,C- ,
w0 0 S 0) Ct 0)4 -4 00- 0
00 34- EO t E be> -0 0t.,- 0 0C.0 ) 0,C C C )-
en C0) -t 0>CC2)I O 0)0 0S W,,0 20 C ) 00C W, 0 E 3 C ) C 0 CMO1 C W,. W. I, 0 I I _0,, U C 0 )t
0S t 01 = C - C ) 0 0 0 ) 1 - . 0 C C 0) 0 c-t 0 )" 0 )
WX 'El 0 1- .-- W 01 - 0 0 C .- ,- -0 t W C,-. 0) 0 C 0 E0-- 0 0 t 0 .C C 0 0. ) 0) ) -- 0) t-,- 0 0 0 0 0 4 0) . S. ) 4- 4 4 C C 0 M C0 .-- 4t
0)S0) .- 01 4-t4.t- O 0) CC )C C,.C t- ,- 00 00-.4 0 )0 U0 0
t-,-0--0Ct- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 20.C00 0) O 504) C 0- C) ) 03--).-
-r -- -' - --
C a
o 0 - a- Ca
4- w a
W' '- - a
-'0 C0 or I -
00 2 -
a a- --, i7 -4 1"
I- 0 .1 CS a, 0
0 a -0 -- 3
a a a a,
9 W7 wwS
000
.71 1 "11~
a,' o.-C.9 r o'V LC C LI. L1
T I-.
Il I
r, 'I c ,
-u a)) T.
Lk,- aj l1; > C.2V CC''C
0)~~~ C) 04C )- > ) C C '
oC0 H ) u C,'C
4) 0) a D )-)
>,OC >C-)- -,
Q). a)'4r) -oC.Za fu c, c) . -' C )
o~~$ 0 a, U0C C C) ..)]I c f 4 ) '4 C) C) )' m. :
4.4C C) (4 wa) 4, E-C wU)
0,. .C) L
00 0- '4 V ) o ..
m 0 ] 0 Ur Q))] ))C4
.]>- . .E .. . . .
cc
.4 c 4) 0
O 0
>4I 0 04
0 4 4)1 ) .
0, 0 )0 ' .0C S4) 4
c 4 4 C 0' 4
o M4 4 4w .. c CC " 0
> 4
.) .4 .4 .0 .4 .4. .
.) .. . . . . .
-~ ~~~ 0 1 4 1 4
it 4 * ~3 -1 0 -.
4:~ ~ 4, 4,c : - 4
04:4 O 0~. 41 itO
it 4,~ ~ 0 -- 4 41 IU i
4:~~~~~~~~ itCi : a 04 ~ ~ ~ 3 4
E 0 V ) 0 -C, 1 0 a M .0 i tm 0 - m a I- M 4. 3- 4, bo U > 3 U. U:3
I o itE 0 M a' 01 m 0: 0.''i . . 4 1 .to a E: 41
E. m 4 0 0 :3 4 0 0 1 - -p E- . 4
-~~ > X: IM..0 0 4 - t U ' 4
41 c m4 C 03 C- -W M Wt 'V :3 0 44. 1 t i0 0
E m 1 C1 U 4 :L -q: I. - i
_0 .4. 0 , C 1: 7 U f- 0XU ~ ~ - .1 :3o m. ( U L- U3 it W: r ), . i
f UV ii r bC -C W U 0 U E 1 4
U m ~ 0 Q, aV0 0 . - UO
U 3 0: M U - it'C t t C 4
E4 a = 0 V 0: Et. 4:
o - .0 'L am, 0 > - 4, X : b i Mm m E 0
0- W2 V C :3 .0 4 U
M 00- 0' 0- - w u S rE U ..
V) bt g 0 0 W .0 4
L 0-0~4 L: 41) 0 '
04:~0 Et 41 U
0.> 41
a,0
L:. -0 ;.-4
: .0S 4 :.03 0 *'F 0> W-..a40: U 4
U.10.. 0*. 4100 L W3
4£ o--' 0 01:114 v - 4 J.~ 4 4
4141 L : 440
. ,' 4 1 0 ,:31
41:~ 104 0 V0F140 1 0 W > M M 0 ,:
41 L4 1 1) 0 0 0 0 w-mw. 41 00-004 X. . - .0E0 4 . 4:4:-41 4 mo4 a4 4: m t.o - i :o
I
0 E, 0
.-. 3 o
4. 4
E w.O 4) 4..Z
C4,4 4,~ a ) C'. M Io. U)
)'3 3
4 4 T4.)-F A3.0731 1 1
C\' .
-f
0 r
* . . . . .*- *
m.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 a
t -4
*'a ,
:1 'a at a a I sa0 1, .3 0 4. ,a C3a
I, a 0A.~~~C C.. "I" l
0 0 44 4
(. ~0 .0 0 -.4cc4 0 4!U 04 3 0.4
a -4
44C 'A'o 0.
4G.- r ~ a 0. . t .1
0 .C j 110 4 06 ..e 4 "I0 4
on 04 xU aS 04U("a 416 666 4
00 m oao 6 0-4 60 6 L4.N 4 ao~
0..1 'a ad * .
N6 .4 . "
oo0 00X.4 mc 0
4,6 0. 4. t; 0 -.
0 vo 1j _p aa
q 0
g444.
SI -. * .~ C,'a
A4 0.. as0@ ovm
, 0 0
m c I~
.a 'U w
t. 4. C. E
C 0
r , U C
o ' o t 0 4
3 C C .. -. 0 C 4, .0
C C - 3 C ' C 4 -. - - U C. . -C -. - C CU C .. .
C 0 0
r , 4,o b.
v c C
C o, t r. a -o
b r .I c o
I ~~~ x- 3 Lo C A
c' u I. e c oCt
C.~~ V '0 U.rC. a. o C.1 Cc a
0~~~~4 C 4- 0. - :g . - -
14-
o. C3 R 1 4 .,
0C 0. cCO 0 . 6.. 90 s 't E 0 6.c -0 - 0.4 . - .4. g m . . g g
6*- v' v 0r4 ;fl .4
0- .
6 0. 1 4.. C . 1o C
nit C C W 4 Z o a MD
CC Cj 0, -c
T* 0 v. o4 -I -ca0.40 .. . .
.1 4 O0 ~0k 0.
6' .. F. I. ON L .4.&.0 0. 41 04..
.0 c" 041 CC. .8 aC h 00 .d -
M4 - 4 .4 . 1.3.4 w a ~ ~ ~ .4 440 cO.. w v0.- .4 v
1. C - 4 - 4 C .. a' 0 . 4 0 4 0 4 . 0 0 0 0a
3~~~ -' 3~c E~~1 O 3 - C 5
Q1 44
c,~~4 c, (Acu
C a O4'~ ' 'r' o3t - Q~ 14.. 4'o 03 4
al 4- C 05LL
" u'- c0 '3
04 3 144
c0 a, 4 '
'' m'~ '-' L
11 .)X a,:
C, :
CI. 10 E -) A 00
Z: bc- a 0 w- p ~ .2 2' 1-~ 0-, vU 0 ~ V.UOf 2 *0
>4 0 'd" m v
.00 0 0C, 0.- o0' F' w . ~ -
o o a
4:- 0 w.2. 00a 00, 0 C .
-- 0
F -'0 t0,a>2 .
o- 0
00r c0 0 0.-
4.0.
-". . . .• . . . . - - - , - - . , - . . - . . ,.IV
4.-' .000~~c
a 2 22 0 0 02
LU- ID x -7 Z
LU7 3
LI..
4cr-r
LL
U 1
Ea -, -.
c: J)~ r>"-
CL z:n~
Cj~..J PEI
C CeV4ft f ft f
|, 11 m a Q
V," r
a, '
ECC-- 0 WD C Cz Q)CC 0C. u)0 z a0 c:- -D M- XC' a) a. o 1 CC-- 3 0 Mr
3• : )u
Ij~~~° -o u •)0 3 0E
wC E- -CC C'' CD CC Cu Q, 0- t.
r.~ fCC.'-CC;, CC. 4 CC C C 10 n. C
CC '1.C C q) UCDC -'' C I- 4 .0 4C~Q 0~ 1s4 a~.. uo~ .CD3CDD ~ '
CC.4 .4C- C-.--Ca) CC'-CCC- .0L r. 0 4C-
u)~~~~ 0 -utou:
ua rC4CC Q) 0 M c u4 4 w -"C-,t 0 C C) a D w0'C CC .C o, w-C-,O C- CD mC W, C c u u
-Qv)CC ,Cw c~ ',CaCC' C - ~ CC C CD -:; 0 C3r.CCC.-~CCC., CC0C'E.~C- -a CwC~ CD N o 'o u
C-'D CCt a CC _r--CDC1.-C 1 D4 C.uj ' w CDC .41CD CDIV'..4CCDC~~ mC-- QC w C --. C C-- C4' 0 > u)CC
C.,q> C, C' CD - m. C EC -c:0 V C. U-' C - CD rCC~ 0>-CC n0C 0C 4 D-", C-'C C 0" C c 0-' C
Q, , .,. 0
'C 0 C NC aC E a)cQ. - -o C C Q C
E~~: -c- ""
*C.u 4 E: - . Co V CC'C C) uC c) 6 C Cc Id I .ICIn C - c : w c C-- -CC. o . - ' o 'C C C- CCCo> C CC.-.o -- '" CC..
I" .
Q)O C z: a tp ac0 0 ... 4 ."1i i
CE 0 C C-C CC CC D C ~ CC C -- ' V .'C :-
o >a 0 M lo u',-. , .--CC C CCC C CC. CCCD C-- C'0'"'.'"-C
.40 CC-C-','CC' 'C C.C- . -CCC ' . C--,. CD C.' '.
w- > C r C G U C
" r . .--.- a.-.-.- -. ', .- ." "-C-- , . . . . -. C- .- " "'- " :n L C -x CC . QC 2C C D'a CC .C C CCC 0 C- L-C -m- mSC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' CC-..CC CC C7CQ D.3 C' "C C CC > ~C
c. C .- C C': 'C T 4 C.C. InCC~.. oCCCC. a C-* ~~~~E cc.C.C C'-C CC.CD ''. CCCC C cC 'CC C
CC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z 0C mC- wCCC 4 C O C - .,' 34C, CC0 I-.C C C -"I ~ C >.. .In r- 0 V o. CC 'C C.,CC
U) 03 (CLCCCC 0,,CC 'CCC VO C .CC. ' 3CE C-'.C.C-- D C) 04 Q C ' C-aC-)-- Cj CD oC CCw
c) C C . wCC-C .'> C- . .. C C~C C
-O 'or r. -0 04 V .1)0- 0 a ow
>4 4
.4 0 C C r1,C C .4 4 Q, 'v -) - 4
CO 0. 0C U) .. 0 C .C 44 'o o
c C 0 CC4 W . 440VVC -d w4 C . . 0 U > J J . 4
CC44 -c. uC v) ... v4 O. wCC0C> o
0. 4). 04.-W 40 4 0 0 c a4- NO4440t0o Wv 44 4 0 >44.4. o4. 0 U)x) oW'0m44M4o v.
C 0C C >1 ) IW a ~2 m 4 44 4)0 *L U 0 4 . CO o > U) 1. 44 "4 Co) u- 444 C C CU 0
44W40 04 0 - a4. .0 >4- C CU)IN >V . - 44 I4. -0 0-. M 2O4S ~ ~~~ 3, 0C ).40 4444 4
.4OC o4.4. CU) U)C w Q 03. 04C .4 C .
LL4 I4 - )-C04 .4o4 1- C .. 0.C3 00.4c 4
0. 0 U U 00 Q . 44 4 W4 V 0 44.
U) Wc r4 .)C . cOUw4.. >4 C4 U) o 540o 0 C o 4 'D .4 *. w..4 m .0mC-.4
o . .m4 -O 34 - 44 0 olW 4404. v44.4 v4 4'I > IC U CV u ' . 44w 4. 4 4) 0 a
c4~2 w0 v r. -vO 44o4 c. CO Co40 40 . .
'a40 4. 4v v 4 4 c. v4. m. o4 4. 00 P 4 -a 0 44 .44z 400 .
z: I o o m w 6f .4 C .4:
v" o C w.. 'a4 C. 'a ' 00 c4-) 44 -.4 w44 '. 4 1r 4 4 4 444 . 0 )
44~~ v4 00. 0 04 0 U 0 '.
o 44444 44 .44 I
'0 0w a SC 4. 04r9 u0 44 446 .42.44
. 4 . 44 -444 .4 Z44 I444Ii.~~ u. :: 1 4 .4
04 >00 wo j r V oc z
.It I. . . . . . . . . .
* WJ. .' - - v
-0 0
24IA.,0
80 0
'S54
Ir11
goa
600
00
C.y
012-
C-
I c
C)~~L w)C ) 4. ) C) 0 C;-
41 uC 4. ,: C . ) C 0 'E 'a 0:.
E~ 0 - r) C . C: - -C 4.E C 4. - '3 - C:>
C)~~ C: 0) CL Lbb), C ~ C : C40~~ -0 A :C )
E~: EE )C
C:-
v4 3
w 2 m .0
CL. W C- m) a ) .0
C:~~ ~ bf T~- C : C)' C
4)~ C ) 0 C) o0 C ) V) 0
-' -. U: 3 ) C :0C
:j ..
04~~~~1 L 3z. C C ) -
C) C) L) T30 - ) ).
- C : C ) . ) : ~ ~ C' CC:C :C: C : C jC
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~7 C) . ) ) C . : C C. -
o-
- M0
C)~~~~r Q) 0 '4 ) 0 ) C - ) -'-~~~~~ z -L . C 0 C
m ht L qC)~ ~~ ~ u ) o C 3 C )C-In C)c C)
V. .0~C , ' ) '4 0 P C C -~43 r24 C - C C C . )C) ' )~o o
-~~4 1~ zC C) C ,
'c4- C)~o c. C .to L V0- o - - -
4) 4 , - um C 4 4) L
o , C 4 Q.4 6 ) 4 o ~ - '- 4- C C.r.
'C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q) a u m) v) 4 D ~ . -~~4 , '
4- C) 4, o
lo tt c) m .0 4 4 44, I W04 C . )C
oC3 0 4 ) 4 ~ ) - - E -44w V -l C)w ) - 3C .
C~~ - 4. .
0. 0.o- )~0 .
44 - c) C-' It
C) o C ~ a ~ ' . C.0L u C)ca . * )
loC ) , -
4, C. M A)
L- a cC .
(\JJ
rL zz I
. ~ ~ t ac
- - - S S
-- C- pa -.. , a .
4 .0 V - - C
1 0 w4
Z E,
04 >I. w(L
.0 '0
CD-
CL2 - .40 (
~1) 4( t(4 0
C4ww 004,0 0
d((44 0 ... w
00 W4. OX,
" w' 0, m 00 31cu rA.' x.,o a
_jC 00L)
zO 0 4E ~ 4'.,4zJ 4 C W ~ .-
o4. .'0 . 404' 44, - t
44 m
0
4)l
4) 41
0 ex 0
.. .44
N c w tL6
0- 4) 0m 00 z) I
a c C . e 0 4) z v(4w , r
O 4) ~ccco U .
44 0x tU 0.
-I 4)., -
0) 44 003 - ) 0300.- 3 0'.- .''0 )4.4 3 0)C 0. m 04 . 1 0
0)..S' .3 .0 03. 0 CO )4.'44 hO 0)0
32 Wo Ow- 30'- m3- 030' 04 all3 wf4''4-~~~~~~~~ L.-(' 0)-10 )- 0 3 1 0 0 U- CC 0%03.
0)0.0)0)~~ W.0E4- 4-0 cO. 030 .-040V~~~~~ ~~ >.- w)..1 0 0304- 04)03 0>) 3 .
4) 0030 0 0) 0. 103( - *' 0) 1-0 C.J
V 0)0)C 0)'m 0 0)) w' ) C; 0)1- w0 C0c~ ~~ ~~~~ 'u w;~' 0(0( C w44.- a0- 3- 0U
0~ CC 4.43
4-' )00- 1- C '0 30)-0 >)4-(3 .- 0) 04)0>4- 3 (4- -' .0) 003 '24w '0U4- -C 13 0 103:
- CS U 1-0. -40) C w CE 40 .003'-04-1-0 00) C c) w3C w4 a3 W-
3-) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0)0 -o)0 W) ~ -'t - 0 -r -m 1-
03 3 4 0 W0 0 0 0 C U Ou0 - 0 )54-~~ 4 --)40 W4)-00 00 ) 0 )) E C 04 00)30
C( .- 0.. '0)- C)4 -'3 o C - 0 )2.0Ci'~ ~~~~~ ~~~ 1-0 004 w44- c04 03)- 04-0)3 0334 0+U.
40)~ ~~ ~ 1-300 0( CC0 0) U(4' - 0) 03= 4 m 0 o00W -- 400)4'- 1--00 1-04 0)3E1 m )4. LUW U-40 M04 - t(3
0- 0' 0" - O('-4 033 0003) 00 0. 4 400 ) 10032 0. 0 0) 00343 0 1-0 UC0 03.- 3.0 0)'400)..;
1- 0 U 0 3- '0 C00- 000443 0 33 ((043.
'- w 0)10) itC 00. :K0 0)3000t ) 0 " -
Cl)
-. - , *1
0
-; _
0~" . -
0 ~.0-0' -
*~~-0(I) . r~'C-
-x
0
. . .. -~
rr v--,--t I - ~
"4 44 - .42 "4 "4444Z 'i 44 >. .- Or:221<? :? 44.r'4O ~, 4- 4 4145%)nHo 41,4,4' '4
.2 -4~" '"4-C. 41
'';'4,V-~ 5 ~.. - ~jC~ C;- '" C)
CCVI'': 2, .>'4..4%.'4 5'.'.1 4.4
4'J2.4Q-4; C''' 4,) C)')SCOfl 41 . S '4'"' '4, 4,
4) 4) '44 'CC 0
1.. 44, 4~ C 4 4% .4 .100'' t ... 1' '412' '4
I ~'" orC, 444
''4. ).4C4'4 4,4' IC'tC 41 C
4- 44
5"C! '4~.-'~
'"12" CC 4.4.4 41 41 12 '44
.C. ~- --
224- ,, :: ''"444 .. 1
'-C ("'1%' 4' 44
at:....... ... ,, '9ri '54 . .C~
''C ''' 45 *4.4,4
'It44 '4'~'4 ' C
"4 4.' Ct1 2:
.4 .4 . ' , C .4 -' ''IC . ' "C 41
-- ... ~ . - *4*~~~* -...................- ' -. - . 4 - - -- 4.-....4.'. '4.---.- -. -. ' - '...........' ' - -. .'.'s'.
Cl C U " a-----a
>S
S
al aa
c I u
II 4
- e.
11'2 CC i a
c.-,
"- 02 0 ,
,,V -V L i', ,i-
-- ..... 1 4 0 0 ,1
4-' "-- - "V'l 0'. ,
.d ar,- ; ' ofl , ..
,ij~ifl.- 1. Gi '"3L-1'101>
; ,," " ' , " . 'i 'i' -; ak " . . 0l n i tOi m in ' U '0 " 0 -3 i f :. . ' .. ..
040~~ 01 04 C0
00 .40a-0 0* 4r- .4 0. w ID 0I0 "4 0 = '4 0 00 a.0 00 0 '
4 0 4C 0 0 m '40 01 0
wa 0 4c ac 4 0 40 0~.G.)0 0. 0AG '' .) . 4 C 0 04
*. '4 .4 4. W4 0 . '0) ' -.5o ' ' 0 4.4. 0' > 4 4 '4 4) m4 0: w. 0
0~ ~~~ 0 .0 waC4 ' a S CG C 0 0 0 0. C 0 G .
w 0 e4 0 W. C x4 w. 0 -0- . ' 0 '
0 4 0 a 0 C 00 0 4 4 -'4 -)0 0 0 C ' a 0 ' 4 0 0.' 'o 0 '.) ' 0 '40 .. I . ., 4 . ' 0 0 0 G '4 0 0 0 C - 0.) 4 4) 2 0
v w4 - Ga 0 r ' 0 ' 0 40 0 0 0 4 '4 C ..- G 0C . 0 Ga COw) ' 0 .C C 4 0 ' 0 z .) ' 4 '
.0 0) '0 -0 0 ' 0 ) C '0 I ' . ) ) . " ' '
0~~~ ~ ~~~~ 00 - F' Z Z 4 ). 0 ' ) 0. 4 5 0 - C 40. ) 4) ' 0 00 4 Ga 0 . . ' ' a 0 w0 ' 0 -'4~~ r4 .. a 0 4 ' 4 ' 4 4 0 0 . ) 0 .
0~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ '40"0 G 4 0 4 0 4 . . . 4 C .) '
m4 o.~ 0 4 4 . 0C - ' ) 0 0 4 0 4 4 . ' 0 0 G 0 0 4
£ ' 4 a c ' 4 a' . z4 0) w4- G * . . 40 '
.4 0 '4 '4 0 4 0 0 ' 4 0 Ga 4 0 wl - ca - 0 0 4 ' 0 4''4~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ r 4 0 00 ) ' . £ . 4 4 4 a 4 ) ' 4 0 4'4 0a4 4. . ) 0 0 4 a . . ' ' ) ' 0 ' 4 G
4 ) 0 4 4 4 4 ' t ' ' . . 0 4 ' £ C 0 4 0 4 ' ) 0 .>0 0.4 ' 0 ) 0 0 0 . ' 4 K 4 - . .E4 0' 0 4 4 4 0 .0 .
.0 0. 4 a 4 4 ' 4 4 C 0.4 0 4 0 '4. .0 4 0 .0 4 ' 0.4 44.) 0. ) 4 4) 4) 4 - C . C I ) m ) '4 4) 0
- '4£ Ga '~4 4 - . 5 ' ) 0 0 . ' . .) 0 4
4) 04 4 0 ' 4 0 - a' 4) 0 . .0 0 . ' 0 4 ' C I. 2, 0' '4 0
0' 4) ' .0 4474) 4)4 0 £ 0' '4.0 ' 0 . .'4 0 . 4. . C. .4 4.0 0 ' 4
-I c
4' 4' ... C--. -
I• -c-
_4-'-.- .4'- V .-. ... . .. . .-C-_ -C:'4 4 - 0 4 . ..
- = :. . C -.
At.0-4'--• I A . ,
4'.-4 _C
'..,4'.4.'C, --.--C: ? - ': --- - ...- " --' 'C - . '
4 C -- '.C=' 4'.- . : .
- C_ -
4' 4'--- .-- 4, CI - - '-. -r ::. : : :
* 4' 4'..
-.-
'
4'. C C~ -4.-C-
I
V-. 2.V' .V
4' .- . . . . . . . ..C-C-C.C
C. C. C. -e5'. '
4' -C C 9
' . .. 4 . 4 -'4 = -
'4 4 4 4 . 0 u '4£
0- 0c~~~ ~~ c I4 . - ,- . 4
(44. .. U
I 404. 44
4. 4.... -. .
4.-c 4*4.. 4-
- 4. 4. 4 4. ... 4. '
. 4 C. '0.0 4, V t ~ ~' 4. 4. 4, U '. 4 - 4,- - C 4, 4- 4- c .4, 7 C C 4 U 4- U U u..C4. - *~. C 4,4.. t C 7,4-, CU 4, 4. 4~V 4, 0 744 - C U - C 0 4. 0 C 4.~ 0 U U 4, 4 4, >4-0 3 4, 04 C 4, C *.' '. 0 4, C C U 4. 4, 7 '. 4~ C '>~ U 4, 0, 4 4,
0 4,' 4., 4, C U V 04 Cu
'. 0 V 4, C 4.04- C C C C.4, 0.0< U 04 4,040 4,,4 4.4, t 4 4, ~ 4,.. ~0. '.0 CC U 04 U U U '.4, 4, -U .4, 4, C 4:.C I '-' - Ou C 400.- U OF U
- .U 4CC.> ~ >, .040 4,44 '.0< 4-004.4, U cC. ~ 4,0 .04 - - 4,1 0. 4- C C 4, 04 0'. U 0 t 4, U I0,..) 4 .4,'.. '.-. C 4 4, C 4, C 0 C .44,24, U .0 C 4, 0. U - C C0 4, U - - 040 C 4. 4. .0 £ 0 04.0£ U - 4 . 4, .4, 4 ~ C 44-C 444, 0. .4,4 C C U 0 C 4 U - - C U 4 4 4,~ 0.'. U '4 - 34,.> C C C 0 04 0 U 04 U 04 *. C 4£ 3 40 Ct 4, U -7 '.4, 4, U 0< U 4. U C C C C - 4 U 4, We, 3 - 40..> 4, 4 0 C 4, 0-. 0 4 7 U . ' C t - U 04'-~ j U. C U4 C 0 U C U U. U - 4 C C C ut 7 4 Cr - 4, .4 CT4) '. U U 4 CC 0 U C U C C 3 -'V t U E C C U U 04 C - - 04 C 74, 0 Ct 4, U 4. 0 04.-' U 44 C U 0....u o C C C...-. t u 4)4,.4, 4, C - C U C 0 .. .04 4 C C 4, 4, C U U U = U 3 C 0 4, £ 4,- 4, 0 44,.-. 0 44- 3 4 3 4 C.> C 4, ' - CU .4, - U. '. V 0 0.U C C U C 4, 44 - U NV 7 44 C 4, C 4 U U 4 C C U C V CC. U 04 C V.4, 0 Ut 0 C C .42 4, u C - U 7 4, 4 ~ 04 UC C U C 0 4, OF-' C C 040< U V 5 - u U C C U C U 4, 4 4 U4''.> C t 4, 4, 4, V 4, 4.~ V 4.4 u 4 v 04 C 7 U 4,4 4.4 4 ,
U 04.-. 4*'. V.> 040 U U U C 0404.. C £ 4 4, . 0 V U U 7 04 4, 04 04 Ct U ... - Ut - - t4 4. 4 0 0.0 Ct U U U 0.00 C 0 4-, 04 0 U C4, U C - C £ U C V U 4-04 7 C 0 U 4. 4 04 4, 04 4 4, U U*4 ~ 4 U 04 Cr t 4, 04 04 Ct C C. C U (2u 4, 4 4U 04 0.4, 4, 44 4 t C 4£ U - Ct CC U 44 C 0 ~ 4, 4 4, 4. 4)4,~ 4 U - Ct 4 4, 0< U U 04 V ... U C 4, ~ 4. '0 - U U 4, Cu 40 U U 4 CC C 04-' V 4. 0 04 4, 4, .4 4 U 0£ C St U 4,C U. C 4444.0 0 CU . 044, 0 3 C 0 4.4- 04 .4, 4, V - U 4-. 74. u Cu UU 4, 0 4, C C U V - U .04 7 4.
0.'. U NO'-. 4, ~ ~ £ 3 U U U U 4, ~ 0. - 0 U - C C0
.- ''4
04. .~ U C - .0 4,~ 0.0 t 4.- 0 C ... 4, 4, U - 4 C Ut 0 N4, 4, t*' 04 U C C.04. U .4, £ 04 4.-4 U 4. U u 04 V 4, 04, - 0 4.' Ut4, 4 04 - U 4- 0 4, 04 4, 4 C - U 0 0. .4, 04 04£ C 44 U - 4, 4 U 4- 0V.. U - U C C ~ t V 04 0.4 U 0 C UCO V 4, 04 44....> 0 4, C CD'. 3 0 4 4, CV 7, U 0 4,.-. u - 3 V 4,4- .. C 4- 0 3 4 U 4, 0 4 U U 0~ N C U CV 04 7 U04 4, 4, 4 U - t 4- U 04 U V ,4, 0.C~ U .4, 4. 4 4, 4, .4 0.4 U 4 CC 0. 0 4, - 404 4 C 04 V 4 4, C C C £ .04 4,0.4 u U V .4,4- 04 0 U U .04 - 4-. C 0 4, 4 4, 0 U 4 0~ 4 C, 4, 4, U~ .~ ~ -o U CCC o .o 4,.>'.-. V '. . - e ~ ~ U4 4, U N..- 3 C 0.0 4-V C - 04 C U 4, 44- 0 U - C 40 0 4, 044 04.0 V - 4 4' 0. V.> CV C 4 4, U 40T .04.4, U 3-.0 0.4 - 4) 4- 4) V 04 .,. 0.. 04 ~ ~ > 4, ~ ~ '.0' 0.0.0.4 U'.' U C U 4, 4, 0 04 04 4*u C C.' 4, .0 U 444, - (0 4.4 - 0 4, 04 4, C 7 04u C U U .4, - - 4, 0 4 4, 4,- ~ 04.> C 4, C CC 4, 4, 4 '. U 4. 4 C U C 4, 4, 3 4 7 4, 4, 4,< 4... - V.04 0 4,C Ut U C - C 4, 4- C CV C U 4, 0.r .4, .0 o U -- - U U C 04 '. V - - N C U 4< Ct 4, 04 .4, C V .. U U 4 U £0 04 C U - 0 U.> 7 U C U 4, 7 4, U U .4, 4 0 0 . U 4 0U ~4- 0. '. 04 U -'2.0 4, 4.0u U 4£ V V £ '. 0 7.-. CC U04 7 0£ 4, 0 4,...' U t 4, V 04 U.> F 04 U - 4, 4, .4.0 C 0.U 4 *0 C U CU 4, C 0<4, U 4 4, C 4, 4 Ut 04. U 4,U C 4, - C C 04 V .0 C C 7 U U V C 0 4, C - 0 CU 3 U 4, (4, 3 0 4, U 0 4, 3 40 04 C CC 0 U 0 * 4, 04 C - 4,' .0 C 04 U 4, 5 CC - 0 u .4, .04 4 4, C . V 04 4, 4 4 '. Cs .~ 4 C 0 V 0'C . U C 4, U 4, 7 - C ...' 04 C 4* U NV 04 4 04* t C C V 04U C . U C U C U 04 4-. 4- .0 4- V .04 4, U C 4, ~. 44.0 C - C C C 04U 4 V C 2.' 04 4. 4- C 0 - 04 C U C - 04 4* 4, S U 4, .0 0. 4, 4, 3 V U U4) 04 0. V 4' 4-. .4 4 V 4. 4 C ~ C U .-. U.>
0.2 04 4 04 U u 040..> - U 4 0 4 4 4 04 - 0 4, 4. U 04 U 4. U 4, 0 40 U C 7 C U U U I
.. 04Z0 -<
04 -fT.-
044
44 04(
C. S
* 0
04-- -04<4,,! 4,. - - -
2* r -
* ) 04.j.0~' 04
- .- ~j - - if~- --------- Zz-..:-~04U.Zz.04Z04704Z< 4-Z-.2..0r2.4'...0 0.-:-----
5
. . -
, . . . . . -
L
1 0
E. °
Cr- - , .'-.r C r C
u w c m- :0 F.' W-1
- Cr . V C CC C t C Cr - Cr .C C°.C CCC -C.-CC C
Cr~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ orV C. -C r C 0 C . 3 0 Cr ~ C r -C C - C C C2Cr~ ~~~~~~ CC I .C C - C rC r C . C C . . .
CC - .C C Cr .C C CL C. C. C . .. C C C C C
CC V C Cr C. . C C W CC Cr C C m C r C r C C CC
M
C.~ ~~~~~ C. Wr Cr. Cr C C - C . C. r C r C CCC r . CC 2 . 0 C . C . . 0 CC x. > C C r
CrCitC 0 C C . C C C F C r r C . C C rC
wa4 , -0 14 1 C 4 t 4) 2 1 C .1
C I. t 4, It 0 , .4 w m x) m) 4) ct 4 ., 4 4 - ) ~ C 4 . ) 0
44 V C.. C 4 4) ( V 44 C 0 C0 4 4 ' .s. C C , . V 4
~~~~~~ -, 0w4£ C ' ( )
CCC ) 4 -4 C , 4) £ C C CtC 4 Ct - C 0 C C C 4
-0
4)4 .04 CX C .- ) C 4 4 4 4- ( 4 4C. C 4
a0)4 44 ) 0 C 4 C 4 4 . ) o A ~ E ~ 4Q.
S....C Z). C 4 ) 4 - '- C ) (4 . ) .) 5 C 4 ,V 0 (4,t(C ,t (~ C 4 C w)C' 4- 4 .4 - .) - C 4
(4(400 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 Ct m)C C " 0 ( -C V 4 - 4 0 4 4.. .) ~ a ,. to w, (4 41 E' . )4 4 ) 4 ) ( t C - - C ( O
C-C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~ 4)t 4 4 C . t V C 4 ( C 0 4 ) ( ) C 4 C £ C o(
.04)~~~~E cC C- 4) Ct X)4 4) 0 4 4. t 4 ) 0 4 4- 4 ( 4 0(4.~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ 0tt 4 t. ) 4 C C 4 . -- 0 0 4-'£ ~ 4 44
Ct(4Ct~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ >0 C 4 4 -- - C C C CC C ( 4 C 4 ' . t C ) 4
-4 ( ~ C 4 ) 4, 4 ( ) C, 4.- C E - 4)- 440 0 i
£~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ E a) . - . C 44 4 C C C '
~~~~~~C~~~~r Et4 - -C) (4 Z44 4 4 C C 0 4 ( ( - .) C 4 4=, f.C
(4(44)~~~~ ~ vt. -C 4- .~C C C
4)4'~~~~ ~~~~~ s. 4C f4 4) 4 ,)4 ( t 4 - 4) C C ,
*4-Cj~~~~ co L) L ) C ~ 4" t 4 444 , ( 4 C 4 t. 4C 4 44 .C j (
~~~~(4-CC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~o tf.~C 44 V( 4C4 4C4 4 44 t4 )C 4.
(44C 44(4 4) .44 . ' 4 )-.' 4' V4 ' 4 4 - 4 .44 - 4) a
44- (4 4j4) .4) F 4 Ct 4 C 0 - .4 C ( 4-0 C ct C - - C
.4 *C~ 4C- 4-~ 4 4) 444 , C ~ - ( 4' C - ') 4 FZ
04)4.4)~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ E 44 4 4 -C ' . C ( 4) 0 4.) V 0 4
I 4- 4 4 I
1- . 0 0. 0 44
~~~ C.5-
Us 2 4' . 4 44 44 4 44 .4 4-,:
U 0 '4 4 4 4.,4 U. 4 44 4
U. m 4 44'
4~~~~ ~~~~ L - 4 4 .4 .. 4 4 U
0~ 44 4 ' U 4- 040.. 4I
44 . 04 - 4 0 4 - 4 4- -4- 4 - 4 4 4 C c 4 .4 4 S54I
1~~ EE5'I - ~ -z ~-V A
U tt '
C ~~ 5) - 0
C - 0 5
.4) N O ~. 4) 0.3- 4) 4) 4)I
4) 4)~ *4) Bto 4) 4. 0~ to
(a 4). 4) 4- 4-.- to 0 4)
4.- 0 4)4) 0 4. i 4-' 94) 4). 4)- to 4) (4)
4) 4) 000 .4) .4) to < 4)4) 4) 4) 4).CO 3- 4)
4) to 0 4)4. *4) to U '4) *4)o - 4) 4) 4.
:3 4. 4) to
4. 0.4) - 4)o - .4)o a 0 . (V
:3. to to
to to. 4) 0
4)) 4) 4) to -4.. 00 4. N U
~. .~ ~ I.4) to 0 4) ~ I.
3. 4. to 0to 4). to .4) 0..
0 (0 4- 4)0. 34) N -0. 4) (0ONto 4)4) to4. 4. 4) (1 -4. 4) C .4) .4)
.4) 3 4) 4) 4)
004) 4) 4. 04U 04 (0 4) 9- 4) 4) 4).~
4. - .4)1 - 4)4. 0 4) 4) 0. 4)0. 0. 4) .4) -4)
~ to 4)-- 4) 4. 4)
(0 - - 4) .4- 0. 4) .4) C. 00
4) 4) 4)4.
~L(0 4. to -
0.' 4)0 NCtI 4) 4) 00Cr:3. (0 - 4) (0 .4)CI-. - .4) to4). .4) ~4) 4) 4. -Of. . 4) - (0 4. 4.04 4) - C .4 0 (000 0' :3 .4) 4) Y 4).
.4 9-3
to 2.--4.-a
4.
a'4) 4) roHz
4.2
<3. ~.>00O0
40 G.3"
~
n -~~0
w
Urn- (0 (**-' G.UCG
.4 0 4.4.or. 'a 0. 4) nO.
a. < 4. 4)4.4)4)
Ci GO 1.01OutGO
N 4. .4) 4)0.4. 00
0 04)
4. 4)3.00 .4. 50) GIn
(4) .. 04).O. 4.
4) 0 4)4.
4. (0
4) 4)4). GO0 .4.0 4.0010
4) 4)4. 4... J0 1 .GG
La.. 44.
.. 04) A4.4)( 4) 4)0
4)..(GOGOQ .4).-( .... .4.40 C0. -. 02 00 .. AGO .4)
0.000 000
4) 4)4.1)4) .. 04..4)4.'l 4)
BOO..)) 0 (04.(0.GO0..-.4 4 0 GOd GO N
444.04) 4) (0
~( ~0O 4.0 0 4) .44. .4 4)4)34)3 4)4)4.34.
It . 0~4)~ OG.)$.GGO
to~3
........................................................................................................ - .
4'a :5 " 1 4
o.4. f
Q) C 4 W t A . 14c4 '-i ) -- 4o4)
u-4C) W t £4 4.) 0'u >i ' -a4'D4) > it it c0 A 4A 4 4 4C 4 4 4 4'
444 .u4.44u i r4044 A .- '-44
o) ,-4444 I wl- 11
-Ii >440 444 4202
A~ it C-4w'4 4 )Jt~i :0. 14 '.. o ,
-1 . '. 4U 'nWi G) 4444,
boi..-. 4442442-
W) Q44 oCAl
14.444
. 0 .4...4. 4 . 4 .-. . . . .
* -~~ -a ca V -. . - .
010
4 0
$44
0 0.o004
0 113 a 4
44 .u
44 4
m044 0
r.> c r
44~ ~ 0 o4) 4 4. 0
S4 4 004 0.
>. Id,
0 o. 0 444
.'4. CC
: ooo..0NO0--
04,
0 600 u~
> 4
0)4 0 C
&I AN V.00 IOU 1w
__~ al .4..J-I .
Z u ,I
bo4 .6- 0 055. 00 , '53
0'. . .41 5 93 ~
10 93 . 0
0 C
0 11
M1 C4 0
0 XI
0 14 1
't. A. V%
V-1 4z,4+0
tj4 4 4 0 .
(1 2i 41 C. 6
Ab4 41- .4 '- k,M1 4' (49,
cj '.4 0q0 k,' -r4
a4 41 0 0 ,> b
414 0 10 41 4
0
42C C.
Z 0.
CL
04, 4
S
0
o S0
.0 -
S
0
'C1.0 S
ze ~o
3.' 0
p
p
i~ai ~ S
j ~ S
____________________ S
c~J
S
...................... ......................................................
....................
. ~ .
C
E-.
0
hi
A-
Iii
. . . .............................-.-...
-" -.-.
Vd
TI)-
U,
004
U4
C.06
0 0
0 w i
.40 I1. 4 C - .0L 0 C0x 00 0) rr 1* (
C~ ~~~~~~~ r, , SC . -4 , CI I U.- O1 1- C C . C 0- '
CIt X).J t A -J 3 -C . -0~
0
10
-0 "W
04 44 P C 4 4
.0 C 40 z 4. 0 w 0 1 0 04
-4 Q,. A0 0.00 4v4 -44 0 4v 0 w 4 " C 4
4 e 44 00 P 0 z4 4' 4 4 4 .444.4 0 u 0 v . '04 4 44 -. .0 0 'P 0 i 4 o 3p
P d 44 0. 0 -4 v 4 44 4
04 "4 P w. 4 0 0 0 P 4.43,4~ ~~~ ~~ w4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
.C"444~ ~~~~~~~ 0C4 4 4 0 4 .4 4 4 "
P m4 I ' 4 4 4K I j""Pw P4 4r W. "4 1' 4 P P 4 4 .4 P 4(01 0.04 0 4 4 4 . - 4 4 4
444 4044. 0 0m 4 4 4 44 . 4
.44.4 04444'0 0 -4 3 0. "4 4 3 .4 0 44 0 4
STIMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING
HELD IN DESTREHAN, LOUISIANA
DECEMBER 6, 1983
Exhillit1
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGHELD IN DESTREHAN, LOUISIANA
6 DECEMBER 1983
1. Introduction
The first public meeting was held in Destrehan, Louisiana, at theDestrehan High School. The purpose of the meeting was to give allinterested people the opportunity to express their views on thetentatively selected plan for freshwater diversion to the LakePontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound. The agenda of the meetingis Exhibit 1.
2. Attendance
A total of 142 persons attended the meeting. Various Federal, state,and local agencies as well as citizens and environmental groups wererepresented. A list of attendees is shown in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is alist of persons who expressed their views at the meeting.
3. Welcome and Opening Remarks
Mr. Darrell Williamson, Assistant Secretary of Transportation andDevelopment, Office of Public Works, was to chair the meeting.Mr. Williamson was delayed and Colonel Lee opened the meeting. ColonelLee stated the purpose of the meeting and then introduced members of hisstaff. He described the study area and gave an overview on what actionsare required before construction can be initiated on the proposedproject. When Mr. Williamson arrived, he made a 1brief statementIndicating the importance of this kind of meeting and his support forthe project. Hle recognized distinguished guests and IntroducedMs. Virginia Van Sickle, whc was representing Dr. Charles Groat,Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Ms. Van Sickle statedthat DNR agrees with the Corps of Engineers that freshwater diversionwould provide the only long-term, technically viable means for reducingsaltwater Intrusion and land loss In the study area. She noted thatscientists recognized this many years ago. Ms. Van SicIdle said that thestate, however, is presently not committed to cost sharing in theproject. Based on the results of these pub-lic meetings, the Governor'sCoastal Protection Task Force will make a recommendation to the Governorconcerning state participation in the project.
Dr. Ted Ford, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, said thatit Is difficult to develop a (-omplex approach that will achieve amanagement regime for the overall area to benefit several fish andwildlife resources. Hie noted tiat there have been many work sessions on
the plan to he presented. There have been compromises along the way interms of how the information has been assessed and evaluated. Dr. Fordindicated that he supports the tentatively selected plan considering theoverall resources and how we try to manage these resources.
4. Studv Presentation
Colonel Lee called on Mr. Falcolm Hull, study manager, to discuss thetentatively selected plan. Mr. Hull presented information on problemsof land loss and reduced fish and wildlife productivity in the studyarea. He discussed the plan formulation process and the rationale forselecting the Bonnet Carre' plan. He described pertinen 't information onthe tentatively selected plan. Mr. Hull's remarks are Exhibit 4.
5. Public Views and Concerns
Colonel. Lee asked everyone to limit statements to five minutes. Heasked those making presentations to come forward and speak at the podiumso that everyone could hear. He said that the meeting was being tapedand that copies of the meeting summary and the cassette tape would beavailable in about 60 days at the cost of reproduction. Views andconcerns of speakers at the meeting are summarized below in order ofoccurrence.
Mr. Gerald Bodin, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Bodin stated that the reintroduction of Mississippi River water intoLouisiana subdelta marshes has been recommended in the past as a viablemeans for preventing saltwater intrusion and wetland deterioration. Thetentatively selected plan that recommends installing a freshwaterdiversion structure adjacent to the Bonnet Carre' Spillway would resultin substantial benefits. Benefits include a reduction in coastalwetlands loss over the next 50 years, reduction in saltwater intrusionand creation of a salinity regime more favorable to fish and wildlife,an average net increase in estuarin~e commercial fishery landings, anaverage increase in commercial sport fishing and a net increase inlandings, and an increase in fur animal and alligator harvest and ingame and nongame wildlife populations.
In closing, he stated that from a biological standpoint, the siteselected is superior to other sites evaluated. He also emphasized thatthe structure will allow freshwater flow to restore salinityconditions. Furthermore, freshwater diverted at this location wouldmore effectively and efficiently accomplish study goals. Mr. Bodin'sstatement is Exhibit 5.
Mr. Bruce Rodrigue, St. Charles Parish Councilman, District 6
Mr. Rodrigue was concerned with displacement of the citizens in theproject area. He presented a signed petition from Montz residents
7AD-A1I52 726 MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTURXNE AREAS FRESH &ATER 24
DIVERSION TO LRKE P0 .(U) ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT NEWI ORLEANS LA D L CHEW APR 84
UNCLASSIFIED FG 13/2 NL
113. 1111,
1*25 JH~ f~ *
asking the government to relocate the entire Montz community east of theLouisiana Power and Light plant, west of the Bonnet Carre' Spillway, at "Jthe Mississippi River on the south, and near the Illinois CentralRailroad track on the north. The residents feel that constructing theproposed structure as designed would downgrade property values andeliminate the southeast evacuation route to Norco. The petition isExhibit 6.
Dave Merkarski, St. Charles Parish Department ofPlanning and Zoning and Coastal Zone Management
Mr. Merkarski spoke on behalf of Mr. Kevin Friloux, St. Charles Parishpresident. He indicated that the parish supported the project but asked
that the following be considered:
1. Relocation be offerred to all residents.
2. CC road Hwy. 626 he relocated to the western-most side of theupper guide levee.
3. Spillway road connecting the communities of Montz and Norco beretained.
4. Provide full compensation to St. Charles Parish if Montz Parkplayground is displaced.
Mr. Merkarski's statement is Exhibit 7.
Ms. Alma Shallonharns, Montz Resident
Ms. Shallonharns asked where the residents would be relocated. ColonelLee responded that once the project gets to the authorization phase anda local sponsor is determined, then people will be relocated. Thismeans residents in the community can relocate themselves and thegovernment will pay in accordance with the relocation laws or the localsponsor will pay, depending on what happens. Ms. Shallonharns wasreferred to Mr. Randy Florent, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, RealEstate Attorney, for additional discussion.
Mr. Mark Chatry, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Mr. Chatry stated that the proposed diversion plan has estuarineenhancement as Its sole purpose and, most importantly, offers controlleddiversions of much smaller volumes of water over an extended period.Since the diversions will he controllable, the timinp and amount offreshwater releases can be managed so that the benefits to fish andwildlife are maximized and the negative effects are minimized. Thesuccess of two existing freshwater diversion structures in PlaqueminesParish, managed in part by the department, has proven these Roalsattainable.
7S
The department is aware that certain fisheries resources will bedisplaced. However, the department firmly believes that the increase inoverall productivity of the basin, along with increased use of existingresources, will result in real benefits to the vast majority of
interests.
The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries believes that freshwaterdiversion is the single most effective means by which the rate ofdeterioration of our coastal areas can he slowed. The departmentstrongly endorses the proposed plan and urges all those concerned to
give it their favorable consideration.
Mr. Chatry's statement is Exhibit 8.
Mr. William Chauvin, American Shrimp Canners and Processors Association
Mr. Chauvin stated that the benefits derived from diversion offreshwater will far outweigh negative impacts of any Mississippi Riverwater quality problems. He added that the prime benefit derived overthe life of the project is an estimated reduction of thousands of acresin marsh loss rate caused by saltwater intrusion. This reduction is of
substantial consequence to the future of the Louisiana seafoodindustry. Louisiana is the number one producing state in volume forshrimp but that position is threatened by marsh loss in the nurseryarea. It seems now that over 70 percent of the entire U. S. supply ofshrimp will be imported. The situation is even more signifcant in the poyster industry. A large supply of canned oysters is being importedwhile a minor amount is being canned domestically. An estimated 100percent increase in commercial oyster harvest in the area could resultfrom the project. This would be beneficial not only to the fishing,processing, and marketing segments of the industry but to consumers andthe nation as well. In closing, Mr. Chauvin said that the result of the .project would be greater fisheries production and business opportunitiesin commercial and sport fisheries and related support industries.Employment would increase as well..
Mr. M. L. Cambre - Chairman, St. Charles Coastal Zone Advisory Committee
Mr. Cambre read a resolution of the St. Charles Coastal Zone AdvisoryCommittee supporting the project. The resolution urged the St. CharlesParish Council to support the project. The resolution is Exhibit 9.
Mr. Cambre also made his own statement. He stated his support for the
project because it has become evident that it is necessary. He furthercommented that without this project, salinity will increase. The 3proposed project is vital to.the area, though if the biggest obstacle tothe project is resident relocation, the Corps should re-engineer theproject to minimize this problem.
Mr. Cambre's statement is Exhibit 10.
.--.--S
Mr. Clark Braud, Laplace, Louisiana
Mr. Braud was concerned with the fastest procedures to get Congress tofund the study. Colonel Lee said that proposed plans would take ajbout ayear for review proceedings. Then the plan goes to the Division levelat Vicksburg, to the Mississippi River Commission, and to the Washingtonlevel to be authorized hy Congress. Mr. Braud asked when residentswould know the date to move. Colonel Lee responded that residents wouldnot have to move until after the plan is authorized, funded, anddesigned in detail. Colonel Lee emphasized that the residents will be
given enough time. Two acts of Congress are necessary to authorize aproject.
Ms. Gail Vinnett - Montz, Louisiana, (Laplace)
Ms. Vinett was concerned about whether someone placinp another home in
that area would be included or covered in the relocation plan.
Colonel Lee emphasized that this stage of the study Is preliminary. Heindicated that if people want to sell or build onto their homes, theyare free to do so until the project is authorized, the exact area to be
taken is determined, and negotiations are started or an act is taken by
the local sponsors.
Ms. Vinnett asked if the original plan still exists. Colonel Lee noted
that the tentatively selected plan is the subject of this publicmeeting.
Ms. Vinnett stated her concern about the amount of time beforerelocation begins. Colonel Lee indicated that if the project proceedsnormally, relocations wouldn't hegin for eight years.
Mr. Stanford Caillouet - Destrehan, Louisiana
Mr. Caillouet questioned what would be done about pollution onceMississippi River water enters the lake. He asked if the outlet from
the river to the lake would he dredged, marked, and lighted forrecreation purposes. Colonel Lee sald a catch hasin placed into thelake wo'ild be dredged periodically. Mr. Falcolm Hull., project manager,
indicated that markers are not part of the plan. Colonel Lee said thatif the outlet is to be marked by the Federal government, the coast guard
will do it.
Mr. Williamson indicated that he would answer the question concerningpollution. He stated that he believes the majority of contamination
will settle out when water is discharged through the sediment basin.Mr. Caillouet asked what the difference in cost would be between goingthrouRh the spillway with the new diversion or through the channel inthe proposed plan. Colonel Lee said the cost would be at leastSl0,nO0,nOn more than the tentatively selected plan. Mr. Caillouet
.........................
asked about raw sewage discharging into the lake. Mr. Williamsonemphasized that the major causes and contributors to the problem arebeing corrected. H-e added that this problem is probably monitored andunder citation by EPA or DNR.
Ms. Agatha Seaton -Montz, Louisiana
Ms. Seaton stated that she and other residents of Montz are aware of thecoastal problems surrounding them. She further emphasized her supportfor the tentatively selected plan and said she hopes the plan is carriedout.
Closing Remarks
Colonel Lee emphasized that a written statement must be submitted toPlanning Division, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,'New Orleans Districtbefore the 16th of January to Ie included as part of the record.Colonel Lee also expressed thanks for public participation.Mr. Williamson expressed appreciation to those attending the meeting fortheir participation. The meeting was then adjourned.
l I !I I_ .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNEW ORLEANS OISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RPT P.O. BOX 40267
NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70160
REPL'IY TO ..
ATTENTION OF
Agenda
Public Meeting
on
Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine AreasFreshwater Diversion to
Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound
December 6, 1983
I. Welcome Darrell Williamson
Assistant SecretaryLouisiana Department of
Transportation, Office of
Public Works
II. Opening Statement Colonel Robert C. LeeDistrict EngineerUS Army Corps of Engineers,New Orleans District
III. Presetation Falcolm HullStudy Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers,New Orleans District
IV. Public Statements Interested Individuals
V. Summary Colonel Robert C. Lee
VT. Closing Remarks Darrell Williamson
~ I
LIST OF PERSONS ATTENDING
PUBLIC MEETING IN DESTREHAN, LOUISIANA
Name Representin'
Mr. Stanford ,J. Caillouet Self
Mr. & Mrs. David Allen Green, Sr. Self
Mr. & Mrs. George Ledoux Self
Mr. James G. Drake Self
Mrs. Myrtle Creecy Self
Mrs. Dorothy Richard Self
Mrs. Irma Eugene SelfMrs. Barbara A. Dunn SelfMrs. Rosa Mae Geason SelfMrs. Emaline Smith Self
Mr. Hubert D. Shurtz SelfMrs. Ann Eugene Hines S lf
Mr. Roland L. Keller SelfMrs. Daniel J. Keller Self
Mrs. Mable Rainey SelfMr. Larrie L. Augillard SelfMr. Ralph Schexnaydre SelfMrs. Elibert Francie SelfMr. & Mrs E. K. Johnson, Jr. SelfMrs. Mary F. Breaux SelfMrs. Maritta L. Victor SelfMr. & Mrs. Herbert Creecy, Sr. SelfMr. Victor Mavar SelfMr. & Mrs. Lionell Smith SelfMr. Adrian D. Smith SelfMr. Melvin Creecy SelfMs. Marcia Jalvia SelfMr. Willie Leonard SelfMr. Hugh C. Brown Williams Inc.S. A. Walker SelfMr Roland Jalvia, Jr. SelfMrs. Vera Hawkins Jalvia SelfMrs. Audrey Hawkins SelfHr. Gregory Jalvia Jalvia-awkinsMr. Ernen Pedesellal SelfMrs. Linda Augillard SelfMr. Joseph Calcogm SelfMr. & Mrs. Ronald L. Pafe SelfMr. H. LeBlanc, Jr. B&C Rod & GunMr. Chuck Killerbrew La. Dept. of Wildlife
& FisheriesMr. M. J. Creecy Self
N;_7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- , - •. • . .•.°. ... •...... . .. ............ ....... . . .'.-.-.-. . -'.-.-.- .- . ..-.-.'..- - .- .- -". . .-" .. ". ... ."- . .-"-. .- . .." . .-" .'-".". ." ". . " ' " < -"i -" " " ""
LIST OF PERSONS ATTENDINGPUBLIC MEETING IN DESTREHAN, LOUISIANA (Continued)
Name Representing
Mr. Gary Smith Dept. of Natural
Resources
Mrs. Evelina Victor SelfMr. Hubert J. Schlandecker HuntingMr. Dennis M. Casey SelfMr. Joseph Smith Sel.fMrs. Wanda Anderson SelfMr. Ferman Victor SelfMrs. Cora Smith SelfMrs. Dorothy Mae Jones SelfMr. Bill Miller SelfMr. George T. Oubre SelfMrs. Charlotte Fremoux League of Women Voters
of LouisianaMr. Robert Lacy SelfMr. Robert Eugene SelfMrs. Mary LaRose SelfMrs. Gloria Creecy Larche SelfMrs. Charlotte T. Mason SelfMrs. Karen A. Mason SelfMrs. Carmen Mason SelfMrs. Wilbelmina Syhre SelfMrs. Mable E. Ceaser SelfMrs. Janice Etinne SelfMr. Norman Richard SelfMs. Agatha Sexton SelfMr. Glen Landry SelfMrs. Eaelyn Richard SelfMr. Philip Seymour SelfMr. Martin L. Richard, Sr. SelfMr. Wayne A. Brady SelfMr. Herman Francis SelfMr. Winslow Parquet SelfMr. Melleur Brown SelfMr. Arthur Harrison SelfMr. & Mrs. Hitheen A. Williams SelfMrs. Gladys Harrison SelfMrs. Mary Vukes SelfMr. W. L. Caughman, Jr. SelfMr. Michael Chester SelfMr. Sal Calugm Corps of Engineers,
New Orleans DistrictMr. Reginald Hawkins SelfMrs. Cleoma Smith Self
. . . .
LIST OF PERSO"S ATTENDINGPUBLIC MEETING IN DESTREHAN, LOUISIANA (Continued)
Name Representing
Mrs. Dorothea Creecy SelfMr. Wendell H. Creecy Selflerlian Noble SelfMrs. Rose Faucheux Self
Mrs. Marian Francis SelfMr. Murphy Francis, Jr. SelfMr. Edyur Noble, Sr. SelfMr. John M. Lucas SelfMr. Larry J. Kliebert Fisher AssociationMr. Lyle Torres SelfMr. Charles Torres SelfMr. Glen N. Montz SelfMr. Terry A. Landry SelfMr. Dale J. Jacob SelfMr. & Mrs. Joseph Smith, Jr. SelfMr. & Mrs. Tommy Berthelet SelfMr. Vernon Behrhorst SelfMr. Rick Bush Corps of Engineers,
New Orleans District
Mr. Robert L. Ancelet SelfMr. L. Brandt Savoie La. Dept. of Wildlife
& Fisheries ..
Mr. Rod E. Emmer SelfMr. Harry Schafer SelfMrs. Barbara S. Barreca St. Charles Parish
Dept. of EmergencyPreparedness
Mrs. Sherry Thompson SelfMr. Ron Thibodeaux Times-PicayuneSenator Ron Landry SenateMr. Ralph R. Miller State RepresentativeMr. Donald Hogan Councilman, St.
Charles ParishMr. Barney Barrett La. Dept. of Fish &
WildlifeMr. Richard Stuart Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi RiverCommission
Mr. David W. Fruge' U. S. Fish & WildlifeService
Mr. Gerry Waguespack La. WildlifeFederation
LIST OF PERSONS ATTENDING
PUBLIC MEETING IN DESTREHAN, LOUISIANA (Continued)
Name Representin-
Mr. E. D. Shipman SelfMr. Rodger Baudier, Jr. SelfMr. Gerald Bodin US Fish and Wildlife ServiceMr. Bruce Rodrigue St. Charles Parish
CouncilmanMr. Dave Merkarski Coastal Zone Management
CouncilMrs. Alma Shallowharns SelfMr. Mark Chatry La. Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife
Mr. William Chauvin American Shrimp Cannersand Processors Association
Mr. M. L. Cambre SelfMr. Patrick Codere SelfMrs. Mary Codere SelfMr. C. Braud SelfMrs. Hilda 0. Carter SelfMrs. Gail C. Vinnett SelfMr. Keith Fremin SelfMr. Sylvester Williams SelfMrs. Olivi J. Augillaud SelfMr. Albert Poche Manchac Fishermans
AssociationMr. Charles Calcagm Self
LIST OF PERSONS WHO EXPRESSED THEIR VIEWS
AT THE PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Gerald Bodin US Fish and Wildlife
Service
Mr. Bruce Rodrigue St. Charles ParishCouncilman
Mr. Dave Merkarski Coastal Zone ManagementCommis s ion
Mrs. Alma Shallonharns Resident of Montz, Louisiana
Mr. Mark Chatry La. Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife
Mr. William Chauvin American Shrimp Canners and
Processors Associaton
Mr. M. L. Cambre Chairman, St. CharlesCoastal Zone AdvisoryCommittee
Mr. C. Braud Resident of Laplace,Louisiana
Mr. Stanford Cauillouet Resident of Destrehan,Louisiana
Mrs. Agatha Seaton Resident of Montz,Louisiana
Mrs. Gail C. Vinnett Resident of Laplace,Louisiana
S* *2.
;PTAT I Il
FALCOLM HULL
lK YOU, COLONEL LEE/LTC WILLIS.
I THE PROBLEMS IN THE PICH AND PRODUCTIVE COASTAL
.E SUPERED MARSHLANDS BEGAN IN EARNEST WHEN MAN HARNESSED THE
S STUDY AREA -MISSISSIPP[ RIVFR AND ITS TRIRIHTAPIES IN THE NAME OF
FLOOD CONTROL.
) 7 WITHOUT THE ANNUAL FPRFSH WATER AND qFnIMEITS FROM THE
ROLOGIC CYCLE RIVER, THE NATURAL PROCESSES OF SUBSIDENCE, COMPACTION,
EROSION, AND SALTh/ATEP INTRUSION, AND MAN'I S CHANNEL
DREDGING ACTIVITIES HAVE CAUSED COASTAL LAND LOSS AT
THE ALARMING PRATE OF -40 SIAqE MILES PER YEAR.
DE-3 THE LOSS AND ALTERATION OF MARSH HABITAT HAS
STAL LANn ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE PRODUCTIVITY OF OUR FISH
S AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES-
DE 4 THE HARVEST OF MANY COMMERCIALLY-IMPORTANT ESTIIARINE
IMP BOAT SPECIES SUCH AS SHRIMP, MENHADEN, OYSTER, BLUE CRAB,
PE 5 NITRIA, MUSKRAT, MINK, OTTER, AMD RACCOON HAS GENERAI.LY
TS DECLINED.
rn)E- 6 IN 1982, OUR FIRST STEP IN DEVELOPING A PLAN
S TO REDIUCE LAND LOSS AND INCREASE FISH AND WILDLIFE
PRODUCTIVITY WAS TO RECONVENE THE INTERAGENCY
AD HOC GROUP ESTABLISHED IN 1969. THE GROUP WAS
CHARGED WITH IDENTIFYING DESIRABLE SALINITY CONDITIONS
FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE. THE GROUP INCLUDED FEDERAL,
LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI STATE AGEFCIFS WITH
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER RESOURCES-
_
SLIDE 7 THE AD HOC GROUP RECOMMENDED THAT A SALINITY REGIME--
STUDY AREA THAT IS, SYSTEMATICALLY CONTROLLING THE SALTWATER IN THE
WITH RED OVERLAY ST. BERNARD MARSHES-WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO OYSTERS-
IF THE SALINITY REGIME IS ESTABLISHED IN THE ST. BERNARD
MARSHES, THE PRIMARY ZONE OF OYSTER PRODUCTIVITY WOULD
BE THIS AREA SHOWN IN RED-
SLIDE 8THE REGIME IS BASED ON A TEN-YEAR LOUISIANA WILDLIFE AND
GRAPH FISHERIES STUDY AND WOULD MIMIC SALINITY CONDITIONS THAT
"OPTIMUM SALINITY EXISTED WHEN THE Mississippi RIVER OVERFLOWED ITS BANKS
REGIME" EVERY SPRING. THIS REGIME, WHILE BENEFITING OYSTERS,
WOULD ALSO BE FAVORABLE FOR MOST FISH AND WILDLIFE
SPECIES- SALINITIES WOULD BE REDUCED To 7 AND 8 PPT
IN APRIL AND MAY AND ALLOWED TO INCREASE TO ABOUT 16PPT IN THE FALL AND WINTER-
SLIDE 9 TO ACHIEVE THE SALINITY REGIME, WE INVESTIGATED A NUMBER
Mr--- 4cASURES OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES- WE FOUND THAT DIVERTING FRESH
T WATER FROM THE Mississippi RIVER TO THE MARSHES AND
ESTUARIES ON AN AREA-WIDE SCALE IS THE BEST WAY TO
ESTABLISH THE FAVORABLE SALINITY CONDITIONS, ENHANCE
VEGETATIVE GROWTH, REDUCE LAND LOSS, AND IMPROVE FISH
AND WILDLIFE PRODUCTION-
SLIDE 10 OUR PRELIMINARY STUDIES IDENTIFIED 13 POTENTIAL FRESH-STUJDY AREA MAP WATER DIVERSION SITES ALONG THE Mississippi RIVER-
OVERLAY THE TEN SITES ABOVE NEW ORLEANS ARE SHOWN IN RED.
THE THREE SITES IN AND BELOW NEW ORLEANS ARE SHOWN
IN BLACK-
SLIDE 11 WE ANALYZED THE ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS, POTENTIAL
STUDY AREA MAP ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF THE
OVERLAY -3 SITES SITES- WE THEN SELECTED THREE SITES FOR FURTHER
ANALYSIS: BONNET CARRE', INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION
CANAL, AND RIVERBEND. WE ANALYZED EACH SITE FOR
DIFFERENT SIZE DIVERSION FLOWS AND COMBINED THE SITES AND
FLOWS INTO 6 ALTERNATIVE PLANS.
This is due to a combination of factors including, saltwater intrusion,
subsidence and erosion. We in St. Charles Parish are well aware of the
ill effects of this process. In the LaBranche Wetlands, adjacent to the
spillway, the Parish, has lost over 4,500 acres of forested habitat and
over 6,300 acres of marsh having been converted to open water since
1956. Within the study area to be effected by this project over 146,058
acres or 2.5 square miles per year of land are expected to be lost
within the next 50 years if no action is taken to retard this process.
What will this mean economically? The wetlands within the study
area support 1.2 billion dollars annually in mineral production; 96
million pounds in fishery resources valued at $52 million and over
$800,000 annually in the harvest of furbearing animals and alligators.
If nothing is done this dollar amount is expected to be reduced by over
47 percent.
Today we are asked to consider a freshwater diversion project which
is designed to improve the habitat and productivity of fish and wildlife
resources, preserving and restoring wetlands, enhancing vegetative
growth and establishing a favorable salinity gradient. I fully endorse
this project but would like to express some reservations I have to the
tentative plan as presented.
Initially I would like to applaud the selection of the Bonnet Carre
Spillway as the diversion site. This site represents the least expensive
ST. CHARLES PARISHP 0 BOX 302 0 HAHNVILLE, LOUISIANA 70057
783-6246 46I994(N.O. Line)
V, FRILOUXiH PRESIDENT
Statement for the December 7th 1983 Public Hearing on the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers feasibility study for freshwater diversion to Lake
Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound.
As President of St. Charles Parish this project is of particular
concern to me. Seventy-eight (78) percent of St. Charles total land
* acreage is wetlands. The wetlands in south Louisiana and St. Charles
Parish are the backbone of our economy, lifestyles and cultural
identity. The wetlands of Louisiana help contribute to over 30% of the
nation's commercial fish harvest and about 40% of the nation's fur
harvest. Our wetlands; were created by the annual overflow of sediment
laden waters of the Mississippi River, which was molded by the sea into
tidal ponds, inlets and estuaries. These estuaries support some of the
richest and most productive wildlife and fisheries resources in the
world; But construction of the Mississippi River levees prevented the
overbank flooding and contained the silt and sediment that for centuries
built new land and replenished the fresh water and nutrients necessary
for growth and productivity. As a result of this containment Louisiana
is losing approximately 40 square miles of wetland annually.
I (~ 6--'
/ ',~ (-~-~- /
" /
"U
IF~{~'A~-
7'
/
C ~
~
PAL~L~
v
p
06 DEC 83
To Whom It May Concern:
We, the concerned citizens and home owners of Montz, Louisiana, herebyrespectfully request that the Government of the State of Louisiana, orthe Federal Governmient of the United States of America to PLEASE purchasethe entire residential area in Montz, Louisiana, East of the LouisianaPower and Light plant and West of the Bonnett Carrie Spillway at theMississippi River on the South and on the North near the Illinois Rail-road Tracks.
The proposed structure, if built to its completion, would downgradeproperty value and eliminate the Southeast evacuation route to Norco,Louisiana.
Again, we the property owners in t~ie affected area, wish that the agentssponsoring the proposed projects, consider purchasing the entireimpacted area.
Thank you very much.
Attached Signatures
- , / ,7
A
are needed if the rich renewable resources of the Northern Gulf Coast
are to be maintained for generations yet to come.
Thank you.
. .. \.~.-..... .... ...
o.. ' "V. '.ed
*1i
hc e r t t, s
1* 17k.I
, suj .orL 0"f reshwater..... . l tativelv selected plan.
. 'I L.: -. dpoint, the diversion
)thor .,ites evaluated. Being.v , , ., n,-t:, distant from prime
ill allow freshwater flowV o it ions in the stressed
0,; tie western shore of LakeA. f a reduction of excess
S ... ,. .. ,, -c r s ir heating of the coolert.:ich irig the prime estuarine
.- rc Jiverted at this locationaccomplish the study goals
. iN". , re , tram New Orleans.
-- " ',. , , . .d6 that the following measures. .wilife conservation:
, _ . e -c,-com:ne ded
.. , ,t t to develop
.. .,c, or the
nr-a.
'd ni, L',- pr,;posed diversion plan
rb leni in the study area,,f [ou:.siana and Mississippi.
c, i r: d,., wet tand loss and saltwater. ,L ,,, ZOIP, Such efforts must include
I r. z ,-- water resource projects, improvedw t h canal dredging and other
%n1 rlt oE freshwater and sediment:a . .. : ;altwater intrusion and marsh
,.., ,."i tL e proposed d iversion plan ,
I
....... . "."'
United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
IXI l 'F I 01)X 4KlFY
103 EAST (- "VNF ',S 5FR[
I AVAYETTE I FIFSIANA 7?,FO.
STATEMENT OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEPRESENTED AT PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS
THE TENTATIVE PLAN FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSIONINTO THE LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND
Presented December 6, 13, and 15, 1983
Colonel Lee, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, my name isGerald Bodin. I am presenting this statement on behalf of Mr. JamesPulliam, Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,Georgia. My statement represents the views of the Fish and WildlifeService on the tentatively selected plan for freshwater introductioninto the Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound ofsoutheastern Louisiana and southwestern Mississippi.
Louisiana's coastal swamps and marshes are being lost at a rateexceeding 29,000 acres per year, and indications are that this rateis increasing. This alarming decline is an item of serious concernto the Fish and Wildlife Service because of the national importanceof Louisiana's coastal wetlands to migratory waterfowl and othermigratory birds, fur animal and alligator harvests, and sport andcommercial fisheries. In contrast, Mississippi's coastal swamps andmarshes are much more stable, having a loss rate of less than 300acres per year.
The re-introduction of Mississippi River water into Louisiana'ssubdelta marshes has been recommended for decades as a viable meansof reducing saltwater intrusion and wetlands deterioration. Plansare presently being developed under another study to divertMississippi River water into Louisiana's Barataria and Breton Sound3 as ins. Substantial benefits to fish and wildlife are expected toresult from these diversions. The plan developed under the presentstudy recommends that a major freshwater diversion structure beinstalled in the Bonnet Carre Spillway in St. Charles Parish,Lou is iana.
The tentatively selected plan would result in substantial benefits tofish and wildlife, based on studies conducted jointly by the Fish andWildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, and Louisiana Department ofW ildlife and Fisheries in consultation with the Mississippi Bureau ofMarine Resources, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, and National MarineFisheries Service. Some of these benefits include:
o a reduction of 10,500 acres in the amount ofcoastal wetlands lost in the study area over the
next 50 years;
o a reduction in saltwater intrusion and creation
of a salinity regime more favorable to fish and
T' HE . v '; NF PL-AN PFSPOIS IRILITY PET14FEN THE-)F PAL ~ERM N H NO-FEDERAL SPONS;ORS, THE
;pmL; T I; IS i(DFEOL NORS' PF;PONS1RILITIF(; ARE: THEY
MllST L'PCVjIPE WITH01UT COST TO THE UNITED STATES,
A',L L uAND7) EAS-EMEHT' , AND) Pl r2HTS-OF-WAY NECESS"ARY FOR
JOISTRIC ,N AND OPERATION OF THE WORKS, MU1ST HOLD ANn
l HE iNTTD 7TATFS FREE PROM DAMAGES, M11ST OPERATE
AND Y AINTAI1N THE WORKS, MUtST CONSTRIRIITF 25% OF THE
COIN4ETPICT ION CnqSTS FOR THE DI VFRISION STRI ICTIMIE, CHANNELS,
LEVEES, \,ND ASS'OCIATED WORKS AND 50% OF THE CONSTRUCT[ON
FP~J PFCREATION FACILITIES, AND) MUST ASSURE ADEOIIATE
2IIlJB-C ASSESS TO THE PROJECT AREA.
S ~IHAT COINCLUnES OUlR 75-,CRIPTIOnt OF OUIR TENTATIVELY
I &.DE SEL[ECTEI') 'LAN TO DIVERT FRESHWATER TO THE LAKE
rl(NT-cHARTPA I N RAS I N AND M1I 55 issi PP SournD.
(AD LiB CLOSE)
PMAY I HAVE THE LIG(-HTS, PLEASE. THANK YOU FOR
MICR ATTENTION.
to
- -n - -.- -
WFSTERI 1ADRANT OF LAKF PONTCHARTRAIN, THE DIVERSION
WOlILD INCREASE TURBIDITY, COLIFORM COUNTS, AND OTHER
TYPES OF CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS, AnD WOULn SLIGHTLY
LOWER TEMPERATURES. THESE IMPACTS WOULD DISSIPATE
RAPIDLY TO THE EAST. WATER OLALITY IMPACTS MAY NOT RE
ANY MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN WHEN TRIBUTARY STREAMS TO LAKE
MAUREPAS ANY) LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN HAVE FAIRLY HIGH FLOW.
SLIDE 29 THE FIRST COST OF THE PLAN IS ESTIMATED AT $55.6 MILLION
TABLE WITH ANNIIAL CHARGE- OF 5.4 MILLION. THE AVERAGE ANNIIAL
"BONNET CARRE' BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PLAN ARE ESTIMATED AT
PLAN COST" $6.8 MILLION. THE BENEFIT-COST RATIO is 1.25 TO I.
SOF THE $55.6 MILLION, THE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TABLE, "REC. COSTS" WOULD COST $742,RO0.
SLIDE 30 To IMPLEMENT THE PLAN, WE PROPOSE THAT fINDER OUR
C TABLE TRADITIONAL COST SHARING POLICIES THE FIRST COST OF
"BONNET CARRE' $55.6 MILLION BE APPORTIONED AS FOLLOWS: THE FEDERAL
PLAN COST GOVERNMENT WOULD BEAR 75 PERCENT OF THE FIRST COSTS OFAPPORTIONMENT" THE DIVERSION STRUCTURE, CHANNELS, LEVEES, AND ASSOCIATED
WORKS, AND 5n OF THE FIRST COSTS OF THE RECREATION
FACILITIES OR $41,523,000. THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS'
COSTS WOULD BE t1LMf89,n0, AS SHOWN HERE.
SLIDE 31 NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS WOULD BEAR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED
TABLE WITH THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENTS,"
BONNET CARRE' CURRENTLY ESTIMATED AT $81R,000 ANNUALLY. THE CURRENT
"PLAN BREAKDOWN ADMINISTRATION IS REVIEWING COST qHAR!NG POLICIES AND
OF NON-FEDERAL COST" FINANCING OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. WHILE
SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COST SHARING IN THE
TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED,
NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS CAN EXPECT THAT THEIR LEVEL OF
FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION MAY BE GREATER UNDER THE PRESENT
ADMINISTRATION 'S COST SHARING POLICIES.-
. .-..... ............-....... .... ............. . ..... :-
It'=RMATION ArD ESTABLISH BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR
MEASURING FUTURE CHANGES. THE EFFECT OF THE DIVERTED
WATERS OrI HYDROLO)GICAL_ AND WATER OUALITY CONDITIONS
AND ON FISH AND WILDLIFE WILL BE ASSESSED IN THE POST-
CONSTRUCTION PHASE. THE INTERAGENCY GROUIP WILL USE ALL
THIS INFORMATION TO PEFINE THE OPERATING SCHEME AND THE
SCOPE OF FHF: LONG-TErM MONITORING PHASE.
SLIDE 25 THE PLAN OFFERS MANY BENEFITS. AS A RESULT OF THE
REDIICED LAND LOSS FRESHWATER DIVERSION, SALTWATER INTRIISION THAT KILLS
SUPER MARSH VEGETATION AND CREATES OPEN WATER WOULD BE
RE)ICED. NIIITRIENTS AND SE[IENTS IN THE FPESH WATFR
DIVERTED iNTO THE ESTUARINE SYSTEM WOULD RESULT IN
HEALTHIER 'IARSH HABITAT AND WOULD REDU1CE LAND LOSS.
10,500 ACRES OF MARSH AND WOODED SWAMP ADJACENT TO LAKE
MAIREPAS AND LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN WOlDI- RE SAVED. SALINITY
CONDITIONS FAVORABLE TO FISH AND WILDLIFE WOULD BE
CREATED. OYSTER PRODUCTION WOILT INCREASE BY 7,6oo,o0POUNDS AND THE PRODICTIVITY OF WHITE SHRIMP, BLUE CRAB,
CROAKER, AND MENHADEN S4OILD GREATLY INCREASE.
SLIDE 26 THE PLAN WOULD ALSO PROVIDE INTANGIBLE BENEFITS.
INTANGIBLE HABITAT CONDITIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL AND NONGAME
BENEFITS SUPER SPECIES AND PRODUCTIVITY OF WOODED SWAMPS ASSOCIATED
WITH FISH AND WILDLI9F WOULD RE IMPROVED. BUSINESS
OPPORTUNITIES IN COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES AND
WILDLIFE INDUSTRIES AND RELATED SIPPORT INDUSTRIES
WOULD INCREASE.
SLD7 ESTUARINE SPECIES LESS TOLERANT OF LnW SALINITY WATERS
ADVERSE IMPACTS SUCH AS BROWN SHRIMP, SPECKLED TROUT, AND RED DRUM MAY
BE DISPLACED EASTWARD BY THE DIVERSION. IN THE SOIITH
., .
INDIVIDUALS IN PAYMENT FOR NORMAL FYPFN.ES INCIIRRED.
LOSSES OR DAMAGE OF ANY ITEMS MOVED AS WELL AS STORAGF
COSTS WILL RE PAID WHERF IMSI1RANCE TO COVER THFSF ITEMS
IS NOT AVAILABLE. OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD BE PAID
I NC LUDE:
CLOSING COSTS, LOAN PENALTY PAYMENTq, AND THE DIFFERENCE
IN THE COST OF INTEREST ON THE OLD HOUSE LOAN AND THE
INTEREST THAT MUST BE PAfn ON A NEW HOU.E. WE WILL RE .'-
HAPPY TO TALK WITH THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT MORE INFORMATION
ABO(IT THE RELOCATION PROCESS AFTER THIS MEETING-
S CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE RELOCATION OF SECTIONS OF
SITE PLAN LOuISIANA HIGHWAY 628, THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD,MAP QUADS THE LOUISIANA AND ARKANSAS RAILROAD, AND SEVERAL PIPE-
LINES.
SLE 23 A COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING SYSTEM WILL GIIIDF STRUCTURECARTOON OPERATION AND ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF THE DIVERTED FRESH
"C WATER ON FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS. THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS AND THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR WILL ESTABLISH A
TWO-STATE INTERAGENCY ADVISORY GROU1P TO DESIGN AND CON-
DUCT THE MONITORING PROGRAM. THE INTERAGENCY GROUP WILL
INCLUDE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE
FOR WATER RESOIJRCES. THE REQUIRED BIOLOGICAL,
HYDROLOGICAL, AND WATER OUfALITY DATA WILL RE COLLECTED
FROM A NETWORK OF SAMPLING STATIONS SET LIP THROUGHOUT THE
STfIDY AREA.
SLIDE 24 THE PROGRAMS IN THE MONITORING SYSTEM WILL RE CONDUCTED
IN THREE PHASES--A 3-YEAR PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE, A 4-YEAR
POSTCONSTRIICTION PHASE, AND A LONG-TERM PHASE. IN THE
PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE, WE WILL SUPPLEMENT EXISTING
- " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-". .-. ..-"-",.. '-,-.' A'.,'' ," .' '-.i .,".,..'..*,..-" j-' .,.. .•, '
' T -77 7
THE .,4 0-FOOT LON-, SEDFNTATION TRAP W1OuLD RE PLACED-
3,SO0 FEET DOWNSTREAti OF THE DIVFRSION STRIICTURE TO
CATCH THE qAND PORTION OF THE SFDIMFNTS. THE BOTTOM
WIDTH WOULD BE 72P FEET WITH SIDE SLOPES OF 1 VERTICAL
ON 3 HORIZONTAL.
PART nF THE IIPPFR ,IIIDFE !EVEE WOU'LD RE RELOCATED TO
INCLOSE THE DIVERSION CHANNEL WITHIN THE FLOO[NAY -7
AND PROVIDE FLOOD PRnTECTInN TO SIRPOtlNDING RESIDENTS.
A 600-FOOT TIMBER ACCESS BRIDGE WOULD BE PLACED ACROSS
THE nIVE ,sIN CHANNEL ON THF LAKF SIDE OF THE ILLINOIS
CENTRAL RAILROAD TRACKS TO GIVE SAND HAULERS ACCESS IN
AND OUT OF THF FLOOrIWAY.
SLLDE_.. 19 AT THE LAKE END OF THE BORROW CHANNEL, RECREATION
SKETCH FACILITIES WOULD RE DEVELOPED CONSISTING OF TWO-LANE
BOAT RAMPS, COURTESY PIERS, PARKING AREA, AND PICNIC
TABLES.
S LID 2 SIMILAR FACILITIES WOULD BE DEVELOPED AT FRENIER REACH, S
STUDYW AREA MAP THE RIGOLETS, AND POINT Auix HERBES IN LOUISIANA AND ATW/REC SITE OVERLAY. CEDAR POINT AND WOLF RIVER IN MISSISSIPPI.
S 21 APPROXIMATELY 32 STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED.MAP PLAN THESE RELOCATIONS ARE UNAVOIDABLE RECAUSF THE STRUICTURES"
ARE LOCATED IN THE'DIVERSION CHANNEL AND UPPER GUIDE
LEVEE ALINEMENT. Yo, PEOPLE LIVING IN THE RESIDENCES
THAT WOULD BE RELOCATED BY THE PROJECT ARE PROTECTED BY
THE IUNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT OF 1970. PEOPLE WHO ARE
RELOCATED WOUlLD QUALIFY FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF MOVING OR
AN AMOUNT AGREED UPON BY THOSE WHO WANT TO MOVE
THEMSELVES, AND A RELOCATION PAYMENT TO ASSIST
- - -. . .. . . - - .~, * :* > :-. - . . -
SLIDE 1.5 THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN CONSISTS OF A CONTROL
STUDY AREA MAP STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AND SIX LOCATIONS FOR
r.,S.P." AND DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION ;'ACILITIES.
RECREATION SITES
OVERLAY
SLIDE 16 THE CONTROL STRIICTIFRF WOUlLD CONSIST OF Fnip 20- x 20-FOOTCUTAWAY SECTION BOX CULVERTS 455 FEET LONG IN A Mississippi RIVER LEVEE
STRIICTIIRE SETBACK. THE CONTROL STRIICTIIRF WOILD HAVE A MAXIM1IM
DESIGN CAPACITY OF 30,000 CIBIC FEET PER SECOND.
SLIDE 17 Tn ACHIEVE THE OPTIMUM SALINITY REGIME, WATER WOULD REBAR CHART DIVERTED FROM MARCH TO NOVEMBER. THE AVERAGE DIVERTED
"SUPPLEMENTAL FLOW" FLOW FOR THE PERIOD wOULD BE ABOUT 9,Ro CFS. A MAXIMU1M
OF 30,000 CFS WOULD BE DIVERTED DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL
THE STRIICTIIRE WOIuLD HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF DIVERTING THE
REOUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL FLOW ON AN AVERAGE OF EVERY OTHER
( YEAR-
SLIDE .I.R THE INLET CHANNEL WOUlLD BE 25 FEET DEEP WITH A BOTTOMCOLOR PHOTO WIDTH OF /400 FEET, 1 VERTICAL ON 3 HORIZONTAL SIDE
INFLOW /OuITFLOW SLOPES, AND WOULD BE 0.2 MILES LONG. THE OUITFLOW
CHANNEL CHANNEL WOULD BE 25 FEET DEEP WITH A BOTTOM WIDTH OF
400 FEET, 1 VERTICAL AND 3 HORIZONTAL SIDE SLOPES, ANDWOULD BE 6.4 MILES LONG. THE CHANNEL IS DESIGNED TO
CONTAIN ALL FLOWS WITHIN BANKS.
THE FIRST 3.8 MILES OF CHANNEL WOULD BE A NEW CHANNEL
CUIT FROM nIVERSION STRICTURE TO THE EXISTING BORROW
CHANNEL. THE BORROW CHANNEL HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY
TO CONVEY THE MAXIMIuM FLOW AND WOULD BE iiSED FOR 2.0
MILES. A NEW CHANNEL CUT WOULD BE REQUIRED FROM THE
BORROW CHANNEL TO LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN.
--
LIDF 12 01,R EVALUATIONI OF THE PLANS RFVEALFr) THAT PLAN A--TABLE DIVERTING FRESH WATER AT RIVERBEND--AND PLAN D--"SITE COMBINATIONS DIVERTING WATER AT THE INNER ARBOR HAVIGATION CANAL--
& MAXIMUM DESIGN COULD NOT ACHIEVE THE DESIRED SALINTY REGIME- PLANStB, C, AND E--DIVnFRTING WATER IN VAPIOuSq COMRINATIO S
AT RIVERBEND, IHNC, AND RONNET CARRE'--WERE TOO COSTLY
AND GENERALLY CAIISFD MORE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
STHE ANALYSIS INDICATED PLAN F--DIVERTING WATER ONLY AT
STU1DY AREA MAP THE BONNET CARRE' SITE--IS THE BEST PLAN RFCAIIqE CON-
OVERLAY - BONNET VEYANCE CHANNELS WOULD BE SHORTER, SCENIC RIVERS AND
CARPE' SITE STREAMS WOtlLD NOT RE ALTERFD, VERY LITTLE HABITAT
ALTERED-, ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES WOULD NOT
BE DISTIRRED, AND ENGINEERING PROBLEMS WOULD RE LESS.
PLAN F WAS THEREFORE DESIGNATED AS THE TENTATIVELYSELECTED PLAN.
SLIDE 14 AT THE BONNET CAPRE' SITE, WE CONSIDERED MODIFYING PART
COLOR SLIDE OF OF THE SPILLWAY STRUCTURE FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSION. THE
BONNET CARRF' STRUCTUIRE IS DESIGNED TO OPERATE ONLY iURING PERIODS OF
STRUCTURE EXTREMELY HIGH WATER ON THE MISSISSIPPI. FRESHWATER
DIVERSIONS WOOLD, HOWFVER, BE MADE DU1RING THE PERIOD
OF AVERAGE TO LOW FLOW ON THE RIVER. MODIFYING THE
SPILLWAY STRUCTURE FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSION WOllLr BE
EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND WOuILD JEOPARDIZE THE STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY OF THE SPILLWAY. WE LOOKED AT OTHER POSSIBLE
DIVERSION LOCATIONS NEXT TO THE SPILLWAY AND DETERMINED
THAT A FRESHWATER DIVERSION STRIICTIRE COULD RE PLACED
JUST UPRIVER OF THE SPILLWAY STRUCTURE.
oL ° ,- '. " . z o * , • . ",. °° ° - " - . . , , - ...
and most compatible alternative studied. I do have concerns regarding
the placement of the control structure upriver of the existing spillway
structure. This proposed structure necessitates the relocation of 26
aiomes and six trailers, disrupting the community of Montz. The report
indicates that the structure cannot be included within the existing
spillway because (and I quote) "modifying the spillway structure to
incorporate a freshwater diversion structure would be extremely
expensive. In addition a portion of the spillway would have to be closed
for approximately two years to accomplish the modification. If a large
flood occured on the Mississippi River and the spillway were operated
with diminished capacity, areas might flood that otherwise would not
have flooded". While I can understand the concern for safety, the report
does not present sufficient information to objectively evaluate this
statement. In regard to expense, the cost of displacing 32 families
cannot be measured in dollars and cents alone. The community of Montz is
a tight knit, homogenous community with large, extended families. The
project calls for the relocation of a approximately half of the families
in Montz.
The community has expressed a very real concern that as a result of this
project their community will be destroyed. While some are not in
opposition to relocation, the majority express opposition to relocation
of only a portion of the community. While supporting the project, I ask
the following to be considered:
1. rhe reevaluation of locating the diversion structure entirely
within the spillway.
2. The minimization of displacement disruption to the commur'ty
of Montz.
If it is demonstrated that it is technically and economically unfeasible
to construct the entire project within the spillway, I ask the following
to be considered.
1. Relocation be offered to all residents of the community who
will feel a hardship due to the project.. The community of
Montz represents a relatively small community, totaling some
sixty families. Relocation of the entire community to preserve
the communities character would be possible while still
preserving the economic feasibility of the project.
In addition to this major concern I would ask consideration to be
given to the following.
1. The CC road, Hwy 626 be relocated to the western most side of
the upper guide levee.
2. The spillway road, linking the communities of Montz & Norco be
retained. This road provides a vital link between the two
communities.
3. If the Montz Park and playground is to be displaced, full
compensation be paid to St. Charles Parish.
Implementation of the plan would retain over 6,000 acres of wooded swamp
and 4,000 acres of fresh to intermediate marsh. Some 4,000 acres of
brakish marsh in St. Charles would be converted to fresh and
intermediate marsh. Lowering the salinities would facilitate structural
management to induce establishment of plant associations more valuable
for wildlife. This would improve the condition of the swamp and
potentially increase diversity in the marsh.
We applaud the Corps' plans to help protect our fish and wildlife
resource, in that process let us not forget the value of our human
resources.
Sincerely,
KEVIN M. FRILOUX
PARISH PRESIDENT
KMF:DAM:Jcb
. . ..... .......
Colonel Willis, distinguished guests, ladi-s and gentlemen,my name is __________.The statement T will present representsthe views of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries concerningthe proposed plan for controlled introduction of freshwater tothe Pontchartrain Basin, Mississippi Sound, and the Upper Easternmarshes of Louisiana.
Since the turn of the century, state biologists have advocateddiversion of fresh-water from the Mississippi River to adjacentestuarine areas to enhance fisheries production. Over the pastseveral decades, the Department has studied the effects on estuarineproductivity of crevasses and, more recently, Bonnet Carre Spillwayopenings. We have concluded that the short term negative effectsof such events are usually far outweighed by the long term increasesin productivity. Unfortunately, it is the negative effects whichare most often remembered from such an event. For this reasonit is imperative that a clear distinction be made between a floodcontrol Spillway opening and the plan for controlled freshwaterdiversion. Spillway openings are essentially uncontrolled releasesof huge volumes of water for the purpose of flood protection. Theproposed diversion plan under consideration, however, has as itssole purjpose, estuarine enhancement, and most importantly, offerscontroT-lhT-Tiversions of much smaller volumes of water over anextended period. Since the diversions will be controllable, thetiming and amount of freshwater releases -can-Fe managed so thatthe benefits to fish and wildlife are maximized and the negativeeffects minimized. The success of two existing freshwater diversionstructures in Plaquemines Parish, managed in part by the Department,has proven these goals attainable.
The Department is aware that certain fisheries resources willbe displaced. However, we firmly believe that the increase inoverall productivity of the Basin, along with increased utilizationof existing resources, will result in real benefits to the vastmajority of interests.
The proposed salinity management scheme being consideredhere tonite was developed by the Department of Wildlife andFisheries from decades of research and experience. We believeit to be a reasonable and justifiable plan, which will result ina more stable and consistently productive region. We also believe,however, that once the structure is in operation and the effectsof the diversions areimeasured, modifications to the managementscheme are inevitable. We believe, however, that these functionalmodifications can be achieved on a reasonable basis.
While the particulars of the diversion scheme are debatable,the need for controlled, supplemental freshwater input to theBasin is not. Saltwater intrusion has resulted in Nhbitat lossand alterations to large areas of wooded swamp and fresh, brackishand intermediate marshes. This process continues to occur, andthreatens more and more of our coastal region. The Department, aswell as some of your staff, Colonel Willis, recognizes that the
diversion plan would not eliminate swamp and marsh loss, butit would significantly reduce the rates of loss throughout theBas'TnThe instability of salinity conditions which now existin the Basin has contributed to the inconsistency of commercialand recreational fisheries production, and also has magnifiedthe disastrous effects of occasional floodwaters and domesticpollution. This problem is sharply illustrated by the declinein oyster production in the Basin over the past 50 years. Assaltwater intrusion progressed, the zone of favorable salinitiesfor oyster production moved landward, and away from the vast,historically productive reefs and firm waterbottoms. The proposed -freshwater diversion would shift the zone of greatest productivityback to the greatly superior reef areas, which are much lessaffected by floodwaters and pollution, and would help maintaina larger, more favorable, estuarine area.
The Corps of Engineers has understandably emphasized thebenefits to the oyster industry in the proposed plan. The Depart-ment supports the claimed increases in oyster production and perhapsmore importantly, believes that the unclaimed benefits to otherfish, wildlife and land resources will be substantial. The increasein overall productivity of the Basin will provide for larger andmore consistent commercial and recreational harvests, increasedhunting and fishing opportunities, and the preservation of thelocal economies based upon the resources of the Basin.
The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries believes that fresh-water diversion is the single, most effective means by which therate of deterioration of our coastal areas can be slowed. Forthis reason, the Department commends you Colonel Willis, andyour staff, for the preparation of this plan. The Departmentstrongly endorses the proposed plan and urges all thoseconcerned,to give it their favorable consideration.
2
~-
RESOLUTION
Whereas, the St. Charles Parish Coastal Zone Advisory Committee isconcerned about the landloss and coastal erosion problems ofthe Mississippi and Louisiana estuarine areas, including theParish's LaBranche Wetland area within the shoreline of theLake Pontchartrain, and;
Whereas, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has proposed a freshwaterdiversion plan which is designed to reduce saltwaterintrusion, enhance habitat conditions, and improve fish andwildlife production within the Lake Pontchartrain Basin andthe Mississippi Sound, and;
Whereas, the U.S. Army Corp has selected the use of the Bonnet CarreSpillway including an area adjacent to the upriver side of thespillway in the community of Montz, and;
Whereas, A technical conference and open public meeting on July 28,1982 held with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to enable theCommittee to assess the impact of such a project, and;
Whereas, the Corps feasibility report dated October 1983 was presentedto the Committee on November 3, 1983, and;
Whereas, the Committee has taken into consideration the environmentaland socio-economic aspects of the project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the St. Charles Parish Coastal ZoneAdvisory Committee in its regular meeting of November 17, 1983 recommendto the Parish Council the approval of the project site and plan aspresented.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CQmm4tta6 pass its own resolution ofapproval at the December 5th Council Meeting and forward such aresolution of support at the full public hearing scheduled for Tuesday,December 6, 1983 at Destrehan High School Auditorium at 7:00 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Ramon Billeaud, seconded by Mr. Leon Fabre,to endorse the project as presented.
YEAS: Ramon Billeaud, Leon Fabre, Hubert Shurtz, Charlie Torres
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Charlie Smith, Ray Matherne, Roland Oubre
. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1- °-i- L-L-... ... . . . .. '' III I- ° -> .- 1-,L.-. .i.', 1 -. 11 . -- 1. ii iL>
I fully support this fresh water diversion project because it has becomeevident that it is necessary. As a citizen that has been involved with thecoastal zone and aware of the tremendous land loss of over 40 square miles)er yo-ar, this project will greatly benefit us by retarding salt waterintrusion. Since salt water intrusion is the greatest factor affecting ourland loss problems, this project's beneficial factors will greatly out weighits adverse impacts.
Without this project salinity levels will increase, putting severe stresses(,n oui cypress swamps and many thousands of acres will be lost along withthe hunting opportunities that go along with them. Habitar deteriorationin the study areas will adversely affect productivity of fish and wildliferesources leading to declines in population of alligators, furbarers andimportant shelf ish and finfish species. This decline in production willadversely affect employmnet and earnings in commercial fish and wildlifeindustries. Decreases in fish and wildlife productivity will cause areduction of out-door recreational opportunities. The supply of fish andwildlife is anticipated to decrease to a level which would support1,997,921 man-days of recreation by the year 2040. This is a reduction of127,417 annual man days from its present use level. This loss is valuedat over $900,000 per year. Market area demands are projected to reach56,732,809 man days by the year 2040. This will cause us many seriousproblems. Our quality of life as we have known will be adversely affected.We have enjoyed such an abundance of natural resources that we are unwareof problems that are causing the reduction of these natural resources. Unlesswe take these steps now to off set these declines in our natural resourcesthe good life that we have become use to will just diminish year by year.
I feel that this project is vital to our areas and urge our ParishCouncil to endorse it. I will work to iron out any problems that may arisebecause of the project. If the biggest obstacle to the project is therelocation of people, then I feel that the Corps should re-engineer theproject to minimize this problem.
After going over the project site, it seems possible that this can be done.
I would like to thank you for the opportxinity to speak on this matter and offer
my full support of the project in any way that I can.
Yours truly,
,, Jj I
-' c
c,
SUMMARY OF PUBhLIC MEETING
HELD IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
DECEMBER 13, 1983
Exhibit 2
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGNEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
13 December 1983
1. Introduction
The second public meeting was held in Nlew Orleans, Louisiana, at theUniversity of New Orleans. The purpose of the meeting was to give allinterested people the opportunity to express their views on thetentatively selected plan for freshwater diversion to the LakePontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound. The agenda of the meeting isExhibit 1.
2. Attendance
A total of 140 persons attended the meeting. Various Federal, state,and local agencies as well as citizens and environmental groups wererepresented. A list of attendees is Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is a list ofpersons who expressed their views at the meeting.
3. Welcome and Opening Remarks
Mr. Casper Chifici, New Orleans Area District Engineer, Department ofTransportation and Development, Office of Public Works, opened themeeting. He indicated that the Office of Public Works was designated bythe Governor to coordinate water resources studies and projects with theCorps of Engineers. Mr. Chifici emphasized the value of the personalviews and opinions. He introduced Dr. Ted Ford, Assistant Secretary,Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Dr. Ford said that Itis difficult to develop a complex approach that will achieve amanagement regime for the overall area In order to benefit several fishand wilulife resources. Ile noted that there have been many worksessions on the plan to be presented. There have been compromises alongthe way in terms of how the information has been assessed andevaluated. Dr. Ford indicated that he supported the tentativelyselected plan considering the overall resources and how we try to managethese resources.
Mr. Chifici then Introduced Dr. Charles Groat, Department of NaturalResources. Dr. Groat said that his comments were on the behalf of theDepartment of Natural Resources and the Governor's Coastal ProtectionTask Force. He said that they were very encouraged at this point by theresults and the selection of the Bonnet Carre' site and theopportunities that it provided to enhantb and increase benefits to theLake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound. Dr. Groat stated thathe is confident the project would be overall beneficial.
-A
Mr. Chifici introduced LTC Edward Willis, Deputy District Engineer, NewOrleans District, Corps of Engineers, to conduct the business portion ofthe meeting. LTC Willis introduced the New Orleans District staff. Ileexpressed appreciation to the University of New Orleans for providingthe excellent meeting facilities. Colonel Willis emphasized theimportance of filling out an attendance card so that each person can benotified of study completion. The cards are also held as a permanentpart of the record.
4. Study Presentation
Colonel Willis called on Mr. Falcolm Hull, study manager, to discuss thetentatively selected plan. Mr. Hull presented information on theproblems of land loss and reduced fish and wildlife productivity in thestudy area. He discussed the plan formulation process, the rationalefor selecting the Bonnet Carre' plan, and pertinent details of thetentatively selected plan. Mr. Hull's remarks are Exhibit 4.
5. Public Views and Concerns
Colonel Willis asked everyone to limit statements to five minutes. Heasked those making presentations to come forward and speak at the podiumso that everyone could hear. Me said that the meeting was being tapedand that copies of the meeting summary and-cassette tapes would beavailable in about 60 days at the cost of reproduction. Views andconcerns of speakers at the meeting are summarized below in order of-occurrence.
Mr. Willis Hof, Jefferson Parish Councilman, Chairman, LakePontchartrain- Maurepas Ad Hoc Management Committee.
Councilman Hof said that the committee did not support or oppose theproject. Tie indicated that they bad doubts about the tentativelyselected plan. The committee is concerned about the effect of theMississippi River water on Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas from a waterquality standpoint. Councilman Hof was concerned about how the fish,shrimp, and crab industry and recreational fishermen in the area wouldbe affected. He asked how much sediment would be Introduced into LakePontchartrain once the project is operated.
Mr. Rick Ruebsomen, National Marine Fisheries Services (bflFS)
Mr. Ruebsomen read a letter from Mr. Richard J. Hoogland, Chief ofEnvironmental Assessment Branch. Mr. Hoogland's letter is Exhibit 5.The NMfFS supports the project and considers the project beneficialoverall although benefits attributable to most fish and wildlife couldnot be quantified except for oysters. NMFS concurs that the projectwould be beneficial to many marine fishery species. He noted that theCorps was able to quantify benefits to brown and white shrimp and blue
crabs in another gulf estuary, Matagorda Bay, Texas. Mr. RuO'somienstated that NI4FS appreciated the opportunity to participate in the adhoc interagency meetings to develop objectives for the project as wellas to provide these comments.
MIr. Gerald Tiodin, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Bodin stated that reintroduction of Mississippi River water intoLouisiana subdelta marshes has been recommended in the past as a viablemeans of preventing saltwater intrusion and wetlands deterioration. Thetentatively selected plan that recommends installing a freshwaterdiversion structure adjacent to the Bonnet Carre' Spillway would resultin substantial benefits. Benefits include a reduction in coastalwetlands loss over the next 50 years, reduction in saltwater intrusionand creation of a salinity regime more favorable to fish and wildlife,an average net Increase in estuarine commercial fishery landings, anaverage increase in commercial sport fishing and a net increase inlandings, and an increase in fur animal and alligator harvest and ingame and nongame wildlife populations.
In closing, he stated that from a biological standpoint, the siteselected is superior to other sites evaluated. He also emphasized thatthe structure will allow freshwater flow to restore salinityconditions. Furthermore, freshwater diverted at this location wouldmore effectively and efficiently accomplish study goals. Mr. Bodin'sstatement is Exhibit 6.
Mr. Chuck Killebrew, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Mr. Killebrew stated that the proposed diversion plan has estuarineenhancement as its sole purpose and, most important, offers controlleddiversions of much smaller volumes of water over an extended period.Since the diversions will be controllable, the timing and amount offreshwater releases can be managed so that benefits to fish and wildlifear~e maximized and the negative effects are minimized. The success oftwo existing freshwater diversion structures in Plaquemines Parish,managed in part by the department, has proven these goals attainable.
He noted that the department is aware that certain fisheries resourceswill be displaced. However, the department firmly believes that theincrease in overall productivity of the basin, along with increased useof existing resources, will result in real benefits to the vast majorityof interests.
The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries believes that freshwaterdiversion is the single most effective way to slow the rate ofdeterioration of our coastal areas. The department strongly endorsesthe proposed plan and urges all those concerned to give it theirfavorable consideration.
Mr. Killebrew's statement is Exhibit 7.
Bill Dekemel, President, Eastbank Commercial Fishermen's Association,member, Board of Directors, Concerned Shrimpers of Louisiana, member,Management Council Advisory Panel, Gulf of Mexico Fisheries.
Mr. Dekemel stated that the project has the potential to destroy thebrown shrimp crop In Lake Pontchartrain. Orleans, St. Tammany, St.Bernard, and Jefferson are all parishes directly affected by theproject. A large percentage of commercial fishermen are from theseparishes. Mr. Dekemel strongly feels the project would be a totaldisaster to commercial fishermen, and that the only species thatprobably will benefit are oysters. Hie indicated that over 7,000families would be adversely affected by the project.
He emphasized the fact that Lake Pontchartrain produces a better, morevaluable crop of brown shrimp, lie also said any displacement of theshrimp will cause a decrease in their value. This is because the shrimpbeing produced In Lake Borgne and surrounding marshes are smaller. Heasserted that shrimpers should be compensated. Some of the adverseimpacts of the plan stated in the summary are that speckled trout, reddrum, and brown shrimp may he displaced eastward. In closing, Mr.Dekemel noted that fresh water would 1be released into the lake whenfresh water from rainy weather would already be in the lake. The onlybenefit, hie stated, would be to some marshland areas for vegetation. Headded that soft crabs would be in jeopardy with this plan of waterd ivers ion.
L. J. AXrthur, Metairie, Louisiana
Mr. Arthur agreed with stater-ents made by Mr. Dekemel.
Henry Gormier, Jr., Westbank resident-
Mr. Cornier said he first wanted to know what the lake was like beforethe spillway was constructed. He noted that saltwater Intrusion has astraight shot to the lake from the ship channel and asked how theproblem would be rectified. lie emphasized that a lot of questions hadto be answered and something would have to be done about them ifeveryone knew just what they were. Hie asked if this project would helpLake Maurepas and areas all the way to the gulf or if the area would bekilled as a fishing estuary.
Vivian Newman, New Orleans Audubon Society
Ms. Newman was concerned with water quality effects In the area. Shecommented that EPA regulations and state standards aren' t enough forthis particular action. She discussed the Corps' incoherence on thenumher of things they are engaged in. She said she was making this
statement to point out the so-called success of the permittingprogram. This program is evidently working at cross purposes,permitting developmental urhanization around parts of the lake. The
development, at the same time, is destroying the shoreline that this
project is trying to restore.
Mrs. Robert Lane, Jr., New Orleans resident
Mrs. Lane commented that her main concern was water quality. Sheexplained that when she was young, the water was suitable for humanconsumption as well as swimming and fishinp recreation. Now, with theidea of flushing this water into the lake, it will likely adverselyaffect commercial fishermen.
James Daspit, Commercial shrimper
Mr. Daspit stated that he was in agreement with statements made by Mr.Dekemel. He explained his personal views on the diverting of freshwater to Lake Pontchartrain. He said he feels that the brown shrimpharvest will he adversely affected. Mr. Daspit said he is opposed to
the freshwater diversion project.
Mr. Steve Corin, Jefferson Parish resident
Mr. Gorin said he was concerned with pollution entering from theMississippi due to the floodgate openings. He was also concerned whatwould happen to Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain. He said we are not at
the state of the art to tell what is going to happen. Mr. Gorin askedwhat would happen If trouble arises. He added that some of the benefits
are good, but some areas can be adversely impacted to the benefit ofothers. He said be is not totally sure this project will mitigate
adverse affects.
John Uhl, Gretna area resident '
Mr. Uhl was generally in favor of the diversion control structure butsaid the situation should be looked at carefully. He said he recognizedthe dieback in the Louisiana marshes because of levee systems and thedisplacement of fishermen after seeing what was happening acrossLouisiana from the Mississippi line to the Texas line. He felt that
monitoring the structure would take care of and possibly mitigate allproblems at hand. With the dynamics in coastal Louisiana, the diehacks
that are occurring are in the marshlands that are valuable for fishspecies as nursery grounds. He stressed that the Louisiana StateUniversity Consortium under the Sea Grant Program be given a role inthis project to protect citizen interests.
Charlotte Fremaux, Meta~irie, Louisiana resident and Natural ResourcesChairman, League of Women Voters in Louisiana
Ms. Fremvaux emphasized that the main aspect of the freshwater diversionplan is water quality. She stated that increased traffic, bargefleeting, population growth, and discharge permitting all degrade waterquality. She asked if water quality data and the proposed monitoringprogram would close the necessary gaps. Ms. Fremaux asked whether stateor Federal water quality standards and criteria would prevail andwhether pressure would make water quality enforcement on the MississippiI mpossil1e.
Mr. Frank Tullos, State Seafood Promotion Marketing Board
Mr. Tullos said he would not comment pro or con because he would bemaking a statement at the next meeting. He said be would present theboard with the information he received at this hearing.
Terry J. Gagliano, New Orleans Supermarket owner
Mr. Cagliano sent a speaker on behalf of himself and his employees. Thespeaker said that they oppose the Corps plan. He stated that in orderfor such a plan to be beneficial, mitigation of canal dredging,saltwater intrusion from the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, and urbandevelopment ought to be taken care of first.
Joan Phillips, Wetlands Chairman, Delta Chapter of the Sierra Club
Ms. Phillips said she was concerned with the loss of wetlands in thestudy area and Lake Pontchartrain's health because of saltwaterintrusion through the MR-CO. She explained that fresh water is neededto provide healthier vegetation for marshes and nursery grounds forseafood. She said she was also concerned about the water quality of theMississippi River. Tn the eastern end of Lake Pontchartrain, the MR-GOis letting in saltwater. If this situation is not corrected, the areawill b~ecomne an open water lake.
Ms. Phillips asked that this study he coordinated with the Amite Riverand Tributaries Study in which consideration is being given to divertingwater to the Missiqsippi River. She said one project would divert waterinto the basin and the other would divert water out of the basin. Sheagreed with previous statements Trade by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeServices and Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries.
Michael Hille, New Orleans Resident
Mr. Halle stated that the freshwater diversion plan Is not an isolatedproject. It is the salvation of Lake Pontchartrain wetlands. He saidthe wetlands are being threatened by developers in that particulararea. These actions are permitted by the Corps uinder Section 404,
THE TENTATIVELY rELFECTED PLAN rONqIqTS OF A CONTROL
AREA MAP STPUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED wORKS AND SIX LOCATIONS FOP
AND DEVELOPlENT OF RECREATION FACILITIES.
-ATION SITEq
-AY
~jjTHE CONTPOL STRUlCTIIRF' WniLD CONSIST OF FnIIp 20- Y 2N- nOTVAY SECTION BOX CILVERTS 455 FEET LONG IN A fIlISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEE
'T reE SETRACK. THE CnmTRnL qTRUlCTUPF WOULD HAVE A MAXIMU1M
DESIGN CAPACITY OF 30,000 CURIC FEET PER SECOND.
:17 To ACHIEVE THE OPTIMUM SALINITY REGIME, WATER WOULD RE
:HART DIVERTED FROM MARCH TO NOVEMBER. THE AVERAGE DIVERTED
0IEMENTAL FLOW" FLOW FOP THE PERIOD wOluLr BE ABOUT 9,200 CFS. A MAXIMU1M
OF 30,000 CFS WOULD BE DIVERTED DURING THE MONTH OF APRILTHE qTRIICTIIRE WOUlLD HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF DIVERTING THE
REOUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL FLOW ON AN AVERAGE OF EVERY OTHER
YEAR.
THE INLET CHANNEL WOUlLD RE 25 FEET DEEP WITH A BOTTOMR PHOTO WIDTH OF 400 FEET, 1 VERTICAL ON 3 HORIZONTAL SIDE-A,/otrTFLoW SLOPES, AND WOUlLD BE 0.2 MILES LONG. THE OITFLOW
'EL CHANNEL WOuLD BE 25 FEET DEEP WITH A BOTTOM WIDTH OF4n FEET, I VERTICAL AND 3 HORIZONTAL SIDE SLOPES, AND
WOULD BE 6.14 MILES LbNG. THE CHANNEL IS DESIGNED TO
CONTAIN ALL PLOWq WITHIN RANKS-
THE FIRST 3.8 MILES OF CHANNEL WOULD BE A NEW CHANNEL
CUT FROM DIVERSION STRIICTIJRE TO THE EXISTING BORROW
CHANNEL. THE BORROW CHANNEL HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITYTO CONVEY THE MAXIMUM FLOW AND) WOUJLr) RE USED FOR 2.0
MILES. A NEW CHANNEL CUT WOULD BE REQUIRED FROM THE
BORROW CHANNEL TO LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN.
.- . - . -
SLIDE 12 ClIR EVALUATICN OF THE PLANS REVEALEn THAT PLAN A~
TABLE DIVERTING FRESH WATER AT RIVERBEND--AND PLAN D--"SITE COMBINATIONS DIVERTING WATEP AT THE INNER HARBOP HAVIGATIoN CANAL--
& MAXIMUM DESIGN COULD NOT ACHIEVE THE DESIRED SALINTY REGIME. PLANS
F LOW"B, C, AND E--DIVFRTING WATER IN VAPIOI' CnMBINATInmS
AT RIVERBEND, IHNC, AND BONNET CARRE'--WERE TOO COSTLY
AND GENFRALLY CAFISFO mORE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
SLIDE 13 THE ANALYSIS INDICATED PLAN F--DIVERTING WATER ONLY AT
STHDY AREA MAP THE BONNET CARRE' SITE--IS THE BEST PLAN RECAIISE CON-
OVERLAY - BONNET VEYANCE CHANNELS WOULD BE SHORTER, SCENIC RIVERS AND
CARPE' SITE STREAMS WOLl D NOT RE ALTERED, VERY LITTLE HABITAT
ALTERED-, ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES WOULD NOT
BE DISTIURBED, AND ENGINEERING PROBLEMS WOULD BE LESS.
PLAN F WAS THEREFORE DESIGNATED AS THE TENTATIVELYSELECTED PLAN.
SLIDE 14 AT THE BONNET CARRE' SITE, WE CONSIDERED MODIFYING PAPT
COLOR SLIDE OF OF THE SPILLWAY STRUCTURE FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSION- THE
BONNET CARRF' STRUCTiuRE IS DESIGNED TO OPERATE ONLY DUIRING PERIODS OF
STRUCTURE EXTREMELY HIGH WATER ON THE MISSISSIPPI. FRESHWATER
DIVERSIONS WOULD, HOWEVER, RE MADE D)[IRING THE PERIOD
OF AVERAGE TO LOW FLOW ON THE RIVER. MODIFYING THE
SPILLWAY STRUCTU1RE FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSION WOHLD BE
EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY OF THE SPILLWAY. WE LOOKED AT OTHER POSSIBLE
DIVERSION LOCATIONS NEXT TO THE SPILLWAY AND DETERMINED
THAT A FRESHWATER DIVERSION STRIICT11RE COULD RE PLACED
JUST UPRIVER OF THE SPILLWAY STRUCTURE-
LIDE 7 THE AD HOC GROUP RECOMMENDED THAT A SALINITY REGIME--
TUDY AREA THAT IS, SYSTEMATICALLY CONTROLLING THE SALTWATER IN THE
ITH RED OVERLAY ST. BERNARD MARSHES--WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO OYSTERS.
IF THE SALINITY REGIME IS ESTABLISHED IN THE ST. BERNARD
MARSHES, THE PRIMARY ZONE OF OYSTER PRODUCTIVITY WOULD
BE THIS AREA SHOWN IN RED.
;LIDE THE REGIME IS BASED ON A TEN-YEAR LOUISIANA WILDLIFE AND
iRAPH FISHERIES STUDY AND WOULD MIMIC SALINITY CONDITIONS THAT
'OPTIMUM SALINITY EXISTED WHEN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER OVERFLOWED ITS BANKS
EGIME" EVERY SPRING. THIS REGIME, WHILE BENEFITING OYSTERS,
WOULD ALSO BE FAVORABLE FOR MOST FISH AND WILDLIFE
SPECIES. SALINITIES WOULD BE REDUCED TO 7 AND 8 PPT
IN APRIL AND MAY AND ALLOWED TO INCREASE TO ABOUT 16PPT IN THE FALL AND WINtER.
;LIDE 9 To ACHIEVE THE SALINITY REGIME, WE INVESTIGATED A NUMBER
IGMT MEASURES OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES. WE FOUND THAT DIVERTING FRESH
.IST WATER FROM THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO THE MARSHES AND
ESTUARIES ON AN AREA-WIDE SCALE IS THE BEST WAY TO
ESTABLISH THE FAVORABLE SALINITY CONDITIONS, ENHANCE
VEGETATIVE GROWTH, REDUCE LAND LOSS, AND IMPROVE FISH
AND WILDLIFE PRODUCTION.
;LIDE 10 OUR PRELIMINARY STUDIES IDENTIFIED 13 POTENTIAL FRESH-)TUDY AREA MAP WATER DIVERSION SITES ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
)VERLAY THE TEN SITES ABOVE NEW ORLEANS ARE SHOWN IN RED.
THE THREE SITES IN AND BELOW NEW ORLEANS ARE SHOWN
IN BLACK.
;LIDE 11 WE ANALYZED THE ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS, POTENTIAL
;TUDY AREA MAP ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF THE
)VERLAY - 3 SITES SITES. WE THEN SELECTED THREE SITES FOR FURTHER
ANALYSIS: BONNET CARRE', INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION
CANAL, AND RIVERBEND. WE ANALYZED EACH SITE FOR
DIFFERENT SIZE DIVERSION FLOWS AND COMBINED THE SITES AND
FLOWS INTO 6 ALTERNATIVE PLANS-
PHFVE ITAT IlfO
'R. FALCOLM HItLL
THANK Y'Oii COLONEL LEF/LTC WILLIS.
S 1THE PROBLEMS IN THE RICH AND PRODUCTIVE COASTAL
TITLE SUPERED MARSHLANDS BEGAN IN EARNEST WHEN MAN HARNESSED THE
OVER qTIDY AREA MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ITS TRI1I1TARIES IN THE NAME OF
MAP FLOOD CONTROL.
SLInE WITHnfT THE ANNUAL FRESH WATER AND SEDIMENTS FROM THF
HYDROLOGIC CYCLE RIVER, THE NATURAL PROCESSES OF SUBSIDENCE, COMPACTION,
EROSION, AND SALTWATEP INTRUSION, AND MANI S CHANNEL
DREDGING ACTIVITIES HAVE CAUSED COASTAL LAND LOSS AT
THE ALARMING RATE OF 40(l SQIIARE MILES PER YEAR.
,SLInE 3 THE LOSS AND ALTERATION OF MARSH HABITAT HAS
COASTAL LANn ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE PRODlICTIVITY OF OUR FISH
Loss AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.(
SLInE /4 THE HARVEST OF MANY COMMERCIALLY-IMPORTANT ESTIIARINE
SHRIMP ROAT SPECIES SUCH AS SHRIMP, MENHADEN, OYSTER, BLUE CRAB, --
SLIDE 5 NUTRIA, MU1SKRAT, MINK, OTTER, AND RACCOON HAS GENERALLY
PELTS DECLINED.
SLIFE 6 IN 1q82, OUIR FIRST STEP IN DEVELOPING A PLAN
MAPS TO REDUCE LAND LOSS AND INCREASE FISH AND WILDLIFE
PRODUCTIVITY WAS TO RECONVENE THE INTERAGENCY
AD HOC GROUP ESTABLISHED IN 1969. THE GROUP WAS
CHARGED WITH IDENTIFYING DESIRABLE SALINITY CONDITIONS
FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE. THE GROUP INCLUDED FEDERAL,
LOISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI STATE AGENCIES WITH
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER RESOURCES.
~ L1
.-.-.-.'-.'...........-....-..-.-'".-'--'-.--' .--.--.'. ......-.-...... .--.. .-,.-.....'-.....--.-..'.-.....-...-.....--..-.--.
LIST OF PERSONS 'v1O EXPRESSEDTHEIR VIEWS AT THE MEETING
Mr. Willie tIof Chairman, Lake Pontchartrain-Lake
Maurepas Ad Hoc CommitteeMr. Rickey Ruebsamen National Marine Fisheries ServiceMr. Gerald Bodin U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMr. Chuck Killebrew Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
FisheriesMr. T. J. Arthur Resident of Metairie, LouisianaMr. Rill Dekemel East Bank Commercial Fishermen's
AssociationMr. Henery A. Cormier, Jr. Resident of Bridge City, LouisianaMrs. Vivian n. Newman Orleans Audubon AssociationMr. & Mrs. Robert E. Lane, Jr. Resident of New Orleans, LouisianaMr. James Daspit Shrimper, Pearl River, LouisianaMr. Steve Gorin Resident of Metairie, LouisianaMr. John Uhl Resident of Gretna, LouisianaMrs. Charlotte Fremaux League of Women Voters of LouisianaMr. Frank Tullos State Seafood Promotion, Marketing
Board MemberMr. T. J. Gagliano GEM Supermarket --
Mrs. Joan Phillips Wetlands Chairman, Delta Chapter of the
Sierra ClubMr. Michael Halle Resident of New Orleans, LouisianaMr. Milton R. Walker, Jr. Clio Sportsmen LeagueMr. Norman Froomer Resident of Carriere, MississippiMr. Juan F. Lizarraga New Orleans Sportsman OrganizationMr. Robert F. Hereford Jefferson Rod and Gun ClubMr. Vernon Behrhorst President of Louisiana Intracoastal
Seaway AssociationMr. Johnnie Tarver LA. Wildlife Biologists AssociationMr. Bruce A. Thompson Center for Wetland Resources, Coastal
Ecology and Fisheries Institute,Louisiana State University
Mr. Peter Loverde, Jr. Member of Eastbank Fishermen's
AssociationMrs. Margaret E. Balzer St. Bernard Parish Planning CommissionMr. Eric 11. Beier Resident of Metairie, LouisianaMr. John Kelt Resident of New Orleans, LouisianaMr. Joseph L. Voelker, .Tr. Private CitizenMr. A. D. Bach Shrimper, Metairie, LouisianaMr. Victor Tbom Resident of Slidell, LouisianaMr. K. M. Mayer Resident of Harvey, LouisianaMr. Edgar F. Veillon Louisiana Wildlife FederationMr. Oliver Houck Professor of Law, Tulane UniversityMr. Darrell Williamson Asst. Secretary, La. Dept. of Trans-
portationMr. Charlie Bats Manchac Fishermens Association
j,, m,,.-,- .,:m,'.-, ,H "'". .....................
LIST OF PERSONS ATTENDINGPUBLIC MEETING IN NEW4 ORLEANS, LOUISIANA (Continued)
Name Representing
Mr. John Lagattuta SelfMr. Billy Lestrade SelfMr. G. Raish SelfMr. Stephen M. Dargis SelfMr. & Mrs. Arnauda Raequw SelfMr. Arthur Girard Jefferson Rod & Gun Club~
J
LIST OF PERSON ATTENDIN
PUBLIC MEETING IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA (Continued)
Name Representing
Mr. John J. Ibert SelfMr. Brandt Savoie LA. Dept. of Wildlife
and FisheriesMr. Arthur Clutier, Jr. Clio Sportsmen's
LeagueMr. Julian Blomley SelfTerry Ibert SelfMr. & Mrs. Peter Tesvich SelfMr. Mark Ostendorf SelFMr. Peter Tesvich SelfMr. Bill Daly SelfMr. Richard 1oell SelfMr. James C. Maes, Sr. SelfMr. Michael Furk Clio Sportsmen's LeagueMr. Michael V. Pizzolato, Jr. Lake Catherine Fishing
AssociationMr. J. R. Macgregor SelfMr. John Lopez SelfMrs. Alice Lowry SelfMr. Anthony G. Jonero SelfMr. Frank Mitchell SelfMr. Alex Heaton SelfMrs. Annette Naake SelfMr. Robert Giraud SelfMr. Tom Pullen U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, LowerMississippi Valley Division
Mr. Thomas Carbone, Jr. SelfMr. Thomas Carhone SelfMr. James L. Iseuogle Jean Lafitte National ParkMr. Jay Baum SelfMr. Paul Newfield III SelfMr. & Mrs. Freida M. Fowler Slidell Sportsman's LeagueMr. Harry Schafer LA. Dept. Wildlife &
FisheriesMr. Jack Cutshall U.S. Soil Conservation
ServiceMr. Bill Savant U.S. Soil Conservation
ServiceMr. Dennis Lacoste SelfMr. J. L. Kirschenheuter, Sr. SelfMr. H. E. Cassidy SelfMr. J. L. Kirschenheuter, Jr. Self
Mr. L. H. Ritchie Self
..............................................
..................................................................................................... . ..
- . - .
LIST OF PERSONS ATTENDINGPUBLIC MEETING IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA (Continued)
Name Represent ing
Mr. Huey J. Daigle SelfMr. Gasper Chifici Office of Public Works
Mrs. Eileen E. Hollander NOPSIMr. E. K. Johnson U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, NOD, ChiefEconomic & Social
Analysis BranchMr. Barry M. Glad SelfMr. Alan Alemar SelfMr. Glen Wiloz U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, NODMr. Jay Combe U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, NOD, Chief,Coastal Engineering
Mr. T. G. Hokkanen U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, NOD
Mr. Dwain Pimayer SelfMr. J. V. Guillotte, III Dept. of Anthropology
and Geography, Universityof New Orleans
Mr. Joseph I. Vincent SelfMr. Rodney Mach U.S. Army Corps of
EngineersMr. Martin S. Mayer SelfMrs. Yvonne C. Hull SelfAugust Bertoniere SelfMr. Walten August Tonawtino, Jr. SelfMr. Tom Soniat University of New Orleans
Dept. of BiologyMr. Jim LeBalcn Middle South ServicesMrs. Marietta Herr League of Women VotersMr. John G. Collins SelfMr. Michael A. Poirrier SelfMr. G. 0. Bissel SelfMr. Joel A. Madere SelfMr. Paul Martory III SelfMr. A. H. Rack SelfMr. Jim Klos SelfMr. David S. Bois Dore' SelfMr. Ronald L. Biava SelfMr. E. D. Shipman SelfMr. Rodger Baudier, Jr. Self
.......
| |. . r• . - .- . . . .. . . - . . . . . , . . o
LIST OF PERSONS ATTENDINGPUBLIC MEETING IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Name Representing
Mr. William A. Thorn SelfDr. Anthony Laska SelfMr. Robert H. Redditt, Sr. Jefferson Parish Water
DepartmentMr. James D. Brown U.S. Fish and Wildife
SerivceMr. David M. Soileau U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Mr. Robert L. Ancelet LA. Dept. of Wildlifeand Fisheries
Mr. Jerald Horst LA. Dept. of NaturalResources
Mr. C. G. Groat LA. Dept. of NaturalResources
Mr. Dave Fruge U.S. Fish & WildlifeService
Mr. Robert P. Hannah LA. Dept. of NaturalResources
Mr. Dugan S. Soloins LA. Dept. of NaturalResources
Mr. Charles Tiblier SelfMr. Carl Durel, Jr. SelfDr. C. S. Watson University of New
Orleans, EnglishDepartment
Mr. Cletis Wagahoff U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, NOD, Chief,
Planning DivisionMr! Lionel T. Goubler, Jr. Commercial FishermanMr. P. C. Majorie, Jr. Commercial Fishermens
AssociationMr. John Burlett Commercial FishermanMr. Harold J. Mechler Commercial FishermanMr. Ralph Latapie LA. Dept. Wildlife &
FisheriesMrs. Bonnie Dekemel East Bank Commercial
Fishermens AssociationMr. Huiet V. Joseph SelfMrs. L. J. Arthur SelfMrs. Kerry D. Miqhore SelfMr. Allan Ensminger LA. Dept. of Fish &
WildlifeMr. Bernard Welb GEM SupermarketMr. Charles Ballas Self
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ORLEANS OISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO. BOX 60267
NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70160
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Agenda
Public Meeting
on
Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine Areas
Freshwater Diversion to
Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound
December 13, 1983
I. Welcome Darrell Williamson
Assistant Secretary
Louisiana Department of
Transportation, Office ofPublic Works
II. Opening Statement LTC Edward J. Willis, Jr.
Deputy District Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers,
New Orleans District
III. Presentation Falcolm HullStudy Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers,
New Orleans District
IV. Public Statement Interested Individuals
V. Summary LTC Edward J. Willis, Jr.
VI. Closing Remarks Darrell Williamson
-"" -°
CLOS ING REMARKS
Colonel Willis again emphasized that anyone wishing to submit a
statement on the report may do so by January 16, 1984. For the EIS,statements must be received by January 3, 1984. He also expressedappreciation for all the individual participation. He then called onMr. Chifici for remarks.
Mr. Chifici also expressed his appreciation for all the publicparticipation. He felt the expressions made gave more insight to theproject. He then thanked everyone in attendance and closed the meeting.
. .. . . .
people. He said that we should not stop using the Mississippi River asa resource, but should clean the river up. He urged the Corps torecognize that the Federal levees and the MR-GO are the main cause ofthe problem, which are the Corps responsibility. The Corps should pickup the total cost of the project.
Peter Loverde Jr., member, Eastbank Fishermen's Association
Mr. Loverde said he grows soft shell crabs in tanks. During BonnetCarre' Spillway openings, the sediment from the river kills the crabs.Mr. Loverde opposed freshwater diversion.
Margaret Balzer, St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission
Ms. Balzer spoke on behalf of the St. Bernard Parish Police Jury. Theysupport the efforts of the Corps in pursuing freshwater diversion. Ms.Balzer stressed that immediate action is required to just slow downcoastal deterioration. She stated that in St. Bernard Parish alone,60,000 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh and 8,000 acres of cypressswamp have been lost since 1955. St. Bernard Parish has had theopportunity to fully experience the effect of saltwater intrusion andthe benefits of fresh water introduced by the siphon the parishconstructed at Violet, Louisiana. Ms. Balzer's statement is Exhibit 10.
Eric H. Beier, Metairie resident
Mr. Beier said that the project should be implemented because thereseems to be no other solution. He would also like to see the waterquality of the Mississippi River improved.
John Kelt, Sport fishermen
Mr. Kelt said that he opposed the tentatively selected plan because itwould reduce fish, shrimp, and oyster populations. The proposed projectwould also pollute oyster and other, fish resources with MississippiRiver water.
Edgar Veillon, Louisiana Wildlife Federation
Mr. Veillon was concerned about marshland and habitat loss due tosaltwater intrusion. He said the project is needed for much bettermanagement potential. In order to advance the project, a sum of$14,000,000 must be funded by local sponsors. Due to the financial bindthe state of Louisiana is in, it is questionable where the money willcome from. Mr. Veillon expressed his agreement with the project as wellas the Wildlife Federation's support. He commented that the Federalgovernment should fund this needed project. As for the affectedindividuals in Montz, he asked that the Corps require definite assu - " eand an equitable settlement for the residents.Mr. Veillon's statement is Exhibit 11.
......................................................................... - . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... (.. .
- -.- .. A.aAaa.
* Dr. Bruce Thompson, Center for Wetland Resources, Coastal Ecology andFisheries Institute
Dr. Thompson Indicated he had done research on the fish communities InLake Pontchartrain and the Atchafalaya delta. He said Mother Nature has
* a freshwater diversion project going on in the Atchafalaya delta. Anumber of interesting things have happened in this area. The salinityregime has gone from a normal estuarine system to a freshwater system.The system has maintained the estuarine fauna you expect to be pushedseaward. Some of the areas that were called commercially harvestablehave been reduced to a nursery area. The size of white and brown shrimp
* has been reduced significantly although the number has not declined.The brown shrimp in Lake Pontchartrain tolerates much lower salinity.White shrimp should be the dominant species. The brown shrimp in LakePontchartrain may be more tolerant than anticipated and, therefore,there may not be a large displacement. The proposal to divert waterfrom the Amite River may offset the diversion in this report.Dr. Thompson stated that the Corps should look at the basin-wideapproach. The Amite River is one of the most valuable soUrces offreshwater river flow.
Johnny Tarver, Louisiana Wildlife Biologists Association
Mr. Tarver indicated that the coastal marshes and swamps are being lost* at a rate of 45 square miles per year. This is due to saltwater
intrusion and subhsidence caused by reduced Mississippi River inflow.The estimated monetary benefits of the tentatively selected plan to fishand wildlife would exceed project cost considerably. This is attributedto a large increase in oyster production, a net increase in commercialand sport harvest of crabs, shrimp, and finfishes, improved yield ofalligators and furbearers, and net increases in sport huntingopportunities. lTnqiiantified benefits include reduced habitat losses InManchac, Joyce, Biloxi, and Pearl River Wildlife Management Areas andSt. Tammany Wildlife refuge. Mr. Tarver's statement is Exhibit 9.
Oliver Houck, Professor of Law, Tulane University
Mr. Houck stated that as far as the proposed project is concerned, goodor bad, it's inevitable. In reference to the gentlemen that spokeconcerning increased salinity reduces marsh erosion, this goes against
* everything that has been published on marsh deterioration. Mr. Houckindicated that marsh could be considered a group of soils, mud, or
* plants. He said anyone who is content that saltwater is good forfreshwater marshes is like Dow Chemical saying phenols are good for
* their children. As far as those who opposed the project because theirfishing may be adversely affected, the real issue is whether we wouldlike to see New Orleans-by-the-sea or freshwater diversion. Mr. Houcksaid that the question of how to compensate the people who are adversely
* affected should be addressed. Ile stated that the solutions to theproblems should he a project component and given as much emphasis as
dredge and fill. The National Marine Fisheries and U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Services both disagreed with this action. Because of toxic
waste and pollution in the lake, there are questions whether the fish
from the lake are safe to eat. The Corps permitting of the strip miningindustry is diminishing wetlands vegetation. In closing, he emphasized
his support of the project with the limitations previously mentioned.
Mr. Halle's statement is Exhibit 8.
Mr. Milton Walker, Jr., President of Clio Sportsmen's League
Mr. Walker expressed his support for the project. He was concerned with
the possibility of increased loss of wetlands. He explained their
cultural heritage importance. He stated that commercial fishermen may
possibly lose the use of the lake in the future if the project is not
implemented.
Mr. Norman Froomer, former University of New Orleans faculty member
Mr. Froomer stated that his research on marshlands olong the MississippiRiver delta showed evidence that whenever salinities decreased, marsherosion rates increased. Ile indicated that saltwater is needed to
stabilize marsh erosion. Mr. Froomer said sediments were needed inorder to save marshes. To do this, sediments should be added to Lake
Pontchartrain.
Juan Lizarraga, Sport fishermen
Mr. Lizarraga said he was deeply concerned about diverting fresh water
into Lake Pontchartrain. He explained that the opening of the Bonnet
Carre' Spillway caused a decrease in fisherman's catches. He indicated
that the project in his opinion would not be beneficial.
Robert Hereferd, Jefferson Parish Rod and Gun Club
Mr. Hereferd said he agreed with the proposed plan. He explained that
the amount of ways it took for the problems to occur would take even
more ways to correct. Companies who dig the canals that kill off
marshes should be held responsibile for keeping saltwater out or for
filling the canals. Careful proceedings should be done before a final
plan is submitted. He added in closing that in the next public hearing
all aspects should be discussed and looked at carefully.
Vernon Behrhorst, President, Louisiana Intracoastal and Seaway
Association
Mr. Behrhorst said he felt that the tentatively selected plan
incorporates the concept of water management. The project is an
opportunity and challenge for water management between two states.
. . . . . .
THE 1,L60-OOT LONG SEDIMENTATION TRAP WOULD RE PLACEn
3,500 FEET DOWISTREAM OF THE DIVFRSION STRIICTURE TOCATCH THE qAND PORTION OF THE SEDIMFNTS. THE BOTTOv
WIDTH WOULD BE 720 FEET WITH SIDE SLOPES OF I VERTICALON 3 HORIZONTAL.PART OF THE IIPPER GUlIDE LEVEE WOUlLD BE RELOCATED TO
INCLOSE THE DIVERSION CHANNEL WITHIN THE FLOOrWAY
AND PROVIDE FLOOD PROTECTION TO SIRPOiUNDING RESIDENTS-
A 600-FOOT TIMBER ACCESS BRIDGE WOULD BE PLACED ACROSSTHE nIVF.RsION CHANNEL ON THE LAKF SIDE OF THE ILLINOIS
CENTRAL RAILROAD TRACKS TO GIVE SAND HAULERS ACCESS IN
AND OUT OF THF FLOO[WAY.
SLIDE 19 AT THE LAKE END OF THE BORROW CHANNEL, RECREATION
SKETCH FACILITIES WOULD BE DEVELOPED CONSISTING OF TWO-LANE
BOAT RAMPS, COURTESY PIERS, PARKING AREA, AND PICNIC
TABLES.
SLIDE 20 SIMILAR FACILITIES WOULD BE DEVELOPED AT FRENIER REACH,
STUDY AREA MAP THE RIGOLETS, AND POINT Aux HERBES IN LOUISIANA AND AT
W/REC SITE OVERLAY. CEDAR POINT AND WOLF RIVER IN MISSISSIPPI.
SLIDE 21 APPROXIMATELY 32 STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE TO RE RELOCATED.MAP PLAN THESE RELOCATIONS ARE INAVOIDABLE RECAUSE THE STRUICTURES
ARE LOCATED IN THEDIVERSION CHANNEL AND UPPER GUIDE
LEVEE ALINEMENT. Ynof PEOPLE LIVING IN THE RESIDENCES
THAT WOULD BE RELOCATED BY THE PROJECT ARE PROTECTED BY
THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSIqTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT OF 1970. PEOPLE WHO ARE
RELOCATED WOUlLD 011ALIFY FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF MOVING OR
AN AMOUNT AGREED UPON BY THOSE WHO WANT TO MOVE
THEMSELVES, ANr.A RELOCATION PAYMENT TO ASSIST
INDIVIUfALq IN PAYtIENT FnR NORMAL EyPFNcFS ItICI1PRED.
LOSSES OR DAMAGE OF ANY ITEMS MOVED AS WELL AS STORAGF
COSTS WILL RE PAID WHERF ISURANCE TO CnVER THFSF ITEMIS
IS NOT AVAILABLE. OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD BE PAID
I NCLUDE:
CLOISING COSTS, LOAN PENALTY PAYMENTS, ANn THE DIFFEPENCE
IN THE COST OF INTEREST ON THE OLD HOUSE LOAN AND THE
INTEREST THAT M[JST BE PAID ON A NEW HOSE. '4F WILL RE
HAPPY TO TALK WITH THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT MORE INFORMATION
ABuIIT THE RELOCATION PROCE.SS AFTER THIS MEETING.
.SLIDE 22 CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUlIRE RELOCATION OF SECTIONS OF
SITE PLAN LOISIANA HIGHWAY 62R, THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD,
MAP 0UADS THE LOUISIANA AND ARKANSAS RAILROAD, AND SEVERAL PIPE-
LINES.
SLIr)2 23 A COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING qYSTFM WILL GuIDE .STRIUCTURECARTOON OPERATION AND ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF THE DIVERTED FRESH
( WATER ON FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS. THE COPPS OF
ENGINEERS AND THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR WILL ESTABLISH A
TWO-STATE INTERAGENCY ADVISORY GROU1P TO DESIGN AND CON-
DUCT THE MONITORING PROGRAM. THE INTERAGENCY GROUP WILL
INCLUDE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE
FOR WATER RESOURCES- THE REQUIRED BIOLOGICAL,
HYDROLOGICAL, AND WATER OUALITY DATA WILL BE COLLECTED
FROM A NETWORK OF SAMPLING STATIONS SET UP THROUGHOUT THE
STI1DY AREA.
SLIDE 2/4 THE PROGRAMS IN THE MONITORING SYSTEM WILL RE CONDUICTED
IN THREE PHASES--A 3-YEAR PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE, A q-YEAR
POSTCONSTRiCTION PHASE, AND A LONG-TERM PHASE. IN THE
PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE, WE WILL SUPPLEMENT EXISTING
*. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.. - * *. . . .. . . . . . . .•. ."
" " " " "./ ." " "'."" -i', '. - . , "" - > -' L-L ".L ..-.". .- -.. ..".-". .-.- "..... ."...-.. . . . . .-. .'-- V-.-.'
INFORMATION AND ESTABLISH BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR
MEASURING FUTURE CHANGES. THE EFFECT OF THE DIVERTED
WATERS ON HYDROLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
AND ON FISH AND WILDLIFE WILL BE ASSESSED IN THE POST-
CONSTRUCTION PHASE. THE INTERAGENCY GROUP WILL USE ALL
THIS INFORMATION TO REFINE THE OPERATING SCHEME AND THE
SCOPE OF THF LONG-TERM MONITORING PHASE.
SLIDE 2,5 THE PLAN OFFERS MANY BENEFITS. AS A RESULT OF THE
RED1UCED LAND LOSS FRESHWATER DIVERSION, SALTWATER INTRIISION THAT KILLS
SUPER MARSH VEGETATION AND CREATES OPEN WATER WOULD BE
REDUlCED. IIITRIENTS AND SEDIMENTS IN THE FRESH WATFR
DIVERTED INTO THE ESTUARINE SYSTEM WOULD RESULT IN
HEALTHIER MARSH HABITAT AND WO(LD REDU1CE LAND LOSS-
10,500 ACRES OF MARSH AND WOODED SWAMP ADJACENT TO LAKE
MAIREPAS AND LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN WOULD BE SAVED. SALINITY
CONDITIONS FAVORABLE TO FISH AND WILDLIFE WOULD BE
( CREATED. OYSTER PRODUCTION WOllLr INCREASE BY 7,600,000PO(INDS AND THE PRODUCTIVITY OF WHITE SHRIMP, BLUE CRAB,
CROAKER, AND MENHADEN SHOULD GREATLY INCREASE.
SLIDE 26 THE PLAN WOULD ALSO PROVIDE INTANGIBLE BENEFITS.
INTANGIBLE HABITAT CONDITIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL AND NONGAME
BENEFITS SUPER SPECIES AND PRODUCTIVITY OF WOODED SWAMPS ASSOCIATED
WITH FISH AND WILDLIFF WOULD BE IMPROVED. BUSINESS
OPPORTUNITIES IN COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES AND
WILDLIFE INDUSTRIES AND RELATED SlIPPORT INDUSTRIES
WOULD INCREASE.
SLDE27 ESTIUARINE SPECIES LESS TOLERANT OF LOW SALINITY WATERS
ADVERSE IMPACTS SUCH AS BROWN SHRIMP, SPECKLED TROUT, AND RED DRuIM MAY
BE DISPLACED EASTWARD BY THE DIVERSION. IN THE SOluTH-
. . .. .-.
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
WFSTERN nI[ADRANT OF LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, THE DIVERSION
WOllLD INCREASE TURBIDITY, COLIFORM COLNTS, AND OTHER
TYPES OF CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS, AN )WOULD) SLIGHTLY
LOWER TEMPERATURES. THESE IMPACTS WOULD DISSIPATE
RAPIDLY TO THE EAST. 1I4ATER OLIALITY IMPACTS M1AY NOT BE
ANY MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN WHEN TRIBUTARY STREAMS TO LAKE
MAIIREPAS ANn LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN HAVE FAIRLY HIGH FLOW.
SLIDE 28 THE FIRST COST OF THE PLAN IS ESTIMATED AT $55.6 MILLION
TABLE WITH ANNIIAL CHARGES OF $5.L I MILLION. THF AVERAGE ANNIIAL
"BONNET CARRE' BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PLAN ARE ESTIMATED AT
PLAN COST" $6.R MILLION. THE BENEFIT-COST RATIO is 1.25 TO 1. p
SLIDE 29 OF THE $55.6 MILLION, THE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TABLE, "REC. COSTS" WOUlLD COST $742,R00.I
SLIDE 30 To IMPLEMENT THE PLAN, WE PROPOSE THAT IuNDER OUR
TABLE TRADITIONAL COST SHARING POLICIES THE FIRST COST OF
"BONNET CARRE' $55.6 MILLION BE APPORTIONED AS FOLLOWS: THE FEDERAL
PLAN COST GOVERNMENT WOULD REAR 75 PERCENT OF THE FIRST COSTS OF
APPORTIONMENT" THE DIVERSION STRUCTURE, CHANNELS, LEVEES, AND ASSOCIATED
WORKS, AND 50n OF THE FIRST COSTS OF THE RECREATION
FACILITIES OR $41,523,000. THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS'
COSTS WOULD BE t14,n8o,fnOo, AS SHOWN HERE. S
SLIDe. 31 NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS WOULD BEAR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATE-
TABLE WITH THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENTS,
BONNET CARRE' CURRENTLY ESTIMATED AT $818,000 ANNUALLY. THE CURRENT
"PLAN BREAKDOWN ADMINISTRATION IS REVIEWING COST qHARING POLICIES AND
OF HON-FEDERAL COST" FINANCING OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. WHILE
SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COST SHARING IN THE ITENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED,
NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS CAN EXPECT THAT THEIR LEVEL OF
FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION MAY BE GREATER UNDER THE PRESENT .-.
ADMINISTRATION'S COST SHARING POLICIES.
. . . ..-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
SLIDE 32 IN THE DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITY RETWEEN THE
DIVISION OF PLAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS, THE
RESPONSIBILITIES NON-FEDERAL SPnmSORS' RESPONSIBILITIES ARE: THEY
MUST PROVIDE WITHOUT COST TO THE UNITED STATES,
ALL LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY NECESSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE WORKS, MUST HOLD AND . -.
SAVE THE 1INITED STATES FREE FROM DAMAGES, M1,ST nPERATE
AND MAINTAIN THE WORKS, MUST CONSTRIBJTE 25% OF THE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE DIVERSION STRIICTUrRE, CHANNELS,
LEVEES, AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AND 50% OF THE CONSTRUCTION
COSTS FOP RECREATION FACILITIES, AND MUST ASSURE APEOIIATE
PUBLIC ASSESS TO THE PROJECT AREA.
SLIDE 33 THAT CONCLUDES OIR DESCRIPTION OF OUR TENTATIVELY
TITLE SLIDE SELECTED PLAN TO DIVERT FRESHWATER TO THE LAKE
PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND.
((AD LIB CLOSE)
MAY I HAVE THE LIGHTS, PLEASE. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR ATTENTION.
2:.
-... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , ...
T7 7. 7
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE~ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
'14,, of NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICESoutheast Region9450 Koger BoulevardSt. Petersburg, FL 33702
December 9, 1983 F/SER1l2/DM:yj409/766-3699
Colonel Robert C. LeeDistrict Engineer, New Orleans DistrictDepartment of the Army, Corps of EngineersP. 0. Box 60267New Orelans, LA 70160
Dear Colonel Lee:
This is in response to your Announcement of Public Meetings and Draft Feasi-bility Study concerning the Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine Areas, FreshwaterDiversion to Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound. Our comments concern-ing the draft Environmental Impact Statement are being forwatded tor inclusion inthe comments to be submitted by the National Oceatlic and Atmospheric Administration -
for the Department of Commnerce. We note that you have recommended a tentativelyselected plan to divert a por 'tion of the Mississippi River flows into Lake Pont-chartrain Basin and western Mississippi Sound in order to create more favorablesalinity conditions and enhance fish and wildlife. The proposed diversions wouldoccur through a diversion structure constructed along the north side of the BonnetCarre' Spillway and capable of passing a maximum design flow of 30,000 cfs.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) commends you and your staff forproposing this freshwater diversion, which the Supplemental Flow Requirements dis-cussion in your Feasibility Report notes is considered beneficial overall to thefish and wildlife resources in the study area. In that section you further statethat despite this beneficial effect, benefits attributable to most fish and wild-life species except oysters could not be satisfactorily quantified in accord withthe Water Resources Council Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related LandResources Studies. These benefits werl then described qualitatively.
We agree with the conclusion of freshwater inflow benefits being attributableto many marine fishery species, in addition to oysters. It should also be notedthat in another Gulf estuary, Matagorda Bay, Texas, the Corps has been able to quan-tify benefits to brown and white shrimp and blue crabs, as well as oysters, from re-storing some river flows to the bay. Underscoring the great national interest inproviding such habitat restoration is that many of the Gulf of Mexico shrimp, uponbeing reared in the estuaries, migrate offshore to where the fishery is currentlymanaged under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
In the section of the Feasibility Report addressing Problems, you have appro-priately noted that the problems of insufficient freshwater inflow, which this pro-ject would partially correct in the study area, began when the.Mississippi Riverwas leveed. The section also lists saltwater intrusion along with nan's channeldredging among other problems. It should specifically be noted that the MississippiRiver -Gulf Outlet has been a major avenue of saltwater intrusion into the studyarea. It would therefore appear to be appropriate to indicate in the Tenta$i
(2)
Recommendation discussion that the proposed plan would also .partially mitigate
fishery losses from past water resource projects. Such an objective should be
added unless that would delay project implementatin.
We have appreciated the opportunities to participate in the ad hoc inter- -
agency meetings to develop objectives for this project as well as to provide "
these comments. In conclusion the NMFS fully endorses your tentatively selected . -.
plan which we hope will be constructed and operated as soon as possible. -
Sincerely yours,
Richard J. Hoogland-. f:-Chief, Environmental Assessment
Branch
..
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
A~~ I p L F. FJJx FY
103 EAST CYPRF SS 5TREF .
Al AY'TTE {(' ISANA 7
STATEMENT OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEPRESENTED AT PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS
THE TENTATIVE PLAN FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSIONINTO THE LAKE PONTCNARTRAIN BASIN AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND
Presented December 6, 13, and 15, 1983
Colonel Lee, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlermen, my name isGerald Bodin. I am presenting this statement on behalf of Mr. JamesPulliam, Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,Georgia. My statement represents the views of the Fish and WildlifeService on the tentatively selected plan for freshwater introductioninto the Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound ofsoutheastern Louisiana and southwestern Mississippi. -
Louisiana's coastal swamps and marshes are being lost at a rateexceeding 29,000 acres per year, and indications are that this rateis increasing. This alarming decline is an item of serious concernto the Fish and Wildlife Service because of the national importanceof Louisiana' s coastal wetlands to migratory waterfowl and other ".Migratory birds, fur animal and alligator harvests, and sport andcommercial fisheries. In contrast, Mississippi's coastal swamps andmarshes are much more stable, having a loss rate of less than 300acres per year.
The re-introduction of Mississippi River water into Louisiana'ssubdelta marshes has been recommended for decades as a viable meansof reducing saltwater intrusion and wetlands deterioration. Plansare presently being developed under another study to divertMississippi River water into Louisiana's Barataria and Breton Sound5asins. Substantial benefits to fish and wildlife are expected toresult from these diversions. The plan developed under the presentstudy recommends that a major freshwater diversion structure beinstalled in the Bonnet Carre Spillway in St. Charles Parish,Louisiana.
The tentatively selected plan would result in siibstantial benefits tofish and wildlife, based on studies conducted jointly by the Fish andWildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, and Louisiana Department ofWi ldlife and Fisheries in consultation with the Mississippi Bureau ofMarine Resources, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, and National MarineFisheries Service. Some of these benefits include:
o a reduction of 10,500 acres in the amount ofcoastal wetlands lost in the study area over the
next 50 years;
o a reduction in saltwater intrusion and creation
of a salinity regime more favorable to fish and
...... ....
wildlife;
o an average net increase of. 8.2 million pounds per
year in estuarine commercial fisheries landingsvalued at $6.3 million;
o an average increase in sportfishing effort valued
at more than $400,000 annually; and
o a net increase in freshwater commercial fisherieslandings, fur animal and alligator harvests, andgame and non-game wildlife populations.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is in full support of freshwaterdiversion at the location indicated in the tentatively selected plan.We are convinced that, from the biological standpoint, the diversionlocation selected is superior to the other sites evaluated. Beinglocated in a historically freshwater environment, distant from primeestuarine nursery grounds, the structure will allow freshwater flow
to restore more favorable salinity conditions in the stressedcypress-tupelo swamps and marshes along the western shore of LakePontchartrain; this will also allow for a reduction of excessnutrients and pollutants and for greater solar heating of the coolerMississippi River water prior to its reaching the prime estuarinenursery grounds. Furthermore, fresh water diverted at this locationwould more effectively and efficiently accomplish the study goals
than at the locations considered downstream from New Orleans.
'the Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that the following measuresbe implemented in the interest of fish and wildlife conservation:
I. the tcntatively selected plan be recommended
for authorization and
2. post-authorization studies be conducted to developoperational and maintenance guidelines for theproposed diversion structure and to designmonitoring plans for the affected area.
In closing, it should be emphasized that the proposed diversion planwill not totally solve the wetlands loss problem in the study area,let alone the entire coastal region of Louisiana and Mississippi.
Efforts must be intensified to reduce wetland loss and saltwaterintrusion throughout the coastal zone. Such efforts must includeimproved design and maintenance of water resource projects, improvedmitigation of damages a.sociated with canal dredging and other
regulated works, and improved management of freshwater and sedimentto maximize delta building and minimize saltwater intrusion and marsh
loss. All of these efforts, including the proposed diversion plan,
are needed if the rich renewable resources of the Northern Gulf Coastare to be maintained for generations yet to come.
Thank you.
Colonel Willis, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,my name is . The statement I will present representsthe views of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries concerningthe proposed plan for controlled introduction of freshwater tothe Pontchartrain Basin, Mississippi Sound, and the Upper Easternmarshes of Louisiana.
Since the turn of the century, state biologists have advocateddiversion of fresh-water from the Mississippi River to adjacentestuarine areas to enhance fisheries production. Over the pastseveral decades, the Department has studied the effects on estuarineproductivity of crevasses and, more recently, Bonnet Carre Spillwayopenings. We have concluded that the short term negative effectsof such events are usually far outweighed by the long term increasesin productivity. Urortunately, it is the negative effects whichare most often rem mbered from such an event. For this reasonit is imperative that a clear distinction be made between a floodcontrol Spillway opening and the plan for controlled freshwaterdiversion. Spillway openings are essentially uncontrolled releasesof huge volumes of water for the purpose of flood protection. Theproposed diversion plan under consideration, however, has as itssole purpose, estuarine enhancement, and most importantly, offers-ontr roled diversio.as of much smaller volumes of water over anextended period. Since the diversions will be controllable, thetiming and amount of freshwater releases can-Te managed so thatthe benefits to fish and wildlife are maximized and the negativeeffects minimized. The success of two existing freshwater diversionstructures in Plaquemines Parish, managed in part by the Department,has proven these goals attainable.
The Department is aware that certain fisheries resources willbe displaced. However, we firmly believe that the increase inoverall productivity of the Basin, along with increased utilization - 'of existing resources, will result in real benefits to the vastmajority of interests.
The proposed salinity management scheme being consideredhere tonite was developed by the Department of Wildlife andFisheries from decades of research and experience. We believeit to be a reasonable and justifiable plan, which will result ina more stable and consistently productive region. We also believe,however, that once the structure is in operation and the effectsof the diversions are-easured, modifications to the managementscheme are inevitable. We believe, however, that these functionalmodifications can be achieved on a reasonable basis.
While the particulars of the diversion scheme are debatable,the need for controlled, supplemental freshwater input to theBasin is not. Saltwater intrusion has resulted in-TF-Itat lossand alterations to large areas of wooded swamp and fresh, brackishand intermediate marshes. This process continues to occur, andthreatens more and more of our coastal region. The Department, aswell as some of your staff, Colonel Willis, recognizes that the
-z.,
..... ......... . . . ........ ........ . . • *.... .
ersion plan would not eliminate swamp and marsh loss, butwould significantly reduce the rates of loss throughout thein.rhe instability of salinity conditions which now existthe Basin has contributed to the inconsistency of commercialrecreational fisheries production, and also has magnifieddisastrous effects of occasional floodwaters and domesticlution. This problem is sharply illustrated by the declineoyster production in the Basin over the past 50 years. Astwater intrusion progressed, the zone of favorable salinitiesoyster production moved landward, and away from the vast,torically productive reefs and firm waterbottoms. The proposed
shwater diversion would shift the zone of greatest productivityk to the greatly superior reef areas, which are much lessected by floodwaters and pollution, and would help maintainarger, more favorable, estuarine area.
The Corps of Engineers has understandably emphasized the.efits to the oyster industry in the proposed plan. The Depart-.t supports the claimed increases in oyster production and perhapse importantly, believes that the unclaimed benefits to otherh, wildlife and land resources will be substantial. The increaseoverall productivity of the Basin will provide for larger and'e consistent commercial and recreational harvests, increasedting and fishing opportunities, and the preservation of the:al economies based upon the resources of the Basin.
The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries believes that fresh-.er diversion is the single, most effective means by which the.e of deterioration o our coastal areas can be slowed. For.s reason, the Department commends you Colonel Willis, andir staff, for the preparation of this plan. The DepartmentSonly.endorses the proposed plan and urges all thoseconcerned,give it their favorable consideration.
2
. .. . .. . . . . .
'Tecember 13,1983
. olonel Lee, ladies and gentlemen. Yy name is Michael Halle. I
live at 520 Esplanade Avenue in New Orleans. I appreciate the
opportunity to comment tonight at UNO on the proposed fresh-
water diversion project to come through a structure adjacent
to the Bonnet Carre Spillway.
It is my understanding that the proposed project will
have many beneficial affects on oyster production and, partic-
ularly,on preserving the threatened freshwater and brackish
marshes along the lake. Therefore I fully support the project.
I feel, however, personally a strong need to out this
project in historical perspective; and to also put the activities
of the Corps of Engineers into perspective in Louisiana because
it is impossible to view this project as one isolated project.'
It is not an isolated project.
It is being touted as the "salvation" of Lake Pontchartrain's
wetlands. But Lake Pontchartrain's wetlands have been far more
threatened and destroyed by the developers who brought us
Venetian Isles and Eden Isles in Slidell and who are bringing
us New Orleans East. -', -' ,'-" / ,
And 'by the Yississippi River gulf Outlet which the Corps
of Engineers started in 1956 and opened in 1961 after which
Mumphrey and other ep UNO found the salinity in the Lake
going up immeidatbly. And it has never come down since. So
that simultaneously the cypress--freshwater marshes in St.
Charles Parish and even on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain
began to die.
So here we have come full circle in the short space of
23 years; what the Corps has destroyed the Corps will repair.
As I say, this is an attempt to put the Corps' business into
,1ic .earingQ v rethwater DiversionDec. 13, 1983
tcrical cerspective and believe me, time does not permit
n a cursory review of the Corps' hundred and fifty-three
lion dollars worth of projects underway in Louisiana.
And let us not forget that the Corms ten years ago tried
dam up Lake Pontchartrain with barriers that would have
uced the flow at the Rigolets and the Chef by three-quarters,
that the Corps' engineers attemptdd to tell us the flow
ld be the same.
Never-the-less, this project seems to be a good project,
withstanding the extra load of silt that may smother
e oyster beds; or even the extra loads of toxic 3 that will
e in from the river; or even thFXU~ge. The lake's marshes
d freshwater if they are to survive. Menhaden production will
rease, as will many other estuarinedependent fish that spawn
these marshes and in the grass beds.
Careful monitoring, however, needs to be made of the quanities
sewage coming into the lake.
Careful monitoring needs to be made of the fish and the
ins. Studies in this EIS at .pres1e Weal the average
h or shell fish is contaminated.
How pitifully contaminated is our water in America and not
y from Big Oil and the members of the La. Chemical Industry
ociation but also from dozens of municipalities in Louisiana
t dump their sewage into the Mississippi River.
Is the shell fish in the lake safe to eat at present? Are
fish safe? W1ho knows?
Lastly, I feel I would be rather remiss not to mention the
er role the Corps has played in destroying Louisiana wetlands,
ely in canal permitting and canal dredging. Is it not necessary
7 "
W. V. Robertson
Mr. Robertson said that his statement was not for any group or organization.
He stated, however, that he is director of the Mississippi Wildlife Federation
in this area. He emphasized that if the fresh water from the Mississippi
River were good, he could see where this project might enhance wildlifepossibilities. But, he added, the fresh water from the Mississippi River were
polluted, he would be strictly against the project.
1fr. Bill Dekemel, President of East Baik Commercial Fishermans Association
Mr. Dekemel stated that he represents some 1,250 commercial fishermen, support
facilities, and their families. These people make their living and support
their families primarily from seafood originating in Lake Pontchartrain. He
mentioned that Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries statistics show that 2,500
commercial fishermen are licensed in Orleans parish, 1,400 in St. Tammany
Parish, 1,500 in St. Bernard Parish, and 2,500 in Jefferson Parish, as well asmany In Mississippi. This is in excess of 7,500 families that will be
effected by this program, most of them adversely. He added that of the over7,000 commercial fishermen, there are over 4,000 commercial shrimp fishermen
within the study area in Louisiana and Mississippi. Most of the crop coming
from the Lake Pontchartrain Basin are brown shrimp. He noted that this is the
prl ipal fishery that will be most adversely affected by this project.
Pe stated that the project will affect Louisiana's seafood industry, which issecond only to oil production. He added that shrimp is the number one revenue
producer in the seafood Industry in both Mississippi and Louisiana. The
project will have the potential to destroy the brown shrimp production in thelake Pontcrartrafn area. Project engineers and biologists say that the brown
shrimp will only be relocated eastward. But, Lake Pontchartrain has the
unique ahil itV to produce a larger, 'ore raluable brown shrimp than any other
area on the coastline. He noted that he did not have the reasons nor theanswers for this and neither did the biologists at the meeting. But, he
stated, it Is a proven fact that brown shrimp in the Biloxi area may vary but
3eldom reach, a size larger than 36-40, 31-35 count. In Lake Pontchartrain, by
the end of July and In August, the shrimp leaving Lake Pontchartrain reach
sizes of up to l0-l to the pound. What this adds up to is a possible 50%-
loss of crop by weight if they are only moved eastward so that they cannot getinto L.ake Pontchartraln to prow, and a poss 1-'le 75% loss in crop by value. He
stated that 1,000 pounds of 31-35 count in the marshes will be worth $1,800.That same 1,00(1 lbs in Lake Pontchartrain may grow to 3,000-4,000 pounds at10-15 co'mt and he worth over SI0,000. Frown shrimp need 10-17 parts per
thousand salinity and temperatures above 20'C to produce a good crop.
Te added that the river water, not taking into consideration water quality,will definitely lower salinity and temperatures to the noint where it will he
untolerable for brown shrimp in Lake Pontchartrain and the nearby areas.
Mississippi commercial shrimp fishermen have traditionally fished the
i,ouislana-Biloxi marsh area, both Inshore and offshore. Lake Pontchartrainbrown shrimp leaving the lake through St. loe and ilssissippi Sound have
always been the principal target for Mississippi shrimp fishermen. If theshrimp do not grow in Lake Pontchartrain, the fishermen will he working on a
40-50 count shrimp worth much less than the usual 21-25 count. The minimalIncreas in oyster proluction will he offset many times by the reduction of
brown shrimp value because the shrimp crop is approximately 10-19 times
,rpter in value than the oyster crop. This may cauise the cost-henefit ratio
'4 A ;mh~~m;"'
in Shrimp Canners Gulf State Marineit ion Fisheries Commission
ina Oyster Dealers New Orleans Sportsmen-rs Association League
ina Wildlife Federation Louisiana Wildlife Biologists
Association
ma Department of Wildlife Fisheries.
ie project got underway, interest sparked from other directions and nowire at least two other planned diversions from the Mississippi River andre a wide range of support from the business, sport, and scientific[ties. The three-volume report contains a mass of engineering,[fic, environmental, and economic data. He added that to the best of)wledge, no stones have been left unturned. The net of all this is that[led amounts of freshwater from the Mississippi River diverted to themd estuary will enhance habitat for wildlife, sport fish, and:ial fishery species. It will also help prevent loss of marsh in the7. lie stated that the purpose of his statement was twofold. First, to,artedly endorse the proposal and, second, to point out to all presenttis project is not some quick off-the-cuff idea that was hastily put?r. But, he noted, it is one that has had ten years work put into it byimtttees, the Corps of Engineers, and many agencies of state and Federallent since 1076 to bring it to this stage. In closing, he stated that-d the project would go forward with no delay. Mr. Marvar's statement[bit 4.
Dr. David Etzold, University of Southern Mississippi
:old stated that he has been associated with the project since itson through the Mississippi Sea Grant Program. On August 1973, hethe mem)bers of the Mississippi seafood industry had asked hir to
them in developing a document to present to Congress to request theof the Bonnet Carre' Spillway during dry years to replenish freshwater
nto east Louisiana and western Mississippi estuaries to enhance seafoodivity. lI!e added that meetings Insued with numerous Mississippi andna Federal, state, and other fishery and wildlife associations, asd in his February 2, 1078, public meeting statement In Gulfport,Ippl, entitled "On a Study of Lake Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Borgne, andIppi Sound Fstuarine Areas, Louisiana and Mississippl," pages 32-34.d they have made seml-annual and annual progress reports to the GulfMarine Fisheries Commission, The American Shrimp Canners and Processorstion, and other fishery associations and conducted coordinatingIves with Mew Orleans District Corps of Engineers as well as the officehonorable Trent Lott. He mentioned that all of these groups, as wellr interestee parties, continued to support the earliest successfulion of this most important project. Dr. Etzold stated that as antative of the Mississippi Sea Grant Program, he highly endorsed theions of the October 1983 feasibility study of the Mississippi andna estuarine areas freshwater diversion to Lake Pontchartrain andippi Sound.
• .- .- - -. '] .. :: -.::>'.. :............................................................................-..-..t, "
dependent species spawn and are harvested, in many cases. He noted that thereis an abundance of species not considered to be estuarine-dependent that oftenlargely depends on estuarine-dependent food resources. He added that,
consequently, the deteriorating estuarine habitat that dominates this area isnot only a local, but a national and global problem. Highly productive marineareas are limited to a very small part of the earth's surface. He commentedthat with the Increasing demand for food to supply the world's burgeoningpopulation, any reduction in productivity in those systems is untentable. Hesuggested that freshwater diversion to Lake Pontchartrain Rasin andMississippi Sound is not a correct description of the proposed plan.Diversion of fresh water from those areas except during extremely high flowwas accomplished some 50 years ago when the Mississippi River levee system wascompleted. There was little or no recognition or concern for potential damageto the very abundant but nevertheless limited fish and wildlife resources inthe system. In fact, the proposed plan provides for controlled restoration offreshwater flow to the deteriorating estuarine area. Adverse impacts of theplan are negligible when limited to a small area near the point of freshwaterflow into the system. He noted that there was concern about the quality ofthe Mississippi River water. le stated that we must assume any deleteriousimpact from that source will be alleviated by the nation's program to clean upthe water. In closing, be emphasized the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory'ssupport for the proposed plan and urged that implementation proceed as rapidlyas possible.
Victor Mavar, Vice-President of Mavar Shrimp and Oyster Company, Biloxi,Mississippi.
Mr. Marvar stated that he serves on the Estuarine Development Committee of theAmerican Shrimp Canners and Processors Association. Ile noted that thecommittee had spear-eaded this study. HIe stated to LTC Willis that he already
supports this project. Most of his remarks, he noted would be directed towardproviding additional background information for those present. Hle stated thathe has actively been involved in the seafood business a long time. His familyhas been in the seafood business for 57 years, since 1926. During this time,
he commented, he has witnessed many changes in the seafood business inMississippi and Louisiana. Unfortunately, too many of the changes have beenfor the worst. He added that as far back as he could remember the fishermenand processors L.ove tomplained about the absence of different fishery speciesdue to the lack of fresh water from the Mississippi River. lie noted that thefreshwater project origiuated in 1973. But, before Congress passed theresolution supporting the study, they had researched the records of thevarious seafood commissions and found many references to lack of freshwater. They found one reference to this matter in the Louisiana OysterCommission minutes from the year IRP. However, except for a few siphons overthe banks of the Mississippi River, not much was ever done. There were manyproposals hut for one reason or another they never really got off theground. He commented that before this project was presented to the COE forthis stady, it wis endorsed by the Followinv orpani7ations:
Mississippi Marine Mississippi MarineConservation Commiqsion Resources Council
Mississippi Came and Gulf Coast ResearchFisheries Commission Laboratory,
.. . . . . . . .. . . ..
making presentations to come forward and speak at the podium so that)ne could hear. lie said that the meeting was being taped and that copiesmeeting summary and the cassette tape would he available In about 60
at the cost of reproduction. Views and concerns of speakers at the'ig are summarized below in order of occurrence.
iomas McElwain, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs,;sippi, Representing Congressman Trent Lott.
:Elwain stated that the result of Mississippi River leveeing is decreased!tivity of fish and wildlife resources and hastened loss of land area.nmented that floodwaters in the past replenished the marshes with?nts and sediments. The freshwater helped to mediate the Intrusion ofiter into the delta area. The annual replenishment of nutrients in theand mediation of saltwater Intrusion provided a highly productive area
Lsh and wildlife resources. Ile noted that the objective of this study istermine the best way to introduce a controlled amount of freshwater toist delta region to restore the high productivity of fish and wildlife7ces. He stated the Corps of Engineers has evaluated a variety ofJologies and structures to accomplish the controlled introduction ofeater into the study area. Ile said that the most desirable alternativeconstruct a diversion facility in the Bonnet Carre' Spillway in St.?s Parish approximately 33 miles upstream from New Orleans. He noted thecost of the plan is estimated at $55.6 million with annual charges ofcimately 95.4 Tillion dollars.
Elwain emphasized that the plan also Includes the development ofitional facilities at six locations In the study area. The averageI benefits of this Plan are estimated at approximately $6.7 million,gives a favorable cost-benefit ratio of 1.25 to 1. He fully supportsill development of this alternative. He stated that he Is looking-d to working with his colleapues from Louisiana to insure that thetary funds are available to see that this project is brought to Itsisful completion and, subsequently, the high productivity of fish andIfe resources of that area Is restored.
,arles Lyles, Mississippi Coast Fisheries Association.
,les indicated that he and the Mississippi Coast Fisheries Association'ted the project and would work with others in obtaining the necessaryg for the project from the state of Mississippi.
Guillot, C.F. Cuillot and Son Seafood, Biloxi, Mississippi
Illot stated that she supported the project and It was necessary toe an economically declining seafood industry. She noted that thet Is supported by most persons Involved in the seafood Industry.
Christmas, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, Mississippi
ristmas stated that the study area lies In one of the world's most . -
ically productive systems. !1e noted these systems were created andIned by great river systems like the Mississippi and Amazon Rivers. -huition to productivity extends far out to sea where adults oF estuarine-
................................. o.
,' . . . ....._._.,.. '. '. . *,.*, • " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m ,,,m m mm mm
MISSISSIPPT AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MIEETINCGULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI
December 15, 1983
1. Introduction.
The third puhlic meeting was held in Gulfport, Mississippi, at theMississippi Power Company auditorium. The purpose of the meeting was to giveall Interested people the onortunity to express their views on the
tentatively selected plan for freshwater diversion to Lake Pontchartrain Basinand Mississippi Sound. The agenda of the meeting Is Fvhibit 1.
2. Attendance.
A total of 46 persons attended the meeting. Various Federal, state, andlocal agencies as well as citizens and environmental groups were represented.A list. of attendees is shown in Exhibit Ia. Exhibit 2 is a list of persons
who expressed their views at the meeting.
3. Welcome and Opening Remarks
Dr. Richard Leard, Director of the Bureau of 'arine Resources, MississInpiDepartment of Wildlife Conservation, chaired the meeting. Dr. Leard statedthe purpose of the meeting and described the study area. Tie stated that thediversion was to reduce saltwater intrusion, enhance habitat conditions, andimprove fisb and wildlife production in the area.
Dr. Leard recognized persons sitting at the head table. Mr. Ron Dupas,representing Mr. Ted Ford of the Louisiana Department of W11ilife andFisheries, LTC Edward Willis, Deputy District Engineer, New Orleans liqtricr,and Cletis Wagahoff, Chief, Planning Division, New nrleans District. LTCWillis conducted the business portion of the meeting. Pe Introduced the Corp'zof Engineers, New Orleans District, staff and expressed appreciation to theMississippi Power Company for providinp the meeting facilities. LTC W1lli semphasized the importance of filling out an attendance card so that eachperson can be notified of study completion. The cards are also held as Apermanent part of the record.
4. Study Presentation.
Colonel Willis called on Mr. Falcnlm Rull, study mana5'er, t ,"sruss thetentatively selected plan. Mr. Hull presented information on problems of landloss and reduced fish and wildlife produictivity in the study area. le
discussed the plan formulation process and the rationale for selectinp theBonnet Carre' plan. He described pertinent information on the tentatively
selected plan. Mr. Hull's remarks are Exhibit 3.
5. Public Views and Concerns.
LTC Willis asked everyone to limit their statements to five minutes. Pe asked
SUIMMARY OF PUBLIC fF.TTTNC
HELD IN GUYLFPORT, MITSSISSIPPI
DECF.MrER 19, lQ)R3
Exhibit I~
-3-
for a critical illness. The Corps of Engineers have historically been masters
at identifying and cultivating local sponsors for barge canals, dams, and the
like. We urge that the same effort be put forth to guarantee the necessary local
cost share for the project.
To sum up, the Louisiana Wildlife Federation strongly favors the Tentatively
Selected Plan; we feel that it should be considered mitigation for past and
continuing damages from previous Corps of Engineers works and therefore be
wholly funded by the Federal Government; we are extremely concerned about iden-
tifying local sponsors and securing the necessary assurances in view of the
current financial status of state and local governments; we urge the Corps to
vigorously pursue the required local assurances; and, in deference to those-
persons in the community of Montz who will have to be relocated because of the
project, we urge the Corps and local sponsors to take the necessary pains to
insure an equitable settlement acceptable to the affected families and
individuals.
Thank you.
Edga r ~.Veillon7Co-Ch'atirmianWetlands CommitteeLI7F, Inc.
" - " ; - " -: - "- " " + ' ' - • ' "" " ." - ' - ' - - . " " . . " ' " - ' * . ' Z
-2
because the proposed diversion structure can be flexible in its operation, it
will allow for a unique and much needed management potential. The prospect of
having the ability to maximize fisheries and wildlife productivity by regulating
water flow through the structure is exciting to contemplate from a resource
management perspective. Unlike the massive uncontrolled blast of river water
that disrupts the system's productivity over the short-term when the Bonnet
Carrd structure is utilized, but enhances it over the long-term, the TSP will
help to stabilize the productivity of the system, as well as enhance it.
Though the most substantial project beneficiary is the Louisiana oyster
industry, the spin-off marsh/swamp enhancement and fish and wildlife values, and
the proposed recreation facilities, are significant enough to warrant strong sup- -
port from sportsmen in the project region.
In all fairness, this Tentatively Selected Plan for freshwater diversion ... .
and others that will follow can and should be considered as.mitigation for the
extensive work that the Corps has done along the Mississippi River in the name
of flood control and navigation. Louisiana's severe saltwater intrusion and wet-
land deterioration problem is directly attributable to these projects. Under the
usual mitigation arrangements, the Federal Government would be contributing 100
percent of the construction costs rather than the 75 percent being offered here.
Though we understand that proposals to consider these freshwater diversions as
mitigation have been rejected, we feel compelled to reiterate that, in our opinion,
they could and should be considered as mitigation for past and ongoing project
damages.
Be that as it may, a sum in excess of $14 million must be provided by local
sponsors for the project to move forward. Because of the severe financial bind
our state government finds itself in, we wonder where the money is going to come
from. Without local assurances, the whole proposal is no more than a placebo
. .' " .
P 0 BOX 16089 LSUBATON ROUGE, LOU5ISANA 70893
504j355-1871
Comments of the Louisiana Wildlife FederationRegarding the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) fortne Diversion of Freshwater to Lake Pontchartrain
December 13, 1983
Colonel Lee, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on this most important
proposal. The Louisiana Wildlife Federation is the largest citizen-conservation
organization in Louisiana with over 7,000 members and 80 affiliated sportsmens
groups statewide - 35 of which are located within the study area of the Fresh-
water Diversion to Lake Pontchartrain project. The Federation is well on record
in support of the concept of freshwater diversion as a means of protecting the
State's vital coastal wetlands from further deterioration.
The advance of saltwater into Louisiana's marshes and estuaries, with the
attendant loss of fish and wildlife habitat, is the most serious natural resource
problem facing our coastal area. Since the turn of the century, persons knowl-
edgeable about coastal geology and ecosystems have recognized the need to restore
freshwater flows from the Mississippi River as a means of combating this problem.
It is widely accepted today that freshwater diversion is the only viable longterm
solution to the severe land loss that is occuring in the coastal zone.
The Tentatively Selected Plan will be a significant measure to set back
saltwater intrusion in the Pontchartrain Basin estuary, and it has the enthusiastic
support of the Louisiana Wildlife Federation. Not only is the project expected to
save or improve thousands of wetland acres and enhance fisheries production but,
-'~'~~ + \\ conserving our ,latuai 'esowgces arid the right. io ~so th~em
HAVE MOVED FURTHER AND FURTHER INLAND BECOMING VULNERABLE TO
THE MORE URBAN RELATED PROBLEM OF POLLUTION.
ST. BERNARD HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY EXPERIENCE
THE EFFECTS OF SALTWATER INTRUSION. WE HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED
THE BENEFITS OF FRESH WATER INTRODUCTION FROM OUR SIPHON.
IT IS OUR PHILOSOPHY THAT FULL SCALE MANAGEMENT WITH A COOR-
DINATED APPROACH INCLUDING SALTWATER BARRIERS, MARSH CREATION,
REVEGETATION, AND FRESHWATER DIVERSION WILL BE NECESSARY.
IF WE CHOOSE TO SAVE OUR ECONOMY AND THE NATION'S SEAFOOD
INDUSTRY, IT WILL REQUIRE AN AGGRESSIVE ATTITUDE SUCH AS THIS.
WE REALIZE THERE ARE SOME NEGATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A
DIVERSION PROJECT OF THIS MAGNITUDE, BUT ARE WILLING AND INTERESTED
TO WORK WITH YOU TOWARD OUR MUTUAL GOAL OF RESTORING OUR
COASTAL ENVIRONMENT.
submitted by:
The St. Bernard Parish
Police Jury
8201 W. Judge Perez Dr.
Chalmette, La. 70043
. . . . . . . . .. .. .
PUBLIC STATEMENT
MISSISSIPPI & LOUISIANA ESTUARINE
ST. BERNARD PARISH POLICE JURY WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS ITS
SUPPORT FOR THE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE NEW ORLEANS
DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN PURSUING FRESH WATER
DIVERSION INTO THE MISSISSIPPI LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREA. AS WE
LEARN MORE AND MORE ABOUT CURRENT TRENDS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT, WE
COME TO REALIZE THAT IlMEDIATE ACTION WILL BE REQUIRED TO EVEN
SLOW DOWN THESE CHANGES. THE CORPS HAS NOT ONLY PREDICTED WHAT
EFFECTS THE FRESHWATER IS EXPECTED TO HAVE, BUT ALSO THE CON-
DITION OF THE STUDY AREA 50 YEARS HENCE WITHOUT THE PROJECT.
IT IS A GRIM AND DESOLATE PICTURE THEY HAVE PAINTED WITH
77,500 ACRES OF LAND CONVERTED TO WATER BOTTOM, SALINITIES DOUBLING
AND A REDUCTION OF 65 MILLION POUNDS IN COMMERCIAL FISHERIES.
NO ACTION IS CLEARLY NOT AN OPTION WE CAN AFFORD TO EXERCIZE.
THE ECONOMIC LOSES TO DATE ARE INDETERMINABLE; THOSE PREDICTED
IN THIS STUDY ARE UNAFFORDABLE. JUST IN ST. BERNARD ALONE, A
DOCUMENTED 60,000 ACRES OF FRESH TO INTERMEDIATE MARSH AND
8,000 ACRES OF CYPRESS SWAMP HAVE BEEN LOST SINCE 1955. THESE
ACRES WERE THE PREFERRED HABITAT OF THE IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL
AND SPORT WILDLIFE SPECIES. WILDLIFE PRODUCTIVITY IS DIRECTLY
CORRELATED TO PLANT GROWTH AND COMPOSITION. OF PARTICULAR NOTE
HAS BEEN THE RESULTANT LOSS OF HABITAT FOR WINTERING WATERFOWL
INCLUDING THE LESSER SNOW GEESE, MALLARDS AND GREEN WINGED TEAL.
IN ADDITION, WITH SALINITIES RISING, IMPORTANT NURSERY GROUNDS
. .. . ..
x~.*.................................................................................................................................
' <~ Louisiana Wildlife Biologists ALssocationP. 0. BOX 14762
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70808
into Louisiana's coastal wetlands, the Louisiana Wildlife BiologistsAssociation strongly supports the Corps' tentatively selected plan forfreshwater diversion into the Lake Pontchartrain Basin.
While the proposed plan represents an important step towards addressingLouisiana's coastal wetlands loss problem, much more needs to be done. Wetherefore urge the Corps of Engineers to continue, in an expeditious manner,its evaluation of measures to reduce wetland deterioration in coastal Louisiana.
Thank you.
SLouisiana \\!ihliL Blunlfists AssociationP. 0. BOX 14762
bATON IUIE, LOUiSIANA 70808
PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT OF LOUISIANAWILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION ON
PROPOSED PLAN FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSIUNTO LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN AND MISSISSIPPI
SOUND
December 13, 1983
Colonel Lee, distinguisl-ed guests, ladies and gentlemen, my name is JohnnyTarver and I am presenting this statement on behalf of the Louisiana Wild-life Biologists Association. Our Association is composed of approximately170 professional fish and wildlife biologists employed throughout the Stateof Louisiana by federal, state, and local government entities, universities,and private industry. This Association has long recognized the urgent needfor introducing freshwater into Louisiana's coastal marshes and adjacentestuarine waters and has supported efforts to achieve that goal.
Recent studies have shown that the coastal marshes and swamps of Louisiana,along with their associated fish and wildlife benefits, are being lost ata rate of over 45 square miles each year. This loss is, to a large degree,a result of saltwater intrusion and subsidence caused by reduced inflow ofMississippi River water, nutrients, and sediments. The single most feasiblesolution to this problem is the introduction of Mississippi River water intothese wetlands to reduce saltwater intrusion and the high rate of wetland loss.
The tentatively selected plan recommended by the Corps of Engineers calls fora structure on the Mississippi River at the Bonnet Carre Spillway to intro-duce supplemental freshwater into the Lake Pontchartrain Basin and westernMississippi Sound. The estimated monetary benefits of this plan to fish andwildlife would exceed project costs considerably. This is attributed to alarge increase in oyster production; a net increase in commercial and sportharvest of crabs, shrimp, and finfishes; improved yields of alligators andfurbearers; and net increases in sport hunting opportunities, Unquantifiedbenefits include reduced habitat loss on Manchac, Joyce, Biloxi, and PearlRiver Wildlife Management Areas and St. Tammany Wildlife Refuge; preservationof the storm surge protection and waste treatment functions of the area'smarshes and swamps; and improved sport and commercial fishing opportunitiesin the tailwaters of the proposed diversion structure. A major benefit tooverall resource productivity is associated with the anticipated savings ofmore than 10,500 acres of marsh and swamp in the study area over the next 50years. Such a reduction is critical if the renewable resources of the projectarea are to be preserved.
In view of the project's substantial benefits to fish and wildlife, and inlight of our Association's long-standing support of freshwater diversion
c- LL -,.
.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . - .. - . . . . . .... , . * . . . . . .
. *. *... -.-.....-.. ...... ... " .-... ..... -.-. ,...... ..-.. ,,......• _" ' _
H-alleUNO Public Hearing/Freshwater Diversion Bonnet CarreDec. 13,1983Pg. 3
to look at the other projects of this giant an organization to
zee how they fit in with a fifty-five million dollar project?
The answer is that it is certainly prudent. And what is
the Corps doing elsewhere in Louisiana? It is issuing permits
to destroy La. at an estimated 100 per month, mostly to the
strip-mining industries who rip off the wetiands vegetation
and drill a hole and then go away. How does that fit in with
this giant project to restore the lake's wetlands, to enhance
the lake's fisheries by restoring those wetlands.
How can the WL&F Department say, as they did at Destrehan two
weeks ago, that they are all for this when they themselves do
not even bother to comment on the strip-mining permits? What do
they care?
So, again, this is a good project, maybe; as long as
the river water does not have too much mercury and copper in
it. or ten dozen others. So go ahead with it , I say. Let the
right hand build while the left destroys. Thank-you.
of this program to go far below the minimum necessary to suppport theprogram. A previous speaker mentioned that no stone has been left unturned.Well, one stone has been left unturned, brown shrimp, the number one shrimp inLouisiana and Mississippi and the number two industry for Louisiana.
Mr. Dekemel stated that commercial fishermen are concerned with the trackrecord of the Corps of Engineers. When the MR-GO was proposed, they had allthe answers. The biologists knew exactly what was going to happen. While, henoted, exactly the opposite happened--saltwater intrusion. He added that whenthe hurricane protection system and the barrier system in the Chef and theRigolets Pass was designed, they had all the answers. Again, there have beenserious problems in the project setback. The shrimp data to be used in thisparticular program Is the best techological information available, but it isnot good enough. It's the same "best technological information" used In the
past. He added that better information is needed before such a program canproceed. He noted that the National Marine Fisheries landing records do notinclude the Lake Pontchartrain landings and the effects if the size of thecrop were reduced. He mentioned that the feasibility study in Volume 1 of thereport states that there has never been an indeptb study of the affect of theMississippi River fresh water Into Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. Beforewe get put out of business, we want to know what's going to happen. Theproblem Is that the commercial fishermen should have been consulted way beforethe program got to this point. These people are experts in their field.Everytime we have had a spillway opening, the brown shrimp crop has sufferedseverely.
Mr. Mark Chatry, Louisiana Department of WTiTldlife and Fisheries
Mr. Chatry stated that the proposed diversion plan has estuarine enhancementas its sole purpose and, most important, offers controlled diversions of muchsmaller volumes of water over an extended period. Since the diversions willbe controllable, the timing and amount of freshwater releases can be managedso that the benefits to fish and wildlife are maximized and the negative
effects are minimized. The success of two existing freshwater diversionstructures in Plaquemines Parish, managed in part by the department, hasproven these goals attainable.
The department is aware that certain fisheries resources will be displaced.
However, the department firmly believes that the increase in overallproductivity of the basin, along with increased use of existing resources,will result in real benefits to the vast majority of interests.
The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries believes that freshwater diversion is
the single most effective ways to slow the rate of deterioration of ourcoastal areas. The department strongly endorses the proposed plan and urgesall those concerned to give it their favorable consideration.
'Ir. Chatry's statement Is Exhibit 5.
Trent Wilson, Part-time Fishermen
Mr. Wilson stated he initially thought he could be supportive of the project,
biit In the final analysis he believes the brown shrimp crop Is going to be Xseriously affected. The main income of the commercial fishermen in this areaIs brown shrimp with a secondai'y Income on white shrimp and oysters. He noted
that while oyster production will be increased with this project, there are a
..-- . .. . . .. -. ..-... . . . ? :y i : .? - : ? - - .: - - , q - ? Z ? : , L ; , - .; -: ". -:-" " ; ; ,"
few things to be considered. First, an oyster will magnify any type ofpollution that is in the water. As a chemist, he stated he did not believeyou can assure the water moving through the area is going to he clean nomatter how much you analyze it. He added thaL you can miss toxins, lie also
pointed out that Mississippi oysters and oysters all over the gulf, which aremarketed in other states, have had serious problems complying with thecoliform levels. The water being introduced into this area would definitelynot help matters. Mr. Wilson stated that he thought a lot more needed to belooked at before the plan is accepted.
Mr. Gerald Bodin, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Bodin stated that the reintroduction of Mississippi River water intoLouisiana subdelta marshes has been recommended in the past as a viable means
for preventing saltwater intrusion and wetlands deterioration. Thetentatively selected plan that recommends installing a freshwater diversionstructure adjacent to the Bonnet Carre' Spillway would result in substantialbenefits. Benefits Include a reduction in coastal wetlands loss over the next
50 years, reduction in saltwater intrusion and creation of a salinity regimemore favorable to fish and wildlife, an average net increase in estuarinecommercial fishery landings, an average increase in commercial sport fishingand a net increase in landings, and an increase in fur animal and alliatorharvest and in game and nongame wildlife populations.
In closing, he stated that from a biological standpoint, the site selected Issuperior to other sites evaluated. He also emphasized that the structure willallow freshwater flow to restore salinity conditions. Furthermore, freshwater diverted at this location would more effectively accomplish studygoals. Mr. Bodin's statement is Exhibit 6.
Peter J. Umbdenstock, Sr.
Mr. Umbdenstock was mainly concerned with the pollution problems. Ile stated
that chemical pollution in the Mississippi River floating from Baton Pouge toLaPlace hasn't been stopped and could very well float into the gulf andadversely affect the shrimp and fish industry. lIe added that more stdiesshould be done to avoid this problem.
Jeffrey Taylor - Gulf Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Taylor stated that the Board of Supervisors for Hancock and TParrison
Counties had met with the Corps of Engineers to discuss the tentativelyselected plan. They discussed the recreational benefits fully and support theproject.
Larry Simpson - Executive Director, Gulf States Fishery 'omimssfon
Mr. Simpson, on behalf of the commission, commented favorably on the Corps
project to divert fresh water to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin and MississippiSound. He recognized previous occurrences of periodic flooding which broul-htneeded freshwater to maintain a consistent salinity regime. This also broughtneeded nutrients for plant growth which led to organic detritus. ecausewildlife thrive on marshland and wooded swamp areas for survival, there was a
vast increase in wildlife. Tie explained how man utilized technology andinvented mechanisms to keen the river flow confined. This caused fish, land,and wildlife In the area to decline in vitality and quantity. With) the
rI
. . . . . . . ....... .. ,- . . .... .-.. ..... ............ .. .
project of controlled fresh water, he said man can moderate fresh water withinthe banks of the Mississippi River. He added that without controlledfreshwater diversion, a salinity zone will move further shoreward. He notedthat fresh and intermediate marshes will be replaced with saline marshes whichwill gradually destroy the vegetation that holds the soil together and thuscause land loss due to erosion. This trend is at a point where it can bereversed by implementing the tentatively selected plan. Mr. Simpson'sstatement is exhibit 7.
Dr. Ed Cake, Oyster Biologist for the State of Mississippi, President-elect,
Nat ional Shell Fisheries Assocat ion
Dr. Cake indicated that the freshwater will reduce the number of predatcrssuch as the oyster drills that prey on oysters and thrive in higher salinitywaters. The tentatively selected plan would definitely benefit oysters, butwill do little to stop land loss. He stated that additional diversion sites
C along the river are required to stop land loss.
Bob Soule
Mr. Soule asked if a section of the Bonnet Carre' Spillway could he modifiedfor freshwater diversion while awaiting construction of the tentatively-selected plan. LTC Willis explained that the spillway structure is too high
and can only be used during high water periods.
Closing Remarks
LTC Willis emphasized that anyone wishing to submit a statement or report maydo so by January 16, 1984, and by January 3, 1984, for the EIS. He expressedhis appreciation for public participation.
Dr. Leard stated that the project would stahilize the seafood industry andoverall increase production of oysters and shrimp. He indicated that onbehalf of the state of Mississippi he would submit a longer statement. Healso expressed his appreciation on 'behalf of Mississippi for all theparticipation. Dr. Leard then closed the meeting.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNEW ORLEANS DISTRICT. CORPS 0F ENGINEERS
P-O BOX 60267
ATTENTON OFNEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70160
Agenda
Public Meetingon
Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine AreasFreshwater Diversion to
Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound
December 15, 1983
I. Welcome Dr. Richard Leard, ExecutiveDirector, Bureau of MarineResources, Department ofWildlife Conservation
II. Opening Statement LTC Edward J. Willis, Jr.Deputy District Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers,New Orleans District
[II. Presentation Falcolm HullStudy ManagerUS Army Corps of EngineersNew Orleans District
IV. Public Statements Interested Individuals
V. Summary LTC Edward J. Willis, Jr.
VI. Closing Remarks Dr. Richard Leard
Exk16lf
LIST OF PERSONS ATTENDINGPUBLIC MEETING IN GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI
Name Representing
Mr. John A. Lopez SelfMr. Ronald J. Dugas La. Wildlife & FisheriesMr. Marvin McGraw SelfMr. Steve Riley The Clarim - LedgerMr. Jim Frank Gulf PublishingMr. Thomas J. Strong Strong Brothers SeafoodMr. Bennie A. Rohr National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAAMr. Davis Veal Director of SeagrantMrs. Bonnie Dekemel SelfMr. Werner Huber SelfMrs. Susan Ivester Rees U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile DistrictMr. Alan J. Santa Cruz Mississippi LegislatureMr. Gene Peralta SelfMr. Earnest Carpalali FishermanMr. Ellie McDonnell FishermanMr. E. R. Guillot C.F. Guillot & Sons
Seafood IndustryMr. Dennis P. McCann U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile DistrictMr. Dru Barrineau U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile DistrictMr. Jay Combe U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, NOD
Mr. Vernon Behrhorst SelfMr. & Mrs. E. K. Johnson, Jr. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, NODMrs. Edna S. Etzold SelfDr. C. S. Watson TIniversity of New Orleans
English DepartmentMr. Glen Willoz U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, NODMr. R. G. Soule' SelfMr. Ken Jones SelfMrs. Arny Guillot C.F. Guillot & Sons Seafood
IncorporatedMr. C. T. Green Mississippi State Port
AuthorityMr. Ed Cake Gulf Coast Research
LaboratoryMr. Larry B. Simpson Gulf State Marine Fisheries
Commission
-. .
7.- -6
Mr. Jeffrey E. Taylor Gulf Regional Planning
CommissionMr. P. J. Umbdenstock, Sr. Resident of Culfport,
MississippiMr. Gerald Bodin US Fish and Wildlife ServiceMr. Trent Wilson Resident of Gulfport,
Mississippi
Mr. Mark Chatry Louisiana Department ofFish and Wildlife
Mr. Bill Dekemel President, East BankCommercial FishermansAssociation
Mr. W. V. Robertson Resident of Pass Christian,Mississippi
Mr. James A. Herring Biloxi Chamber of CommerceMr. David Etzold University of Southern
MississippiMr. Victor Mavar Vice-President, Mavar Shrimp
& Oyster Company
Mr. J. Y. Christmas Gulf Coast ResearchLaboratory
Mrs. Linda S. Guillot C. F. Guillot & Son SeafoodIncorporated
Mr. Milo Glarson Resident of Eiloxi,Mississippi
Mr. Charles H. Lyles Mississippi Coast FisheriesAssociation
Mr. Thomas D. McZlwain Speaker for CongressmanTrent Lott
Mr. Richard Leard Bureau of Marine Resources
i:::
., -..,.
LIST OF PERSONS WHO EXPRESSED THEIR VIEWS AT THE PUBLIC MEETING
Name P
Mr. C. T. Green Mississippi State PortAuthority
Mr. Ed Cake Gulf Coast ResearchLaboratory
Mr. Larry B. Simpson Gulf State Marine FisheriesCommission
Mr. Jeffrey E. Taylor Gulf Regional PlanningCommission
Mr. P. J. Umbdenstock, Sr. Resident of Gulfport,Mississippi
Mr. Gerald Bodin US Fish and Wildlife ServiceMr. Trent Wilson Resident of Gulfport,
Mississippi
Mr. Mark Chatry Louisiana Department ofFish and Wildlife
Mr. Bill Dekemel President, East Bank .-Commercial Fishermans
AssociationMr. W. V. Robertson Resident of Pass Christian,
MississippiMr. James A. Herring Biloxi Chamber of CommerceMr. David Etzold University of Southern
Mississippi
Mr. Victor Mavar Vice-President, Mavar Shrimp& Oyster Company
Mr. J. Y. Christmas Gulf Coast ResearchLaboratory
Mrs. Linda S. Cuillot C. F. Guillot & Son SeafoodIncorporated
Mr. Milo Glarson Resident of Biloxi,Mississippi
Mr. Charles H. Lyles Mississippi Coast FisheriesAssociation
Mr. Tbomas D. Mc~lwain Speaker for CongressmanTrent Lott
Mr. Richard Leard Bureau of Marine Resources
Mr. Bob Soule Self
AF.. . .. .. ...
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ..... . . . . ...... ,.-..-- .-. . . . . . .
*. . . . . ... .... . .. . . . . . . . . . . p..-.. . . . . .
PRFSFETAT I r,.
MR. FALCOLM HtILL
THANK YOl, COLONEL LEF/LTC WILLIS.
SLIDE I THE PROBLEMS IN THE RICH AND PRODUCTIVE COASTAL
TITLE SUPERED MARSHLANDS BEGAN IN EARNEST WHEN MAN HARNESSED THE
OVER STI11DY AREA MIssISSIPPi RIVER AND ITS TRIRIITARIES IN THE NAME OF
MAP FLOOD CONTROL.
SLIDE 2 WITHnioT THE ANNIIAL FRFSH WATER AND SFnIMETS FROM THE " .
HYDROLOGIC CYCLE RIVER, THE NATURAL PROCESSES OF SUBSIDENCE, COMPACTION,
EROSION, AND SALTWATEP INTRIISION, AND MAN' S CHANNEL
DREDGING ACTIVITIES HAVE CAUSED COASTAL LAND LOSS AT
THE ALARMING RATE OF /40 S0IIARE MILES PER YEAR.
SLIE 3 THE LOSS AND ALTERATION OF MARSH HABITAT HAS
COASTAL ILANT ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE PRODIUCTIVITY OF OUR FISH
Loss ANT) WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
SLm)E 4 THE HARVEST OF MANY COMMERCIALLY-IMPORTANT ESTIIARINF
SHRIMP BOAT SPECIES SUCH AS SHRIMP, MENHADEN, OYSTER, BLUE CRAB,
SL~nE NU1TRIA, MIUSKRAT, MINK, OTTER, AND RACCOON HAS GENERALLY
PELTS DECLINED.
SLIDE 6 IN 1q92, OUR FIRqT STEP IN DFVELOPING A PLANMAPS TO REDU1CE LAND LOSS AND INCREASE FISH AND WILDLIFE
PRODuICTIVITY WAS TO RECONVENE THE INTERAGENCY
AD HOC GROUP ESTABLISHED IN 1969. THE GROUP WAS
CHARGED WITH IDENTIFYING DESIRABLE SALINITY CONDITIONS
FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE. THE GROUP INCLIUDED FEDERAL,
LOISIANA Arn Mississippi STATE AGFNCIFS WITH
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER RESOURCES.
.. . . ..
. ..
.. .......
7 THE AD HOC GROUP RECOMMENDED THAT A SALINITY REGIME--
( AREA THAT IS, SYSTEMATICALLY CONTROLLING THE SALTWATER IN THE
RED OVERLAY ST. BERNARD MARSHES--WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO OYSTERS.
IF THE SALINITY REGIME IS ESTABLISHED IN THE ST. BERNARD
MARSHES, THE PRIMARY ZONE OF OYSTER PRODUCTIVITY WOULD
BE THIS AREA SHOWN IN RED.
E THE REGIME IS BASED ON A TEN-YEAR LOUISIANA WILDLIFE AND
H FISHERIES STUDY AND WOULD MIMIC SALINITY CONDITIONS THAT
IMUM SALINITY EXISTED WHEN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER OVERFLOWED ITS BANKS
ME" EVERY SPRING. THIS REGIME, WHILE BENEFITING OYSTERS,
WOULD ALSO BE FAVORABLE FOR MOST FISH AND WILDLIFE
SPECIES- SALINITIES WOULD BE REDUCED TO 7 AND 8 PPTIN APRIL AND MAY AND ALLOWED TO INCREASE TO ABOUT 16PPT IN THE FALL AND WINTER.
E 9 To ACHIEVE THE SALINITY REGIME, WE INVESTIGATED A NUMBERMEASURES OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES. WE FOUND THAT DIVERTING FRESH
WATER FROM THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO THE MARSHES AND
ESTUARIES ON AN AREA-WIDE SCALE IS THE BEST WAY TO
ESTABLISH THE FAVORABLE SALINITY CONDITIONS, ENHANCE
VEGETATIVE GROWTH, REDUCE LAND LOSS, AND IMPROVE FISH
AND WILDLIFE PRODUCTION.
E0 OUR PRELIMINARY STUDIES IDENTIFIED 13 POTENTIAL FRESH-,Y AREA MAP WATER DIVERSION SITES ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
LAY THE TEN SITES ABOVE NEW ORLEANS ARE SHOWN IN RED.
THE THREE SITES IN AND BELOW NEW ORLEANS ARE SHOWN
IN BLACK.
E i1 WE ANALYZED THE ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS, POTENTIAL
Y AREA MAP ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF THE
LAY - 3 SITES SITES. WE THEN SELECTED THREE SITES FOR FURTHER
ANALYSIS: BONNET CARRE', INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION _
CANAL, AND RIVERBEND. WE ANALYZED EACH SITE FOR
DIFFERENT SIZE DIVERSION FLOWS AND COMBINED THE SITES AND
FLOWS INTO 6 ALTERNATIVE PLANS.
. .** .*.'*.* *.*. -*. .~ - ~
OLDF 1iP EVALUATION OF THE PLANS REVEALED THAT PLAN A--
TABLE DIVERTING FRESH WATER AT RIVERBEND--AND PLAN D--
"SITE COMBINATIONS DIVERTING WATEP AT THE INNER HARBOR HAVIGATION CANAL--
& MAXIMUM DESIGN COULD NOT ACHIEVE THE DESIRED SALINTY REGIME. PLANS
FL OW" B, C, AND E--DIVFRTING WATER IN VAIOlfq COMqINATIONS
AT RIVERBEND, IHNC, AND BONNET CARRE'--WERE TOO COSTLY
AND GENFRALLY CAu;FD MORE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
SLIDE 13 THE ANALYSIS INDICATED PLAN F--DIVERTING WATER ONLY AT
STUDY AREA MAP THE BONNET CARRE' SITE--IS THE BEST PLAN RECAUSE CON-
OVERLAY - BONNET VEYANCE CHANNELS WOULD BE SHORTER, SCENIC RIVERS AND
CARPE' SITE STREAMS WOULD NOT RE ALTERFD, VERY LITTLE HABITAT
ALTERED., ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES WOULD NOT
BE DISTIRBED, AND ENGINEERING PROBLEMS WOULD RE LESS.
PLAN F WAS THEREFORE DESIGNATED AS THE TENTATIVELY
SELECTED PLAN.
SImE 14 AT THE BONNET CARRE' SITE, WE CONSI)FRED MODIFYING PART
COLOR .SLIDE OF OF THE SPILLWAY STRUCTURE FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSION. THE
BONNET CARRF' STRIICTIIRE 1IS DESIGNED TO OPERATE ONLY DUlRING PERIODS OF
STRUCTURE EXTREMELY HIGH WATER ON THE MISSISSIPpi. FRESHWATER
DIVERSIONS WOULD, HOWFVER, BE MADE DIRING THE PERIOD
OF AVERAGE TO LOW FLOW ON THE RIVER. MODIFYING THE
SPILLWAY STRIICTIIRE FOR FRESHWATER D)IVERSION VOlDLr) BE
EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND WOUlLD JEOPARDIZE THE STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY OF THE SPILLWAY. WE LOOKED AT OTHER POSSIBLE
DIVERSION LOCATIONS NEXT TO THE SPILLWAY AND DETERMINED
THAT A FRESHWATER DIVERSION STRIICT1IRE COILD) B PLACFrD.-
JUST UPRIVER OF THE SPILLWAY STRUCTURE-
-.-.".. . ..- . . ..-. . ..-.. .-......'.. ..- - . .-. ..... ..-..--. .... .'--. ....--.. .--.-. . ..-. .-----..-.-.-.-L.: -.-.-. ..-
THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN CON I STS OF A CONTROL
AREA MAP STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AND 'IX LOCATIONS FOR
P." AND DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION FACILITIES.
ATION SITES
AV
. THE COnTPOL STRIICTIIRF WOUlLD CONSIST OF FOiip 20- Y 20 -POOT
AY SECTION BOX CILVERTS 455 FEET LONG IN A Mississippi RIVER LEVEE
TIHRE SETBACK. THE CONITROL RTRIICTI!RF WOILD HAVE A MAXIMU1M
DESIGN CAPACITY OF 30,000 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND.p
17 To ACHIEVE THE OPTIMUM SALINITY REGIME, WATER WOULD BE
-ART DIVERTED FROM MARCH TO NOVEMBER. THE AVERAGE DIVERTED
LEMENTAL FLOW" FLOW FOP THE PERIOD wOllL) RE ABOUT 9,R(" CFS. A MAXIM11M
OF 30,000 CFS WOULD BE DIVERTED DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL
THE STRIICTIIRE WOlLD HAVE THE CAPARILITY OF DIVERTING THE
REOUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL FLOW ON AN AVERAGE OF EVERY OTHER
YEAR.-I
.1 THE INLET CHANNEL WOULD RE 25 FEET DEEP WITH A BOTTOM
PHOTO WIDTH OF 400 FEET, 1 VERTICAL ON 3 HORIZONTAL SIDE
V/OuTFLr/ SLOPES, AND WOULD RE 0.2 MILES LONG. THE OIITFLOW "
-L CHANNEL WOULD BE 25 FEET DEEP WITH A BOTTOM WIDTH OF
400 FEET, 1 VERTICAL AND 3 HORIZONTAL SIDE SLOPES, AND
WOULD BE 6.4 MILES LONG. THE CHANNEL IS DESIGNED TO
CONTAIN ALL PLOWS WITHIN RANKS.
THE FIRST 3.8 MILES OF CHANNEL WOULD BE A NEW CHANNEL
ClIT FROM nIVERSION STRIICTIIRE TO THE EXISTING BORROW:
CHANNEL. THE BORROW CHANNEL HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY
TO CONVEY THE MAXI! IIM FLOW ANn WO1LD BE UED FOR 2.0
MILES. A NEW CHANNEL CUT WOULD BE REQUIRED FROM THE
BORROW CHANNEL TO LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN.
. - . .,. ...
.. . ................. .. . . . .. . . . . . ..L'" .. .......... :'::
THE 1,460-FOOT LONG SEDIMENTATION TRAP WOUlLD RE PLACED
3,50() FEET DOWNSTREAM OF THE DIVFRSION STRIICTIIRE TO
CATCH THE 9AND PORTION OF THE SFDIMFNTS. THE BOTTOM
WIDTH WOULD BE 790 FEET WITH SIDE SLOPES OF 1 VERTICAL
ON 3 HORIZONTAL.
PART OF THE IIPPFR GIDE LFVEE WOuLD BE RELOCATED TO
INCLOSE THE DIVERSION CHANNEL WITHIN THE FLOOrWAY
ANn PROVIDE FLOOD PROTECTION TO SIIRPOIINDING RESIDENTS.
A 600-FOOT TIMBER ACCESS BRIDGE WOULD BE PLACED ACROSS
THE nlVFRSION CHANNEL ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE ILLINOIS
CENTRAL RAILROAD TRACKS TO GIVE SAND HAULERS ACCESS IN
AND OLIT OF THF FLOODWAY.
SLIDE 19 AT THE LAKE END OF THE BORROW CHANNEL, RECREATION
SKETCH FACILITIES WOULD RE DEVELOPED CONSISTING OF TWO-LANE
BOAT RAMPS, COURTESY PIERF, PARKING AREA, AND PICNIC
TABLES.
SLIDE 2n SIMILAR FACILITIES WOI)LD BE DEVELOPED AT FRENIER REACH,
STUDY AREA MAP THE RIGOLETS, AND POINT AIX HERBES IN LOUISIANA AND AT
W/REC SITE OVERLAY- CEDAR POINT AND WOLF RIVER IN MISSISSIPPI.
SLIDE 21 APPROXIMATELY 32 STRUCTLIRES WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED.
MAP PLAN THESE RELOCATIONS ARE IINAVOIDABLE BECAUSE THE STRUICTIURES
ARE LOCATED IN THE DIVERSION CHANNEL AND UPPER GUIDE
LEVEE ALINEMENT. Yn PEOPLE LIVING IN THE RESIDENCES
THAT WOULD BE RELOCATED BY THE PROJECT ARE PROTECTED BY
THE IINIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT OF 1970. PEOPLE WHO ARE
RELOCATED WO.lLD QU1ALIFY FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF MOVING OR
AN AMOUNT AGREED UPON BY THOSE WHO WANT TO MOVE
THEMSELVES, ANn A RELOCATION PAYMENT TO ASSIST
INrIVyT)IIALS IN PAYMENT FOR NORMAL EYPFNSES INCffRRED.
LOSSES OR DAMAGE OF ANY ITEMS MOVED AS WELL AS STORAGE
CO.TS WILL RE PAIn WHERF I"SURANCE TO COVER THFSF ITEMS
IS NOT AVAILABLE. OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD BE PAID
INCLUDE:
CLOSI NG COSTS, LOAN PENALTY PAYMENTSq, ANn THE DIFFERENCE
IN THE COST OF INTEREST ON THE OLD HOUSE LOAN AND THE
INTEREST THAT MUST BE PAID ON A NEW HOIE. WE WILL BE
HAPPY TO TALK WITH THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT MORE INFORMATION
ABniuT THE RELOCATION PROCESS AFTER THIS MEETING-
CONSTRUCTION WILL REQiuIRE RELOCATION OF SECTIONS OF
LOIilSIANA HIGHWAY 628, THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD,
THE LOUISIANA AND ARKANSAS RAILROAD, AND SEVERAL PIPE-
LINES.
A COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING SYSTEM WILL GUlIDE STRIICTURE
OPERATION AND ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF THE DIVERTED FRESH
WATER ON FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS. THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS AND THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR WILL ESTABLISH A
TWO-STATE INTERAGENCY ADVISORY GROulP TO DESIGN AND CON-
DUCT THE MONITORING PROGRAM. THE INTERAGENCY GROUP WILL
INCLIUDE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES RESPNSIBLE
FOR WATER RESOURCES. THE REQUIRED BIOLOGICAL,
HYDROLOGICAL, AND WATER OIALITY DATA WILL BE COLLECTED
FROM A NETWORK OF SAMPLING STATIONS SET UP THROUGHOUT THE
STu1DY AREA.
THE PROGRAMS IN THE MONITORING SYSTEM WILL RE CONDUCTED
IN THREE PHASES--A 3-YEAR PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE, A 4-YEAR
POSTCONSTRIICTION PHASE, AND A LONG-TERM PHASE. IN THE
PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE, WE WILL SUPPLEMENT EXISTING
INFORMATION AND ESTABLISH BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR
MEASURING FUTURE CHANGES. THE EFFECT OF THE DIVERTED
WATERS ON HYDROLOGICAL AND WATER qUALITY CONDITIONS
AND ON FISH AND WILDLIFE WILL BE ASSESSED IN THE POST-
CONSTRUCTION PHASE. THE INTERAGENCY GROUP WILL USE ALL
THIS INFORMATION TO REFINE THE OPERATING SCHEME AND THE
SCOPE OF THF LONG-TERM MONITORING PHASE.
SLIDE 25 THE PLAN OFFERS MANY BENEFITS. As A RESULT OF THE
REDtICED LAND LOSS FRESHWATER DIVERSION, SALTWATER INTRIISION THAT KILLS
SUPER MARSH VEGETATION AND CREATES OPEN WATER WOULD BE
REDUCED. NIUTRIENTS AND SEIMlENTS IN THE FPESH WATFR
DIVERTED INTO THE ESTUARINE SYSTEM WOULD RESULT IN
HEALTHIER MARSH HABITAT AND WOULD REDU1CE LAND LOSS.
10,500 ACRES OF MARSH AND WOODED SWAMP ADJACENT TO LAKEMAIIREPAS AND LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN WOuL RE SAVED. SALINITY
CONDITIONS FAVORABLE TO FISH AND WILDLIFE WOULD BE
CREATED- OYSTER PRODUCTION WOllLD INCREASE BY 7,600,00nPOIINDS AND THE PRODIICTIVITY OF WHITE SHRIMP, BLUE CRAB,
CROAKER, AND MENHADEN SHOULD GREATLY INCREASE.
SLIDE 26 THE PLAN WOULD ALSO PROVIDE INTANGIBLE BENEFITS.
INTANGIRLE HABITAT CONDITIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL AND NONGAME
BENEFITS SUPER SPECIES AND PRODUCTIVITY OF WOODED SWAMPS ASSOCIATED
WITH FISH AND WILDLIFF WOULD BE IMPROVED- BUSINESS
OPPORTUNITIES IN COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES AND
WILDLIFE INDUSTRIES AND RELATED SlIPPORT INDUSTRIES
WOULD INCREASE-
SLIDE 27 ESTUlARINE SPECIES LESS TOLERANT OF LOW SALINITY WATERS
ADVERSE IMPACTS SUCH AS BROWN SHRIMP, SPECKLED TROUT, AND RED DRU1M MAY
BE DISPLACED EASTWARD BY THE DIVERSION. IN THE SOIITH-
. . . ,.- . •
D-Ai52 726 MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS FRESHWATER 3/3DIVERSION TO LAKE PO..(U) ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT NEW
NSI FE ORLEANS LAl D L CHEW APR 84 /132 N
UNCLA~FIED G±Li
I.".MMMMM
lHl o IIim 2IS
- Q15 111112*2
12
WESTERN nIIADRANT OF LAKF PONTCHARTRAIN, THE DIVERSION
WOIILD INCREASE TURBIDITY, COLIFORM COUNTS, AND OTHER
TYPES OF CHFMICAL CONCENTRATIONS, AND WOULn SLIGHTLY
LOWER TEMPERATURES. THESE IMPACTS WOULD DISSIPATE
RAPIDLY TO THF EAST. WATER OUALITY IMPACTS MAY NOT RE
ANY MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN WHEN TRIBUTARY STREAMS TO LAKE
MAIIREPAS AND LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN HAVF FAIRLY HIGH FLOW.
SLIDE 28 THE FIRST COST OF THE PLAN IS ESTIMATED AT $55.6 MILLION
TABLE WITH ANNUAL CHARGES OF $5.-4 MILLION. THE AVERAGF ANNIIAL
"BONNET CARRE' BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PLAN ARE ESTIMATED AT
PLAN COST" S6.8 MILLION. THE BENEFIT-COST RATIO IS 1.25 TO I.
SLIDE 29 OF THE $55.6 MILLION, THE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TABLE, "REC. COSTS" WOULD COST $742,po0.
SLIDE 30 To IMPLEMENT THE PLAN, WE PROPOSE THAT IINDER OUR
TABLE TRADITIONAL COST SHARING POLICIES THE FIRST COST OF
"BONNET CARRE' $55.6 MILLION BE APPORTIONED AS FOLLOWS: THE FEDERAL
PLAN COST GOVERNMENT WOULD REAR 75 PERCENT OF THE FIRST COSTS OF
APPORTIONMENT" THE DIVERSION STRUCTURE, CHANNELS, LEVEES, AND ASSOCIATED
WORKS, AND 5n7 OF THE FIRST COSTS OF THE RECREATION
FACILITIES OR $41,523,000. THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS'
COSTS WOULD RE f14,npQ,000, AS SHOWN HERE.
SLIDE 31 NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS WOULD BEAR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED
TABLE WITH THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENTS,
B, ONNET CARRE' CURRENTLY ESTIMATED AT $818,000 ANNUALLY. THE CURRENT
"PLAN BREAKDOWN ADMINISTRATION I REVIEWING COST qHARING POLICIES AND
OF NON-FEDERAL COST" FINANCING OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. WHILE
SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COST SHARING IN THE
TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED,
NON-FFDFRAL INTERESTS CAN EXPECT THAT THEIR LEVEL OF ..-
FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION MAY BE GREATER UNDER THE PRESENT
ADMINISTRATION'S COST SHARING POLICIES.
* . , . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ** *. .* '> .* ..-- :. *.
* -. °o.
SLinE 32 IN THE DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIRILITY RETWEEN THE
DIVISION OF PLAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS, THE
RESPONSIBILITIES NON-FEDERAL SpnmSORS' RESPONSIBILITIES ARE: THEY
MUST PROVIDE WITHO11T COST TO THE UNITED STATES,
ALL LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND PIAHTS-OF-WAY NECESSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE WORKS, MOST HOLD AND
SAVE THE iINITEr) STATES FREE FROM DAMAGES, MIUST OPERATE
AND MAINTAIN THE WORKS, MUST CONSTRIBIJTE 257 OF THECONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE nlVFRSION STRIICTIIRE, CHANNELS,
LEVEES, AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AND 50% OF THE CONSTRUCTION -.
COSTS FOR RECREATION FACILITIES, AND MulST ASSURE AFDEIIATF.
PUBLIC ASSESS TO THE PROJECT AREA.
SD3THAT CONCLUDES OUlR DESCRIPTION OF OlR TENTATIVELY
TITLE SLIDE SELECTED PLAN TO DIVERT FRESHWATER TO THE LAKE
PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN ANn MISSISSIPPI SOUND.
(AD LIB CLOSE)
MAY I HAVE THE LIGHTS, PLEASE. THANK YOU FOR
YOllR ATTENTION.
Ii.
STATEMENT OF VICTOR MAVAR AT HEARING ON
MISSISSIPPI/LOUISIANA ESTUARINE DEVELOPMENT
Gulfport, Mississippi, December 15, 1983
My name is Victor Mavar. I am vice-president of Mavar Shrimp &
Oyster Co., Biloxi, Mississippi and I serve on the Estuarine
Development Committee of the American Shrimp Canners and Processors
Association. It is this committee which has spearheaded the
study. Colonel Willis, you already know that I support the project.
Most of my remarks will be directed towards providing additional
background information for those present who may not be familiar
with the work that has taken place on this project.
I have been actively involved in the seafood business all of my
adult life. The same applies to my three older brothers and our
father before us. Our firm has been in existance for 57 years...
since 1926. During this time I have witnessed many changes in the
seafood business in Mississippi and Louisiana.
As far back as I can remember I have heard fishermen and processors
complain about the absence of various fishery species and it was almost
always blamed on the lack of fresh water from the Mississippi River.
The project being discussed tonight originated in 1973, but before
Congress passed the resolution supporting the study we researched
the records of the various seafood commissions and found numerous
references to the lack of fresh water. We found one reference to
I. o.
. .
- ............. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. ..
this matter in the Louisiana Oyster Commission minutes from the
year 1898. However, except for a few small siphons over the
banks of the Mississippi River not much was ever done. There
were many proposals but for one reason or another they never really
got off the ground.
Before this project was presented to the Corps of:Engineers for
study, it was endorsed by the following:
1. Mississippi Marine Conservation Commission
2. Mississippi Marine Resources Council
3. Mississippi Game and Fish Commission
4. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
5. American Shrimp Canners Association
6. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
7. Louisiana Oyster Dealers and Growers Association
8. New Orleans Sportsmen League
9. Louisiana Wildlife Federation
10. Louisiana Wildlife Biologists Association
11. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Once this project got underway interest sparked from other dirEc-
tions and now there are at least two other planned diversions from
the Mississippi River and all have a wide range of support from the
business, sporting and scientific communities.
-2-
................................................................. .'....................."..'-." ....'...........-..-".-.".-" ...-'......-............- ..-..-..".-..-..".-'.-""...".'--.'.''..-..'-.'........"."...".".-. -
-. • | . . . , - , , ° .. - 7 3
all those present
Besides all that, I want to show X" a copy of the study just
completed by the Corps of Engineers. These volumes contain a
mass of engineering, scientific, environmental and economic
data. To the best of my knowledge no stones have been left
unturned. The net of all of this is that controlled amounts
and I repeat . . . controlled amounts of fresh water from
the Mississippi River diverted to the marsh and-estuary will
enhance the habitat for wildlife, sport fish and commercial fish
species. It will also help prevent further deterioration of the -.
marsh.
The purpose of my statement is two fold. First, to once again
wholeheartedly endorse the proposal; and second to point out
to all present that this project is not a quick off the cuff idea
that was hastily put together, but is one that has had ten years
of work put into it by our committees and work since 1976 by
the Corps of Engineers and many agencies of the State and Federal
Government to bring it to this stage. I hope it will go forward
with no delay.
?1
- ..
. . . °.-.
Colonel Willis, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,my name is The statement I will present representsthe views of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries concerningthe proposed plan for controlled introduction of freshwater tothe Pontchartrain Basin, Mississippi Sound, and the Upper Easternmarshes of Louisiana.
Since the turn of the century, state biologists have advocated '""diversion of fresh water from the Mississippi River to adjacentestuarine areas to enhance fisheries production. Over the pastseveral decades, the Department has studied the effects on estuarineproductivity of crevasses and, more recently, Bonnet Carre Spillwayopenings. We have concluded that the short term negative effectsof such events are usually far outweighed by the long term increasesin productivity. Unfortunately, it is the negative effects whichare most often remembered from such an event. For this reasonit is imperative that a clear distinction be made between a floodcontrol Spillway opening and the plan for controlled freshwaterdiversion. Spillway openings are essentially uncontrolled releasesof huge volumes of water for the purpose of flood protection. Theproposed diversion plan under consideration, however, has as itssole purpose, estuarine enhancement, and most importantly, offerscontrolleTd diversions of much smaller volumes of water over anextended period. Since the diversions will be controllable, thetiming and amount of freshwater releases can-Fe managed so thatthe benefits to fish and wildlife are maximized and the negativeeffects minimized. The success of two existing freshwater diversionstructures in Plaquemines Parish, managed in part by the Department,has proven these goals attainable.
The Department is aware that certain fisheries resources willbe displaced. However, we firmly believe that the increase inoverall productivity of the Basin, along with increased utilizationof existing resources, will result in real benefits to the vastmajority of interests.
The proposed salinity management scheme being consideredhere tonite was developed by the Department of Wildlife andFisheries from decades of research and experience. We believeit to be a reasonable and justifiable plan, which will result ina more stable and consistently productive region. We also believe,however, that once the structure is in operation a,] the effectsof the diversions arc;;easured, modifications to the managementscheme are inevitable. We believe, however, that these functionalmodifications can be achieved on a reasonable basis.
While the particulars of the diversion scheme are debatable,the need for controlled, supplemental freshwater input to theBasin is not. Saltwater intrusion has resulted in habitat lossand alterations to large areas of wooded swamp and fresh, brackishand intermediate marshes. This process continues to occur, andthreatens more and more of our coastal region. The Department, aswell as some of your staff, Colonel Willis, recognizes that the
4-
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
. . .. -.... . . . ". .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
diversion plan would not eliminate swamp and marsh loss, butit would significantly reduce the rates of loss throughout theBasln.The instability of salinity conditions which now existin the Basin has contributed to the inconsistency of commercial -and recreational fisheries production, and also has magnifiedthe disastrous effects of occasional floodwaters and domestid'pollution. This problem is sharply illustrated by the declinein oyster production in the Basin over the past 50 years. Assaltwater intrusion progressed, the zone of favorable salinitiesfor oyster production moved landward, and away from the vast,historically productive reefs and firm waterbottoms. The proposed 0freshwater diversion would shift the zone of greatest productivityback to the greatly superior reef areas, which are much lessaffected by floodwaters and pollution, and would help maintaina larger, more favorable, estuarine area.
The Corps of Engineers has understandably emphasized the .benefits to the oyster industry in the proposed plan. The Depart-ment supports the claimed increases in oyster production and perhapsmore importantly, be.lieves that the unclaimed benefits to otherfish, wildlife and land resources will be Eubstantial. The increasein overall productivity of the Basin will provide for larger andmore consistent commercial and recreational harvests, increasedhunting and fishing opportunities, and the preservation of thelocal economies based upon the resources of the Basin.
The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries believes that fresh-water diversion is the single, most effective means by which therate of deterioration ot our coastal areas can be slowed. Forthis reason, the Department commends you Colonel Willis, andyour staff, for the preparation of this plan. The Department .-
strongly endorses the proposed plan and urges all thoseconcerned, .-
to give it their favorable consideration.
•U .
S - v
.................................................................
United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
101 F tA'I *iL s r% F I IM,
I At A Y II 1 4 )IkI'ANA 1i
STAr6MENT OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ". "PRESENTED AT PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS
THE TENTATIVE PLAN FOR FRESHWATER DIVERSIONIJTO TIE LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND
Presented December 6, 13, and 15, 1983
Colonel Lee, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, my name isGerald bodin. I am presenting.this sta.-ment on behalf of Mr. JamesPulliam, Regional Direct.or, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,Georgia. My statement represents the views of the Fish and WildlifeService on the tentatively selected plan for freshwater introductioninto the Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound ofsoutheastern Louisiana and southwestern Mississippi.
Louisiana's coastal swamps and marshes are being lost at a rateexceeding 29,000 acres per year, and indications are that this rateis increasing. This alarming decline is an item of serious concernto the Fish and Wildlife Service because of the national importanceof Louisiana's coastal wetlands to migratory waterfowl and othermigratory birds, fur animal and alligator harvests, and sport andcommerci.l fisheries. In contrast, Mississippi's coastal swamps andmarshes are much more stable, having a loss rate of less than 300acres per .'ear.
The re-introduction of Mississippi River water into Louisiana'ssubdelta marshes has been recommended for decades as a viable meansof reducing saltwater intrusion and wetlands deterioration. Plansare presently being developed under another study to divertMississippi R iver water into Louisiana's Barataria and Breton Sound133sins. Substantial benefits to fish and wildlife are expected toresult from these diversions. The plan developed under the presentstudy recommends that a major freshwater diversion structure beinstalled in the Bonnet Carre Spillway in St. Charles Parish,Louisiana.
The tentatively selected plan would result in substantial benefits tofish and wildlife, based on studies conducted jointly by the Fish andWildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, and Louisiana Department ofWildlife and Fisheries in consultation with the Mississippi Bureau ofl;arine Resources, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, and National Marine1.isheries Service. Some of these benefits include:
o a reduction of I0,5O0 acres in the amount ofcoastal ..wetlands 1ost in the study -irva over the
next 't) vears; .-
* a reductirn in saltwater intrusion and creation
C 1of tp of 'iv reimire more favorable to fish and
- .• . .
wildlife;
" an average net increase of. 8.2 million pounds peryear in estuarine commercial fisheries landingsvalued at $6.3 million;
o an average increase in sportfishing effort valuedat more than $400,000 annually; and
" a net increase in freshwater commercial fisherieslandings, fur animal and alligator harvests, andgame and non-game wildlife populations.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is in full support of freshwaterdiversion at the location indicated in the tentatively selected plan.We are convinced that, from the biological standpoint, the d,' ersionlocation selected is superiof to the other sites evaluated. Beinglocated in a historically freshwater environment, distant from primeestuarine nursery grounds, the structure will allow freshwater flowto restore more favorable salinity conditions ii, the stressedcypress-tupelo swamps and marshes along the western shore of LakePontchartrain; this will also allow for a reduction of excessnutrients and pollutants and for greater solar heating of the coolerMississippi River water prior to its reaching the prime estuarinenursery grounds. Furthermore, fresh water diverted at this locationwould more effectively and efficiently accomplish the study goalsthan at the locations considered downstream from New Orleans.
The Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that the following mea.-uresbe implemented in the interest of fish and wildlife conservation:
1. the tentatively selected plan be recommendedfor authorization and
2. iost-authorization studies be conducted to developoperational atod maintenance guidelines for theproposed diversion structure and to designmonitoring plans for the affected area.
In closing, it should be emphasized that the proposed diversion plan.ill not totally solve th.o wetlands loss problem in the study area,let alone the entire coastal region of Loui-sIana and Mississippi.Efforts must be intensified to reduce wetland loss and saltwater -
intrusion throughout the coastal zone. Such efforts must includeimproved design and maintenance of water resource projects, improvedmitigation of damages associated with canal dredging and otherregulated works, and improved management of freshwater and sedimentto maximize delta building and minimize saltwater intrusion and marshloss . All of these efforts, including tine proposed diversion plan,
are needed if the rich renewable resources of the Northern Gulf Coastare to bc maintained for generations yet to come.
Thank you.
.........................................
TESTIMONY OF
GULF STATES 14A1I1E FISHERIES COMMISSION
ON
FRESHWATER DIVERSION TO LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN
AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND
PRESENTED BEFORE THE
U.S. ARMIlf CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PUBLIC HEARING - GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI
DECEMBER 15, 1983
2-- 1i:. . . ..
.. ? -
My name is Larry B. Simpson and I am the Executive
Director of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
The Commission is a five-state compact created by an Act of
Congress, PL 81-66, for the better utilization of fisheries
(marine, shell and anadromous) of the Gulf coast. The
Commission represents the states of Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama and Florida on fishery matters of
mutual concern to those states and their fishery
constituents. It is the purpose of this compact
to promote the better utilization and prevent the physical
waste of fisheries from any cause. As a result of this
charge we are pleased to comment favorably on the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers project for freshwater diversion to Lake
Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound.
This Commission has for many years supported the plans
for this project through our Technical Coordinating
Committee (TCC). We support and endorse the comments of
Dr. Ted B. Ford, chairman of the TCC, and Dr. David J.
Etzold, monitor of this project for the TCC.
For centuries the normal chain of events for the lower
delta of the Mississippi River were seasonal flooding,
followed by periods of normal river flow within its banks.
The periodic flooding of the r.-rshes was an accepted natural
occurrence since little could be done to prevent the
overflow. This flooding brought the needed freshwater to
maintain consistent salinity regimes which had long been
established. Flooding also brought needed nutrients to
support plant growth which led to the production of organic
detritus for fisheries production. In this necessary
habitat ior their survival fur-bearing animals thrived. The
marsh areas, wooded swamps and bottomland supported vast
quantities of wildlife.
Ilan expanded his living area and utilized his
technology to prevent flooding by building mechanisms to
keep the river's flow confined. This has caused the
fisheries, wildlife and land of that area to decline in
quantity and vitality.
Saltwater intrusion is a major problem in the eastern
Louisiana marshes. Recent studies have indicated the
average land loss rate for coastal Louisiana is
approximately iorty (40) square miles per year. With the
controlled introduction of freshwater into these marshes man
can moderate that which he has affected by restricting
freshwater flow within the banks of the Mlississippi River.
Freshwater diversion has been shown to be favorable for
increased fish and shellfish production as well as wildlife
production. Without this controlled freshwater diversion,
the saline zone will move further still than it already has
moved shoreward. The more desirable fresh and intermediate
marshes will be replaced with more saline marshes gradually
destroying vegetation which holds the soil together and
causing the loss of land by erosion. In Breton Sound Bas.-h'n
current studies indicated a land loss rate of 1.6 square
miles per year.
We have the ability now to reverse this trend and to
increase our fisheries production, as well as aid the
fur-bearing animals in this area. This at, as you
indicated, a 1.25 to 1 positive cost benefit ratio if the
project is carried out.
The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission therefore
supports this project for the controlled introduction of
freshwater into the Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi
Sound and encourages the completion and operation of the
project for the benefit of Mississippi and Louisiana as well
as for the entire Nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment for the
record.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
FORM LETTER
* EAST BANK FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION~
Exhibit 4
- *. .- .
February 9, 1984
Colonel Robert C. LeeDepartment of the ArmyNew Orleans District, Corps of EngineersP. 0. Box 60267New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
Colonel:
My name is I am a commercial fishermanthat fishes Lake Pontchartzain, Lake Borgne and the Louisianamarsh area (Biloxi marsh). I fish shrimp, crabs and fin fihhand every time we get any excessive amounts of fresh water welose a large amount of our income. It makes no difference ifthe water comes from the Pearl River, rain water runoff or thespilway, the result is the same, "DISASTER"!
Last year the spilway was opened and we lost the total spring "brown shrimp season in Lake Pontchartrain. I had to go furtheracross Lake Borgne and fish the marsh. This costs more moneybecause it is a longer run to the fishing grounds and I use moregas. What is worse is that the shrimp I caught was smaller andworth only about one third of what they would have been worthif caught in Lake Pontchartrain.
We also lost all our green crabs when the river water reachedthe Chef and the Rigolets passes. Soft crabs are a big partof some crab fishermen's income and when the fresh water comesit kills them all! Not to mention the loss of the hard crabcatch.
Some of us fish fin fish in Lake Borgne. So far this fall andwinter has been so bad that it is not worth setting nets on aregular basis, in fact most of us cannot even pay for the cost,of operation.
I am totaly against diverting Mississippi River water into LakePontchartrain any time, except during extreme flooding emergencieswhen people's lives are seriously being threatened. The silt,fresh water, lower water temperature and pollution will rauseserious problems for commercial fishermen throughout the %rea.
I was told that even though the written comment period was overJanuary 16, Mr. Falcolm E. Hull said that they would acceptcomments untill the end of February.
Thank You,
tit...
.....................
p.
1.
V..
p. -
I
FILMEDC
5-85
DTIC(
.....-. . ..-...... ,... ---. 9. .9 . .9
. . . . . .
.9.. .9> -,.%*..% . . . 9.............
