[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
I coastal zone management in the metropolitan | new orleans region I Ii, j:' I / Is S0 urban studies institute university of new orleans 1 9 P � f#t '-+ s %I ~~~ ~~~~~~I ,,,: I , r > ;z~~~~ I' i rA I - - 'A 'I 2, ."I -/ V q if i ; I I ' I li C s -' HT 394 .N4 C63 1976 . 1 '. 'i1. - i , ' f- / ,597 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN NEW ORLEANS REGION 4 by Anthony J. Mumphrey, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., A.I.P. _ Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning Project Director H. Wade VanLandingham, M.U.R.P. Research Associate Alma H. Young, M.S. Research Associate Edwin J. Durabb, B.S., Assoc. A.I.P. Graduate Research Assistant Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This study was completed under Louisiana State Planning Office Contract Number SPO-76-23. NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Louisiana State Planning Office in the interest of infor- mation exchange. The State of Louisiana assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. AUGUST 1976 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMEF COASTAL SERVICES CENTER PropertY Of CSC Library it I I I ;t I I I m I - t__ RCE NOAA ? - J4 SO,UUIH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 ABSTRACT The New Orleans metropolitan region, which is comprised of Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes, is located within the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Much of the region's land area is wetland. Since these wetlands are an integral part of the ecologic-economic system of Louisiana and largely influence the lifestyle of the region, the parishes of the metropolitan region and the State of Louisiana realize that careful wetlands management is essential. In line with this, the parishes are presently in various stages of developing coastal zone management (CZM) plans for their areas. This study is meant to provide the parishes informa- tioni which will facilitate the formulation of these plans. In Chapter 1, a CZM directory of resource persons who may be of assistance in the preparation of local CZM plans is presented. The directory (for which names and addresses are presented in the Appendix 1.1) is subdivided into three main categories: 1) technical experts in coastal studies; 2) special interest groups which are major users of the coastal zone; and 3) general interest groups comprised of those persons who participate in coastal activities on a more ad hoc basis. Current coastal activities, uses, and management efforts are discussed in Chapter 2. The first part of the chapter describes coastal uses and activities such as residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; recreation; flood (ii) control; navigation canals; water quality and wastewater treatment; and others. The ecosystem impacts of these uses and activities are also considered. The second part of the chapter presents an overview of the parishes' CZM efforts. The Appendix 2.1 contains an annotated bibliography of the parishes' coastal management and planning documents. Using the planning technique known as the planned requirements approach, Chapter 3 projects the amount and location of various categories of land use by parish within the region for the years 1980 and 1985. Land use allocations to the parishes are made on the basis of employment, popula- tion and density projections, opinions of experts in the parishes, existing and projected transportation infrastructure in the region, project housing costs, existing land available for development, the existing locations of business and industry, and other factors. Chapter 4 describes the processes through which various types of projects are initiated, approved, and carried through to the implementation stage. The types of projects discussed are those that involve extraction of minerals, transportation, and reclamation of wetlands. In Chapter 5, a model for state coastal zone management plans is developed. The progress in developing CZM plans for each parish is outlined. Following that, the existing parish CZM plans are described and compared to the mnodel as well as to the proposed Louisiana Coastal Resources program. (iii) The purpose for presenting this information is that it should be integrated into local coastal management efforts in the New Orleans metropolitan region. Hopefully it will make developing of CZM plans a less arduous task and will result in improved planning for the use of the region's coastal resources. (iv) PREFACE In completing this study, the authors' intention is to provide information of several dimensions for use in the development of Coastal Zone Management Plans in the parishes of the metropolitan New Orleans region--Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany. The study is intended to lead to judicious utilization of the resources in the Louisiana coastal zone. Many people assisted in the preparation of this study and they are listed in the references presented throughout the text. Included are persons at each the four parishes' planning agencies; at the Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes; and other individuals in public and private agencies and firms. Lynne Hair and James Renner of the State Planning Office (SPO) provided technical and administrative coordi- nation between the SPO and the Urban Studies Institute. The authors wish to express their gratitude to all those who provided valuable assistance. A.J.M., Jr. Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans August, 1976 (v) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. A CZM RESOURCE DIRECTORY ..1............ IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..1....... A DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCE DIRECTORY....... 5 Technical Experts.................6 Special Interest Groups..............6 General Interest Groups..............9 APPENDIX l.l1--CZM Resource Directory.........11 By Category....................13 By Parish.....................52 2. CURRENT COASTAL ACTIVITIES, USES AND MANAGEMENT EFFORTS .......................72 INTRODUCTION.....................72 CURRENT COASTAL USES AND ACTIVITIES .........73 Land Use .....................73 New Orleans ..................74 Jefferson ...................77 St. Bernard ..................79 St. Tammany ..................79 Recreation .....: ........83 Commercial Fisheries and Trapping.........91 Flood and Storm Protection ............105 Major Navigation Canals..............116 Water Quality and Wastewater Treatment ......130 Water Supply..................131 Wastewater Treatment..............131 Water Pollution Control Efforts ........134 Air Pollution and Solid Waste .........135 CURRENT COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS .......137 New Orleans....................139 St. Bernard....................149 Jefferson.....................156 St. Tammany....................158 CONCLUSION ...............160 APPENDIX 2. 1-Bibliography of Parish CZM Dcmns 162 3. LAND REQUIREMENTS BY CATEGORY: 1980-1985.......178 PURPOSE AND SCOPE..................178 OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH .......180 POPULATION DATA BASE AND PROJECTIONS TO 1985.....183 EMPLOYMENT DATA BASE AND PROJECTIONS TO 1985.....184 LAND USE DATA AND SELECTION OF THE BASE YEAR.....188 PROJECTION OF LAND REQUIREMENTS ...........196 LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE NEW ORLEANS SMSA, 1972 ...198 THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: ITS EFFECTS ON THE ACCESSIBILITY OF DEVELOPABLE LAND ..........203 HOUSING COSTS AND-INCOME .......... ....209 (vi) CHAPTER PAGE1 SCENARIO I: HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ON AVAILABLE PRIME LAND.................212� Population Distribution Without Wetlands Reclamation: Evaluation of Scenario I.......219 SCENARIO II: THE PROBABLE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, 1980, 1985.....225 Evaluation of Land Use Projections: Scenario II....................230 NOTES ON THE INTRAPARISH DISTRIBUTION POPULATION AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: AN INTERPRETATION UNDER SCENARIO II ..................239 APPENDIX 3.1--Definitions, Land Use Classification. 252 4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS AFFECTING WETLANDS. ...258 TYPES OF PROJECTS ..................258 Extractive Industries...............259I Transportation ..................262 Reclamation....................270 SUMMARY .......................273I APPENDIX 4.1--Environmental Permitting Process. ...275 5. DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT3 PROGRAM AND AN EVALUATION OF CZM PROGRAMS IN THE NEW ORLEANS SMSA ...............284 INTRODUCTION.....................284 Nature of the Coastal Zone ............284 I Louisiana: A State of Wetlands ..........287 Problems of the Louisiana Coastal Zone ......290 The Delicate Ecologic Cycle ..........290 I Destruction of the Coast............294 A MODEL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .......295 Considerations of a Model Coastal Zone Management Plan..................296 Ecological Considerations ...........297 Economic Criteria...I.....I.......307 Aesthetic Considerations............327 Legal and Political Considerations.......332 A Decisionmaking Framework for the Coastal Zone. 340 Problems ......... ..........341I Bias in Federal Legi slation ..........342 Goals .....................343 A Model ....................345 A CZM Statute.................346� The Test....................347 EVALUATING COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR THE NEW ORLEANS SMSA ................347� INTRODUCTION.....................347 The State Coastal Resources Program........349 Local Requirements...............349I Goals and Objectives..............351 (vi i) CHAPTER PG PAGE CZM Plans of SMSA Parishes............ Jefferson Parish ............... St. Tammany Parish .............. St. Bernard Parish .............. Orleans Parish ................ EVALUATION OF LOCAL PLANS UNDER THE STATE COASTAL RESOURCES PROGRAM.................. St. Bernard Parish................ Problems in Evaluation ............ Evaluation .................. Orleans Parish.................. Volume I ................... Volume II................... Volume III .................. Summary.................... EVALUATION UNDER THE PROPOSED CZM MODEL....... St. Bernard Parish................ Orleans Parish.................. Ecological Parameter ............. Economic Parameter .............. Aesthetic Considerations ........... Legal and Political Considerations ...... Public Participation ............. Social Considerations............. Goals and Objectives ............. Conclusions.................. APPENDIX 5.1I-Recommended Measures for CZM Implementation ................ 352 353 353 354 356 357 357 357 358 362 362 365 371 377 379 379 380 380 381 383 384 384 385 386 386 388 (viii) CHAPTER I A CZM RESOURCE DIRECTORY IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The purpose of this chapter is to provide parish governments in the New Orleans Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)--Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard and St. Tammirany--with a resource directory of local individuals and groups who are interested and influential in the coastal zone and may be of assistance in the preparation of local coastal zone management plans. The directory is divided into three categories: (1) technical experts, comprised of heads of federal and state agencies which are located within the parishes, academics and researchers, and planners in the area; (2) special interest groups, comprised of major users of the coastal zone, including advocates for development and for preservation or conservation; and (3) general interest groups, comprised of those who participate in coastal activities on a more ad hoe basis. The directory will enable local officials to identify individuals who may assist them develop a coastal zone management plan by providing ideas and feedback. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (U.S. Congress, 1972) established a national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, to restore coastal resources. It provided funds enabling 30 states to develop and administer qualifying programs. The law requires public i participation in coastal zone management programs. Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 states "that it is the national policy to encourage the participation of3 the public-..in the development of a Coastal Zone Management program". The Act requires that open public hearings be held prior to any plan approval, with public notice given 30 days prior to the hearing, and that all pertinent agency material be made available for public review during that time3 (section 1454). The Louisiana State Planning Office (SPO) also recognizes the need for public participation in the develop- ment of a coastal zone management (CZM) program. SPO would urge local governments developing a CZM program to provide3 a "full opportunity for public participation and involvement of interested persons" (State Planning Office, 1976). In3 developing its own CZM program, the state encouraged public participation by holding a series of public meetingsI throughout the state (Cote de la Louisiane, 1975).3 Public participation can be of immense assistance to local governments in developing a CZM program. "ThroughI citizen involvement.- .public needs and aspirations can be reflected in use decisions for the coastal zone and publicI support for the management program can be generated"3 (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration as cited in Shabman, 1974: 197). Without the involvement of a broad 2 range of public groups, the local governments may find them- selves working in a vacuum, developing programs that are neither feasible for their constituents nor capable of being implemented. To avoid working in isolation, local governments need to facilitate communication between themselves and the public. The more information a government official has, the more alert he is to alternatives and consequences (Shabman, 1974: 199). The first step in this process of facilitating communi- cations is to bring to the attention of large segments of the public the importance of developing a CZM program. A recent study of Louisiana residents showed that only a small percentage of respondents expressed an awareness of current environmental planning. Only about 21 percent felt ecological problems represented an immediate area of concern for the coastal areas (Pinkey and Paterson, 1976). Local governments should encourage citizen input at three stages in the development of the CZM program (Roy Mann Associates, 1975: 119-124). The first stage, that of pre- planning, is important in terms of engendering public confidence. Pre-planning also figures in the recording of factual information on resource supply and public demand. Planners can also use this opportunity to inform the public of their preliminary intentions. In order to elicit citizen input at the pre-planning stage, several tools can be used: public opinion polls or 3 questionnaires, which tend to be expensive; citizens' advisory committees, which can result in under- representation or important groups; use of the media, which provides one-way communication yet can increase the awareness of large groups of people; and public meetings, which encour- age two-way communication between planners and interested citizens. The second stage of citizen input is the planning stage. Fewer members can participate at this working stage when the actual plan is being developed. Those who do participate should fully represent the coastal zone consti- tuency. The tools used at this stage can include workshops and public meetings, at which groups meet with planners to discuss alternatives and strategies. The planning stage should coincide with the process steps of performing a resource inventory, evaluating identified resources and determining the compatibility of these resources with resource use anaI development. The third is the post-plan commentary stage, during which the public is invited to review the plan and to provide further input before the final plan is adopted. The tools used at this stage can include public hearings, follow-up public meetings, and public review of draft documents in conjunction with public meetings. Care must be taken that the public does not think that input is limited to elites, or is too exclusive. The first step in eliciting public participation is to define the 4 coastal zone constituency as broadly as possible. One wants to define the coastal zone constituency in its broadest sense so as "to reduce the more extreme cases of inequitable distribution of costs and benefits" among the coastal user groups. In other words, one wants to ensure social equity among the groups (Deckert and Sorensen, 1974: 42). To ensure social equity, one needs to: 1) define the composition of interest and socioeconomic groups within the coastal zone; and 2) motivate all groups, especially the unorganized groups that will be affected by a coastal program, to participate in the development of a coastal zone program. A DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCE DIRECTORY The entries in the resource directory were obtained from a variety of sources. It began with a preliminary list of individuals and groups interested in the coastal zone taken from Survival in the City: An Urban/Environmental Resource Directory (Wagner, 1976). Key persons on that preliminary list were then asked for names of individuals and groups that they know to be interested in the coastal zone. The chief planner in each parish was asked to identify individuals and user groups whose input he consiered vital in developing a CZM plan. The resource directly is divided into three categories: technical experts, special interest groups and general interest groups (see Appendix 1.1). 5 Technical Experts At present none of the four parishes has a CZM program and, therefore, has no centralized body which handles all aspects of the coastal zone. Instead, various agencies are responsible for regulating different aspects of the environ- ment (New Orleans City Planning Commission, 1975: 39-52). The staff of the federal and state agencies that are located within the region and deal specifically with the coastal zone are listed. Also included in this category are academics, researchers and consultants who have been involved in research on the coastal zone. The official parish planners in the region are also included. Special Interest Groups Interest groups that make major use of the coastal zone have been identified from the names suggested by the parish planners during interviews with them, from the interest groups suggested by HE 1315 (1976) for representa- tion on the proposed Louisiana Coastal Commission, and those listed by the State Planning Office in its Proposed Coastal Resources Management Statute (March 1976). Also used is information provided by the Louisiana Advisory Commission (1973) in its inventory of Louisiana's Coastal Zone. The aim is to provide a list that is as broad-based as possible, including those who favor minimal limitations on the use of coastal resources as well as those who advocate a conserva- tionist or preservationist policy. The assumption is that 6 conflict is an integral aspect of CZM and any coastal zone program will reflect a compromise of the wishes of the user groups (Mogulof, 1975). The list includes: A. Environmental Groups--These groups have proven themselves strong enough to be able to stop major projects in their implementation stage if the projects were considered to have a potentially negative impact on the environment. B. Commercial Fishing/Trapping--In 1974, the total landed value of commercial fisheries in Louisiana was $86,694,000, representing a total catch of 1,228.9 million pounds (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975: 18). Commercial fishing employs approximately 13,000 people (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975: 76). In 1974, fur, hide and meat taken in the coastal zone amounted to approximately $8.9 million (Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, 1975). C. Sport Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Recreation-- In 1970, sport fishermen in Louisiana landed about 60,443,755 pounds of fish (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 108). In the four parishes, 48,620 hunting licenses and 52,304 fishing licenses were issued during the 1970-71 season (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 111). D. Seafood Restaurants--No one has estimated how much of New Orleans' tourism is dependent upon its nationally acclaimed seafood restaurants, but it is assumed to be considerable. 7 E. Agriculture and Forestry--Louisiana's coastalU zone has 10.8 million acres with 3.6 million acres suitable for farming. In 1972, the agricultural3 products of rice, soybeans, sugar cane and beef cattle brought in $240.3 million. Soybeans3 brought St. Tammiany $66,200; beef cattle brought Jefferson $157,500, St. Bernard $60,000, and St. Tammany $580,000 (Louisiana Advisory Commission,I 1973: 38, 43). F. Ports and Shipping--In 1974, the Now Orleans port, the second largest in the United States in tonnage handled, accounted for 7.7 million tons of generalI cargo (Board of Commissioners, Port of New Orleans, 1974: 12).3 G. Shell Dredging and Sand--In 1970, shells in Louisiana had a retail value of $18 million. In 1970, sand3 in Louisiana had a retail value of $8.2 million. About 45 percent of the sand produced in the coastal3 zone parishes comes from the five parishes border- ing on Lake Pontchartrain (Louisiana AdvisoryI Commission, 1973: 53,55). H. Realtors, homebuilders association, and land3 developers--The many new developments being planned and built in the region, such as Orlandia and Beau Chene, attest to the important role that theseI groups have assumed within the parishes. I. Commercial and Industrial Interests--Industrial investment in the New Orleans area increased by 104 percent from 1969 to 1973. Commercial office space added during the past five years advanced by 83 percent in the New Orleans area, while3 commercial shopping center space grew by 52 per- cent (Economic Development Council, 1974: 1).3 8 J. Oil and Gas--An estimated 47 oil or gas pipelines pass through the wetlands in the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson and St. Bernard (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 85). In 1974, gas and oil pipe line companies in Louisiana were assessed $480.5 million by the Louisiana Tax Commission. In 1975, these companies were assessed $491.5 million (Louisiana Tax Commission, 1976: 10, 102). General Interest Groups This category includes groups that are not as directly involved in the coastal zone as those in category II, but who would nonetheless be affected by the ramifications of such a policy. A. Minorities have tended not to become involved in environmental issues. But in developing a coastal zone program, there are aspects that would involve them. For instance, will the program result in more or fewer jobs in the coastal zone; will there be greater or less public access to the beaches and scenic areas along the coastal zone. Also, coastal zone regulation tends to drive up the value of existing residential units, making them less accessible to minority and poor occupants (Mogulof, 1975: 35). B. Good Government Advocates would want to ensure that any CZM plan contains the attributes of "efficiency, equity, comprehensiveness and implementability" (Bobo, Mumphrey, and VanLandingham, 1976: 45). 9 C. Media personnel can be of great assistance to local officials in educating the general public about the need for a CZM plan and the ways in which they can become involved. D. General Public includes persons who have shown an interest in environmental matters. E. Community/Consumer Groups--Spokesmen for these groups are able to offer basic, "grassroots" information on how their constitutents use the resources of the coastal zone. 10~~~~~~~~~~ APPENDIX 1.1 CZM RESOURCE DIRECTORY TABLE OF CONTENTS By Category PAGE I. TECHNICAL EXPERTS....................13 A. Academics in Marine Research............13 B. Federal, State, and Parish Agencies Located in the Region--Field Agents..............18 Federal Agencies.................18 State Agencies..................21 Parish Agencies .................23 New Orleans ..................23 Jefferson ...................25 St. Bernard ..................26 St. Tammany ..................27 C. Official Planners .................28 D. Consulting Engineers, Architects, and Planners ..29 II. SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.................34 A. Environmental Groups................34 B. Commercial Fishing/Trapping ............36 C. Sport Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Recreation.. 37 D. Seafood Restaurants ................39 E. Agriculture and Forestry..............39 F. Shipping and Ports.................40 G. Shell Dredging and Sand Companies .........40 H. Homebuilders, Land Developers, and Realtors ....42 I. Commercial and Industrial Interests ........43 J. Oil and Gas Producers ...............44 III. GENERAL INTEREST GROUPS.................45 A. Minorities.....................45 B. Good Government Advocates .............46 C. Media .......................47 D. General Public...................49 E. Community/Consumer Groups .............51 By Parish SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS Environmental Groups..................52 St. Tammany Parish................52 Orleans Parish..................52 Jefferson Parish.................54 East Baton Rouge Parish .............54 11 PAGE3 Commercial Fishing/Trapping ..............54 St. Tammnany Parish................54 Jefferson Parish.................55 St. B3ernard Parish................55 Sport Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Recreation ... ..551 St. Tammany Parish................55 Orleans Parish..................55 Jefferson Parish.................561 St. Bernard Parish................57 Agriculture and Forestry................57 St. Tammany Parish................57 Orleans Parish..................57 Jefferson Parish.................57 East Baton Rouge Parish .............57 Rapides Parish..................57 Shipping and Ports...................58 Orleans Parish..................585 Shell Dredging and Sand Companies ...........58 Orleans Parish..................58 Jefferson Parish .................591 St. Tammany Parish................59 St. Bernard Parish................59 Homebuilders, Land Developers, and Realtors ... . ..591 St. Tammany Parish................59 Orleans Parish..................60 Jefferson Parish.................605 Commercial and Industrial Interests ..........61 St. Tammany Parish................61 Orleans Parish..................611 Oil and Gas Producers .................61 Orleans Parish..................61 East Baton Rouge Parish .............623 Minorities.......................62 Orleans Parish..................62 Jefferson Parish.................633 Good Government Advocates ...............63 St. Tammany Parish................63 Orleans Parish..................63 I Media .........................65 St. Tammany Parisbh................65 Orleans Parish..................65 3 Jefferson Parish.................66 General Public.....................66 Orleans Parish..................66 Jefferson Parish.................68 Community/Consumer Groups ...............68 St. Tammany Parish................68 Orleans Parish..................68 Jefferson Parish.................69 1 9 1 By Category I. Technical Experts A. Academics in Marine Research* Barry J. Baroni (J.D., Loyola University of the South; LL.M., Tulane University) Associate Professor, Department of Management and Marketing University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x481 Interest Categories: 8, 17** John L. Fischer (Ph.D., Harvard University) Professor, Department of Anthropology Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-865-5336 Interest Categories: 10, 16 Earl J. Hedrick, Jr. (M.L.A., Harvard University) Associate Professor, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Frank L. Keller (Ph.D., University of Maryland) Professor, Department of Economics Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-865-5321 Interest Categories: 7, 19 John L. Laseter (Ph.D., University of Houston) Professor/Chairman, Department of Biological Sciences University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x307 Interest Category: 22 Victor J. Law (Ph.D. Tulane University) Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-865-4181 Interest Categories: 1, 3, 15 Peggy A. Lentz (Ph.D., Clark University (Massachusetts)) Assistant Professor, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x 277 Interest Category: 10 13 ! ! Leonard B. Lipson (Ph.D., University of Texas, Austin) Special Lecturer, Departmentaf Management and Marketing University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-523-2145 Interest Categories: 6, 17, 21 Anthony J. Mumphrey, Jr. (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania) Associate Professor, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Interest Categories: 10, 17, 19 Chester A. Peyronnin, Jr. (M.S., Illinois Institute of Technology) Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-865-6176 Interest Categories: 14, 17, 21 Michael A. Poirrier (Ph.D., Louisiana State University) Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x310 Interest Category: 4 Edwin P. Russo 5 (Ph.D., Louisiana State University) Associate Professor, Department of Engineering University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x327 Interest Categories: 11, 12, 13, 17 Ralph E. Thayer (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) Associate Professor/Director, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Interest Categories: 9, 10, 17, 18, 19 Fredrick W. Wagner (Ph.D., University of Washington) Assistant Professor, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Interest Categories: 19, 20, 23 1 George W. Webb (M.S., Columbia University) Associate Professor, Department f Electrical Engineering Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-865-4411 Interest Categories: 11, 17 *Source: The Center for Wetlands Resources (1975) Marine Research Interest in Louisiana Universities. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University. **Categories of interest: 1. Aquaculture--Crustaceans 2. Aquaculture--Finfish 3. Aquaculture--Mollusks 4. Biological Oceanography 5. Pathology of Marine Organisms 6. Mineral Resources 7. Marine Economics 8. Ocean Law 9. Recreation 10. Socio-Political Studies 11. Vehicles, Vessels and Platforms 12. Materials and Structures 13. Coastal Engineering 14. Dredging 15. Commercial Fisheries--Technology 16. Man-in-the-Sea 17. Ports, Harbors, and Offshore Terminals 18. Transportation Systems 19. Coastal Zone Management--Social Studies 20. Coastal Zone Management--Natural Sciences and Engineering 21. Ecosystems Research 22. Pollution--Oil Spills 23. Pollution--Other 24. Environmental Models--Physical Processes 15 I H. Wade VanLandingham 3 (M.U.R.P., University of New Orleans) Research Associate, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Alma H. Young (M.S., Columbia University) Research Associate, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Gino D. Carlucci (B.A., Georgetown University) Research Assistant, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 3 Edwin J. Durabb (B.A., Louisiana State University) Research Assistant, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Sharon Tusa lalperin I (B.A., University of New Orleans) Research Assistant, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Martha J. Landry (B.S., Nicholls State University) Research Assistant, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 John C. Miller (B.A., Louisiana Tech University) Research Assistant, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Stephen D. Villavaso (M.U.R.P., University of New Orleans) Research Assistant, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 John S. Waterman (M.A., University of New Orleans) Research Assistant, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 I 16 U Thomas B. Whalen (B.S., Centenary College) Research Assistant, Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Other individuals to contact: Lydia M. Frenzel (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin) Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x311 Mary L. Good (Ph.D., University of Arkansas) Boyd Professor of Chemistry University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x311 John U. Hidalgo Engineering Sciences Environmental Center School of Engineering Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-865-6105 J. Walter Mason (D. Se., Tulane University) Department of Environmental Health Sciences Tulane Riverside Research Laboratories Belle Chasse, Louisiana 70037 504-394-2233 Joel E. Massey Department of Environmental Health Technology Division of Allied Health Delgado Junior College New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-7393 x283 William Wesley Shaw (Ph.D., Princeton University) Professor, Urban Studies Center Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-865-6131 William K. Turner (M. Arch., University of Pennsylvania) Professor/Dean, School of Architecture Tulane University 6823 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-865-6472 17 B. Federal, State, and Parish Agencies Located in the Region-- Field Agents3 Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers3 New Orleans District Office Colonel Early J. Rush III Robert Buisson, Environmental Section Charles Decher, Permitting Section P.O. Box 60267 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 504-865-11211 U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Marine Environmental Protection Department5 Lieutenant H.N. Young5 Paul Dicharry, Environmental Impact 4640 Urquhart Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 504-527-71713 U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service, Parish Agents I I Jefferson George Queen P.O. Box 9160 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 504-436-4054 Orleans William Green 315 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 St. Tammany Billie Mussell White Route 4, Box 188 A-1 Covington, Louisiana 70443 St. Bernard Luke Provenzano Parish Courthouse, Room 305 Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 Kermit Braud Room 820, Courthouse Gretna, Louisiana 70053 504-367-6611 504-524-1131 I I 504-892-4917 I I 504-279-9402 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Forest Experiment Station Dr. John C. Barker 701 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-589-6800 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Daniel W. Clement (Jefferson, St. Bernard and Orleans) AAA Building North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-831-3211 I I Service I I 18 I Lionel Hinchee (St. Tammany) P.O. Box 159 Covington, Louisiana 70043 504-892-0853 U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Southeast Regional Office: William H. Stevenson Duval Building 9450 Gandry Boulevard N. St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 813-826-3141 New Orleans Office: Edward J. Barry, Marketing News Reporter Orville M. Allen, Fisheries Statistics 546 Caronde let New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-589-6151 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Planning and Development Division Thomas J. Armstrong 1001 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-589-2487 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management New Orleans Outer Continental Shelf Office John Rankin Suite 841 Hale B3oggs Federal Building 600 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-837-4720 202-343-5741 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation John Coutcher, Director Washington, D. C. 20240 Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Law Enforcement Lawrence C. Wills 546 Carondelet Street, Room 100 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-589-2334/504-589-2692 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Morris Reinhardt, Director 750 Florida Avenue Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70815 504-387-0181 19 I I I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lower Mississippi River Facility NASA Test Facility, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi Thomas F. Beckers P.O. Drawer N Slidell, Louisiana 70458 601-688-2265 New Orleans, Louisiana 504-822-4190 x2265 I I I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory Las Vegas Land and Water Quality Field Investigation James Butch, Director 6130 Renoir Drive Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70815 504-924-1381 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I State Agencies Louisiana Air Control Commission James F. Coerver P.O. Box 60630 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 504-527-5115 Louisiana Conservation Department (Oil and Gas Only) Benjamin F. Walsh, Manager William Clark, District Engineer 325 Loyola Avene New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-527-8404 Louisiana Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Donna Irvin 300 Louisiana Avenue Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70815 504-389-5664 Louisiana Department of Commerce and Industry Richard Guthrie International Trade Mart New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-527-5401 Louisiana State Forestry Commission James Nixon, State Forester D.L. McTatter, Associate 5150 Florida Boulevard Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70815 504-389-7121 Louisiana State Attorney General Environmental Protection Unit Richard Troy 234 Loyola Avenue, Seventh Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-527-8375 Louisiana State Department of Agriculture Gilbert L. Dozier, Director 325 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-527-8204 Louisiana State Department of Public Works Engineering Division Roy Aguillard, Director 7252 Lakeshore Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-527-5630 Louisiana State Division of Health Environmental Health Bureau James P. Coerver David Bruce, Environmental Planner 325 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-527-5111 21 Louisiana State Highway Department District 02 Headquarters James McCrew, District Engineer P.O. Box 9179 New Orleans, Louisiana 70094 504-347-7361 Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission Gilbert C. Lagasse, Director P.O. Drawer 1111 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821 504-389-5761 Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Gilbert C. Lagasse, Liaison Officer W. Edwin Martin, Executive Assistant 625 North 4th Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70815 504-389-5886 Louisiana Stream Control Commission Robert A. Lafluer P.O. Drawer FC Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 504-389-5300 Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission J. Burton Angelle, Director and Secretary Lyle St. Amant, Assistant Director 400 Royal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-527-5126 Offshore Terminal Authority (Superport) Shepard A. Perrin International Trade Mart New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-568-4678 Tourist Development Commission Mrs. Gayle Burchfield, Regional Manager 334 Royal Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-529-2906 Catherine Frierson Interstate 59 Slidell, Louisiana 70458 504-643-4646 22 Parish Agencies New Orleans/Orleans Parish Agricultural Extension Service, Orleans Parish Bill Green c/o Chamber of Commerce 301 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-524-1131 Department of Safety and Permits Edward C. Kurtz, Director City H-all, Room 7E05 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-586-4412 Department of Sanitation Landfills: Tony Stant City Hall, Room 2W13 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-586-4209 Mosquito Control: George Carmichael 6601 Lakeshore Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 403-241-2370 Department of Streets Blaise Carriere, Director City Hall, Room 6W02 1300 Perdido'Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-586-4511 Department of Utilities F.L. Schmaitt City Hall, Room 2W14 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-586-4625 New Orleans Recreation Department Wally LeGrass 705 Lafayette Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-586-4461 Office of Consumer Affairs Nel Weekly City Hall, Room IW12 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-586-4441 23 Orleans Levee Board John McNamara 418 Royal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-523-5042 Parkway and Park Commission5 Mildred Fossier, Superintendent 2829 Gentilly Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-943-66235 Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans Stuart Brehn, Mr. City HallI 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-586-4588 24~~~~~~~ Jefferson Parish Agricultural Extension Service Kermit Braud Room 820 New Gretna Courthouse Gretna, Louisiana 70053 504-367-6611 Department of Drainage and Sewerage R.L. Condon, Director 648 Helios Avenue Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-834-7810 Department of Recreation Emile A. Davidson 1521 Palm Street Metairie, Louisiana 70001 504-831-1321 Department of Roads and Bridges (cine. Engineering Division, Paul W. Marcotte, Director Park & Parkway Division) 1901 Ames Boulevard Marrero, Louisiana 70072 504-340-5201 Department of Safety Dennis DeVun 3330 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-834-7700 Lafourche Levee Board (West 8ank) Sterling Robichaux, President P.O. Box 190 Donaldsonville, Louisiana 70346 504-473-9852 Mosquito Control Department Glenn M. Stokes, Director 118 David Drive Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Pontchartrain Levee Board John Lauricella, President 5333 River Road Harahan, Louisiana 70123 Water Board Peter Russo, Director 3600 Jefferson Highway Jefferson, Louisiana 70123 Zoning Appeals Board John Flynn, Chairman New Gretna Courthouse P.O. Box 9 Gretna, Louisiana 70053 504-733-0163 504-733-0087 504-837-1070 504-367-6611 25 I I St. Bernard Parish I I I Engineers Thomas Reed Courthouse Annex Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 Lake Borgne Levee Board Raymond Willhost, President Violet, Louisiana 70092 Mosquito Control Department Will Schulte 2004 Palmisano Avenue Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 504-279-5293 504-682-5941 I 504-279-8559 I I Recreation Department Edward Heider Courthouse Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 Road District Office Safety and Permits Jack A. Stephens Courthouse Annex Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 504-271-6818 I I I 504-279-5293 Sanitation Department Clarence Robin, Superintendent Paris Road Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 Sewerage District #1 Harold Felger Sewerage District #2 Hilary Nunez Courthouse Annex Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 504-279-8195 I I 504-271-6404 I I I Water District #1 Calvin Schenk St. Bernard Highway Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 Water District #2 Sam Nicosia St. Bernard Highway East St. Bernard, Louisiana 504-271-1681 504-682-5119 I I 26 I St. Tamnmany Parish Mosquito Abatement, District #2 James Morrison 2800 Terrace Avenue Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Parish Engineer Frank Uphoff 510 East Boston Covington, Louisiana 70443 Sewerage and Water Department Joe Faciase, Superintendent P.O. Box 828 Slidell, Louisiana 70459 Sewerage Districts #6 and #4 c/o Police Jury Office Court house Covington, Louisiana 70443 Water District Board #2 Dr. R. L. Byron, Chairman Abita Road Covington, Louisiana 70443 Water Works #3 Clyde Metz 109 North Drive Covington, Louisiana 70443 504-643-5050 504-893-4363 504-643-3437 504-892-8445 504-892-2911 27 I I C. Official Planners in the Region City Planning Commission, Parish of Orleans Harold Katner Randolph Clement Ninth Floor, City Hall 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-586-4751 Jefferson Parish Planning Department Hugh N. Ford 330 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 300 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-834-7700 x323 Regional Planning Commission Leroy Dauterive Barbara Phillips 333 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 900 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-523-1432 St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission Jack Stephens Courthouse Annex Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 504-279-6416 I I I I I I I I St. Tammany Parish Planning Department Craig Sinden Parish Court House, Suite M3 Covington, Louisiana 70433 504-892-4363 I I I I I I I I 28 I D. Consulting Engineers, Architects, and Planners Raymond C. Bergeron, Jr., Director of Architecture (B. Arch., Tulane University) N-Y Associates, Inc. 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Louis C. Bisso, President (B.S., Tulane Engineering) Planning Services, Inc. 1100 Royal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Regel L. Bisso, Planner (M.S., Tulane University) Planning Services, Inc. 1100 Royal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-525-9052 504-525-9052 Robert Bredberg, Senior Project Engineer (B.S.C.E., Montana State University) N-Y Associates, Inc. 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Dennis P. Butler (M.S., Tulane University) Burk and Associates, Inc. 4176 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-5901 Fields of Interest: Water Quality Management, Fisheries Management Reynaldo Cedillos (M.E., University of Texas at El Paso) URS/Forrest and Cotton, Inc. 3501 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-837-6326 Fields of Interest: Waste Water Management Mary G. Curry (Ph.D., Louisiana State University) V TN Louisiana, Inc. 2701 Independence Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-455-3881 Fields of Interest: Vascular Plant Taxonomy, Rare and Endangered Species 29 Thomas Haskings (Ph.D., Texas A. & M. University) URS/Forrest and Cotton, Inc.I 3501 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-837-6326 Fields of Interest: Environmental Engineering3 William E. Knesal, Jr. (B.S., Mississippi State University) N-Y Associates, Inc.I 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 James E. Leeman (M.E., Tulane University) VTN Louisiana, Inc. 2701 Independence Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-455-3881 Fields of Interest: Water Resource Engineering3 Neil D. Logan, Project Engineer (B.S., Purdue University) N-Y Associates, Inc. 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Fields of Interest: Sewer systems, water systems, and natural gas systems H. John Losch, III, Project Engineer (B.S., Louisiana State University)U N-Y Associates, Inc. 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Fields of Interest: Water supply and distribution, sewage collection and treatment, storm drainage and flood control3 James Mayes (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University) Gulf South Research InstituteI 5010 Leroy Johnson Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-283-4233 Fields of Interest: Industrial effluence and processes3 Terence J. McGhee (Ph.D., University of Kansas) N-Y Associates, Inc.I 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Fields of Interest: Sanitary engineering3 30 HI. Douglas Miller (M.S., Tulane University) Burk and Associates, Inc. 4176 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-5901 Fields of Interest: Water and wastewater management, water quality analysis Paviz Mojgani (M.S., Tulane University; Ph.D. candidate, Tulane University) URS/Forrest and Cotton, Inc. 3501 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-837-6326 Fields of Interest: waste water management Joseph Montalbo (Ph.D., University of New Orleans) Gulf South Research Institute 5010 Leroy Johnson Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-283-4233 Fields of Interest: Water pollution analysis Herbert Moore, Director of Planning (M.S., University of Tennessee) N-Y Associates, Inc. 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Fields of Interest: Regional planning, regional trans- portation, zoning and air pollution control Frank Nicoladis, President (B.S., Mississippi State University) N-Y Associates, Inc. 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Fields of Interest: Water and wastewater treatment, storm drainage systems, and natural gas systems Jens Nielsen (M.E., Tulane University) Burk and Associates, Inc. 4176 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-5901 Fields of Interest: Civil engineering; associate in charge of Environmental Division projects, Burk and Associates, Inc. 31 Gerald Powell Real Estate Consultant W.R. Smolkin and AssociatesU One Shell Square New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 504-586-1771 Vincent ProvenzaI (B.E., Tulane University) URS/Forrest and Cotton, Inc. 3501 North Causeway BoulevardI Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-837-6326 Fields of Interest: Waste water treatment James Ryan (Ph.D., B.P.I.) Gulf South Research Institute 5010 Leroy Johnson DriveI New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-283-4233 Fields of Interest: Water pollution analysis5 Malcolm 0. Sayes, Chief Engineer (B.S., Louisiana State University) N-Y Associates, Inc.3 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Fields of Interest: Subsurface drainage systems, sewer, gas and water systems. Gerald L. Schroeder, Jr., Project Engineer (M.S., Tulane University)I N-Y Associates, Inc. 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-0500 Fields of Interest: Air pollution control, water and wastewater treatment, solid waste, water quality and water resources planning, and environmental planning Mahmood Shariat (M.S., Tulane University)3 Burk and Associates, Inc. 4176 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-5901 Fields of Interest: Water Quality and Chemistry Peter M. Smith (Dr. Se., Tulane UniversityI Burk and Associates, Inc. 4176 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-5901 Fields of Interest: Water and wastewater research management, environmental planning and assessments 32 B. Ray Sumnmerell (B.L.A., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) Burk and Associates, Inc. 4176 Canal Street New Orleans,, Louisiana 70119 504-486-5901 Fields of Interest: Lands-cape Architecture Paul D. Taylor~ (M.S., Tulane University) Burk and Associates, Inc. 4176, Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-5901 Fields of Interest: Water pollution, water quality Kenneth E. Thomas, Project Engineer (B.S.,, Pennsylvania State University) N-Y Associates, Inc. 2701 Kingman Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-050:0 Fields of Interest: Water supply and distribution, sewage collecetion and treatment, flood control, and storm drainage Paul R. Wagner (Ph.D:., Louisiana State University) Burk and Associates, Inc. 4176 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-486-5901 Fields of Interest: Estuarine ecology and fisheries biology, ecological surveys Ralph Wheeler Gulf South Research Institute P.O. Box 1177 West Admiral Doyle Drive New Iberia, Louisiana 318-365-2411 Other firms to contact: Dames and Moore (Consultants in the Environmental and Applied Earth Sciences) 4450 General DeGaulle Drive Algiers, Louisiana 70114 504-393-8440 Sizeler and Muller, Architects William Sizeler Stanley Muller Suite 1700, Canal-LaSalle Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-588-9248 Steimle, Smolley and Associates, Inc. Dr. Steve Steimle P.O. Box 73336 Metairie, Louisiana 70003 504-885-8488 33 11. Special Interest Groups A. Environmental Groups American Institute of Architects, New Orleans Chapter Lem McCoy, Executive Director J. Eean McNaughton, President 4418 Calliope Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70152 504-821-5596/504-586-1870 American Lung Association of Louisiana, Inc. W. Findley Raymond, Executive Director 333 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 1504I New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-523-5864 Audubon Society, Orleans Chapter Frank P. Fischer, PresidentU 2720 Octavia Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-482-9701/504-861-1807 3 Barry Kohler, Conservation Chairman 346 Audubon New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-861-8465/504-521-6278 I Cliff Danby 4843 Gabriel Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70127 504-242-4695 Ecology Center of Louisiana, Inc. Ross Vincent, PresidentI John Hammond, Vice-President Ill South Hennessey Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-581-2287/504-482-8760 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 19344 New Orleans, Louisiana 70179 Friends of Lafitte ParkI Frank Ehret, Jr. 5048 Ehret Road Marrero, Louisiana 70072 504-341-1056 Fund for Animals Sydney Rosenthal 4141 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-887-9222 Louisiana Chapter, American Institute of PlannersI Anthony J. Mumphrey, Jr., President Urban Studies Institute University of New OrleansI New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 34 Louisiana Historical Society William von Truf ant, President Cotton Exchange Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-588-2474 Louisiana Nature Center, Incorporated (educational) Gary Schadle, President One Shell Square, Suite 4100 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 504-581-7017 Louisiana Wildlife Federation Richard F. Stanel, Executive Director P.O. Box 16089 LSU Eaton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 504-355-1871 Metropolitan New Orleans Section, American Institute of Planners Raldolph Clement, Director c/o New Orleans City Planning Commission Ninth Floor, City Hall 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-586-4751 Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans Larry Schmidt 823 Perdido Street, Suite 200 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-581-7017 Archaeologist Mrs. John C. Chestnutt 158 Belle Terre Boulevard Covington, Louisiana 70443 504-892-1003 St. Tammany Environmental Council Ken and Martha Sollberger (138 Lafayette Street) P.O. Box 644 Mandeville, Louisiana 70448 504-626-8293 St. Tammany Historical Society Paula Johnson Abita Springs, Louisiana 70420 Save Our Wetlands, Inc. Luke Fontana 4821 Prytania Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-897-0772 Sierra Club of New Orleans Mrs. Joan Phillips, President 922 Octavia Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-482/9701/504-482-8760 35 B. Commercial Fishing/Trapping I I American Shrimp Canners Association Anthony Cuccia, President Cutcher Canning Company, Inc. 128 Sala Avenue Westwego, Louisiana 70094 504-341-3439 The Bruno Family Shortcut Road Mandeville, Louisiana 70448 East Bank Fishermen Association Milton Dudenhefer Fort Pike (Rigolets), Louisiana 504-662-5795 I I Freddie Fandal 315 Marigny Avenue Mandeville, Louisiana 70448 504-626-8217 I Louisiana Oyster Dealers and Growers Association Peter G. Vujnovich 2105 Decatur Street New Orleans, Louisiana70112 504-949-5443 Louisiana Shrimp Association George Snow, President 1405 Jefferson Highway Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 70123 504-834-2687 Robert Raymond, Trapper and Buyer 6100 Dorothea Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70126 504-242-2473 I I I I St. Bernard Fishermen Association Glen ("Duck") Couture 2118 Delille Street Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 I 504-277-1847 I Wallace Menhaden Products, Inc. Jack T. Styron 1221 North Broad Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-288-6657 36 I I I I I C. Sport Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Recreation Byron Almquist, Manager Canoe and Trail Shop 624 Moss Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-488-8528 Barataria Bassmasters, Inc. (Jefferson Parish) Leslie L. Cheramie, President 2748 Jimmie Dean Drive Marrero, Louisiana 70072 504-341-1587 Duck Hunters (with Audubon Society) John Bonck 501 Florida Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-488-7364 Ducks Unlimited, New Orleans Area Ed Gueydon, President Suite 1313 Pere Marquette Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-581-2355 Iron Jaw Bassmasters (Jefferson Parish) Antone J. "Tony" Kovach, President 422 Georgetown Drive Kenner, Louisiana 70062 504-729-2952/504-581-9003 Jefferson Rod and Gun Club (Jefferson Parish) Warren Bergeron, President Permanent Address: 1104 Beechwood Drive P.O. Box 23365 Harvey, Louisiana 70058 Harahan, Louisiana 70183 Kenner Sporting Club (Jefferson Parish) Joe Schmolke, President 1905 34th Street Kenner, Louisiana 70062 New Orleans Bass Masters (Orleans Parish) David Sebouest, President 3429 Caminada Marrero, Louisiana 70072 504-347-2871 New Orleans Sportsmen's League (Orleans Parish) Captain Lloyd A. Moreau, President 5420 Chamberlain Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-282-7187 Permanent Address of Club: P.O. Box 30245 New Orleans, Louisiana 70190 37 I I I I St. Bernard Sportsmen's League (St. Bernard Parish) Edward Hannan, President Permanent Address: 13 Jamies Court P.O. Box 1336 Violet, Louisiana 70092 Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 St. Tammany Sportsmen's League (St. Tammany Parish) Henri P. Ferrer, President Permanent Address: Route 5, Box 31i Route 5, Box 31 Covington, Louisiana 70433 Covington, Louisiana 70433 Slidell. Sportsmen's League (St. Tammnany Parish) Robert H. Merrell Permanent Address: 110 West Pearl Dr., Route 1 P.O. Box 1208 Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Slidell, Louisiana 70458 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 38 I D. Seafood Restaurants Louisiana Restaurant Association Billie Murrell International Trade Mart Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-581-1961 E. Agriculture and Forestry Jefferson, St. Bernard-Plaquemines Farm Bureau A. J. Phillips, President Highway 45 Lafitte, Louisiana 70067 504-689-2185 Louisiana Farm Bureau James Graunard, President P.O. Box 15361 Broadview Station Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 Louisiana Forestry Association (citizens' group) William H. Matthews, Executive Director P.O. Drawer 5067 Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 318-443-2558 St. Tammany Farm Bureau Larry Catledge, President Route 2, Box 56 Covington, Louisiana 70043 504-892-6436 Wood Unlimited (wood dealers and retailers) Clark Cromwell, President P.O. Box 66583 Baton Rouge, Louisiana A.B. Clark Co. 8000 Oleander New Orleans, Louisiana 70125 504-482-5733 39 F. Shipping and Ports Board of Commissioners, Port of New Orleans Edward S. Read, Executive Director International Trade Mart New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-522-2551 Louisiana Shipbuilding and Repair Association A. J. Tatman, President International Trade Mart, Suite 2936 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-586-1155 G. Shell Dredging and Sand Companies Sbell Dredging Ayers Materials Company, Inc. P. 0. Box 568 Harvey, Louisiana 70058 504-787-2255 Consolidated Materials, Inc. Don Baxter, President 4200 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-488-8741 Louisiana Materials Co., Inc. Richard R. Murpby, President P. 0. Box 8214 New Orleans, Louisiana 70182 504-947-6681/504-366-3502 Pontchartrain Materials Corp. George Douglas, President 1215 Hibernia Bank Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-949-7571 Radcliff Materials, Inc. E.B. Trice, President P.O. Box 26396 New Orleans, Louisiana 70126 504-282-2561 Shell Producers Association Burgess Thomasson, President Radcliff Materials, Inc. P. 0. Box 26396 New Orleans, Louisiana 70186 504-282-2561 40 Sand Chalmette Sand and Material L. T. Murphy 150-4 East St. Bernard Highway Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 504-271-5985 George Kellett and Sons, Inc. Percy KeIlet, President 1330 Press Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 504-945-1118 Louisiana Industries William H. Dobson, Manager 5825 River Road Harahan, Louisiana 70183 504-733-7330 Mississippi Valley Silica Company Frank Bogran, President 324 East Boston Covington, Louisiana 70443 504-892-4211/504-524-8849 41 H. flome B3uilders, Land Developers, and Realtors Chateau Estates E. C. Dorbin, President 3600 Chateau Boulevard Kenner, Louisiana 70062 504-722-1351 Diamondhead Corporation3 William Bru, President 4500 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-393-15001 Homebuilders Association of Greater New Orleans, Inc. Lewis Stall, President 1639 Gentilly Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-943-3325 Jefferson Board of Realtors5 Chuck Staub 4732 Utica Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-32001 JPT Land Corporation Jules L. Rosenblum, President Beau Rivage SubdivisionI Slidell, Louisiana 70458 504-626-7819 Land and Royalty Owners of Louisiana3 Urbain Burvant, Executive Director Whitney Bank Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-523-37015 New Orleans East, Inc. Harold Cook 13232 Chef Menteur Highway/P.O. Box 29188I New Orleans, Louisiana 70189 504-254-1400 Rathbone Land Company Henry Fair Fourth Street Harvey, Louisiana 70058 504-368-63353 Real Estate Board of New Orleans Gertrude Gardner 826 PerdidoI New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-943-3325 Richwood Homes Joe HodgeI Tanglewood Slidell, Louisiana 704583 Zollinger Company, Inc. Lewis Zollinger 1458 North Broad New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-949-4401 425 I. Commercial and Industrial Interests Chamber of Commerce of Greater New Orleans William G. McCullum, Chairman Christopher Laborde, West Bank Elias McColloster, Environmental Issues (x245) 301 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-524-1131 Economic Development Council of the New Orleans Area Tomn Purdy, Director Clement A. Cole, Manager, Industrial Development Department Andrew F. Flores, Manager, Commercial Development Department 301 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-524-1131 National Alliance of Businessmen Gary W. December, Chairman 210 Legendre Drive Slidell, Louisiana 70458 504-641-2035 New Orleans Board of Trade Gilbert H. Vorhoff, President 316 Board of Trade Place New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-525-3271 Young Men's Business Club of Greater New Orleans John E. O'Shea, President Braniff Place, Suite 209 New Orleans, Louisiana 70140 504-525-0747 43 J. Oil and Gas Producers Louisiana Association of Independent Producers andI Royalty Owners Gilbert J. Sevier Pere Marquette Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-523-5764 Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Ill Thompson Building Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 918-582-5166 Vernon Dowdy, Louisiana Representative Fidelity Bank Building, Suite 519I Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 504-387-3205 Petroleum Club of New OrleansI 925 Common Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-524-3203 Clarence W. Coffey, Sr., PresidentI Chevron Oil 1111 Tulane Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-521-6311 Offshore Operations Committee P.O. Box 50751 New Orleans, Louisiana 70150 C.E. Galay 1111 Tulane Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-521-6584 44~~~~~~ III. General Interest Groups A. Minorities Black Lawyers Association: Louis A. Martinette Society Trevor Ga. Bryan, Secretary Jefferson and Bryan One Shell Square, Suite 3828 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 504-561-8933 Comite Latino Gary Aspiazu, President 2133 Kansas Avenue Kenner, Louisiana 70062 504-722-4713 Irish Channel Action Foundation Aubry Houze, Bilingual Program Chairman 1020 Hernandez Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-523-5442 Latin American Apostolate (has list of Latin American clubs) Father Robert Keenan, Director 821 General Pershing New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-895-0395 League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Dr. Ernesto Rodriguez, Chairman d/o Modern Languages Institute 1208 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-529-4121 Mayor's Latin Advisory Committee (LAC) Richard Arellano, President c/o International Marketing Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x279 NAACP, New Orleans Branch Dyan French Cole, President 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-821-4220 Perkins and James Architects Robert Perkins 1661 North Claiborne Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 504-944-0351 Urban League of Greater New Orleans Clarence Barney, Executive Director Millie M. Charles, Chairwoman, Board of Directors (504-282-4401) 816 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-523-6733 45 B. Good Government Advocates Citizens Voter Education Association George Ethel Warren 1836 Reynes Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70127 504-944-8507 (home)I Common Cause Dr. Sherwood Githens 3927 Camp StreetI New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-899-5137/ 504-288-3161 x307 Governor's Citizen Advisory Committee Michael Maloney, Chairman Whitney Bank Building, Suite 1100 228 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-581-3333 Institue of Human Relations David Boileau, S.J. Loyola University 6363 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-866-5411 League of Women Voters Peggy Barnett, President: Orleans Parish ChapterI Charlotte Fremaux, President: Jefferson Parish Chapter Marietta Herr (59 Oriole Street 504-283-2929) 1636 Toledano Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-897-2062 Judy Zirkle, President: St. Tammany Parish Chapter Covington, Louisiana 70443I Louisiana Center for the Public Interest David Marcello, Director 921 Canal Street, Suite 1222 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-524-1231/504-524-8182 Louisiana League of Good GovernmentI Clara Antoine 1434 North Johnson Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-949-8815 Florence Frazier 5812 Lafaye Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-282-2510 Metropolitan Goals Foundation Programn Francis Keevers Richard Dennery 1029 Maritime Building 203 Carondelet Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-581-6355/504-521-3947 46 C. Media Figaro 1070 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-525-3628 Jerry Lipsick, Environmental Reporter Jefferson Parish Times P.O. Box 204 3033 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Thomas Deltry, News Editor New Orleans Magazine 515 Gravier Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Carol Flake: Associate Editor 504-837-6397 504-246-2700 Orleans Guide 8001 Chef Menteur Highway New Orleans, Louisiana 70126 504-241-6353 Ross Robins, Environmental Reporter St. Bernard News 620 Tchoupitoulas Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Joe Chambers, News Editor St. Tamnmany News 728 East Boston Street Covington, Louisiana 70443 Emile Navarre, News Editor Slidell Daily News 1701 Third Street Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Steve Busbr, Managing Editor States-Item 3800 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 Les Brumfield, Environmental 504-522-6363 504-892-7980 504-643-4918 504-586-3560 Reporter Times-Picayune 3800 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-586-3680 Cornelia Carrier, Environmental Reporter Pearl River News Bureau 1537 Ninth Street Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Larry Ciko, Bureau Chief Florida Parishes News Bureau P.O. Box 213 Covington, Louisiana 70443 John Fahey, Bureau Chief 504-641-1282 504-892-6850 47 I I WDSU-TV, Channel 6 520 Royal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-588-9378 Bob Jones, Managing Editor, Newsroom WVUE-TV, Channel 8 1025 South Jefferson Davis Parkway New Orleans, Louisiana 70125 504-486-6161 Jim Kemp, Managing Editor, Newsroom WWL-TV, Channel 4 1024 North Rampart Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-529-4444 Jim Boyer, Managing Editor, Newsroom Gary Mitchell, Environmental Reporter I I t I I WYES-TV, Channel 12 916 Navarre Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 Bill Hess, Public Affairs Director 504-486-5511 I I I I I i i I I 48 I D. General Public Patrick J. Butler Texaco, Inc. P.O. Box 60252 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 504-524-8511 William Collins (Urban Planner) 4121 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-891-1323 Frederick G. Deiler Freeport Sulphur Company P.O. Box 61520 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 504-568-4317 H. E. Denzler, Jr. 101 Norland Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70114 504-394-5433 Pete van Duyn 41 Riverdale Covington, Louisiana 70443 504-892-2243 Office: Shell Oil Company One Shell Square New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Ron Fiore Chevron Oil Company 1111 Tulane Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-521-6584 Charles Fritzie Instructor, Department of Physics Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-865-6286 Sally Makielski Professor, Department of Biology Loyola University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-866-5471 Carolyn Morillo Professor, Department of Philosophy University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x258 George E. Mott P.O. Box 60252 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 504-887-1518 home phone: 504-887-1518 49 I I Edgar H. Pavia Pavia Byrnes Engineering Corporation 431 Gravier Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-581-9451 I I Aelita J. Pinter Associate Professor, Department of Biology University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x307 Don Schueler Department of English University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 John Sevenalar Professor, Department of Chemistry Xavier University New Orleans, Louisiana 70125 I 504-288-3161 x273 I 504-486-7411 I I O.J. Shirley Shell Oil Company One Shell Square New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 R.F. Thomas Gulf Oil Corporation P.O. Box 61590 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 504-586-6161 I 504-524-4282 I I John Trygg Roy F. Western, Inc. Suite 210 3108 Cleary Avenue Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-834-8236 I I I I I I 50 I _M I I I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. Community/Consumer Groups ACORN (A Community Organization for Reform NTow) Zack Pollett, Organizer 816 Howard Avenue, Suite 302 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-524-4474 Civic Beautification Association for Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Bernard Parishes Mrs. Roland E. Cieutat, Jr. 13 Lark Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 Civic Council of East Jefferson Hubert Rena, President P.O. Box 8254 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-4442 East New Orleans Civic Council A. Martin 13107 Cherbourg Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70129 Jefferson Community Action Program Joseph Maggiore 1817 Airline Highway Kenner, Louisiana 70062 504-721-5367 Metropolitan Area Committee Carl Carbin 1308 Richards Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, 504-525-2585 Pont chartrain Shores Civic Association John G. Unzerzagt, President 4620 Shores Drive Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-887-6464/504-729-2473 Rotary Club Ernest Prieto, Secretary 302 Gerard Mandeville, Louisiana 70448 Rotary Club of New Orleans James Hanemann International Trade Mart Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-525-6944 Total Community Action Daniel P. Vincent 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-524-3645 51 I By Parish I Special Interest Groups Environmental Groups St. Tammnany Parish A I Archaeologist Mrs. John C. Chestnutt 158 Belle Terre Boulevard Covington, Louisiana 70443 St. Tammany Environmental Council Ken and Martha Sollberger 138 Lafayette Street P.O. Box 644 Mandeville, Louisiana 70448 I 504-892-1003 I 9 I 504-626-8293 St. Tamimany Historical Society Paula Johnson Abita Springs, Louisiana 70420 Orleans Parish I American Institute of Architects, New Orleans Chapter Lem McCoy, Executive Director J. Eean McNaughton, President 4418 Calliope Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70152 504-821-5596/ 504-586-1870 Amnerican Lung Association of Louisiana, Inc. W. Findley Raymond, Executive Director 333 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 1504 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-523-5864 Audubon Society, Orleans Chapter Frank P. Fischer, President 2720 Octavia Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-482-9701/ 504-861-1807 I I I I I I Barry Kohler, Conservation Chairman 346 Audubon New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 Cliff Danby 4843 Gabriel Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70127 504-521-6278 504-242-4695 I I I 52 I Ecology Center of Louisiana, Inc. Ross Vincent, President John Hammond, Vice-President III South Hennessey Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-581-2287/ 504-482-8760 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 19344 New Orleans, Louisiana 70179 Louisiana Chapter, American Institute of Planners Anthony J. Mumphrey, Jr., President Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x277 Louisiana Historical Society William von Trufant, President Cotton Exchange Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 50i Louisiana Nature Center, Inc. (educational) Gary Schadle, President One Shell Square, Suite 4100 New Orleans, 'Louisiana 70139 50. Metropolitan New Orleans Section, American Institute of Planners Randolph Clement, Director c/o New Orleans City Planning Coimmissic Ninth Floor, City Hall 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 50z Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans Larry Schmidt 823 Perdido Street, Suite 200 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 50' Save Our Wetlands, Inc. Luke Fontana 4821 Prytania Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504 Sierra Club of New Orleans Mrs. Joan Phillips, President 922 Octavia Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504 50 4 4-588-2474 4-581-7017 .on i4-586-4751 4-581-7017 4+-897-0772 4-482-9701/ 4-482-8760 53 I I Jefferson Parish I Friends of Lafitte Park Frank Ehret, Jr. 5048 Ehret Road Marrero, Louisiana 70072 Fund for Animals Sydney Rosenthal 4141 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 I t 504-341-1056 504-887-9222 I East Baton Rouge Parish I Louisiana Wildlife Federation Richard F. Stanel, Executive Director P.O. Box 16089 Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 504-355-1871 I I t I Commercial Fishing/Trapping St. Tammany Parish The Bruno Family Shortcut Road Mandeville, Louisiana 70448 I Freddie Fandal 315 Marigny Avenue Mandeville, Louisiana 70448 Orleans Parish East Bank Fishermen Association Milton Dudenhefer Fort Pike (Rigolets), Louisiana I 504-626-8217 I I 504-662-5795 Louisiana Oyster Dealers and Growers Peter G. Vujnovich 2105 Decatur Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Robert Raymond, Trapper and Buyer 6100 Dorothea Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70126 Association 504-949-5443 504-242-2473 I I I I 54 I Wallace Menhaden Products, Inc. Jack T. Styron 1221 North Broad Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-288-6657 Jefferson Parish American Shrimp Canners Association Anthony Cuccia, President Cutcher Canning Company, Inc. 128 Sala Avenue Westwego, Louisiana 70094 Louisiana Shrimp Association George Snow, President 1405 Jefferson Highway Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 70123 504-341-3439 504-834-2687 St. Bernard Parish St. Bernard Fishermen Association Glen ("Duck") Couture 2118 Delille Street Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 504-277-1847 Sport Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Recreation St. Tammany Parish St. Tammany Sportsmen's League Henri F. Ferrer, President Route 5, Box 31� Covington, Louisiana 70433 Slidell Sportsmen's League Robert H. Merrell 110 West Pearl Drive, Route I Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Permanent Address: P.O. Box 1208 Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Orleans Parish Byron Almquist, Manager The Canoe and Trail Shop 624 Moss Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-488-8528 55 I I Duck Hunters (with Audubon Society) John Bonck 501 Florida Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 Ducks Unlimited, New Orleans Area Ed Gueydon, President Suite 1313 Pere Marquette Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 I 504-488-7364 504-581-2355 I I New Orleans Bass Masters (Orleans Parish) David Schouest, President 3429 Camninada Marrero, Louisiana 70072 504-347-2871 I I New Orleans Sportsmen's League Captain Lloyd A. Moreau, President 5420 Chamberlain Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-282-7187 Permanent Address: P.O. Box 30245 New Orleans, Louisiana 70190 I I Jefferson Parish Barataria Bass Masters, Inc. Leslie L. Cheramie, President 2748 Jimmie Dean Drive Marrero, Louisiana 70072 I I a 504-341-1587 Iron Jaw Bass Masters Antone J. "Tony" Kovach, President 422 Georgetown Drive Kenner, Louisiana 70062 504-729-2952/ 504-581-9003 I Jefferson Rod and Gun Club Warren Bergeron, President 1104 Beechwood Drive Harvey, Louisiana 70058 Permanent Address: P.O. Box 23365 Harahan, Louisiana 70183 Kenner Sporting Club Joe Schmnolke, President 1905 34th Street Kenner, Louisiana 70062 56 I I I I I I St. Bernard Parish St. Bernard Sportsmen's League Edward Hannan, President 13 Jamnies Court Violet, Louisiana 70092 Permanent Address: P.O. Box 1336 Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 Agriculture and Forestry St. Tatmmany Parish St. Tammany Farm Bureau Larry Catledge, President Route 2, Box 56 Covington, Louisiana 70043 504-892-6436 Orleans Parish Wood Unlimited (wood dealers and retailers) Clark Cromwell, President P.O. Box 66583 Baton Rouge, Louisiana A.B. Clark Co. 8000 Oleafider N~ew Orleans, Louisiana 70125 504-482-5733 Jefferson Parish Jefferson, St. Bernard-Plaquemines A.J. Phillips, President Highway 45 Lafitte, Louisiana 70067 Farm Bureau 504-689-2185 East Baton Rouge Parish Louisiana Farm Bureau James Graunard, President P.O. Box 15361 Broadv'iew Station Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 Rapides Parish Louisiana Forestry Association (citizens' g-roup) William H. Matthews, Executive Director P.O. Drawer 5067 Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 318-443-2558 57 I a Shipping and Ports Orleans Parish I I Board of Commissioners, Port of New Orleans Edward S. Read, Executive Director International Trade Mart New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-522-2551 I I Louisiana Shipbuilding and Repair Association A.J. Tatman, President International Trade Mart, Suite 2936 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-586-1155 I Shell Dredging and Sand Companies Shell Dredging I I Orleans Parish Consolidated Materials, Inc. Don Baxter, President 4200 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Louisiana Materials Co., Inc. Richard R. Murphy, President P.O. Box 8214 New Orleans, Louisiana 70182 Pontchartrain Materials Corp. George Douglas, President 1215 Hibernia Bank Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-488-8741 504-947-6681/ 504-366-3502 I I a 504-949-7571 I I Radcliff Materials, Inc. E.B. Trice, President P.O. Box 26396 New Orleans, Louisiana 70186 Shell Producers Association Burgess Thomasson, President Radcliff Materials, Inc. P.O. Box 26396 New Orleans, Louisiana 70186 504-282-2561 504-282-2561 I I I a 58 a Jefferson Parish Ayers Materials Co., Inc. P.O. Box 568 Harvey, Louisiana 70058 504-787-2255 Sand St. Tammany Parish Mississippi Valley Silica Company Frank Bogran, President 324 East Boston Covington, Louisiana 70443 504-892-4211/ 504-524-8849 Orleans Parish George Kellett and Sons, Inc. Percy Kellett, President 1330 Press Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 504-945-1118 Jefferson Parish Louisiana Industries William H. Dobson, Manager 5825 River Ro,ad Harahan, Louisiana 70183 St. Bernard Parish 504-733-7730 Chalmette Sand and Material L.T. Murphy 1504 East St. Bernard Highway Chalmette, Louisiana 70043 504-271-5985/ 504-271-4979 Home Builders, Land Developers, and Realtors St. Tammany Parish JPT Land Corporation Jules L. Rosenblum, President Beau Rivage Subdivision Slidell, Louisiana 70458 504-626-7819 59 Richwood Homes Joe Hodge Tang lewood Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Orleans Parish Diamonhead Corporation William Bru, President 4500 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-393-1500 Homebuilders Association of Greater New Orleans, Inc. I Lewis Stall, President 1639 Gent illy Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-943-3325 1 a I Land and Royalty Owners of Louisiana Urbain Burvant, Executive Director Whitney Bank Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 New Orleans East, Inc. Harold Cook 13232 Chef Menteur Highway P.O. Box 29188 New Orleans, Louisiana 70189 504-523-3701 504-254-1400 I I Real Estate Board of New Orleans Gertrude Gardner 826 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Zollinger Company, Inc. Lewis Zollinger 1458 North Broad Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 I 504-943-3325 504-949-4401 I Jefferson Parish I Chateau Estates E.C. Dorbin, President 3600 Chateau Boulevard Kenner, Louisiana 70062 Jefferson Board of Realtors Chuck Staub 4732 Utica Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 I 504-722-1351 504-885-3200 I I I 60 I Rathb one Land Company Henry Fair Fourth Street Harvey, Louisiana 70159 504-368-6335 Commercial and Industrial Interests St. Tammany Parish National Alliance of Businessmen Gary W. December, Chairman 210 Legendre Drive Slidell, Louisiana 70458 504-641-2035 Orleans Parish Chamber of Commerce of Greater New Orleans Williamn G. McCullum, Chairman Christopher Laborde, West Bank Elias McColloster, Environmental Issues (x245) 301 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-524-1131 Economic Development Council of the New Orleans Area Tom Purdy, Director Clement A. Cole, Manager, Industrial Development Department Andrew F. Flores, Manager, Commercial Development Department 301 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-524-1131 New Orleans Board of Trade Gilbert R. Vorhoff, President 316 Board of Trade Place New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Young Men's Business Club of Greater John E. O'Shea, President Braniff Place, Suite 209 New Orleans, Louisiana 70140 504-525-3271 New Orleans 504-525-0747 Oil and Gas Producers Orleans Parish Louisiana Association of Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Gilbert J. Sevier Pere Marquette Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-523-5764 61 I I Offshore Operations Committee C.E. Galay 1111 Tulane Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-521-6584 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 50751 New Orleans, Louisiana 70150 I I I Petroleum Club of New Orleans 925 Common Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Clarence W. Coffey, Sr., President Chevron Oil 1111 Tulane Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-524-3203 I 504-521-6311 I I East Baton Rouge Parish Mid-Continent Oil and Gas III Thompson Building Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 918-582-5166 Vernon Dowdy, Louisiana Representative Fidelity Bank Building, Suite 519 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 504-387-3205 I I General Interest Groups Minorities Orleans Parish I I Black Lawyers Association: Louis A. Trevor G. Bryan, Secretary Jefferson and Bryan One Shell Square, Suite 3828 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Martinette Society 504-561-8933 I I Irish Channel Action Foundation Aubry Houze, Bilingual Program Chairman 1020 liernandez Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-523-5442 I Latin American Apostolate (has list Father Robert Keenan, Director 821 General Pershing New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 of Latin American clubs) 504-895-0395 U I I I 62 I League of United Latin Amnerican Citizens (LULAC) Dr. Ernesto Rodriguez, Chairman c/o Modern Languages Institute 1208 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-529-4121 Mayor's Latin Advisory Committee (LAC) Richard Arelilano, President c/o International Marketing Institute University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 504-288-3161 x279 NAACP, New Orleans Branch Dyan French Cole, President 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-821-4220 Perkins and James Architects Robert Perkins 1661 North Claiborne Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 504-944-0351 Urban League of Greater New Orleans Clarence Barney, Executive Director Millie M. Charles, Chairwoman, Board of Directors (504-282-4401) 816 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-523-6733 Jefferson Parish Comite Latino Gary Aspiazu, President 2133 Kansas Avenue Kenner, Louisiana 70062 504-722-4713 Good Government Advocates St. Taminany Parish League of Women Voters, St. Tammany Parish Chapter Judy Zirkle, President Covington, Louisiana 70443 Orleans Parish Citizens Voter Education Association George Ethel Warren 1836 Reynes Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70127 504-944-8507 (home) 63 Common Cause Dr. Sherwood Githens 3927 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 Governor's Citizen Advisory Committee Michael Maloney, Chairman Whitney Bank Building, Suite 1100 228 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Institute of Human Relations David Boileau, S.J. Loyola University 6363 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 504-899-5137/ 504-288-3161 x307 504-581-3333 504-866-5411 I I I I League of Women Voters Peggy Barnett, President: Orleans Parish Chapter Charlotte Fremaux, President: Jefferson Parish Chapter Marietta Herr (59 Oriole Street 504-283-2929) 1636 Toledano Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-897-2062 I I Louisiana Center for the Public Interest David Marcello, Director 921 Canal Street, Suite 1222 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Louisiana League of Good Government Clara Antoine 1434 North Johnson Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Florence Frazier 5812 Lafaye Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 I 504-524-1231/ 504-524-8182 504-949-8815 I I I 504-282-2510 I I I Metropolitan Goals Foundation Program Francis Keevers Richard Dennery 1029 Maritime Building 203 Carondelet Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-581-6355/ 504-521-3947 I I 64 I Media St. Tammany Parish St. Tammany News Emile Navarre, News Editor 728 East Boston Street Covington, Louisiana 70443 Slidell Daily News Steve Busbr, Managing Editor 1701 Third Street Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Times -Picayune Pearl River News Bureau Larry Ciko, Bureau Chief 1537 Ninth Street Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Florida Parishes News Bureau John Fahey, Bureau Chief P.O. Box 213 Covington, Louisiana 70443 504-892-7980 504-643-4918 504-641-1282 504-892-6850 Orleans Parish Figaro Jerry Lipsick, Environmental Reporter 1070 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 504-524-3628 New Orleans Magazine Carol Flake, Associate Editor 515 Gravier Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-246-2700 Orleans Guide Ross Robins, Environmental Reporter 8001 Chef Menteur Highway New Orleans, Louisiana 70126 504-241-6353 St. Bernard News Joe Chambers, New Editor 620 Tchoupitoulas Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-522-6363 States -It em Les Brumfield, Environmental Reporter 3800 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-586-3560 65 I I Times -Picayune Cornelia Carrier, Environmental Reporter 3800 Howard Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 504-586-3680 I I WDSU-TV, Channel 6 Bob Jones, Managing Editor, Newsroom 520 Royal Street Mew Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-588-9378 I I WVUE-TV, Channel 8 Jim Kemp, Managing Editor, Newsroom 1025 South Jefferson Davis Parkway New Orleans, Louisiana 70125 504-486-6161 WWL-TV, Channel 4 Jim Boyer, Managing Editor, Newsroom Gary Mitchell, Environmental Reporter 1024 North Rampart Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 504-529-4444 I I I WYES-TV, Channel 12 Bill Hess, Public Affairs Director 916 Navarre Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 Jefferson Parish Jefferson Parish Times Thomas Deltry, News Editor P.O. Box 204 3033 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-486-5511 I I I 504-837-6397 General Public Orleans Parish I I Patrick J. Butler Texaco, Inc. P.O. Box 60252 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 William Collins (Urban Planner) 4121 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 Frederick G. Deiler Freeport Sulphur Company P.O. Box 61520 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 504-524-8511 504-891-1323 504-568-4317 I I I I 66 I H. E. Denzler, Jr. 101 Norland Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70114 5( Pete van Duyn 41 Riverdale Covington, Louisiana 70443 5{ Office: Shell Oil Company One Shell Square New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Ron Fiore Chevron Oil Company 1111 Tulane Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 5{ Charles Fritzie Instructor, Department of Physics Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 5{ Sally Makielski Professor, Department of Biology Loyola University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 5{ Carolyn Morillo Professor, Department of Philosophy University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 5� George E. Mott P.O. Box 60252 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 5C Edgar H. Pavia Pavia Byrnes Engineering Corporation 431 Gravier Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 5C 04-394-5433 04-892-2243 04-521-6584 D4-865-6286 )4-866-5471 )4-288-3161 x258 ]4-887-1518 }4-581-9451 ilogy }4-288-3161 x307 '4-288-3161 x273 of Bic 5C 50 Aelita J. Pinter Associate Professor, Department University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 Don Schueler Department of English University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 67 I I John Sevenalar Professor, Department of Chemistry Xavier University New Orleans, Louisiana 70125 0. J. Shirley Shell Oil Company One Shell Square New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 I 504-486-7411 I 504-586-6161 I I R. F. Thomas Gulf Oil Corporation P.O. Box 61590 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Jefferson Parish John Trygg Roy F. Western, Inc. 3108 Cleary Avenue, Suite 210 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-524-4282 504-834-8236 I I I Community/Consumer Groups St. Tammany Parish Rotary Club Ernest Prieto, Secretary 302 Gerard Mandeville, Louisiana 70448 Orleans Parish I I I ACORN (A Community Organization for Reform Now) Zack Pollett, Organizer 816 Howard Avenue, Suite 302 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-524-4474 Civic Beautification Association for Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Bernard Parishes Mrs. Roland E. Cieutat, Jr. 13 Lark Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 I I I East New Orleans Civic Council A. Martin 13107 Cherbourg Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70129 68 I I I I Metropolitan Area Committee Carl Carbin 1308 Richards Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Rotary Club of New Orleans Jamnes Hanemann International Trade Hart Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Total Community Action Daniel P. Vincent 1770 Tchoupitoulas Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-525-2585 504-525-6944 504-524-3645 Jefferson Parish Civic Council of Eas~t Jefferson Hubert Rena, President P.O. Box 8254. Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Jefferson Community Action Program Joseph Maggiore 1817 Airline Highway Kenner, Louisiana 70062 Pontchartrain Shores Civic Association John G. Unzerzagt, President 4620 Shores Drive Metairie, Louisiana 70002 504-885-4442 504-721-5367 504-887-6464/ 504-729-2473 69 REFERENCES Board of Commissioners, Port of New Orleans (1974) 78th Annual Report. New Orleans: Port of New Orleans. Bobo, James R., Anthony J. Mumphrey, Jr., and H. Wade VanLandingham (1976) "Metropolitan Goals Programs: A Model and Evaluation of the Dallas and New Orleans Programs," Town Planning Review. January, 43-55. Cote de la Louisiane (1975) "Schedule of Public Information Meetings."! September, 1. Deckert, Thomas and Jens Sorensen (1974) "Social Equity in Coastal Zone Planning." Coastal Zone Management Journal, Volume 1, Number 2, 141-150. Economic Development Council (1974) Annual Report. New Orleans: Chamber of Commerce of the New Orleans Area. Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources (1973) Louisiana Wetlands Prospectus: Conclusions, Recommendations and Proposals. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University and Louisiana Office of State Planning. Louisiana Tax Commission (1976) Seventeenth Biennial Report, 1974-76. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Tax Commission. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission (n.d.) Fur Division. Comparative Take of Fur Animals in Louisiana, 1940-1975. New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. Mogulof, Melvin B. (1975) Saving the Coast: California's Experiment in Intergovernmental Land Use Control. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company. Mumphrey, Anthony J. et al. (1975) Louisiana Metropolitan Wetlands: A Planning Perspective. New Orleans, Loulisiana: New Orleans City Planning Commission. New Orleans City Planning Commission (1975) Coastal Zone Mlanagement Plan, Volume II. New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans City Planning Commission. Pinkey, Thomas and Karen W. Paterson (1976) "Comments: Environmental Concern as a Factor in Coastal Zone Development: A Study of Louisiana Citizens." Coastal Zone Management Journal, Volume 2, Number 3, 297-310. 70 Rep. Wilbert Tauzin, D-Thibodaux (1976) Coastal Resources3 Management Act of 1976 (HB 1315). Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State House of Representatives, unpublished mimeo.3 Roy Mann Associates, Inc. (1975) "Public Participation Mechanisms in Federal and State Legislation and in Planning Programs," in Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone. Cambridge, Mass.: Roy Mann Associates, Inc., 117-129. Shabman, Leonard A. (1974) "Toward Effective Public Participation in Coastal Zone Management." Coastal Zone Management Journal, Volume 1, Number 2, 197-207.3 State Planning Office (1976) Proposed Coastal Resources Management Statute, March 17, unpublished mimeo. U.S. Congress (1972) Public Law 92-583. "Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972."1 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce (1975) Fisheries of the United States, 1974. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wagner, Fritz (1976) Survival in the City: An Urban/ Environmental Resource Directory. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. 71~~~~~~~ CHAPTER 2 CURRENT COASTAL ACTIVITIES, USES AND MANAGEMENT EFFORTS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to describe some of the current uses and activities in the coastal zone and the efforts being undertaken by the parishes to manage the coastal zone. The first part of the chapter describes the following coastal activities and uses and their effects on the ecosystem: 1. land use, including residential, commercial and industrial uses; 2. recreation, including sports, historical and cultural areas; 3. commercial fisheries and trapping, including the economic value of catches; 4. flood and storm control, including the construction of present and proposed major levee systems; 5. major navigation canals, including those used for commercial and recreational activities; and 6. water quality and wastewater treatment, including those problems attendant upon municipal and industrial sewerage discharges. The first part of the chapter also discusses user activities such as dredge and fill operations, spoil disposal and related soil erosion. The environmental impact of these activities on the air, water, fish and wildlife, historical and archeological preservation, and "critical" areas are noted. 72 - - - The second part of the chapter presents an overview of3 the parishes' current efforts to manage their coastal zones. Local planners in each parish are aware of the need to balanceI growth in the area with protection of its environmentally3 sensitive zones. The parishes are at different stages in developing coastal zone management plans. Each parish intends3 to develop its own plan with the assistance of the State Plan- ning Office.I Following the chapter is Appendix 2.1, which is an anno-3 tated bibliography of the parishes' coastal management and planning documents.3 CURRENT COASTAL USES AND ACTIVITIES3 Land Use None of the four parishes in the New Orleans SMSA has a coastal zone management plan that has been adopted as law by3 the governing officials. In these parishes, land use is regu-3 lated by zoning ordinances and building codes. Although the parishes recognize the need to protect existing environmentally3 sensitive areas such as wetlands, reclamation of these areas is not ruled out entirely. The Interim Land Use Plan (N-YI Associates, 1973) adpoted by the Regional Planning Commission3 in 1973 provides that future use of wetlands be for passive recreation areas, general open space or wildlife preserves.3 The plan does not rule out reclamation of such areas; it only suggests that more studies be done before reclamation3 occurs (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 32). 73 New Orleans The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of New Orleans (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1970) permits growth in the wetland areas that include the Lake- front Marsh Unit, the Chef Menteur Marsh Unit, Chef-Rigolets Marsh Unit, Lake Borgne Marsh Unit, and the Venetian Isles Marsh Unit (see Figure 2.1). Zoning in the Lakefront Marsh Unit allows for low-density residential and neighborhood business districts. In the Chef Menteur Marsh Unit, low- density residential to light industrial and nonurban uses are allowed by the zoning ordinance. Chef-Rigolets and the Lake Borgne Marsh Units are zoned nonurban. Venetian Isles Marsh Unit is zoned for light and heavy industrial, residential and nonurban uses. Nonurban uses include single- and two- family residential, schools, boat repair and ship yards, trailer parks, child care centers, as well as farms, recrea- tional areas and conservation areas, provided that the uses remain within the performance standards for smoke, dust, toxic or noxious waste materials (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 34). The Coastal Zone Management Plan (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 30) designates as critical areas "those viable marsh and forest areas which should be preserved because of their value as recreational and economic resources ... development in these areas should be prohibited." Critical areas have been identified as Chef Menteur Unit, Southern Venetian Isles Marsh Unit, and Lake Borgne Marsh Unit and adjacent area (between it and the 74 FIGURE 2.1 t- Lc~.efrOnl Mcrsh UnRt 2.- Chet Menteur Miarshl unit 3- Chef -Rigoletr, MarSh Unil 4 -ac. Northern Veneltian tsies Marigh Unit b.Southern \!enntiln IBes Marsh Unit New Orleans Wetlands 5 -Loae a or gne Miarsh Unit LAKE PaTICiARTtIIN CAcf h~firteut Pass PARISH .4 8o,-gne JEFMLC PARXSH O0 4 PARISH - j~~cei,,dunj"ey da AIn'--974& 33 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet), as well as the Lower Coast of Algiers. Since the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) plan has not been adopted as law, its recommendations carry no legal sanctions. On July 29, 1976, the New Orleans City Council approved a land use plan for the Orlandia development in eastern New Orleans that envisions 50,000 new dwelling units (Times- Picayune, 1976: 12). Orlandia poses a threat to three of the wetlands units--Lakefront Marsh Unit, Chef Menteur Marsh Unit, and Venetian Isles Marsh Unit (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 35). The developers of Orlandia intend to use land in the Lakefront Marsh Unit, which has been leveed and partially drained, for mainly single- and multi-family residences, with some business and commercial areas. The Chef Menteur Marsh Unit is intended for nonurban uses. Land in the Venetian Isles Marsh Unit is planned for nonurban uses and single-family residential areas. A variety of land uses, including residential, light and heavy industrial, and commercial and business, will be found within the central core of Orlandia (New Orleans East, Inc., n.d.). This land is partially drained-off fresh water marsh, and as such it makes no contribution to the viable estuarine system. The City Planning Commission has considered the proposal that individuals be allowed to build homes in the wetlands provided they do not develop more than five percent of their land. Roads would not be built in these areas; access to homes would be by boat or plane. However, the City 76 Planning Commission believes there is enough developable land, including Orlandia, available to accommodate the city's1 growth for the next several years (Clement, R., 1976). The Building Code for the City of New Orleans (City3 Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 54-57) requires that all residential and nonresidential structures and substantial3 improvements to these structures must be above the base flood level of the 100-year storm, or the structures must be floodU proofed to the prescribed base flood elevation.3 Jefferson A Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Jefferson Parish Council, 1974) was adopted by the Jefferson Parish Council in 1974 toI guide development in the parish. Most existing wetlands are3 in the southern portion of the parish on the West Bank. Land on the West Bank is zoned in two categories, S-1 and U-1 (see3 Figure 2.2). S-l land is zoned as a low-density residential district.I Permitted uses include single- and two-family dwellings, as well as farming and airports. U-1 land is zoned as unre- stricted. Manufacturing plants in this district may be3 involved in products which give off offensive emissions of odor, smoke, gas, and excessive glare, light, or noise3 (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 35-37). From the zoned areas, it would appear that Jefferson Parish intends to develop its wetlands. Hugh Ford, the3 Parish's Planning Director, expects that the West Bank will 77 FIGURE 2.2 Jefferson Parish, Zoning Districts Legend .. lU-1 Zoning '"S-1 Zoning Source: , % Mum)hrey et al., 1975: 36. 78 continue to develop, but that future development will be determined by the location of present levees. The parish has plans to strengthen existing levees, especially in the Lafitte area, but he said there are no plans for wholesale reclamation (Ford, 1976). St. Bernard1 For its land use plans, St. Bernard relies on itsU Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance adopted by the St. Bernard3 Police Jury in 1971 (St. Bernard Planning Commnission, 1971). Most of St. Bernard may be described as open marsh. The wetlands areas are zoned A-1 rural (see Figure 2.3). In areas zoned A-1 rural, all uses--residential, commercial andI industrial--are permitted. The Parish Board of Adjustment3 may permit utilities, airports and recreational development in wetlands (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 37).3 The parish is in the process of creating a CZM plan. As one of the components of that plan, the Planning CommissionI would like to zone the wetlands so that they can be preserved and protected. The Commission would also like to limit all further development to land already leveed, because they3 recognize the expense involved in reclaiming and draining un- leveed land (Chetta, 1976).3 St. Tammany3 In January of 1972, the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury3 adopted the Parish Land Use Ordinance (St. Tammany Parish Police 79 - I gIImm - ---I---I- - FIGURE 2.3 St. Bernard Parish, A-1 Zoning District SOUND pONTCtARTRAIN _ *'`- ^ ZONING DISTRICTS ! A-1 RURAL 0 10I - - - <~~~~~~~~~~~~R-1 SINGLE-FAMIILY RESIDENTIAL R-2 TWO-FAMIL' RESIDENTIAL R-3 MULTIPLE-FA,MILY RESIDENTIAL r.~ pH / ( C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Q A 1 R * % 1-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL D ZONING DOCKET NUMBER w 16=1MILE NOA: BASE MAP ENCONTR OUED. DIMENSIONS SWHPE [44~~~ b-.--INDICATED ARE ACCVRAT EAORS AND CONLICTS Oi C3 C ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ IrCED Source: St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission, 1971: Map Section. jury, 1972) which established the comprehensive land use regulations for the parish. The parish has plans to develop a comprehensive zoning code in 1977. One of the six types of land use districts is the "inundation district" (or 'IF" district), which includes those areas subject to severe flooding at frequent intervals. In this district, it is required that main floors be elevated to a height of not less than one foot above the highest flood level as recorded since 1921. Along the coast of Lake Pontchartrain, this will mean floor levels of not less than eight feet. Other land use districts with a suffix 'If", mneaning the possibility of inundation exists, will be subject to the same minimum floor level requirements. Population in St. Tammany grew by 64.5 percent between 1960 and 1970, a result of NASA activity at the Michoud Assembly Facility and urban flight, which continues. The Chief Planner of the Parish believes that the parish should be further developed, but within limits (Sinden, 1976). He and the parish police jury have not decided what those limits should be. Projections show that population will continue to grow faster in the coastal zone than elsewhere in the state (see Table 5.5, below), increasing the demands for residential, comimercial, and industrial land uses. How to balance the need for further economic development with the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas is a critical decision that the parishes are attempting to resolve. 81 The four parishes are planning for increased industrial and commercial development. St. Tammany has proposed that a 30-acre industrial park be built in Slidell, near I-10 by the Slidell Airport. Consideration is also being given to a tourist development area in Mandeville. The parish presently is conducting a study of the waterfront property in Mandeville to determine its future use (Sinden, 1976). In St. Bernard the local officials are attempting to gain jurisdiction over the Mississippi River frontage in their parish, which is now claimed by the New Orleans Dock,Board. The parish would also like to control the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet frontage, although they would not expect to use this property before 1995 because of lack of access to this area. The river frontage would be used for wharves and warehouses (Chetta, 1976). Orleans Parish officials are concentrating on the 28,000 acre development of Orlandia, which includes acreage for commercial and industrial sites. Mayor Moon Landrieu of New Orleans has said that the future of the city is in Eastern New Orleans and Orlandia is the first step in a process of controlled and orderly growth (Times-Picayune, 1976). Jefferson Parish officials would still like to see the construction of a segment of 1-410 in their parish, because it would lead to greater economic development of the West Bank (Terranova, 1976). The construction was blocked as the result of a suit filed by environmental groups in the area 82 which charged that the proposed highway would have cut5 through viable wetlands. Regional officials seek the development of the proposed Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP). Present plans for LOOP call for a 48-inch pipeline to come ashore from the Gulf just east of Bayou Lafourche. The pipeline will ski-rt the Leeville3 oil field and run along Highway I and Bayou Lafourche. Imported crude oil is to be stored underground in leached out cavities in the Clovelly salt dome near Galliano3 (Mumphrey et al., 1976: 361-368). Recreation The coastal zone in Louisiana offers its residents manyI opportunities for recreational activities, from fishing and boating to hunting and camping. Projections of water activi- ties such as boating and water skiing, and of other activities3 such as hunting, fishing, crabbing and crawfishing in terms of user days for 1980 and 1985 show a marked increased in useI (see Table 2.1). There is a need, then to ensure environ- mental quality of the recreational resources of the coastal zone, as well as to develop additional recreational facilities.3 There are a variety of recreational areas in the four parishes of the New Orleans SMSA, including federal, state,3 and local lands and facilities (see Tables 2.2-2.5). Wetland and water-related activities have been emphasized in the recreational sites considered (Burk and Associates, 1975). 83 - IN/ - m - m I -m TABLE 2.1 USER-DAYS FOR VARIOUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES LOUISIANA COASTAL PARISHES, 1970-1985 (PROJECTED) User-Days 1975 8,701,520 4,781,665 2,768,920 2,279,631 1,688,022 1,362,217 1,862,625 1980 10,242,707 5,301,292 3,260,911 2,684,685 1,964,404 1,604,262 2,193,584 Activity Fishing Motorboating Hunting Crabbing Waterskiing Crawfishing Birdwatching 1970 7,525,570 4,135,456 2,349,719 1,971,255 1,442,601 1,178,123 1,610,904 1985 12,242,412 5,727,459 3,849,668 3,147,275 2,346,787 1,925,543 2,620,579 TOTALS 20,258,628 23,424,600 27,311,845 32,905,723 Source: Mumphrey et al., 1975: 114. ! TABLE 2.2 ORLEANS PARISH RECREATIONAL SITES 3 U State Parks and Monuments 3 Fort Pike State Monument, 125 acres, Hiwy. 90 at Rigolets Pass 3 Miscellaneous Recreational Facilities and Areas 3 Lake Pontchartrain, fishing, swimming, boating New Orleans (136 areas) U Public Boat launchinq ramps and facilities at South Shore, Chef Menteur Pass, Rigolets, 'Seabrook Bridge, West End City Park_I Audubon Park Toe Brown Park Brechtel Park Pontchartrain Park Pontchartrain Beach Pontchartrain Lakeshore and seawall Bayou St. Tohn Orleans Marina Municipal Yacht Harbor West End Park Bennie Larmann's Boat Launch, at Irish Bayou Strenqe's Boat Launch, at Irish Bayou Freddie Yarbrouqh's Boat Launch, at Bayou Sauvage and Lake Catherine Lee's Place (boat launch), on Lake Catherine Buddy's Marina, on Lake Catherine Lake Catherine Marina, on Lake Catherine Master Place Boat Launch - Hwy. 90 near Rigoletts S & S Launchinq, Bayou Bienvenue and Hwy. 47 ! Source: Burk and Associates, 1975: 36. ! ! 85 I TABLE 2.3 JEFFERSON PARISH RECREATIONAL SITES State Parks and Monumnents Grand Isle State Park, 100 acres on east side of Grand Isle Tean Lafitte State Park (proposed) north of Crown Point west of Highway 45 Miscellaneous Recreational Facilities and Areas Bayout Seqnette Camps Bavou Seqnette boat launch - Louisiana Avenue Boat Launches - Bonnabel Canal and end of Williams Blvd. Seaway Marina, Lafitte Rosethomn Park and Boat launch, picnic area Bridcfeside Marina, Grand Isle at Caminada Pass Sport Fishing Charter Fleet, east end of Grand Isle Lafrenlere Park on East Bank of Jefferson Parish. Linear Park (proposed) along Lake Pontchartrain Shoreline Sand bcach along Grand Isle and Elmer's Island, surf fishing, swimming Lake Pontchartrain, fishing, skiing, swimming, sailing Source: Burk and Associates, 1975: 32. 86 I TABLE 2.4 ST. BERNARD PARISH RECREATIONAL SITES State Parks and Monurnents St. Bernard State Park, located near Caernarvon, south of English Turn National Parks Chalmette National Historical ParkL 142 acres, near Chalmette I I I I I I I State Wildlife Management Areas I Biloxi Wildlife Manaqement Area, 39,580 acres, on the east- ern side of Lake Borgne Federal Wildlife Refuges Breton National Wildlife Refuge, 7,500 acres, in the Chandeleur Is lands Miscellaneous Recreational Facilities and Areas Public Beach along Chandeleur Islands, saltwater fishing Marinas and boat launchinq facilities at Shell Beach, Hope- dale, Delacroix Island, Bayou Bienvenue, Violet St. Bernard Recreation Department, 9 areas Pakenham Oaks and de la Ronde Park, near Chalmette National Historical Park State Designated Wilderness Areas St. Bernard Delta Wilderness Area Source: Burk and Associates, 1975: 37. 87 I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 2.5 ST. TAMMANY PARISH RECREATIONAL SITES State Parks and Monuments Boque IFalava Wayside Park, 13 acres, east of Covington F'airview Riverside State Park, 99 acres, near Madisonville Fontainbleau State Park, 2,755 acres, near Man~deville State Wildlife Management Areas Pearl River Wildlife Management Area, 26,700 acres near Slidel1l State Wildlife Refuges St. Tammanv Wildlife Refuge, along Lake Pontchartrain south of Lacombe Natural and Scenic Rivers Boque Chitto River, from Mississippi line to entrance into Pearl River Navigation Canal Tchefuncte River, from origin in Tanglpahoa Parish to its juncture with the Bogue Falaya River West Pearl River, from Mississippi State line to Lake Borgne Potential Registered Natural Landmarks Honev Island Swamp, scenic relatively unaltered cypress- tupelo gum swamp Miscellaneouis Recreational Facilities-~and Areas Bayou Lacombe, freshwater fishing and boating, near Lacornbe Geoghagan Marina, at the Rigolets and H-wy. 90 88 m TABLE 2.5 CONTINUED ! St. TammanyPJjarish (Cont'd.) Miscellaneous Recreational Facilities and Areas North Shore - Sarav Beach Area, marina, boating, salt and U freshwater fishing Covinqton Tent Town Campinq area, 7 mi. north of Covington I on Hwy. 25 Money Hill Plantation Woodland Park, camping, picnicing and freshwater fishing, La. 435 between Abita Springs and Talisheek Five Lakes Campinq Area, 3 miles northwest of Bush via Hwy. 21 and 40 Lake Ramsey, fishing, skiing and boating, 3 mi. north of Covington off La. 25 Mandeville Municipal Harbor, marina facilities south of ' Mandeville Pearl River locks and associated canals, freshwater fishing, camping, picnicing, above Hickory Boat launches at Davis Landing, Campbell's Landing and Indian Village near the Pearl River Wildlife Management Area Chahta Campqround, swimming, hiking, camping and fishing, Hwy. 190 near Mandeville Red Arrow Campqround, camping, Hwy. 190, 2 miles south of Covington I Source: Burk and Associates, 1975: 34-35. i ! I ! ! 89 ! 1. State parks and monuments constitute 3450 acres in the four parishes, with St. Tammany having the largest park, Fontainbleau State Park, near Mandeville. St. Bernard has the only national park, Chalmette National Historical Park. 2. There are 66,280 acres of wildlife management areas, found in St. Bernard and St. Tammany. 3. There are 1600 acres of state wildlife refuge areas, found in St. Tammany. 4. St. Bernard has 7500 acres of federal wildlife refuge areas. 5. Natural and scenic rivers are found in St. Tammany. 6. In each parish, there is at least one local park and recreational area, public or private beach, and several boat launches and marinas. Jefferson and St. Tammany Parishes both have public hunting, fishing and camping areas. St. Bernard has the St. Bernard Delta Wilderness Area, a state- owned area. Recreational activities, if properly planned and managed, need not have any deleterious effects on coastal resources. There is, however, the potential for negative ecological effects. These include litter, increased erosion from excessive use, the disposal of sewage generated by recreation- ists, and loss of wilderness characteristics and ecosystem changes because of commercial recreational development (Louisiana Advisory Commission, 1973: 268). One must also be careful that recreational activities do not compete with and adversely affect other uses in the coastal zone, such as commercial fisheries, agricultural and mineral production. 90 Also, as the Louisiana Advisory Commission (1973: 252- 263) noted, there are certain problems which impede the full use and enjoyment of recreational resources in the coastal zone. These problems include lack of recreational facilities3 and lands, pollution of Louisiana's water, erosion of Louisiana's shoreline, and lack of public access to many natural resources. In this section has also been included the many historical, cultural and tourist features that can be found in the four parishes in the New Orleans Region (Burk and Associates, 1975). "Historical sites and tourist attractions" include plantation3 homes, forts, cemeteries, churches, museums, monuments, old administrative buildings, and battlegrounds (see Tables 2.6-1 2.9).3 Presently 13 state agencies have a responsibility for providing facilities and/or funds for recreational develop-3 ment in Louisiana. There is a need for greater coordinatio n among these agencies, as well as greater coordinationI between state and federal agencies and between state5 agencies and the private sector (Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1974: 7.2). Commercial Fisheries and Trapping3 The fishing and trapping industries add a substantial amount of money to the annual economy of Louisiana. In 1975 the total dockside figure for all Louisiana fishing was $883 million. The dockside figure includes only the value of the 91 TABLE 2.6 ST. TAMMIANY PARISH HISTORIC, CULTURAL AND TOUJRIST FEATURES Historical Sites and Tourist Attractions Site of Old Brick Foundrv, located on the Leche Estate out- side Covington Honev Island Swamp located between the Pearl River and the town of Pearl River on U.S. II Indian Villaqe, located about 4 miles off Salt Bayou Road (La. Hwy. 1075) near Slidell Fountainbleau Plantation, how Fountainbleau State Park and the adjoining wildlife refuge Fairview Residence, located near Madisonville Chinchuba, located about 7 miles east of Convington on U. S. 19 0 Cemetery located about 4 miles from Slidell on La. Hwy. 433 Rouguette Monument, in a cemetery outside Lacombe I ~~~Seven Sisters Oak, the oldest and largest oak in the State, it is located on the T. L. Doby Estates in Lewisberg Bavou Cottaqe. oldest home standing in the Parish, located I ~~~in Madisonville:i The Charles Reed Home, built in 1832, located in Covington I ~~~Ida Chapman Home, Italian architecture st.yle, built in 1859, located in Covington Christ Epis'copal Church, built in 1847, located at the entrance I ~~~of Bogue Falaya Park The Benedictine Monastewv of St. Toseoh. located 3 miles 5 ~~~above Covingrton on Hwy. 25 3 ~Source: Burk and Associates, 1975: 104. 92 TABLE 2.7 81. BERNARD PAPISH HISTORIC, CULTURAL AND TOURIST FEATURES National Register of Historic Places Chalmiette National Historical Park, 6 miles south of Newv1 Orleans Historical Sites and Tourist Attra~tions Lebeau House, once part of a beautiful plantation, this two story brick house is now an apartment house, located just off La. 39 in Arabi Solis Plantation Site, located on La. Hwy. 300 above Delacrobx Turner House, a one story, cement-covered brick house builtI in 1853, located on La. 46, one mile east of Poydras Kenilworth Plantation House, built in 1759, located on ja. 46, 5 miles east of PoydrasI Fort Mar-tello, located at the- Lake Borgne end of the Lake Borgne C'anal Delacroix Island, located at the end of La. Hwy. 300I Hopedale Sugar Chimney, the ruins of a sugar plantation refinery, located at Hopedale, on Bayou LaLoutre Conseil Plantation Site, located off La. Hwy. 39 above Violet, La. Battery Bienvenue, a small fort with a battery of guns, located on the right bank of Bayou Bienvenue at Bayou Villere Old Courthouse, located in St. Bernard at the junction of La. Hwys. 39 and 46 Phillippon Plantation Slave Quarters, located just above Poydras on La. Hwy. 39 Meraux House, located at 224 Angela Avenue, Arabi Site of LaMaison des Jalousies, located on North Peters St., Arabi Three Oaks Plantation, a cement-covered brick house, built in 1840, located on North Peters Road, Arabi 93 TABLE 2.7 CONTINUED S_T. BERNARD PARISH (Cont'd.) Tne Old Roy Estate, located on North Peters Street, Arabi Georqe Villere House, built in the 1840's of Greek Revival style, located at 7417 North Peters Street, Arabi Marker from War of 1812, located on La. Hwy. 39 south of the junction with La. Hwy. 47 Site of the Old Macarty House, now a part of the Chalmette Slip The LaCoste House, located off La. Hwy. 39 below Chalmette Bienvenue and Chalmette Plantation Site, located on the edge of the Chalmette battlefield, Chalmette Versailles Plantation Ruins, this plantation was built in 1805 and burned in 1876. It was the site of the planned city of Versailles that was never developed. It is located below Chalmette battlefield Rene Beaureqard House, built in 1840, this 2 1/2 story home is the headquarters for Chalmette National Historic Park Pakenham Oaks, part of the Battle of New Orleans was fought under these oaks which extend from the ruins of Versailles plantation to the river Fort Beaureqard, a small fort established in the 1770's, located near Shell Beach on the south shore of Lake Borgne Contreras Site Monument, birthplace of P.G.T. Beauregard, located on La. Hwy. 46 St. Bernard Cemetery, located opposite St. Bernard Catholic Church, just out of St. Bernard Creedmore Plantation Sugar House Site, located out of St. Bernard Ducros Museum, located at St. Bernard, La. Poydras Plantation Site, located off La. Hwy..39 at the junc- tion with La. Hwy. 46 Source: Burk and Associates, 1975: 107-108. 94 TABLE 2.83 ORLEANS PARISH HIISTORIC, CULTURAL AND TOURIST FEATURES3 National Register of Historic Placest Biq Oak-Little Oak Islands, northeast part of New Orleans; Big Oak is on the east side of Roger's Lagoon, 1.7 miles east of Little Woods; Little ODak is 2.6 miles east of Little3 Woods. Bank of Louisiana, 334 Royal Street The Cabildo, Jackson Square, Chartres Street, and St. Peter Street Cable, George Washington House, 1313 Eighth Street French Market-Old Meat Market, 800 Decatur StreetI French Market-Old Vegetable Market, 1000 Decatur Street Gallier House, 1132 Royal Street The Garden District, bounded by properties fronting on CarondeletI St. on the north, Josephine St. on the east, Magazine St. on the south, and Louisiana Ave. on the west. General Laundryv Building, 2512 St. Peter St.I Girod Nicholas House, 500 Chartres St. Hermann-Grima House, 818-820 St. Louis St. fackson Square (Place d'Armnes), bounded by Decatur, St. Peter,I St. Ann, and Chartres Streets Lafayette Cemetery No. 1, 1400 Washington Ave. Lafitte's Blacksmith Shop, 941 Bourbon St.I Lower Garden District, New Orleans Madame Tohn's Legacy, 632 Dumaine St. Merieult House, 533 Royal St.I Old Ursuline Convent, 144 Chartres St. Old U.S. Mint, New Orleans, 420 Esplanade Ave. Perseverance Hall, 901 St. Claude Ave. Pilot House (Ducayet House), 1440 Moss St. The Presbytere, 713 Chartres St. Rabassa, lean Louis House, (McDonogh No. 18 School Annex), 1125 St. Ann St. St. Alphonsus Church (Roman Catholic), 2029 Constance St. St. Charles Line (Streetcar), St. Charles and Carrollton Avenues route St. Mary's Assumption Church, 2030 Constance St. Turpin-Kofler-Buja House, 2319 Magazine St. U.S. Court of Appeals-Fifty Circuit, 600 Camp St. 95 TABLE 2.8 CONTINUED ORLEANS PARISH (Cont'd.) U.S. Custom House, 423 Canal St. Vieux Carre Historic District, bounded by the Mississippi River Rampart St., Canal St., and Esplanade Ave. Fort Pike, north of New Orleans off U.S. 90 at the Rigolets ! Historic Sites and Tourist Attractions Since there are so many historic sites in New Orleans, they were not listed and mapped. Their locations and descriptions have been documented in numerous publications. Two well- i known sources are: New Orleans. Carolyn Kolb Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y., 1972 New Orleans City Guide. 1939 Houghton Mifflen, Boston. Federal Writer's Project. I i Source: Burk and Associates, 1975: 105-106. i t I i 1!9 TABLE 2.9 JEFFERSON PARISH HISTORIC, CULTURAL & TOURIST FEATURES I National Register of Historic Places Fort Livinaston. northeast of Grand Isle on western tip of Grand Terre Island i Historical Sites and Tourist Attractions Derbiqny, house located on River Road above Westwego Elmwood, one of the oldest mansions in the Deep South, located near Huey Long Bridge on La. Hwy. 48 Grandpere, fourth oldest live oak tree in the U.S. located near Harahan Tefferson Downs, race track located in New Orleans I Kenner Plantation, site of the city of Kenner on La. Hwy. 48 Lafitte Cemetery. cemetery near Lafitte said to be the burial I places of both Napoleon and John Paul Jones Wacqaman Cemetery. containing large brick tombs, located , in Waggaman Seven Oaks, house located on La. 18 above Westwego Tchoupitoulas, house built in 1820, now'the clubhouse of the Colonial Country Club Harvey Locks, linking the Mississippi River and the Intra- coastal Waterway at Harvey Ames Plantation Site, located on La. Hwy. 18, Marrero Berthoud Cemetery, located off La. Hwy. '45 in the town .of Barataria Barataria Liqhthouse. located on Grand Terre Island near Grand Isle. 9 ! ! I 97 I TABLE 2.9 CONTINUED JEFFERSON PARISH (Cont'd.) Fleming Plantation and 6uqar House Chimney located on the east bank of Bayou Barataria Cedar Grove Plantation, located on River Road in Waggamnan Madonna Manor and Hope Haven, located off La. Hwy. 45 in Marrero Louis Chighizola House, the house of Lafitte's Lieutenant, located in Grarnd Isle Grand Isle Cemeterv, old tombs among large oak trees, located at Grand Isle Our Lady of Grand Isle Church Bell. located in Grand Isle St. Anthony Cemetery, located in the town of Barataria, on the west side of the bayou near the bridge Maqnolia Lane, house located on River Road one mile north of Huey Long Bridge Rathborne Plantation Houses, antebellum cottages facing the river below the Harvey Canal Rosedale Plantation House, located near River Road, just I mile below the Huey P. Long Bridge Oak Lawn Plantation House, located off Jefferson Hwy., ab6ut 2 miles below the Huey P. Long Bridge Camp Parapet Powder Magazine, located on U.S. Hwy. 90 Whitehall Plantation House, just east of Huey P. Long Bridge McDonouqh Monument, located in the McDonoughvllle Cemetery, Hancock and Semmes Streets, Gretna Plantation Cottagfe, located on River Road in Gretna Mechanikham Town Comnmons, Old Railroad Depot, located near the Mississippi River in Gretna Gretna Ferrv and Ferrv Landing, near river in Gretna David Crockett Fire House, located on the 200 and 300 blocks of Lafayette S3treet, Gretna Old Gretna Courthouse, near Mississippi River in Gretna St. Toseph's Church, located on 7th Street, Gretna Perpetual Adoration Convent, just off La. Hwy. 90, -Gretna Gretna Town Center, located in the Huey P. Long Ave. neutral zone, from the Mississippi River to Fourth St. Source: Burk and Associates, 1975: 101-102. 98 overall catch; it does not include revenue from related industries, which increases the dock-side figure by several times. Louisiana ranks number one in pounds of seafood produced, as compared to the other 49 states. In 1975, Louisiana fishermen brought in 35 million pounds of shrimp, 10 million pounds of oysters and 23 million pounds of crabs (Beth Taylor, 1976). Comparing the figures for the 1975 shrimp catch with the figures in Table 2.10, which gives the shrimp catch for 1940- 1974, shows a marked decline. This decline continues the pattern of fluctuation in amounts of shrimp caught that has been apparent since 1956. The decline is due in part to changes (salt water intrusion, channelization, pollution, etc.) in estuary nursery grounds, where shrimp spend consider- able time (Mumphrey et al., 1976: 165-173). The 1975 osyter catch represents a slight increase over the 1974 figure (see Table 2.11). There has been little variation in the oyster catch over the past 25 years. How- ever, the oyster industry, too, is in danger from several sources related to activity in wetlands--pollution from oil spills, predators, etc., as discussed in Mumphrey et al. (1976: 173-179). Louisiana's biggest money-making fish is the menhaden, which is also the most valuable commercial fish in the United States. The menhaden has a very high oil content, which is the major reason it is used only for commercial purposes, such as manufacturing margarine and paints. It is also 99 TABLE 2.10 LOUISIANA SHRIMP CATCH, 1940-1974 Quantity Value Year (1000 lbs.) (1000 $) 1940 90,820 3,645 1941* 1942* 1943* 1944* 1945- 103,352 12,402 1946* 1947* 1948 79,966 16,827 1949 77,046 17,662 1950 70,630 14,696 1951 78,164 17,587 1952 75,854 15,722 1953 81,589 16,427 1954 77,709 15,451 1955 68,986 13,745 1956 56,886 15,316 1957 31,917 9,660 1958 39,760 13,080 1959 57,036 12,803 1960 61,758 15,881 1961 31,027 8,913 1962 43,585 14,985 1963 80,809 19,789 1964 59,382 18,794 1965 62,593 19,584 1966 62,276 24,390 1967 75,325 24,575 1968 67,768 25,623 1969 82,888 33,358 1970 90,948 34,614 1971 92,481 43,285 1972 83,035 47,066 1973 58,653 44,513 1974 59,591 32,206** *Data not available for these years **As it appears in source. Source: Mumphrey et al., 1976: 168. 100 I I TABLE 2.11 LOUISIANA OYSTER CATCH 1940-1974 I I Pounds Unprocessed Year (in thousands) Value I 12,412.2 $ 694,875 1940 1941* 1942* 1943* 1944* 1945 1946* 1947* 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 I I I 9,884.1 2,829,007 9,016.3 9,687.5 8,715.4 8,163.7 11,401.6 9,435.3 8,361.1 9,394.9 10,056.1 10,489.3 8,264.8 9,667.5 8,310.8 10,139.2 10,160.3 11,563.2 11,401.1 8,342.7 4,764.0 7,743.0 13,122.0 9,178.0 8,639.0 10,528.0 8,805.0 8,953.8 9,971.2 3,157,393 3,459,341 2,842,603 1,902,647 3,075,141 2,672,664 2,350,270 2,753,177 2,238,034 2,756,098 2,425,917 2,645,124 2,303,997 2,849,090 3,316,554 3,720,113 2,976,152 2,401,607 2,156,000 3,414,000 5,305,000 3,969,000 3,631,000 4,638,000 4,457,000 5,545,022 6,347,912 I I I I I I I I I I *Note: Data not available for these years. Source: Mumphrey et al., 1976: 179. 101 I used for feeding a vAriety of agricultural and domestic animals. The preliminary estimate for 1975 is a catch of 984,105,000 pounds, at a value of $29.4 million (Allen, 1976). The steady increase in the menhaden catch since it was intro- duced in the state in 1948 is reflected in Table 2.12. Menhaden are dependent on wetlands for nutrients (Mumphrey et al., 1976: 180-186). In the New Orleans area, Lake Pontchartrain is the most frequently fished waterway. Ranked fourth in state production, the lake brought in $1,360,303 (unprocessed seafood value) in 1975. For 1975, the lake produced 83,000 pounds of fish, 711,000 pounds of crabs (including soft shelled), and 336,000 pounds of shrimp for a total of 1,130,000 pounds (Taylor, 1976). Trapping is also a productive venture, with Louisiana leading the nation in fur production. Louisiana accounts for 40-65 percent of the total U.S. catch. The unprocessed value of the 1974-75 season was $10.8 million (see Table 2.13). Nutria now replaces muskrat as the most valuable fur animal in the state. Muskrat and nutria and other animals live in coastal marsh areas and depend on the wetlands for food and habitat (Mumphrey et al., 1976: 187-191). Because the fishing and fur industries in the area are productive, preservation of the wetlands is important. The wetlands serve as nursery, habitat and source of nutrients for many fish and fur animals. 102 I I I TABLE 2.12 MENHADEN CATCH FOR LOUISIANA I Catch Value Year (1000 pounds) (in thousands $) 1948 88,110 * 1949 165,914 * 1950 207,755 * 1951 209,574 * 1952 283,373 2,765 1953 307,492 3,690 1954 270,094 3,727 1955 298,309 4,594 1956 320,521 4,840 1957 162,817 2,459 1958 241,813 3,627 1959 442,740 * 1960 470,108 * 1961 581,682 6,748 1962 689,157 7,994 1963 633,484 7,862 1964 599,538 9,046 1965 682,435 11,790 1966 555,852 9,558 1967 510,414 6,134 1968 622,291 7,740 1969 856,251 12,764 1970 959,810 18,931 1971 1,237,093 20,015 1972 928,252 15,279 1973 894,931 37,221 1974 1,079,304 39,539 I I I I I I I I I I *NOTE: Data not available for these years. Source: Mumphrey et al., 1976: 181. 103 I I I I I m - - - -m - - " " - - ' TABLE 2.13 --L^SIANA FUR CATCH, 1974-1975 SEASON Number of Approximate Price Unprocessed Category Pelts to Trapper Value Muskrat (Eastern) 240,214 $ 3.25 $ 780,695.50 Muskrat (Western 60,000 4.50 270,000.00 Mink 32,319 4.50 145,435.50 Nutria (Eastern) 1,000,000 4.50 4,500,000.00 Nutria (Western) 502,617 5.50 2,764,393.50 Raccoon (Coastal) 70,000 4.00 280,000.00 Raccoon (Upland) 90,863 7.00 636,041.00 Opossum 30,447 1.50 45,670.50 Otter 6,118 25.00 152,950.00 Skunk 298 1.00 298.00 Fox 3,471 16.00 55,536.00 Bobcat 775 25.00 19,375.00 Beaver 276 5.00 1,380.00 Coyote 342 10.00 3,420.00 TOTAL PELTS 2,038,379 $9,655,195.00 Nutria Meat 9,000,000 lbs. .09 $ 810,000.00 Muskrat Meat 250,000 lbs. .09 22,500.00 Raccoon Meat 930,000 lbs. .30 279,000.00 Opossum Meat 250,000 lbs. .25 62,500.00 TOTAL MEAT 10,430,000 lbs. $1,174,000.00 TOTAL PELTS AND MEAT ...........................$10,829,195.00 Source: Mumphrey et al., 1976: 189. O o0 Flood and Storma Protection The flood of 1927 was the most disastrous in the history of the Lower Mississippi River Valley. An area of about 26,000 square miles was inundated. This disaster awakened the nation to the dire need for flood control in the lower valley. Out of it grew the Flood Control Act of 1928, which committed the Federal Government to a definite program of flood control. The Act of 1928 authorized the expenditure of $325 million for construction of a federal project to provide flood control in the alluvial valley of the lower Mississippi River, as well as navigation from Cairo to New Orleans. Local interests were charged with furnishing rights-of-way for levees and maintaining them after construction. Subsequent legislation has resulted in modifications to the 1928 Act. The flood control plan is known as the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. The four main elements of the plan are levees for containing flood flows; floodways for the passage of excess flows past critical reaches of the Mississippi; channel improvements and stabilization for stabilizing the channel in order to provide an efficient navigation alignment, increase the flood-carrying capacity of the River, and for protection of the levee system; and tributary basin improvements for major drainage and flood control, such as dams and reservoirs, pumping plants, auxiliary channels and the like (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973: 4, 9). Figure 2.4 gives a schematic representation of the project as it was in 1958. 105 FIGURE 2.4 MISSOURI RIVER - NEW MADRID 550,000 PADUCAH 220, 1 MEMPHIS ARKANSAS CITY GREENVILL E -- 55,000 2.720,000 NATCHEZ WEST 350U,OU ATCHAFALAYA OLD, R FLOOD WA Y r - y 620,000 250,000 F , 680,000 2,100,000 /'---- 600,000 1,500,000 r1,500,000 OUTLET ~ 1,200,000FL OODWAY E 3I "I IMORGAN CITY l1200'000 1,250,00 GT2Sp n i, RED RIVER LDG BATON ROUGE [ BONNET CARRE .SPILI, WA Y 250,000 - NEW LAMKCLr/~ ORLEANS PROJECT DESIGN FLOOD .(UP CUBIC FEET PER SECOND SEPT 1958 Source: U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers, 1973: 7. 106 Flood control plans such ar3 the mississippi River and Tributaries Project make reclamation of wetland areas feasible. When it became technologically possible to buildI a levee and artifically drain an area, keeping the water out3 by channeling it into leveed sea-level canals for transport to Lake Pontchartrain, then the City of New Orleans was able3 to grow beyond its natural levee. The pattern of urbanization in New Orleans has been to reclaim wetlands first to theI north to Lake Pontchartrain, then to the west in Jefferson3 Parish, and now to the east in Orlandia (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 63-64).3 Since the New Orleans SMSA contains large areas of wetlands in their natural state (see Table 2.14), it is3 important to understand the ecological effects that recla-3 mation has on wetlands. The following list of cause-effect relationships has been attributed to the man-induced stress3 of reclaimiing wetlands in Louisiana: 1. Irreversible loss of land to the estuaryI a. loss of habitat for birds, fish, reptiles, etc. b. loss of nursery areas for birds and fish3 c. loss of detritus to the estuary d. loss of nutrient input into the estuary3 e. resultant loss in natural productivity f. loss of fresh water 2. Loss of productive capacities that benefit man3 a. reduced assimilative capacity of water to absorb pollutants b. reduced commercial and sport fishing activities due to decreased total productivityU 107 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m - m m -m TABLE 2.14 CLASSIFICATION OF LAND IN THE NEW ORLEANS REGION (Pre-Urbanization) Pleistocene Uplands (in square miles) 0 Mississippi Natural Levee Deposits (in square miles) 24 Wetlands (Swamps and Marsh) Total Parish Area (in square miles) (in square miles) Parish Orleans 175 199 Jefferson St. Bernard St. Tammany TOTAL 0 54 355 471 273 1274 409 510 909 2027 0 39 l-j 0 m 636 636 0 117 Source: Mumphrey et al., 1975: 66. c. loss of relatively cheap, effective municipal3 sewerage treatment by wetlands d. accelerated loss of wetland to the ocean3 e. loss of a buffer zone against tropical storms (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 64).l1 New projects under the flood control plan continue to drain more acres of marsh and swamp areas. One of these3 projects is the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan on which is predicated the development ofI Orlandia, a 28,000 acre residential-industrial-commercial3 complex planned for eastern New Orleans. The hurricane protection plan will entail a direct loss of 5,265 acres of3 wetlands due to actual construction. An additional 31,020 acres of marsh, swamp and water in its natural state, mainly3 in the Chalmette region, will be lost to the estuary behind the new levees. In eastern New Orleans, 14,904 acres of wetlands will be open to reclamation after being protected3 by the new levee-lock system. Some of this land north of the I-10 expressway (3,250 acres) has retained its viability3 (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 68). Costing an estimated $327 million, the project was begun in 1967 and is scheduled to be completed by 1991. Figure1 2.5 shows the details of the project, which consists of a combination of levees and flood control structures built in3 various locations along the shores of Lakes Pontchartrain and IAfull discussion of these ecological effects on the estuarine system may be found in Mumphrey et al., 1975: 76-82. 109 mI m a! aI aI aI a1 aI - a -W aa-f FIGURE 2.5 LEGEND EXSIGIPRvmNSAUTHORIZED IMPROVEMENTS Ex STIN IMPROVEMENTS ;-?~ - New~ ~.e,e " oo~=rec m= Levee . Stowoll Levee Enlargement -_ Navigat:o .��r��r -.: .gChnne. Se~'--., II,,;,mmm,,t,,,,,, Portlon Of U.S. Hwy. Cr"o Slr,~ct.,.e ~ Floaocull 90 to ervre as port of Barrir Embankment ,,,u-t-,s ."':? Oro.oeae SI,ucture Sleoworl L A K E�u�rr�i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SirenAtheira. *N i~~~~~~~~~~~i m~4/r. H o / A LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY HURRICANE PROTECTION Source: Louisiana Advisory Cormmission, 1973: 93. Borgneto protect developed areas from hurricane tides. Floodwalls and levees along the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, and in Chalmette are presently under construction with many completed. To limit uncontrolledI entry of hurricane tides into Lake Pontchartrain, barrier com- plexes will be built across the tidal passes of the Lake, at Seabrook, Chef Menteur and Rigolets. The proposed barriers have created intense opposition from St. Tammany residents whoI fear the barriers would divert flood waters to their area, as well as restrict shipbuilding and recreational activities north of Lake Pontchartrain (Ciko, 1976).1 Other parts of the project include building a new levee along the Citrus and New Orleans East lakeshores; improvingI or enlarging existing protective works on the south shore of the Lake along Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal; strengthening the Mandeville Seawall;I constructing a lock at Lake Pontchartrain's junction with the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal; and constructing a new leveeI along the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet extending from the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to about six miles southeast of Bayou Dupre, around Verret and west to Caemarvon; and buildingI a drainage structure at Creedmore Canal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 88).1 The Lake Pontchartrain Levees project was completed in 1956 at a cost of $8.3 million, including a cash contributionI of $1.35 million by local parishes. The project includes construction of 10.2 miles of levee along the Lake ~~~~~~~~~il Pontchartrain shoreline of Jefferson Parish; enlargement of 4.8 miles of levee along the Jefferson-St. Charles Parish line, and enlargement of 2.3 miles of the 17th Street Canal levee along the Jefferson-Orleans Parish line (see Figure 2.6). These levees protect about 50 square miles of residential land and industrial development in Jefferson Parish from storm tides in Lake Pontchartrain. As a result of these levees, population in the area increased dramatically, from 54,000 in 1950 to 200,000 in 1973. After Hurricane Betsy in 1965, the Pontchartrain Levee District raised the levees to provide added protection, at a cost of over $2.3 million. Project maintenance in this area is the responsibility of the Pontchartrain Levee Board (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 90). The Harvey Canal-Barataria Levee project consists of construction of a levee along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Jefferson Parish between Roussel Pumping Station and Cousins Canal, enlargement of the existing levee from Cousins Canal to Mile 6, and a new levee from Mile 6 to Louisiana State Highway 45 near Crown Point. The plan also calls for construction of a new pumping station by local interests. The estimated project cost is $1 million Federal, and $5.02 million non-Federal. The first phase of the project was completed in 1974. The second phase is scheduled to begin in 1976 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 105). The land protected by the levee is zoned industrial, and is used primarily for petro-chemical supporting facilities (Terranova, 1976). 112 a I I FIGURE 2.6 LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN LEVEES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *PONrCH r R. A i)V SCALE OFNrILEs LEGEND EMENvTS AUTHORIZED IMPROVEMENTS Lete EIr FIoOEsgiI r-.~~~~~~~~~~~~S s ahltr A EXISTING IMPROVI '- Levew - Soowa Source: Adapted from the Louisiana Advisory Commission, 1973: 93. 113 The New Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection Project is to provide increased protection for four reaches along the Mississippi River below New Orleans. Features of the project include increasing the height and cross-section of the existing back levees, constructing new back levees, and modifying existing drainage facilities. A barrier levee on the east bank of the Mississippi River is to be constructed to exclude tidal surges which might come across the marshes to the east (see Figure 2.7). The total project costs are estimated to be $80.5 million for the Federal Government and $34.5 for non-Federal interests. Planning is under way for all reaches. Construction was initiated in August 1968 on Reach B-1 and on Reach B-2 in July 1974. The initial phase of construction on Reach C levee was accomplished to an interim grade by local interests and will be accomplished to design grade jointly by local interests and the Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 107-109). The parishes in the New Orleans region may experience flooding from the Mississippi River, from watershed tribu- taries along the mai n artery of the Mississippi River, from tidal surges associated with hurricanes and tropical storms, as well as from ponding of rainfall runoff and tidal over- flow (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974: 21-22). It is not uncommon to have streets flooded above the curb line and drainage canals flowing at full capacity following heavy rainfalls. All rainfall runoff must be pumped through the outfall canal system into adjacent tidal waters. In many 114 5 0 -t - -I 5 E 0 ( HURRICANE PROTECTION) W-- _- -7- - Source: Louisiana Advisory Commission, 1973: 99. _ _ _ _ _______ _ _ __ cases, pumping capacity is not adequate to handle high inten- sity storms of several hours duration. The parishes have constructed a number of improvements that provide land drainage and protection against flooding. The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, for example, must pump 5.01 x 109 cubic feet of water each year into Lake Pontchartrain to maintain the City. Without the elaborate pumping system, the City would conceivably flood with each rain. Pumping the drainage water into the Lake, with its high nutrient content in the form of sewerage, increases the content of such organisms as coliform and salmonella bacteria. The Lake has had to be closed to swimmers several times due to the threat of infection from this bacteria (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 53-55). Ponding has been aggravated also by the development of organic soils for urban uses. Initial subsidence that takes place when the soils are drained, and annual subsidence of one-half to two inches per year thereafter, has resulted in elevations of as much as eight feet below sea level (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974-:22). Major Navigation Canals The port of New Orleans has served historically as a vital link between the central interior of the nation and the sea. Among United States ports, New Orleans is second only to New York in tonnage handled and is the largest port on the Gulf of Mexico. In 1974, the New Orleans Port accounted for 116 7.7 million tons of general cargo (Board of Commissioners, Port of New Orleans, 1974: 12). Aside from deep-draft ocean shipping, the New Orleans area is a key focal point for Inland waterway traffic. Inland barge traffic not only links the deep water ports to the interior of the nation, but also provides important support for the industrial structure of the coastal region in Louisiana (Louisiana Advisory Commission, 1973: 64). Some of the important navigable water- ways in the region that will be discussed below are the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), The MRGO-Michoud Canal, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Houma Navigation Canal, the Barataria Bay Waterway (see Figure 2.8), the channels of Bayous LaLoutre, St. Malo and Yscloskey, Bayou Lacombe and Bayou Dupre (see Figure 2.9), the Tchefuncte River and Bogue Falaya Waterway, Bayou Bonfuca, and the Pearl River 'Waterway (see Figure 2.10). As important as canals for water transportation may be, channelization poses a serious threat to the ecological balance of the estuarine system. Canals and other man-made channels in the state are over 63 percent of the length of natural bayous and passes. They have resulted in the direct destruction of 42,104 acres of wetlands. Indirectly, they have resulted in the destruction of larger tracts of estuarine lands (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 82). The channels that criss- cross the wetlands have had these negative effects upon them: 1. interfering with sheetwater flow through the marsh; 117 FIGURE 2.8 MAJOR NAVIGATION CANALS SCALE OF MILES lo 0 10 20 30 40 50 7- ILU Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 100. 118 CD p~~~~.U I&ALO ~~~~~CHANDELEUR ISLANDS '~T CD T-W co FIGURE 2. 10 Major Navigation Canals -' ~1" m* -,j ,'4,7, Source: Profegsional Engineering Consultants Corps, 1972: 35. 120 2. allowing rapid salinity changes with the resultant death of vegetation and erosion of the marsh; 3. allowing destruction of marsh by wave action; 4. decreasing productivity by the presence of3 straight vs. sinuous channels that accelerate removal of freshwater and also confine water movement;I 5. destruction of barrier islands with resultant increased destruction of marsh (Mumphrey3 et al., 1975: 86). 2 These negative effects result in decreased wetlandI productivity due to loss of the essential components of marsh-- detritus,, sheetflow, broad fresh-salt interface--that are one of the prerequisites of a productive biologic system in the wetlands (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 93). The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet affords a tidewater3 outlet to the Gulf that is about 37 miles shorter than the Mississippi River route. Sailing time, ship turnaround time, navigation hazards, and congestion were intended to be3 reduced by the project. The project, completed in 1968, consists of a ship channel 36 feet deep and 500 feet wide3 extending approximately 76 miles in a land and water cut from the junction of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal and theI Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in New Orleans to the -38-foot3 contour in the Gulf. Jetties for the reduction of shoaling, a turning basin, and a lock and connecting channel with the3 2A full discussion of these ecological effects upon wetlandsI may be found in Mumphrey et al., 1975: 86-93. 121 Mississippi River are salient features of the project. Major types of cargo moving over the channel include crude petroleum, primary metal products, and food and related products (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 106). The MRGO channel provides an example of the negative effects channelization has on wetlands. The channel replaces 1680 acres of shallow open water and 4868 acres of marsh along its 70 miles from Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the edge of the Breton Sound. The spoil areas, which are on the south of the canal, cover 4518 acres of open water and 12,540 acres of marsh. Therefore, 23,606 acres, or 36.9 square miles, of wetlands have been removed from productivity. The channel is now an arm of the sea, extending through the marsh of St. Bernard into New Orleans. There have been significant changes in the salinity of the water (see Figures 2.11 and 2.12). Salt water intrusion has shifted the shoreline of Lake Borgne to the south bank of MRGO. The increased salinity partially contributed to this deterioration of the shoreline. Land loss is also caused by natural wave action, ship-generated wake and waves, increase of tidal action and water circula- tion between the bayous and the canal, among other reasons (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1973: 23-27). The thick sequence of poorly consolidated sediment through which the MRGO channel was excavated has created highly unstable bank conditions and massive slumping is common. The result of this condition has been a continuous 122 I I FIGURE 2.11 MONTHLY SALINITY RANGE Hopedale I I 20 I5 10 I I I Source: Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972: 90. I 123 I FIGURE 2.12 MONTHLY SALINITY RANGE Paris Road Bridge 20 - 15 10 5 0 Jaon Mar May July Sept Nov Source: Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972: 91. 124 and costly program of maintenance dredging. This condition has also meant that MRGO has not been successful as far as its purpose is concerned. Although MRGO provides a shorter route for ocean-going vessels between the Gulf of Mexico and the Port of New Orleans, the travel time is longer because the channel is shallow and narrow. Therefore, a majority of vessels still use the Mississippi River. The proposed widen- ing of the channel to 750 feet and deepening it to 50 feet would further accelerate bank slumping, salt water intrusion and loss of large acreages of marsh (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972: 93). The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO), Michoud Canal will provide a 36- by 250-foot ship channel to be excavated within existing water bottoms from the MRGO along a part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and through the Michoud Canal. An 800- by 808-foot turning basin will be located in the northern end of the project. The cost is estimated at $3.7 million Federal and $1.06 million non-Federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 106-107). Through the interconnection with the Mississippi River system and other important inland'waterways, the Gulf Intra- coastal Waterway enables small craft and commercial tows to reach many points throughout the eastern and southern sea- boards, the Midwest, and the Great Lakes areas. The Intracoastal Waterway within Louisiana extends along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico from Lake Borgne Light No. 29, the eastern boundary, to the Sabine River, the western 125 boundary, a distance of 302 miles; from Port Allen to Morgan City, a distance of 64 miles; from Plaquemine to Indian Village, a distance of 7.4 miles; and to the town of Franklin via the Franklin Canal, a distance of 5.15 miles. The main route provides for a 12-foot by 150-foot channel from Lake Borgne Light No. 29 to the Industrial Canal, and a 12-foot by 125-foot channel from the Mississippi River to the Sabine River , including the routes through both Algiers and Harvey Lock. Average annual traffic through Algiers Lock, 1969-1973, was 20.7 million tons (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 143-147). The Houma Navigation Canal allows navigation from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near the western edge of Houma to the Gulf of Mexico. Federal maintenance of this canal, completed by non-Federal interests in 1962, was officially assumed in 1962. The oil industry contributes the major cargo on this 15-foot by 150-foot channel (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 105). The Barataria Bay Waterway extends from the Gulf Intra- coastal Waterway in Jefferson Parish to Grand Isle, then along the western shore of Barataria Bay to the 12-foot depth contour in the Gulf of Mexico. Traffic on the waterway consists mainly of oil industry cargo and liquid sulphur. Opportunities for recreational boating and fishing are plentiful throughout the area. The waterway and adjacent waters below Lafitte are used extensively by commercial fishermen and oystermen. The present project, which was last 126 modified in 1967, provides for a channel approximately 37 miles long with a 12-foot depth and 125-foot width from its beginning at the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Grand Isle (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 101). The channels of Bayous LaLoutre, St. Malo, and Yscloskey are presently used mainly by commercial trappers and fishermen en route to Lake Borgne, Chandeleur Sound, and intervening waterways and marsh areas. This 30-mile project has been used by oil companies as a safe, inland route for transporting crude oil, equipment and personnel. The project provides for a 5-foot by 40-foot channel from deep water in Lake Borgne to the shoreline at the mouth of Bayou Yscloskey; a 6- by 40- foot channel from deep water in Lake Borgne through Bayous St. Malo, LaLoutre, and Eloi, to deep water in Lake Eloi; and a 5- by 30-foot channel in Bayou LaLoutre between Hopedale and Bayou St. Malo (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 104). The major cargo on Bayou Lacombe is gravel from the upper reaches of the bayou. The waterway is heavily used for boat- ing, fishing, and access to Lake Pontchartrain. Completed in 1938, the project consists of a 60-foot wide, 8-foot deep channel through the entrance bar in Lake Pontchartrain and removal of snags and overhanging trees from Mile 8.2 to the mouth of Bayou Lacombe (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 88). The oil industry provides the major cargo on the Bayou Dupre Waterway, although it is used heavily by recreational craft moving between Violet and Lake Borgne. The project, 127 completed in 1939, includes a 6-foot deep channel from the highway bridge at Violet to deep water in Lake Borgne, with wi dths of 80 feet in the canal and bayou and 100 feet in the lake (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 101-102). The Tchefuncte River and Bogue Fala'ya Waterway, which is approximately 14 miles in length, provides excellent fishing, boating and other recreational opportunities. Adjacent higher land are rapidly being developed for private homes. The original 8-foot project from Covington to Lake Pontchartrain was completed in 1929. The present project provides for a 10-foot by 125-foot navigation channel from a 10-foot depth in Lake Pontchartrain to about Mile 3.5 of the Tchefuncte River. From Mile 3.5 to Washington Street in Covington, the channel would remain 8 feet deep. The present project was completed in 1959 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 88). Major traffic on Bayou Bonfuca is generated by a ship- yard, a creosote treatment plant, and a clamshell storage area. Completed in 1931, this project consists of an 8-mile long channel, which is 10 feet deep, with a bottom width of 60 feet. The waterway extends from Slidell to deep water in Lake Pontchartrain (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 88). Commercial traffic on the Pearl River Waterway, a 58- mile navigation channel from the mouth of West Pearl River at the Rigolets to the mouth of Bogue Lusa Creek at Bogalusa, has decreased considerably in recent years. The waterway is 128 now used largely for hunting, fishing, boating, swimming and camping. About 338,000 people visited this canal in 1973. Features of the waterway, which was completed in 1953, include a dredged channel 7-feet deep and 100-feet wide in the West Pearl River from its mouth to Holmes Bayou; a lateral canal 7-feet deep and 80-feet wide from the mouth of Holmes Bayou to Pools Bluff, with three locks having clear inside dimen- sions of 65-feet wide and 310-feet long and a depth of 10 feet over the sills at low water; and a dredged channel 7-feet deep and 100-feet wide in the Pearl River from Pools Bluff to the mouth of Bogue Lusa Creek (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 83-84). Another user activity which has similar environmental effects as the construction of major navigation canals is the complex network of oil and gas pipelines which crisscross the four parishes in the New Orleans area. These pipelines each have canals attending them. There are approximately 47 pipelines (Mumphrey, et al., 1975: 85) in the region which carry oil and natural gas from offshore and land drilling sites to refineries, and eventually to consumers both within the area and throughout the northern and eastern portions of the United States. These pipeline canals tend to increase the rate of runoff and the volume of tidal exchange in the marsh through which they pass. The result is increased salinity which causes faunal and floral changes and acceralated soil erosion 129 (Mumphrey, et al., 1975: 82-93). Wave action and slump may cause the canals to widen over a period of time. The Southern Natural Gas Pipeline in St. Bernard, for example, was designed origianlly to be 35 feet wide. Since it was built in 1955 the canal has expanded to 100 feet in 1975. Such widening effect may be expected in any channel opened in marshland where new drainage flow patterns must be accommodated (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972: 95). Permanent environmental stress also results from dredge and fill operations and the construc- tion of refining and petrochemical complexes. Water Quality and Wastewater Treatment In this section, the problems affecting water quality in the area are considered. To begin, the amount of water that is required for use is noted; methods used for handling and treating wastewater, both industrial and municipal, are described; and the lack of centralization among state agencies having responsibility for various aspects of water pollution control is discussed. Also discussed are two water-related problems, air pollution and the disposal of solid wastes. Water pollution is a contributor to estuarine loss. No wetlands are directly destroyed by pollution. Within polluted waters, however, there is massive interference with the essential cycle of life in the ecosystem. This results in deterioration of natural processes and eventually loss of wetlands (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 41). 130 I Water SupplyI Approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water per daY are withdrawn from ground and surface sources to use in the New Orleans SMSA for municipal, rural, domestic, industrial andI thermo-electric purposes. 1970 water usage by parish is shown3 in Table 2.15. Withdrawals from surface sources accounted for 95.3 percent of the usage and the remaining 4.7 percent is3 withdrawn from underground sources. The Mississippi River is the principal water supply source. Despite its huge flow,I quality problems due to municipal and industrial pollutants and salt water intrusion have raised questions as to the continuing viability of the River as a sole water supply3 source (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974: 26). Wastewater Treatment Wastewater handling and disposal have resulted in serious water quality problems in the New Orleans SMSA. Acting in3 accordance with procedures of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state of Louisiana has declared Lakes3 Pontchartrain and Borgne, the Mississippi River, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and the Mississippi River-Gulf OutletI to be water quality limited.2 At present, efforts to improve3 water quality are being directed towards complying with EPA 2~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2Bodies judged to be water qualtiy limited do not meet the state's water quality criteria as to aesthetics, color, floating, suspended and settleable solids, taste and odor,I toxic substances, oils and greases, foaming or frothing materials, nutrients, turbidity, and other materials (Louisiana Stream Commission, 1973: 10-12).3 131 TABLE 2.15 EXISTING WATER USE RATE OF WITHDRAWAL - MGD Public and Rural Domestic Supply Ground Surfac e 1.16 0.73 0 0.62 32.75 0 0.84 0 0.87 0 0 39.3 0 5.2 5.12 0 0.01 127.37 1.02 0 0 3.58 0 6.09 0 2.95 0.37 0 0 0.99 0.07 1.35 5.08 0 12.75 0 2.46 0 0.55 0 63.05 188.18 Thermoelectric and Industrial Agriculture Total ! Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground 0.51 0.01 3.35 108.53 5.02 0 0.02 4.92 20.72 4.92 0.63 0.33 107.07 370.16 140.45 0.02 0.37 1.55 0 2.41 0.07 0.13 12.79 1097.11 13.73 0.19 0.01 10.23 314.07 10.42 0.06 0.25 0 22.23 0.06 1.18 0.08 1.21 0 7.51 0.07 0.02 43.09 241.78 43.17 1.24 0.51 2.27 0 4.53 0 0.05 0 23.84 0 0 0 1.63 590.50 1.63 0.03 0.03 14.07 1694.46 14.10 0.02 0.74 0 0 0.39 0.08- 0.46 5.36 220.00 5.44 0.08 0.01 5.25 53.73 5.40 0.30 0.34 3.64 0.08 9.02 .2.71 0.71 1.61 0 17.07 0.25 0.02 7.64 0 10.35 0.03 0.24 6.35 32.00 6.93 7.47 4.33 232.03 4789.21 302.55 Surface 109.27 21.36 370.49 0.37 1097.24 353.38 27.68 0.08 369.1i7 0.51 27.47 596.59. 1697.44 0.74 221.45 55.09 0.42 0.71 0.02 32.24 498.72 Parish Ascension Assumption East Baton Rouge East Feliciana bearville Jefferson Lafourche Livingston Orleans Pointe Coupee Plaquemines St. Bernard St. Charles St. Helena St. James St. John St. Tammany Tangipahoa Westar Baton Rouge West Feliciana Total Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974: 132 27. requirements for the year 1977. An example of such efforts is the $28 million secondary sewage treatment plant currently under construction in Orleans Parish. It is expected that these water bodies will remain water quality limited even after the 1977 goal is achieved (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974: In general, water quality problems which originate in the area result from inadequate treatment of municipal and industrial wastes, from cooling water discharges, and from water used in petroleum production and water borne transporta- tion. There are also non-point sources of pollution, such as urban and rural runoff. Congress is now considering ways of strengthening section 208 of the 1972 Water Pollution Act (U.S. Congress, 1972) to provide more effective enforcement of measures to prevent non-point discharges, both agricultural and homeowners' pollution (Clement, D., 1976). Municipal and industrial sewage treatment facilities with- in the SMSA generally provide less than secondary treatment. Of the 72 known industrial dischargers in the area, the majority of them provide only primary or inadequate secondary treatment (Louisiana Stream Control Commission, 1976). Some industrial discharges have been found to contain heavy metals, lead, mercury, zinc, as well as phenols, cyanides and many organic compounds. Wastes generated by ships and other marine craft also present a pollution problem. Oil spills present a major problem. Oil spilled in estuaries and marshlands is more likely to be trapped and incorporated into sediment where it can 133 persist for long periods (Mumphrey et al., 1976: 182-191). All types of oranisms absorb the pollutants carried by the river water as it filters through the coastal bays and marshes of the coastline (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 59). Since industrial development is important to the region's economy, a harmonious balancing of the demands they impose upon the water resources must be achieved (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974: 20). Most municipal areas in the region have developed waste sewage treatment facilities, using EPA funds which are readily available. Most major areas have become regionalized, with one large control plant using a high level of treatment. The West Bank of Jefferson Parish is the largest area not to develop a centralized waste sewerage treatment plant, relying instead on local treatment plants (Bruce, 1976). However, there are still municipal swage treatment facilities that provide less than secondary treatment. High coliform counts, primarily resulting from inadequately treated wastes, periodically render portions of Lakes Pontchar- train and Borgne unsuitable for recreation or shell fish production. Water Pollution Control Efforts The state's overall pollution control effort is segmented, with various agencies having responsibilities for specific aspects of pollution control. With respect to water pollution, the Stream Control Commission has primary responsibility, especially as it relates to emissions from industrial sources. 134 Several other agencies share the total responsibility. The Department of Conservation has jurisdiction over water pollu- tion that is caused by oil operations; the Soil and Water Conservation Committee aids in controlling water pollution3 that is caused by runoffs from agricultural lands; the Environ- mental Health Bureau of the Division of Health has jurisdiction over water pollution that has health implications (e.g., municipal sewage treatment plants); the Department of Public Works has jurisdiction over all water resources development projects within the state; and the Pollution Enforcement Section of the Enforcement Division of the Wildlife and3 Fisheries Commission enforces pollution laws and rr"gulations. The responsibility of these agencies is mainly limited toI enforcement, regulation, and management. Construction and3 overation of water pollution control facilities is normally handled at the parish or municipal level by semi-autonomous3 sewer and water boards, whose members are appointed by the local elected officials (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974:1 15-16).3 Air Pollution and Solid Waste Significant environmental problems derive from air pollution and the accumulation and disposal of solid wastes. The major air pollution sources are found in or adjacent to the urban communities. Air pollution in the rural areas is usually minor and localized, being limited to the burning of sugar cane fields or occasional forest fires. In addition to 135 the automobile, other major air pollution sources include the petrochemical industries, paper mills, grain elevators, and industries which burn fuels other than natural gas. The New Orleans SMSA is classified priority I with respect to sulphur dioxide and hydrocarbons, which indicates that a significant health hazard exists with respect to these pollutants. The area is also classified priority III with respect to carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, which indicates significant pollution exists and could be detrimental to vegetation and exposed surfaces, as well as being a health hazzard (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974: 18). Solid waste disposal is a growing environmental problem. The solid waste handled publicly is estimated to average five pounds per capita per day in the New Orleans area. Presently, incineration and open dumping are widely used methods of solid waste disposal in the area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineer4, 1974: 19). The City of New Orleans historically has used the land-fill method for disposing of some of its garbage. While land fills avoid the increased air pollution that would result from burning the garbage, they create water pollution. Decaying garbage breeds large quantities of coliform and salmonella bacteria. During heavy rainfalls, this highly polluted water is washed into Bayou Bienvenue and then into Lake Borgne. Of f and on for many years, the oyster beds in Lake Borgne have had to be closed to harvesting due to abnormally high bacterial counts stemming from the runoff 136 associated with the large land fills on Paris Road in St. Bernard Parish and eastern New Orleans (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 57).1 Beginning in the summer of 1976, New Orleans adopted an alternative to nonproductive landfilling and incineration. The new method diverts solid waste from disposal to re-use.I Known as Recovery I, the facility recovers and prepares for re-use, by industry, such materials as paper, ferrous metals,I aluminum and glass (see Table 2.16). The residue, mostly light, organic material, will be used to fill in land in eastern New Orleans. This new method of solid waste disposal will result in less pollution, while conserving natural resources and providing a more sanitary landfill methodI (Parker, 1976: 8-12).1 CURRENT COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS None of the four parishes in the New Orleans SMSA has a coastal zone management plan that has been adopted by local government officials, thus carrying legal sanctions. Instead, parish officials rely on their zoning ordinances and building codes as tools by which to manage their coastal zone. The parishes are at different stages in developing CZM plans, but each parish intends to develop its own plan. The New Orleans City Planning Commission has written a three-volume CZM Plan (1975) which is now being considered for adoption by the City Planning Commission and the New Orleans City Council.3 Rulings by the two bodies are expected shortly. The St. 137 TABLE 2.16 New Orleans Recovery Facility Material Recovery Estimates Tons/Day Recovery Available Tons/Day Rate Product in Waste Stream Recovered (% Glass 72 47.0 65 Ferrous Materials 49 46.0 93 Aluminum 6 3.6 60 Other Nonferrous Materials 3 1.2 40 Newspaper 65 20.0 31 Source: Parker, 1976: 12. 138 Bernard Parish Planning Commission is in the process of writing a CZM Plan, having already received studies of theg parish's environmental baseline (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972) and resource management of the parish's wetlands3 (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1976, draft). The Jefferson Parish Planning Department decided this spring that they3 would participate, using state monies, in the development of a CZM Plan. Jefferson Parish has completed an inventory of its land use and natural features (Burk and Associates, Inc.f and Earth Satellite Corporation, 1974). The St. Tammany Parish Planning Department received authority this spring� from the Police Jury to begin developing a CZM Plan, using state monies. At that time, planning became a departmentI separate from the engineering department (Sinden, 1976).1 New Orleans The CZM Plan (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 25-33) has identified four environmental areas withinI the City of New Orleans (see Figure 2.13). These are: 1) the highly urbanized area, which includes the most heavily populated areas of the city; 2) the contained marsh area, consisting of impounded fresh water marsh now being sporadi- cally drained, is bounded by Paris Road on the west, I-10 on the north, the Gulf Intracoastal on the south, and U.S. High- way 11 on the east; 3) the nonurbanized/levee area, which encompasses all of the Lower Coast of Algiers, and is either 139 ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS L a ke P on/tcha or/train / Z - L O - z 21 Hi-ghly Urbanized~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: - C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A ontc~laineMas(UdrDvlp;-n Estu~~~~~~~~~~~arie Morgnh N~ oinh U rbanized - ee 'Source: New Orleans City Planning Commission, 1975: 32. forested or under agricultural use; and 4) the estuarine marsh area, a viable part of the Maurepas-Pontchartrain- Borgne estuary complex, contains land in the Irish Bayou- Chef Menteur Marsh Unit, Lake Borgne Unit, Venetian Isles Marsh Unit, Chef Menteur/Rigolets Unit, and Lakefront Unit. Within the estuarine marsh area are several units character- ized as critical areas: the Irish Bayou-Chef Menteur Marsh Unit, the Lake Borgne Unit, the Southern Venetian Isles, as well as one area on the Lower Coast of Algiers (see Figure 2.14). These areas are designated critical because they lie in the path of probable future development, but at the same time, are areas which provide a substantial habitat for fish, waterfowl, and other species of wildlife which contribute to the region's resources in terms of seafood production and recreational pursuit; therefore, development in these areas should be prohibited (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 30). Protecting these critical areas may involve the introduction and adoption of measures whose primary purpose is wetlands preservation. Such measures would be introduced after detailed environmental studies, including a management study of the physical environment, have been completed. The legal devices presently used by the City of New Orleans in the coastal zone do not provide any remedy for the problems peculiar to wetlands areas. The Planning Commission thinks that the city can begin to manage the estuarine areas, however, by amending the existing Municipal Code, Building Code and the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 53). Presently, Chapter 32 141 "Mm mm mm mm- Environmentally Sensitive District Recommended L a ke Pontchorlrai n us 9~~~~~~~0 IA> ,n,~ercO001 EOIWarw ' Source: New OrleanS City Planning Commission 1975: 79. of the Municipal Code authorizes the city to regulate land uses. A recent amendment to the code is the "Flood Insurance Ordinance" which regulates development in flood prone areas. The ordinance requires that the lowest floor of new construc- tion or substantial improvements of existing structures must be elevated at or above the level of the 100-year flood (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 56). The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 1970 (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1970) divides the city into nine different kinds of districts. The regulations for each district have been designed so as to reflect its peculiar character and its suitability for particular uses. For example, uses in the Vieux Carre Districts must not injure the historical character or be out of harmony with the traditional architectural character of the Vieux Carre (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1970: 10-11). The ordinance regulates the location and use of buildings, signs and other structures, water and land for agriculture, trade, industry and residence, the area of yards and other open spaces, and the density of use. The City Planning Commission would like for the City Council to enact a CZM Plan which provides for "controlled development--with management" (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 65). This plan would place controls on land use and development densities in areas designated as environ- mentally sensitive. It would also provide for the development of an overt action plan designed to maintain and enhance natural resources. 143 As part of its study which produced the proposed CZM Plan, the City Planning Commission identified the major natural resources of the area and the problems which threaten to limit or destroy these resources. The Commission defined nine problem areas and presented remedial action for each one (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 2-10). One of the problems is pollution of the water in Lake Pontchar- train caused by fishing camps which lack proper sewage disposal systems, storm water discharges from urban drainage systems, and direct sewage from boats. Recommendations for easing lake pollution include multi-stage removal of fishing camps, except those that are located along and in the wetlands adjacent to U.S. Highway 11 and 90; adoption by the state of strenuous regulations and a program to preclude biological pollutants from entering the lake, with local governments responsible for compliance. The second problem area is pollution of the Mississippi River from municipal, industrial, and agricultural discharges. To combat river pollution, the Commission recommends vigorous enforcement of the regulations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (U.S. Congress, 1972), funding from the Environmental Protection Agency to local parishes to construct secondary sewage treatment facilities, and a program to provide for an additional water intake system further up the Mississippi River, since the present system is threatened with salt water intrusion. 144 Flooding presents a problem for areas exterior and interior to the present levee system. To prevent flooding within interior areas, the Commission recommends that all existing floodable pumping stations be renovated so as toj raise electrical components above projected flood levels and all levees protecting the city be elevated to project height i and adequately maintainted. It recommends that the flood protection system be improved to a project storm level of 2003 years. It also recommends that construction of the Lakeg Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan control structures should proceed, provided that a 90 percent tidal5 interchange can be maintained in the affected passes. The fourth problem area is wetland development pressures,I including expansion of urban development, expansion of fish-g ing camp developments, and mineral exploration activities. To lessen this problem, the Commission recommends that unde-3 veloped and unleveed wetland areas currently subject to severe development pressures be brought immediately into publicI ownership and preserved; where possible, these areas should f be developed as limited recreational sites. Those wetlands not acquired should be subject to strict regulations, including3 not developing more than five percent of a tract or lot area. Because the coastal area is in a tectonically active3 region, faults present a problem and the state should deter- mine the significance of these fault lines. The sixth problem area is the presence of poor soils in f much of the city, which tend to subside when drained and 145 require periodic refilling of lots. The Commission recommends that the Department of Safety and Permits institute a study of alternative construction techniques to determine the most feasible one to be used in reclaimed wetlands areas and the Sewerage and Water Board study alternative drainage methods to use in leveed, but undeveloped, areas. Loss or damage to the parish's numerous archaeological sites presents a problem that can be combatted by having the state conduct a survey of the entire city to determine the location of major preservable sites and adopting legislation to ensure the protection and acquisition of major sites and the recovery of artifacts from other sites. Rapid shoreline erosion along Lakes Pontchartrain and Borgne presents a problem because it destroys productive wetland and reduces land area dimensions. The Commission recommends that barrier islands be constructed by the Corps of Engineers and the Orleans Levee Board to prevent rapid shoreline erosion. It also recommends that the state study the feasibility of diverting water from the Mississippi River in order to restore eroding marsh areas in Orleans Parish. The last malor Droblem cited bv the Commission is the lack of statewide coastal zone management legislation and coordination. The Commission outlines 14 areas which should be encomDassed bv a state coastal zone management Dlan. including a Drovision that local governments be authorized to enact and enforce local CZM Dlans. using state guidelines and 146 supervision, provided the local acts are consistent with the objectives of a state CZM plan. The Commission recommends that local governments establish coordinating councils composed of government officials and representatives of appropriate academic disciplines. Randolph Clement (1976) said the impetus for CZM in Orleans Parish came from a variety of reasons. For one, the Planning Commission feared Federal intervention if they did not take the initiative and come up with a plan of their own; they acted therefore, to maintain local autonomy. For another, they feared the city could not afford to provide services to the area between Chef Menteur and Rigolets if it became developed. They peferred using this area for recreational hunting and fishing. In order to implement a CZM plan most efficiently, Randolph Clement (1976) said that the City Planning Commission considers its main priority to be getting the city to acquire those wetlands which are outside its present levee system (i.e., areas designated as environmentally sensitive). He thinks it is a choice of either purchasing the rights to the wetlands and bringing them into the pbulic domain (see City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: 6) at a price of about $15 - $20 million, or allowing the land to develop. if the land develops, the city would have to provide it with sewerage and water and he feels that would be less cost effective than purchasing the land. If the wetlands are acquired, they could be used for water trails and access to 147 natural beaches. The land between Chef Menteur and Riolets could be developed into a park around Blind Lagoon. Randolph Clement (1976) said the Commission has the authority to adopt a land use plan, although the New Orleans City Council has the power to override the plan if it chooses to do so. The Commission can also write its own subdivision regulations. It does not have its own capital budget, however, so it cannot purchase property. Clement said it is allocated funds by the City Council only through another agency. The Commission could not purchase, therefore, the wetland areas and bring them into the public domain; it can only recommend that the areas be purchased. It is the City Council only that can amend the building code or the comprehensive zoning ordinance, as the Commission has recommended they be amended in the CZM Plan. As presently constituted, the Commission has no enforce- ment role. The Department of Safety and Permits is now charged with enforcing regulations. Randolph Clement (1976) said he assumes that under a CZM Plan, the Department of Safety and Permits would become the managerial agency responsible for enforcement. Randolph Clement (1976) also said that until a CZM plan is adopted, the Commission cannot know if it has adequate personnel. More professional personnel may be needed, he said, to conduct the environmental studies that would enable the Commission to refine and further amend, if necessary, the legal mechanisms by which to manage the coastal zone. 148 St. Bernard A recent study (Environmental Baseline Study) divided 3 the parish into ten management units and recommended a manage- ment policy suited to each unit (Coastal Environments, Inc., I 1972: 124-147). The units include: 1) urbanized levee-- 20,650 acres occupying the major levee areas along the Missis- sippi River and Bayou Terre aux Boeufs; 2) semi-urbanized 3 levee--4100 acres posited on a natural levee along Bayou Terre aux Boeufs and Lake Loutre; 3) modified wetland--about 6675 1 acres west of Paris Road and extending to the back protection I levee and the Intracoastal Waterway; 4) coastal wetland-- 18,250 acres between the urbanized levee area and the spoil 3 bank of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO). The other units are 5) upper spoil--5000 acres lying I along the MRGO canal, enclosed by a protection levee; 6) Bienvenue marsh--7700 acres at the intersection of MRGO and the Intracoastal Waterway, bounded on the east by Lake Borgne 3 with Bayou Bienvenue flowing through its center; 7) Proctor Point Marsh--10,600 acres located west of MRGO and forming I an edge of a lobe of Lake Borgne; 8) Lake Lery Marsh-- 16,400 acres located between Lake Lery on the south and the levee unit of Terre aux Boeufs on the north; 9) lower spoil 3 unit--24,000 acres located along the MRGO in an area between Proctor Point Marsh and Bayou LaLoutre; and 10) LaLoutre Wetland--1950 acres between the lower spoil unit and the semi- urbanized levee unit, which is almost entirely enclosed by them I with only limited drainage connection to the MRGO (see Figure 3 2.15). 149 3 FIGURE 2.15 M4ANAGEMENT UNITS, ST. BERNARD iL LEGEND URBANIZED LEVEE SEMI-URBANIZED LEVEE UPPER SPOIL LOWER SPOIL L A r toK9 Rra MODIFIED WETLAND BIENVENUE MARSH CENTRAL WETLAND LAKE LERY MARSH LA LOUTFE IEIE*ETAN PROCTOR P04 MA*iI4 _ 7 I fl."f ~i . I _/":: 1_ f I ' i I .'I I I _ _ I I C- ( I ,�- _L ( ;i ''�� 21 _. =_r�. _ �� * �-. : � _ �_ c _--~n-_c_ �_\.��.. - " . -. .,. 'p -~~~~ij. *� '"-~* 4 - UnIlTS Source: Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972: Plate 14. 150 The recommended policies for these management units include development with some conservation control for the urbanized levee unit and the semi-urbanized levee unit. Because of its location, some degree of urban use is recom- mended for the modified wetland unit, but only if adequate flood protection and drainage are provided. Its area around Chef Menteur Pass should be managed for conservation. The upper spoil unit should be managed for conservation. Bienvenue Marsh and Proctor Point Marsh are of direct value to people of the parish for commercial fishing and as sports recreation zone. However, because the areas have been highly modified by pipeline canals, drainage canals, and Bienvenue Marsh by two major waterways, the recommended policy is for conservation only, rather than preservation. Proctor Point has been least modified, but its edge along the MRGO is in considerable danger of deterioration as a result of daily erosion generated by ship waves. Therefore, this area should be managed for preservation, which means that no permanent structures, urban services, or canals are allowed. The lower spoil unit is recommended as a conservation area, but allowing fairly concentrated development in places built high by dredge spoil deposition. LaLoutre Wetland is also recommended for conservation, along with a program of restoration to re-establish the marsh-swamp relationship (see Figure 2.16). St. Bernard has major significance as both a valuable estuarine parish and as an area of rapid urban growth. The 151 FIGUR.E 2.16 Policies for Management Units, St. Bernard UlYROL DEVELOPMENT TO I INSuRE LONG TERM VALUES I- - EGEND L DEVEtOPMENT _ I CONSERVATION PRESERVATION - . HISTORIC SITES -., DEVELOI'MENT i. A . I .A I. \ � IN NEED OF RESTORATION- SOME LOW DENSITY ,DEVELOPMENT POSSIBL PRESERVE HISTORIC SITES CONCENTRATE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN TISli IUNIT / RETAIN SOML AREAS OF FOREST MOST STABLE OF * SOME NODAL ,.-DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL r.,- I / ,' . -. ..- :: NI ELS R9TIU-RATION ii ' 4 /? ,.lPROGRAM- SOME .' . .:: C,'NC/ lCTRATED POIr.NT \:::.;. 1 oF DEVELOP ENT ' PtSSIBE ' ' ;' . :: E SOE PO;NTS OF -- .'2? z DEVELOPMEN . POTENTIAL ' , ~ -; ~:'- i *- '" .., ' ~"/~- '-' '".,. -_. -, -'.. -, . , . . ,-_~ ';. '- ! , . -,,, .,....''.--' ', C': * . t;,"%. ... .,..'"--.'".,, ', :."--.''.'.�.,�.A,",'". ...:1 ���� : ::: ':'' _i :� - . T - _ -I .1. ImlnRAGEmEnT POLCKY Source: Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972: Plate 15. 152 Planning Commission has recognized the need for balanced growth within the parish and has been interested in developing ways of managing the coastal zone since 1972. Since that time, they have commissioned the environmental baseline study (1972) and a resource management study of the parish wetlands (1976, draft). They expect to have a CZM plan completed within the next year. They would like the plan to provide for dividing the entire parish into management zones, including zoning of the wetlands, and making recommendations for each zone as far as conservation, restoration, and maintenance are concerned (Chetta, 1976). Until a CZM plan is completed and approved by the parish police jury, St. Bernard has to rely on its present legal devices for managing the area. These include the comprehen- sive zoning ordinance (St. Bernard Planning Commission, 1971), which recognizes that the parish will be a low-density community. The parish is divided into eight districts, including single-, two-, and multiple-family residential districts, neighborhood and general commercial districts, light and heavy industrial districts, and rural districts. The wetlands are zoned A-1 rural and all uses--residential, commercial and industrial--are permitted. Before a building or structure can be altered or erected in one of these districts, a permit, in accordance with the requirements of the Parish Engineer, must be issued by the Zoning Administra- tor. The building permit is issued only after the Zoning Administrator is satified that the proposed use of the 153 building or land complies with the provisions of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance (St. Bernard Planning Commission, 1971: 45). The Commission has written a subdivision plan for the parish, but it has yet to be adopted by the police jury (Chetta, 1976). The Planning Commission would like to see a coastal zone management plan enacted as soon as possible because if St. Bernard Parish development goes beyond its present boundaries, there will be too much linear area for the adequate provision of public services. The parish would not be able to provide the kind of fire and police protection the residents demand, and other services would suffer, too. Chetta does not think land developers will be against a CZM plan because they know how expensive it is to build in the marshy areas which require pilings and flood insurance, among other things. In order to implement a CZM plan, Chetta thinks that the parish would need to get supplemental funds from the state to be used for refining their plan so as to bring it into line with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (U.S. Congress, 1972). To date, the parish has financed its own coastal zone management studies. The parish would also need money with which to create new regula- tions for building permits. He also thinks they would need additional staff to enforce the plan. He said the police jury would continue to have the authority to enforce the plan. At present, the planning commission is an advisory body only, with the police jury having all of the authority. 154 He thinks the police jury may create a department or agency3 to implement the plan. He was uncertain whether this wouldg lead to an increase in the amount of delegated authority his commission might receive.3 Chetta said the commission would also like to receive money to be used for public hearings so they can invite public3 participation. There has been no public participation to date. As soon as the commission gets the outlines of a planI written, he thinks public input would be helpful. He does3 not expect much opposition to a CZM plan from most residents, since many of them make their living from the fishing and5 trapping industries and they would not want the coastal zone to diminish (Chetta, 1976).1 The impetus for creating a CZM plan, Chetta said, was the3 controversy surrounding the Violet Shiplock Canal, which would have connected the Mississippi River with the Mississippi3 River-Gulf Outlet. The parish's priorities were to mitigate the adverse effects of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet andI to stem erosion of the coast. They realized that to fightg the canal, they needed good environmental data about its impacts on the parish and commissioned a study on the effects3 of an enlarged MRGO on the parish. The study recommended against this since it would destroy almost 80,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat and oyster bottom, and significantly increase salinity along the MRGO and in adjacent marshes (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1973: 50).3 155 __N Jefferson Parish This spring, the Planning Department informed the State Planning Office of its intention to participate this year in the development of a CZM plan. The parish has also asked Burk and Associates, which is under contract to the parish to provide environmental engineering services, to do a preliminary study which would develop criteria for boundary selection, define growth and conservation lines, provide a statement of goals and priorities of coastal uses, and prepare a boundary report (Ford, 1976). In 1974, the parish completed an inventory of its land use and natural resources (Burk and Associates, Inc. and Earth Satellite Corporation, 1974), and it is expected that this information will form the basis of a CZM plan. A land use plan is expected to be completed by the fall of 1976, and will be used to update the department's planning variables. The parish has no comprehensive plan as far as the development of the parish is concerned (Terranova, 1976). The present legal devices used to manage the parish's land use include the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Building Code, and the Subdivision Regulations. The Zoning Ordinance (Jefferson Parish Council, 1974) divides the parish into 12 districts, including suburban districts, residential districts, medical service districts, commercial districts, industrial districts, and an unrestricted district. Within the unrestricted (or, U-1) district, "a building or land may 156 be used for any prupose whatsoever not in conflict with any ordinance" of the parish, including the manufacture of noxious gases and dangerous materials (Jefferson Parish Council, 1974: 70). The unrestricted district is found within the parish's wetlands area. There can be no change in the use or occupancy in an existing building nor can any new building be occupied for any purpose until a certificate of use or occupancy has been issued by the Safety Director. Every certificate of use or occupancy must show that the new use complies with all the provisions of the zoning ordinance pertaining to the district in which it is located (Jefferson Parish Council, 1974: 101). The subdivision Regulations (Jefferson Parish Planning Department, 1972) requires that developers identify in their final plan to the Parish Council those lots which lie at such a low elevation that it has been inundated or overflowed by rain or storm waters within the last 20 years (Jefferson Parish Planning Department, 1972: 430-431). The owner or subdivider is also responsible for con'structing the necessary facilities for adequate drainage of the area and grading all streets to the specifications established by the parish engineer (Jefferson Parish Planning Department, 1972: 434, 434.1). New homes throughout the parish must be provided with flood protection insurance (Terranova, 1976). Jefferson Parish would welcome a CZM plan; with such a plan there would be no dispute as to which areas would be 157 reserved for development and which for preservation in their natural habitat (Terranova, 1976). Because the parish is still in the initial stages of developing a CZM plan, it is difficult for them to determine now what their needs will be in furthering CZM for the parish. Ford (1976) thinks that the Parish Council would create a new planning commission to implement a CZM plan. If his planning department is upgraded to a commission and charged with implementation, then he would need more staff to provide administrative assistance. As head of a department, his main function is as advisor to the Parish Council. For instance, as it is now, all subdivision requests are approved directly by the Council. Ford would also like for the state to provide local officials with guidelines and technical advise so that they would be in a position to develop adequate local CZM plans. What the parishes have lacked most, he said, is enough good information on the coastal zone to allow them to know what to do and how to proceed. He wants the State Planning Office to share its information on a regualr basis with the local officials. He would like to see implementation of a CZM plan handled by the local parishes (Ford, 1976). St. Tammany This spring, the police jury gave the planning depart- ment the authority to develop a coastal zone management plan, using monies available from the state. The newly-hired planning director is in the process of hiring a staf f for his 158 department. He has not yet considered what the broad outlines5 of a CZM plan for St. Tammany should be, but he favors development of the parish within bounds. He would like to see balanced growth while maintaining a satisfactory density ratio3 (Sinden, 1976). Within the past several years, the parish officials,3 often as a result of pressure from parish environmental groups, have become more aware of the need for legal mechanisms toI control the use of land in the area. Many environmentalists3 and other local residents have become concerned about the many new subdivisions being developed in the parish (Rushton,3 1974). They are concerned about the negative impact these subdivisions have on the environment and the inability ofI parish cities and towns to provide public services to these1 subdivisions (Sollberger, 1976). As a result of this concern, a parish land use ordinance (St. Tammany Police Jury, 1972)3 was adopted, which established parish-wide land use regula- tions. All buildings now have to be at least eight feetU above sea level. The parish also has a housing plan, which identifies where there should be a mix of low- and middle- income housing. The parish does not have a comprehensive zoning code or a building code, but both codes are expected to be3 developed in 1977 using HUD 701 funds. Developers are supposed to follow FHA guidelines in erecting their structures, but officials do not enforce these guidelines (Sollberger,3 1976). 159 Sinden said his department would like to have the State Planning Office provide them with technical information and assistance in their develbpment of a local CZM pIlan. He thinks the guidelines for a plan should come from the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) because RPC has had more experience working with the four parishes. He said he has no idea what parish department will be given the authority to enforce a CZM plan. He expects that developers along Bayou Liberty will not have to be convinced about the need to develop a CZM plan because they have experienced flooding and, therefore, know there is a limit to what can be done in that area. Developers along the eastern side of 1-10 will probably be against a CZM plan (Sinden, 1976). CONCLUSION The four parishes in the New Orleans Region are at different stages in providing legal mechanisms by which to manage their coastal zones. Existing mechanisms include comprehensive zoning ordinances, building codes and municipal codes. The parishes are also subject to federal regulations which apply to the management of the coastal zone. These federal laws include the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (U.S. Congress, 1972); the Water Pollution Control Act (U.S. Congress, 1972); the National Environmental Protection Act (U.S. Congress, 1969); and the National Historical Preserva- tion Act (U.S. Congr.ess, 1966). Each parish intends to 160 develop its own CZM plan, tailored to its local needs and resources. Orleans Parish has completed a CZM Plan, but it has yet to be adopted by the New Orleans City Council. St. Bernard Parish is in the middle stages of developing a plan.3 Jefferson and St. Tammany Parishes are in the initial stages of developing CZM plans. Until their CZM plans are developed and adopted by local officials, the chief planners in the parishes are uncertain of what supportive materials andI personnel will be needed in furthering a CZM effort.3 161~~~~~~~ APPENDIX 2.1 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PARISH CZM DOCUMENTS Erosion Control ...........................................163 Expansion into Low-Lying Areas .164 Streets ...............................................16 Streets.~~~~~~~~~~~164 Drainage ..............................................16 Drainage.~~~~~~~~~~~165 Sewerage ........................................ 166 Industrial/Commercial Development . . . .......................169 Recreational Development ................................... 170 Shoreline Development 172 162 Erosion Control U.S. Department of Agriculture (1973) Soil Survey of Portions of Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. Alexandria, Louisiana: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Discusses factors and processes of soil formation; provides two systems of clas- sifying soils; describes eighteen differentI types of soils; discusses uses for different types of soil.3 (1974) Soil Survey of Portions of St. Tammany Parish. Alexandria-, Louisiana: U.S. Department of Agriculture.3 Provides a sunmary of soil conditions; describes ten different types of soils; discusses uses for different types ofI soil; describes plant adaptations to the different soils.3 163~~~~~~~ Expansion into Low-Lying Areas Streets Jefferson Parish Council (1973) Jefferson Parish Major Street Map. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish Council. Shows present and projected major streets for the parish. Projected streets are not dated. Minor streets within subdivisions are the responsibility of developers. The street map is the result of two earlier studies: Palmer and Baker Engineers, Inc. (1957) Street Inventory, Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana. Metairie, Louisiana: Palmer and Baker Engineering3 and Palmer and Baker Engineers, Inc. (1958) Street Capacity and Congestion, Jefferson. Metairie, Louisiana: Palmer and Baker Engineers, Inc. Louisiana Department of Highways (1964) Louisiana Highways, Present and Future. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Department of Highways. Presents the master plan for the construction of highways in the state. New Orleans City Planning Commission (1974) Major Street Map for New Orleans. New Orleans, Louisiana: City Planning Commission. Presents location of present and proposed streets in the City of New Orleans. Planning Services, Inc. (1963) Major Thoroughfare Plan. New Orleans, Louisiana; Planning Services, Inc. Provides the basis and rationale for the present Street Map, showing location of present and proposed streets in St. Bernard Parish: St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission (1972) Major Street Map. Chalmette, Louisiana: St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission. 164 St. Tammany Parish Planning Commission (1962) Major Street Plan: St. Tammany Parish. Covington, Louisiana: St. Tammany Planning Commission. Presents location of present and proposed major streets in St. Tammany Parish.3 Drainage City Planning Commission of New Orleans (1976) Capital Program, 1977-1981. New Orleans, Louisiana: City Planning Commission.5 Each year the capital program is updated for the next five years, outlining the plans for new drainage facilities needed to handle the drainage problem in the city. Accom-I panying the report is a map showing the location of proposed new facilities. Maps showing the existing drainage systems are on file with the Engineering Division of the Sewerage and Water Board and areI updated periodically. Community Planners, Inc. (1973) Utility and Drainage Study for Slidell,I Louisiana: Final Report. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Community Planne-rs, Inc.3 Presents a description of present utility and drainage facilities and makes recomimenda- tions for new facilities based on the future needs of the comnmunity. Fromherz Engineers, Inc. (1968) Master Plan for Major Drainage Facilities, Consolidated Sewerage District No. I of JeffersonI Parish, Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Fromherz Engineers, Inc.3 (1969) Master Plan for Major Drainage Facilities, Drainage District No. 7 of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. New3 Orleans, Louisiana: Fromherz Engineers, Inc. The two studies provide descriptions of present drainage facilities in the two districts and recommend new facilities to handle the projected population growth. 165 Jefferson Parish Council (1973) Master Water and Drainage Plan for the West Bank. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish Council. Plans do not call for any drainage beyond existing leveed areas. An earlier study by Palmer and Baker Engineers, Inc. (n.d.) suggested that land subject to flooding not be used for residential purposes (Recommended Regulations for Land Subdivisions). The present subdivision regulations, section 18-Ilc, state that subdevelopers must supply drainage to their develop- ments, specifications for which must be approved by the parish engineer. See Jefferson Parish' Planning Department (1972) Jefferson Parish Subdivigion IZegulations: Ordinance No. 959. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish Planning Department. A master water plan for the West Bank was done earlier; Burk and Associates, Inc. (1966) A Master Water Plan for the West Bank Consolidated Water District of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. Sewerage Burk and Associates, Inc. (1972) Partial Interim Water Quality Manage- ment Plan for Sewerage District No. 2, City of Kenner, Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. Roessle and Cartier (1972) Partial Interim Water Quality Manage- ment Plan for Sewerage District No. 1, City of Kenner, Louisiana. Kenner, Louisiana. Roessle and Cartier, Inc. These studies provide the basis for a consideration of'-alternatives for improving the disposal and treatment of sewerage in the City of Kenner. 166 (1973) Interim Water Quality Management Plan for Sewerage District No. 1, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: B3urk and Associates, Inc. (1973) Interim Water Quality Management Plan for Sewerage District No. 2, St. Bernard Parish,3 Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. These studies discuss the industries locatedI within the districts that warrant consideration from a water facility viewpoint; exhibits show the location of the industry, treatment avail-I able, receiving stream and BOD and COD, etc.; contributors of nonpoint pollution also discussed.3 Provide alternative recommendations; for example, the preferred alternative for District No. 1 is a new secondary treatmentI plant on the Forty Arpent Canal to remove the Violet raw discharge. Louisiana Department of Health, Environmental Services (1976) Louisiana Municipal Discharges Inventory. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Department of Health. Presents inventory of municipal discharges and priority list for treatment for theI state of Louisiana. State of Louisiana (FY 1976) Water PollutionI Control Program (Part D). Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Streat Co-ntrol Commission. industrial inventory and industrial priority list for treatment forI industries in the state of Louisiana. The basis for assessing the water quality of3 municipal and industrial discharges is State of Louisiana (1973) Water Qualitv Criteria. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Stream Control Commission. Includes listing of streams, bases for criteria, enforcement of criteria; general criteria: aesthetics, color,I floating, suspended-settleable solids, taste and odor, toxic substances, oils and greases, foaming or frothingI materials, nutrients, turbidity; water use classification. 167 Orleans Parish is presently switching from dumping sewerage into the Mississippi River to sending it to treatment plants. There is a treatment plant in Algiers and another one is planned for Eastern New Orleans. There are a number of engineering feasibility reports on file at the Sewerage and Water Board office, which provide information on the treatment facilities and procedures. Maps showing existing sewer lines in the city are available at the Sewerage and: Water Board and are constantly updated. Also see Barnard, James L. and W. W. Eckenfelder (1971) Treatment- Cost Relationship for Industrial Waste Treatment. New Orleans, Louisiana: Barnard, Inc. In accordance with the subdivision regulations of the city, developers must supply their own drainage and sewerage systems if the development is located where it cannot be reasonably served by the extension of an existing public system. See City Planning Commission of New Orleans (1950) Subdivision Regulations for the City of New Orleans. New O-rleans, Louisiana: City Planning Commission. Also see New Orleans City Planning Commission (n.d.) Staff Report on Orlandia. New Orleans, Louisiana: City Planning Commission. Presents the staff's recommendations on the Orlandia development. Professional Engineering Consultants Corp. (1972) St. Tammanyv Parish Comprehensive Water and Sewer Study. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Professional Engineering Consultants Corporation. Describes the abundant good quality ground and surface water available in the parish; amount of water available exceeds amount needed; need for additional water and sewerage systems discussed. To discourage residential and land development without community type sewerage system, revision of subdivision regulations should be considered; suggests new regulations that would limit subdivisions with individual sewerage disposal systems to twenty lots. 168 Industrial/Commercial Development Jefferson Parish: Consideration is still being given to the possibility of having 1-410 cut through the parish, thereby leading to further development of the West Ba-nk. An industrial park is planned for Elmwood Park, located in the area bounded by Clearview Parkway to the east, Jefferson Highway to the south, Hickory Avenue to theI west, and Airline Highway to the north. Orleans Parish: Besides the plans for the commercial andI industrial development in Orlandia, there are plans to improve the central business district of the city (this project is being directed by the Community ImprovementI Agency for the City of New Orleans). St. Bernard Parish: Plans are being considered to gain juris- diction aver the river frontage, now held by the New Orleans Dock Board, and the MRGO frontage. The river frontageI would lead to more wharving and warehouses, but limited use of the frontage is expected. St. Tammany Parish: Has no comprehensive plan for development. Is in the process of writing proposals for a 30-acre industrial park in Slidell, near 1-10 by the SlidellI Airport, and a tourist development area in Mandeville. 169~~~~~~~ Recreational Development City Planning Commission of New Orleans (1970) Recreation Survey and Plan for New Orleans. New Orleans, Louisiana: City Plann ing Commission. Provides inventory of existing facil ities and activities; makes recommendations for future recreational development. Colbert, Charles (1969) A Sketch Plan for a Comprehensive Parish-Wide RZecreation Plan. New Orleans, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish Council. Provides an inventory of existing facilities and makes recommendations for future recrea- tional development (for Jefferson Parish). Department of Recreation, Jefferson Parish (1970) A Complete and Detailed Study of All Areas and Facilities in operation by the Jefferson Parish Recreation Department. Metairie, Louisiana: Department of Recreation. Provides inventory of existing facilities and open space areas for the East Bank and the West Bank. Hedrick, Earl J., et al. (1969) A Report on Open Space and Recreation. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission. Provides an inventory of existing regional open space and recreational area sites, broken down by parish, and by public and private facilities (for Orleans, St. Bernard, and Jefferson). Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission (1974) Outdoor Recreation in Louisiana: 1975-1980. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission. Discusses institutional resources--the federal, state, and local agencies which are involved in recreational development; discusses the potential recreational areas of the state, including trails, scenic rivers and roads; presents problems and proposed actions for providing recreational opportunities for state residents and visitors. 170 Regional Planning Commission (1969) A Report on Open Space and Recreation in the Trn-Parish Area. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission. Provides an inventory of existing open space and recreational area sites, with total regional assets; provides lists of regional activities, with dimensions and capacity standards for regional activities (for Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard). Orleans Parish: Plans are being made for inner city playgrounds;3 for wetlands acquisitions to be used for water trails and access to natural beaches; for the land between Chef Menteur and Rigolets to be developed into a park around Blind Lagoon; and for two Indian mounds around Orlandia, Little Oak and BigI Oak, to be preserved. St. Bernard Parish: Plans are being developed for a 30-acre parkI in the third ward and expansion of the park in the second ward; long-range plans call for a wilderness park between the back levee and the MRGO, with camps, etc. 171~~~~~~~ Shoreline Development Burk and Associates, Inc. (1975) Resource Inventory of Coastal Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. Volume III presents a master inventory of all proposed, under construction, and completed projects of the Corps of Engineers; also includes a listing of projects being undertaken by the Department of Highways, Soil Conserva- tion Service, and public and quasi-public sources. City Planning CoTmmission of New Orleans (1975) Coastal Zone Management Plan. New Orleans, Louisiana: City Planning Commission. Provides a description of the four major enviro-nmental areas of the city; p-resents alternative management options; presents nine problem areas having to do with natural resources and makes recommendations for remedial action to maintain the present shoreline. Coastal Environments, Inc. (1972) Environmental Baseline Study for St. Bernard Parish. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Environments, Inc. Provides a description of the major environ- mental units in the parish; presents recommendations for preserving, conserving, or developing the various units; recognizes that wetlands constitute the major asset of St. Bernard Parish. (1976) Resources Management: St. Bernard Parish Wetlands. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Environments, Inc. A companion to the 1972 study; provides information on how to determine goals and development alternatives, and arrange funding for goal implementation. U.S. Armny Corps of Engineers (1974) New Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area: Plan of Study. New Orleans, Louisiania: U.S. Army Co-rps of Engineers. Presents a description of existing conditions-- socioeconomic and water resources--in the study area and the Corps' goals and objectives for improving them; lists available information and data. .172 (1975) Water Resources Development in Southern Louisiana. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.3 Presents an overview of current and proposed levee systems, describing location, costs, and purposes. 173~~~~~~~ REFERENCE S Allen, Orville (1976) Area Supervisor, National Marine and Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, New Orleans, Louisiana, telephone interview, August 28. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans (1974) 78th Annual Report. New Orleans, Louisiana: Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans. Bruce, David (1976) Environmental Planner, Environmental Services, Division of Health, New Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, June 29. Burk and Associates, Inc. (1973) Interim Water Quality Manage- ment Plan for Sewerage District No. 2. New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. (1975) Louisiana Coastal Resource Inventory, Vol. I: Geographic Areas of Particular Concern. New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. Burk and Associates, Inc. and Earth Satellite Corporation (1974) Land Use and National Features Inventory: Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. Chetta, Angelo (1976) Director, St. Bernard Planning Com- mission, Chalmette, Louisiana, personal interview, June 24. Ciko, Larry (1976) "Barrier Plan Opposition,"' Times-Picayune, September 19. City Planning Commission of New Orleans (1970) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of New Orleans. New Orleans, Louisiana: City Planning Commission of New Orleans. (1975) Coastal Zone Management Plan: Volume I-Ill. New Orleans, Louisiana: City Planning Commission of New Orleans. Clement, Daniel (1976) U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Metairie, Louisiana, personal interview, July 16. Clement, Randolph (1976) Planner, City Planning Commission of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, July 2. 174 Coastal Environments, Inc. (1972) Environmental Baseline3 Study: St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Environments, Inc. (1973) Environmental Considerations of an Expanded MRGO, Volume I. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Environments, Inc.3 (1976) Resource Management: St. Bernard Parish Wetlands. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Environ- ments, Inc., draft. Ford, Hugh (1976) Planning Director, Jefferson Parish Planning Department, Metairie, Louisiana, personal interview, July S. Jefferson Parish Council (1974) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: Ordinance #3813 as amended by Ordinance #7530. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish Planning Council. Jefferson Parish Planning Department (1972) Subdivision Regulations for Jefferson Parish. Metairie, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish Planning Department. Louisiana Advisory Commission (1973) Louisiana Wetlands Prospectus: Conclusions, Recommendations and Proposals. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Office of StateU Planning and Louisiana State University Center for Wetland Resources. Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission (1974)1 Outdoor Recreation in Louisiana: 1975-1980. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission. Louisiana Stream Control Commission (1973) State of Louisiana: Water Quality Criteria. Baton Rouge, Louisiana:I Louisiana Stream Control Commission. (1976) Water Pollution Control Program (Part D).3 Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Stream Control Commission. Mumphrey, Anthony J. et al. (1975) Louisiana Metropolitan Wetlands: A Planning Perspective. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. (1976) The Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Development on Lafourche Parish. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. 1751 N-Y Associates (1973) interim Land Use Plan. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes. New Orleans East, Inc. (n.d.) "Look East to Orlandia." New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans East, Inc. Parker, W.S. (1976) "Recovery I-New Orleans Resource Recovery Facility."' The Louisiana Engineer, August, 8-12. Professional Engineering Consultants Corporation (1972) St. Tammany Parish Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Study. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Professional Engineer- ing Consultants Corporation. Rushton, Bill (1974) "St. Tammany's Emerald Forest Fight: How the Rich, the Locals, and the Mafia Are Maneuvering for Control." The Courier, November 7-13, 4-8. St. Bernard Planning Commission (1971) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Chalmette, Louisiana: St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission. St. Tammany Parish Police Jury (1972) St. Tammany Parish Land Use Regulations. Covington, Louisiana: St. Tammany Parish Police Jury. Sinden, Craig (1976) Planning Director, St. Tamnmany Parish Planning Department, Covington, Lo-uisiana, personal interview, July 16. Sollberger, Kenneth and Martha (1976) St. Tammany Environ- mental Council, Mandeville, Louisiana, personal interview, July 16. Taylor, Beth (1976) "'175 Louisiana Seafood Catch Reached $88 Million," Times-Picayune, August 8. Terranova, Donald R. (1976) Principal Planner, Jefferson Parish Planning Department, Metairie, Louisiana, personal interview, June 23. Times-Picayune (1976) "Council Approves Land Use Plan for Orlandia Project," July 30. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973) Flood Control: Lower Mississippi River Valley. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1974) Plan of Study: New Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area. New Orleans, Louisiana: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 176 (1975) Water Resources Development in Louisiana. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Congress (1966) Public Law 89-193, National Historical3 Preservation Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (1969) Public Law 91-190, National EnvironmentalI Policy Act of 1969. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.3 (1972) Public Law 92-583, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (1972) Public Law 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 177~~~~~~ CHAPTER 3 LAND REQUIREMENTS BY CATEGORY: 1980-1985 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this chapter is to present local plan- ning officials with a summary of the probable amount and location of each category of land use in their parishes projected to 1985. A knowledge of the expected amount and kind of growth of the New Orleans Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (NOSMSA), and the probable locational pattern of this growth within the area, should be useful in con- structing workable programs for coastal zone management. The presentation is interactive. The views and opinions of planning officials in each parish have been taken into account in the development of the study. Their opinions of planning officials in each parish have been taken into account in the development of the study. Their opinions have been used to modify findings made by the study team in order to ensure basic congruence with local planner perceived reality. Some value should alsd derive from the background research and the development of the projections. Even where modification of the projected needs is considered necessary by local officials, the techniques and bibliography of the chapter should serve as a baseline on which to base those changes. 178 The findings of this study are only a partial sketch, in general painted with a broad brush, of what could occur with regard to changes in land use by 1985. The projections take no account of political regulation such as zoning ordinances or tax structure. Rather, they attempt to show the effects of unregulated economic and demographic growth on the uses of land. Several other studies either have been completed (Mouledous, 1975; N-Y Associates, 1973; Regional Planning Commission, 1976) or are underway, which explore aspects of land use from different perspectives and with a greater or lesser degree of detail. The need for studies of this sort should be clear. The possible benefits of such planning incl'ude: (1) improved social and environmental qualities through the provision of appropriate infrastructure when and where it is needed, (2) increased efficiency in transportation systems, (3) improved economic efficiency through land acquisition and control, and (4) improved tax base analysis for future fiscal periods. Beyond the benefits which accrue to all urban areas from general land use planning, the New Orleans SMSA can also gain insight into the pressures on the viable wetland areas of the coastal zone. These pressures are a natural consequence of growth in size and density of the urban sphere. Knowledge of the direction and force of expected change can lead, with proper management techniques, to a mitigation of environmental impacts in the proximate coastal areas. 179 The scope of this chapter is limited to the projection of published data (modified by expert opinion as described above) to ascertain macro-scale changes in land use for the period 1972 to 1985 for the four parishes in the New Orleans SMSA. The approach is basically deterministic rather than probabilistic; hence, a change in an important parameter which is not recognized at this time could require restruc- turing of the findings. OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH The methodology used in this chapter is comparatively unsophisticated. Time, cost, and data constraints limited the choice of projective and allocative techniques to those which are relatively simplistic. One advantage of this admitted limitation is that planners who may want to duplicate the process using a different set of assumptions or undated data will find it relatively easy to do so. It should be noted, however, that alternative forecasting techniques are available (c.f. Chapin and Weiss, 1962; Feldt, 1965; Forrester, 1969; Hill, Brand and Hansen, 1965; Lathrop and Hamburg, 1965; Lowry, 1964). The primary tool used here is known in the literature as the "Planned Requirements Approach" (PRA) (Chapin, 1965; Mumphrey et al., 1975; Krueckeberg and Silvers, 1974). Simply put, the PRA assumes a certain constancy (or known rate of change) for each category of land use in its areal requirement per person of user polulation. Hence, when total 180 population--expressed in household units--and employment by category are known for a certain base year, and when land use maps showing residential and industrial locations and acreages are available for that same year, then a base year inventory of land requirements per person, by category, can be constructed. Now, if reasonably accurate employment and population estimates for some year in the future can be made, then the set of intensity ratios derived above can be applied to determine approximations of land requirements for each use type in the future year.I Once the incremental requirements have been projected, they must be located spatially. Herein lies the difficulty with the Planned Requirements Approach: a set of assumptions must be made with regard to factors influencing the location of each activity, then the planner's judgment must be incor- porated to allocate each use. This process is, of course, subject to human error. One technique to achieve this allocation (and the one used here) is constructed on the basis of established user priority. Basically, this approach assumes that existing uses of land have been determined on a rational basis (i.e., that eonomic forces in the market have caused an "efficient" utilization of land) and that the location of an addition to each activity is most likely to be on the vacant land Itshould be emphasized that the estimated land requirements are only approximations; available land constraints, changes in consumer preference, geographical barriers and the like may cause necessary revisions in the intensity of use ratios. 181 nearest an existing facility (if certain other constraints are met) or on the same kind and quality of land elsewhere in the SMSA. This approach also assumes a hierarchy of land uses, such that those users which require specific locations of land will be able and willing to bid for this up to the limit of its differential return to them (Alonso, 1964). Of course, the location of new increments of most categories of land use also depends to a greater or lesser degree on the distance to, and accessibility of, the central core. Transportation corridors and modal splits will help, therefore, to shape the eventual location of each land use. Each of these factors must be incorporated (along with others) into the assumptions regulating the allocation of land. In New Orleans and in many other places, geography also introduces another factor: the possibility of land improvement. It is possible to increase the amount of developable land in this area by draining and filling the proximate wetlands. As growth occurs and density increases, new additions to each type of land use are forced further from the central core. At some point, the transportation costs involved with the use of already developable land outweigh the (private) costs of land improvement. Land allocations for each activity in each parish are made here for various sets of assumptions including some wetland development and no wetland development. The resulting spatial settlement patterns are presented as alternatives. 182 POPULATION DATA BASE AND PROJECTIONS TO 1985 Confident prediction of the amount of land required for each use within the SMSA at some future date requires a substantial data base. In particular, population statistics should include (by parish) age and sex distributions, average household sizes, migration rates between political subdivi- sions, in-migration from other areas, and fertility and mortality rates (Wilson, 1974: 79-82). From these statistics, various projections of population in a future year may be constructed by holding most of the variables constant and varying others (e.g., fertility rates and in-migration). The technique of projection most widely used is the cohort survival method, whereby a population sub-group (e.g., males, age 25-34) is "advanced" (taking account of mortality rates for this group) from the base year (t) to some future year (t + n). Since this method establishes a "base" population (i.e., not including net migration or the effects of fertility changes) with a high degree of accuracy, it is gene rally considered superior to other forms of population estimation (Goodman and Freund, 1968: 60). Several studies using the above techniques, but with different migration and fertility assumptions, have been recently completed for the SMSA (c.f., Burford and Muryezn, 1972; Christou and Segal, 1973; Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1974; Bureau of the Census, 1972; Bureau of the Census, 1975). The most recent and perhaps the most accurate, is the Segal et al. study (1976). With some reservations about the 183 predicted distribution of future population within the SMSA, the figures generated by this study should be more accurate than the preceding ones because it utilizes the increased inmigration and decreased fertility rates which have appar- ently become sustainable trends in the past few years. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize the relevant data from the Segal study and from the 1970 census.2 Two major criticisms of the Segal study must be noted. It does not take account of the amount of available land for residential expansion in each parish, and it does not check the expected population against expected employment. These shortcomings will be dealt within the appropriate sections of this report. EMPLOYMENT DATA BASE AND PROJECTIONS TO 1985 There are currently no employment projections for the New Orleans SMSA which are comparable in scope and depth to the Segal population study (Fennel, 1976). The most compre- hensive set of recent projections (Bureau of Economic Advisors, 1974) projects only total employment. This study, furthermore, is in the process of revision necessitated by a failure of the agency to recognize the continuing shift of population and industry to the South (Garnick, 1976). The 2For reasons which become clear in a later section, 1972 has been selected as the base year for this study. Population figures for this year have been interpolated from the Segal study. 184 TABLE 3.1 POPULATION CHANGE BY PARISH, 1970-1985 Year Parish & Statistic 1970 1975 1980 1985 Total Population-SMSA Change in Population from 1970 % Change in Population from 1970, 1975 etc./ from 1970 % of SMSA change Number of Households Total Population-Jefferson Change in Population % Change in Population % of SMSA Change Number of Households Total Population-Orleans Change in Population % Change in Population % of SMSA Change Number of Households Total Population-St. Bernard Change in Population % Change in Population % of SMSA Change Number of Households Total Population-St. Tammany Change in Population % of Change in Population Number of Households 1045809 1104117 1172503 126694 6.19/12.11 100 405360 471543 133975 17.82/39.69 106 147885 548911 (44560) -3.98/-7.51 -35 210863 68408 17223 15.77/33.64 14 20007 83641 20056 14.34/31.54 26605 1252654 206845 6.84/19.78 100 455693 539249 201681 14.35/59.74 97 177325 541964 (51507) -1.27/-8.68 -25 223209 76986 25801 12.53/50.41 12 23531 94455 30870 12.93/48.55 31628 58308 5.57/5.57 100 365687 400220 62652 18.56/18.56 107 121318 571659 (21812) -3.67/-3.67 -37 205354 59086 7901 15.44/15.44 13 16813 73152 9567 15.04/15.04 22202 318418 337568 t__ 99512 593471 191363 51185 13709 63585 17834 17834 Source: Segal, et al. (1976). Percentages derived by authors. m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m TABLE 3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION: 1970-1985 NOSMSA CHARACTERISTIC Average Household Size Non-White Population Working Age Population W.A. Pop. as a % of Total Pop. Median Family Income Income Per Capita Income Per Capita as a % of National Average Percentage of Families with Incomes above $10,000 Percentage of Families with Incomes below $5,000 Percentage of Families with Incomes Below Poverty Level Mean Family Income 1970 3.31 3289701 6390751 61 $84443 $32622 942 40.53 29.5 16.83 $107643 1980 2.94 360624 775611 66 N.P. $44552 932 N.P. N.P. N.P. $129195 1985 2.74 381367 831755 66 N.P. $57512 932 N.P. N.P. N.P. $155285 ISegal, et al. (1976). 2Bureau of Economic Analysis (1974). 3Bobo and Charlton (1975). 4Projected Population, 1980 * Projected Households, 1980; projections from Segal et al. (1976). 5Income per capita x average household size. N.P.-- not projected. Sources: 186 projection of employment by category for 1980 and 1985 is therefore a necessary sub-function of this chapter. In projecting employment, the approach used is dictated by the data available. In the case of the New Orleans metropolitan region, the best source of historical data on employment is the Louisiana Department of Employment Security (LDES)(1975). This agency has been reporting "total wage and salary employment" statistics 3for the currently defined SMSA since 1964. These statistics are reported by economic sector (e.g., manufacturing, wholesale trade, government, etc.) but are not disaggregated below the SMSA level. Also, they are reported on a place-of-residence rather than place-of-work basis. The latter has the effect of slightly understating employment in the metropolitan 4 region. A percentage change in employment in each economic sector over the projection period is ascertained. (For these purposes, the data is adequate.) The projection technique is extrapolation by sector of a linear trend line. This analysis yields a correlation coefficient (r) of total employment with time of .962, which is considered satisfac- tory for projection purposes. 3osnot include the self-employed, agricultural workers or owner-operator categories. 4The LDES statistics can be expected to understate wage and salary employment by an amount approximately equal to the number of commuting workers from nonSMSA parishes minus the number of workers who reverse commute. 187 A check on the reasonableness of the projected figures can be made by comparing the ratio of total employment in the base year over the base year working age population with the same ratio for 1980 and 1985. The results of the test indicate that approximately 2 percent less of the working age population will be employed in 1985. This seems consis- tent with the trend of slowly decreasing labor force partici- pation rates which have been recently evidenced (Office of Management and the Budget, 1973: 118). Furthermore, it is likely that manufacturing employment will level off rather than continue downward, mitigating the 2 percent discrepancy. In 1975, manufacturing employment did not decrease; the "conservative expectation is for flat employment in this sector through 1980 and slightly increasing employment thereafter" (Flores, 1976). Table 3.3 shows the expected employment in 1980 and 1985 as projected. Marginal considerations aside, the next ten years sho uld show rapid increases in wholesale and retail trade and even more rapid increases in service and miscellaneous and government employment. LAND USE DATA AND SELECTION OF THE BASE YEAR A prime requisite of the Planned Requirements Approach to land use planning is a reasonably accurate land use map for the base year (Goodman and Freund, 1968: 108). This map and its associated inventory of land uses form the basis from which population and employment intensity ratios for 188 I I TABLE 3.3 EMPLOYMENT BY CATEGORIES NOSMSA 1972 and 1980, 1985 (Projected) I I I EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY 1972 1980 1985 Total Wage and Salary Workers All Manufacturing Construction Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Service and Miscel- laneous Tansportation, Communication, and Utilities Government Extractive 395,600 53,700 26, 500 31, 300 66,500 24, 100 74,400 42,500 63,100 13,500 458,700 48,900 26,200 36,800 80,200 29,700 97,600 43,600 79,900 15,800 497,700 I 45,900 I I I I I I I 26,500 40,100 89,000 33,000 111,600 43,300 91,400 16,900 Source: Derived by extrapolation from LDES, 1975. I Notes: (1) In the study, manufacturing employment is treated as if it remains constant. See page 12. I (2) The LOOP Superport will have a minor, but bene- ficial, effect on employment in the NOSMSA before 1985. Of the 3,200 new jobs projected for the area, approximately 1,600 will be in petroleum refining (the manufacturing sector)(Perrin, 1976). The remainder will be in petrochemical and secondary development. The employment generated by this project is assumed to be accounted for in the projections. I I I 189 I each activity are drawn. They also serve to indicate exist- ing and expected locations of major land uses. Finally, the map shows the location and quantity of available developable land. The State Planning Office has recently made available a new land use survey for Louisiana (1975) which contains maps at the scale of 1:125,000 (1"1 !- 2 miles) and an inven- tory of major uses in acres by parish for 1972. The scale of the map is not really fine enough for city planning or even some parish planning purposes. 5 For these, it would be more desirable to have acreages reported by traffic zone or census tract and to have economic activities much more finely disaggregated. The scale is, however, quite useful at the regional level. It allows parish-by-parish comparison of major land uses and is therefore functional in showing the broad thrusts of development trends. Table 3.4 summarizes the existing uses of land and types of undeveloped land for 1972 for the SMSA and its four parishes. The classification scheme for Table 3.4 and the defini- tions of each type of land are found in Appendix 3.1. Certain notes about this scheme are necessary here in order to understand the projection process: 5The smallest delimited parcels on the land use map are approximately ten acres, or roughly the size of a school plus its playground or a small shopping center. 190 TABLE 3.4 LAND USE IN THE NEW ORLEANS SMSA, 1972 (in Acres) LAND USE JEFFERSON ORLEANS ST. BERNARD ST. TAMMANY SMSA Urban & Built Up 11 Residential 12 Commercial & Service 13 Industrial 14 Extractive 15 Trans., Comm., Util. 16 Institutional 17 Strip & Cluster 18 Mixed Use 19 Open & Other Agricultural 21 Cropland & Pasture 22 Orchard & Grove 23 Feeding Oper. 24 Other Forest Land 41 Deciduous 42 Evergreen 43 Mixed 27,911 2,717 5,434 44,707 1,729 741 2,223 5,928 3,705 26,429 3,211 4,940 988 2,717 1,235 1,235 4,940 247 4,446 247 741 1,976 741 2,223 247 20,254 1,235 494 2,223 741 494 5,928 1,976 90,876 2,964 247 79,040 7,410 11,610 47,920 5,190 2,470 11,360 13,585 97,071 3,211 247 26,182 76,076 167,219 3,705 5,681 10,374 6,422 76,076 167,219 All Water Features 51-55 363,337 97,812 1,212,770 148,941 1,823,354 Wetland 61 Forested 62 Non-Forested 159,562 457,938 26,429 81,263 6,669 58,292 741 4,199 261,326 27,911 122,265 57,075 All Barren Land 71-75 43,225 14,573 TOTAL AREA 584,402 215,137 1,527,201 705,926 Source: State Planning Office (1975). _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m _ m - _ _ m _ 1)For projection purposes, "residential" land (category 11) and "strip and cluster settlement" (17) are considered together by the State Planning Office. The relevant user population measure is total households. 2) Also for projection purposes, "Commercial and Service'" (12) and "Institutional" (16) are considered together by the State Planning Office (SPO). This is necessitated by the way in which employment data are reported. Included in this employment category are workers in "wholesale and retail trade," "finance, insurance and real estate," "service and miscellaneous," and "govern- ment." 3) "Industrial" (13) land use is projected, using "manufacturing" employment and "contract construe- tion" employment. This is consistent with SPO procedures. 4) The "extractive" category is not projected since oil and gas are not ubiquitous. This land use in the SMSA includes only the oil and gas fields, not the industrial complexes which accompany them. The latter are classified under "industrial." 5) The "open and other" category (19) includes vacant land within the SMSA which is totally bounded by developed land. It also includes urban parks and recreational spaces which, while 'vacant,' are not 192 subject to development. The existing supply of park areas must be subtracted from this total. See Table 3.4. 6) "Agricultural"' land (21-24) and all "forest"' land (41-43) are considered residual uses in the SMSA. They combine with the net available open land to form the available prime land for development. 7) Within the wetlands category, "forested" wetlands (61) are more economically developable than "non-forested" wetlands (62). It is ecologically less desirable to develop unleveed wetlands than those which have been leveed. 8) "Barren" land (71-75) is not considered developable. The information from Table 3.4 was combined with the base year data from Note 2 and Table 3.3 (as described above) to create a set of land use intensity ratios for resi- dential and economic activities. The results are shown in Table 3.5. Note that the ratios for residential land use were computed for each parish. This allows a rough measure of density versus distance from the central city to be com- puted (See Figure 3.1). Economic activity land use ratios were computed at the SMSA level. This technique allows allo- cation of industrial and commercial activities at an areally constant ratio over the entire region, but allows the acreage per household to vary with distance from the center. Note also that ratios for recreational land have not 193 - Mmm m - W '.. m Im m m m m m TABLE 3.5 LAND USE INTENSITY RATIOS--1972 (1) C A T E G ORY OF L A N D USE Description Acreage 11, 17 Res. & Strip dev. Jefferson 30134 11, 17 Res. & Strip dev. Orleans 27664 11, 17 Res. & Strip dev. St. Bernard 6422 11, 17 Res. & Strip dev. St. Tammany 26182 11, 17 Res. & Strip dev. SMSA 90402 (2) U S E R T Description Households Households Households Households Households INTENSITY RATIO Y P E (1) * (2) Number Acreage/Person 105000 .29 197900 .14 14875 .43 19170 1.36 336945 .27 CH Employ. in 259400 Trade, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Serv. & Misc. & Government Manufactur- 80200 ing & Construc- tion, Employment Employment 42500 in Trans., Comm., and Utils. .038 .145 .122 12, 16 Comm., Serv., Inst., SMSA 9880 13 Industrial 11610 15 Trans., Comm., Utils. 5190 Source: Derived from Tables 3.3 and 3.4. See Note 2. FIGURE 3.1 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FUNCTION: NOSMSA 1972 density HH/Acre 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 H CD1 3 2 1 0 New Orleans CBD miles ,from 30 ' ' %" St. Tammany Average 5 10 15 20 25 St. Bernard Average Orleans Average Orleans East, Jefferson Average Source: Derived by authors from Table 3.5. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ been calculated. This land use will be added to the "open and other" category on the basis of "facility need per person"~ as established in the literature in a later section. PROJECTION OF LAND REQUIREMTENTS The ratios obtained in Table 3.5 are applied to the population and employment projections in Tables 3.1 and 3.3 to obtain first approximations of the amount of land necessary for each category of use in 1980 and 1985. These projections are listed in Table 3.6. The table shows that the developed land area of the city (excluding urban recreation) may be expected to increase by 42 percent from 1972 to 1985. Of this increase, the residential land use increment is approximately 92 percent. While technically possible, this extrapolation seems infeasible for several reasons: 1) it takes no account of available land constraints; 2) it makes no adjustment for the effects of increased transport cost on density; 3) it does not take account of the fact that in newly opened tracts of housing (such as those in St. Tammany parish), open land exists within the residential category (i.e., some housing tracts have not been developed to capacity); 4) it makes no adjustment for the effect of changing family size and lifestyle (i.e., a location and 196 TABLE 3.6 CONSTANT RATIO LAND REQUIREMENTS: 1980, 1985 CATEGORY OF LAND USE LAND USE INTENSITY RATIO 1972 1972 ACRES 1980 ACRES 1985 ACRES CHANGE 1972-1980 CHANGE 1972-1985 Residential Jefferson Orleans St. Bernard St. Tammany .29 .14 .43 1.36 30,135 27,665 6,420 26,180 42,885 29,520 8,605 36,185 51,425 31,250 10,120 43,015 12,750 1,855 2,185 10,005 21,290 3,585 3,700 16,835 SMSA AVERAGE SMSA Industrial Commercial, Services, and Institutional Tansportation, Communication, and Utilities Urban Use Excluding Recreational .27 .145 .038 .122 90,400 117,195 135,810 26,795 45,410 11,610 9,880 5,190 11,610 12,320 5,320 11,610 13,875 5,320 2,440 130 29,365 3,995 130 49,535 -- 117,080 146,445 166,615 Source: Derived by authors from Tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5. m _ _ mm mm mm _ ___ mm type of desired residence). All of the above are directed primarily at the resi- dential land use projections. Since this category represents such a large proportion of the total, these crit'icisms must be answered. In comparison, the possible errors in total land use change introduced by the three economic activities will be minor. The projections of these are considered accep- table. The next sections analyze the effect of the four problem areas noted above on the projection of SMSA residential land. The following section also considers the existing supply of recreational land and net effects of removing this land from the "open and other" category. LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE NEW ORLEANS SMSA, 1972 Developable land may be classified along a spectrum from prime to marginal. Prime developable land is that which requires little or no improvement for residential use. Marginal land is land which requires such an amount of improve- ment that it will not come into use until the prime of prime (equivalently located) land has been bid above the cost of improving marginal land. In the New Orleans area, prime land may be considered to be all land in agriculture, all forest land and all land in the open and other category which has not been set aside for urban recreation. 198 Table 3.7 shows the quantity of developable prime land in the SMSA, by parish. From this quantity is subtracted the existing recreational open space to obtain available prime land for development. A comparison of the land required for projected develop- ment (from Table 3.6) with the available prime land from Table 3.7 points out that on a SMSA basis, there is ample land for expansion and growth. In fact, while an increase of almost 50,000 acres of total development might be expected by 1985, this would be less than one-seventh of the prime land avail- able. Analysis of the distribution of available prime land by parish, however, shows an entirely different pattern. In Orleans parish, approximately 3600 acres would be required3 for housing alone, from a total of 8249 acres. The Jefferson figures are even more revealing. There are less than 13,0001 total prime acres available (as of 1972); yet by 1985, if the projected population and density figures hold, over 21,000 acres would be required for residential use. The St.3 Bernard parish situation is not so critical. There are 13,400 acres available and the projected demand would be3 3700 acres for housing. Only in St. Tammnany Parish is there a real surplus ofI available prime land. This land is higher, relatively well-3 drained, and quite developable. Unfortunately, at its nearest approach, it is approximately twenty-five miles from the3 intensely developed areas of the city. 199 m -mmmm m - - m m m- TABLE 3.7 PRIME DEVELOPABLE LAND, BY PARISH--1972 (in acres) ST. BERNARD 1,527,201 -1,212,770 314,431 -7,410 307,021 -293,436 13,585 ST. TAMMANY 705,926 -149,435 556,491 -31,369 525,122 -179,322 345,800 SMSA NOTES 3,032,666 -1,823,354 1,209,312 -164,996 1, 2 1,044,316 -660,725 383,411 CATEGORY Total Area -All Water Features Total Land Area -Urban & Built Up Total Available -Wetlands and Barren Lands Prime Land JEFFERSON 584,402 -363,337 221,065 -85,462 135,423 -122,265 13,158 ORLEANS 215,137 -97,812 117,325 -40,755 76,570 -65,702 10,868 O 0 0 -Existing Parks and Open Recreational Space Available Prime 2,619 8,249 163 13,422 537 345,253 3,759 3, 4 379,652 440 12,718 Includes category 14, "extractive." other purpose. These lands are not in general developable for any 2Does not include category 19, "open and other." A portion of "open and other" category is actually "developed" as parks and open recreation areas and is therefore not developable for other purposes. 3Figures include all urban recreational spaces 5 acres or larger. From Regional Planning Commission (1971). 4St. Tammany figure from Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission (1974). Source: Derived by authors from Table 3.4. The effects of land scarcity on the New Orleans side of Lake Pontchartrain will be manifold and they will increase over time. As the amount of available land decreases, its price will increase. As the price of land increases, the cost of housing increases. The result is somewhat indeter- minate when taken out of context. At a minimum, however, it can be stated that: 1) Some of the potential population will be forced into higher density developments. 2) Some will be forced to live further from their places of work in order to secure satisfactory housing at a reasonable price. 3) Some will be forced to pay the higher cost of reclaimed land if such land is available. A further consideration is that the total amount of available prime land now existing cannot all be used for housing. In fact, housing does not compete equally with industrial or commercial bidders. Further, a certain amount of the open land should be set aside for urban recreation. In order to establish an approximate base quantity of land available in each parish, a provisional allocation of industrial, commercial and service, transportation, communi- cation and utilities, and urban recreational space has been made in Table 3.8.6 Recreational space needs have been 6The economic activities have been allocated to each parish on the basis of existing areal ratios (e.g., 1985 Commercial and Service in Jefferson Parish = 1972 Comm & Serv, Jeff x18 1972 Total Comm & Serv X18 Total Commercial & Service). 201 - - m --- - " -mmm mmm m m TABLE 3.8 LAND AVAILABILITY BY PARISH, 1985--AFTER PROVISIONAL ALLOCATION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES AND RECREATION (in Acres) CATEGORY OF LAND USE JEFFERSON ORLEANS ST. BERNARD ST. TAMMANY Available Prime Land 1972 12,718 8,249 13,422 345,263 -Change Industrial Land 1985 -Change Commercial, Service and Institutional 1985 1,398 1,798 68 1,291 5,092 100 0 397 12,925 699 19 143 344,402 0 -Change Transportation, Communication and Utilities 1985 43 -Needed Urban Recreational Land 1985-Existing Supply 1975 =Prime Land Available for Residential Development 1985 3,460 7,817 Source: Recreation Figures from Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission (1974). Rest of Table derived by authors from Tables 3.6 and 3.7. computed on the basis of expected 1985 population from5 Outdoor Recreation in Louisiana 1975-1980 (Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1974). This will, of course, require revision based on the final allocation of5 population in 1985. Since the "pattern"' of settlement will largely deter-3 mine the final intensity ratios (or, in other words, residential density), and since this pattern of settlementI is affected not only by the availability of prime land, but3 also by available transportation, changes in consumer reference, and the availability and price of filled land, the3 projected quantity of needed land must be determined simul- taneously with its location. THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: ITS EFFECTS ON THE ACCESSIBILITY OF DEVELOPABLE LAND Given the shortage of available prime land near the center city (as described in the preceding section), theI question of residential location largely devolves to analysis of access to the developable land which does exist. If this access is not relatively easy, the costs of land reclamation3 may well be below the cost of transportation. Clearly, the transportation systems of 1980 and 1985 will greatly influence3 the pattern of settlement of the corresponding increments of population. Those transportation factors which stand out as3 influencing the spatial allocation of residential growth in the New Orleans SMSA most are:3 2033 1) the availability and cost of fuel for private automobiles 2) the ease of river crossings 3) the availability of rapid transit across Lake Pont chart rain 4) the availability of mass transit to and from outlying areas. These factors are of particular importance when the areal distribution of prime land is considered as shown below. Consultation with planners in Jefferson Parish yielded the information that there is little available land of any nature (prime or marginal) left on the East Bank. 7The development of the West Bank, while proceeding rapidly, is limited both by the amount of land and by access to major transportation corridors (Terranova, 1976). A Jefferson- to-Jefferson bridge is considered a necessity if the parish is to house its "expected" 1985 population. In Orleans Parish, almost all of the available prime land is across the river in an area known as the Lower Coast of Algiers. This area, of approximately 4700 acres, could house more than 50,000 people if developed in a New Town configuration (New Orleans City Planning Commission, 1975). It could, at maximum density, house even more, perhaps as many as 100,000 people (Mumphrey and Waterman, 1976). 7Vacant land which is shown on the 1972 base map (in the Kenner area) has, in large, been developed. 204 One primary reason that this choice land has not yet been developed is that; access to it is very poor. Providing access would entail at least a Mississippi River Bridge at Chalmette and upgrading of arterials on either side of the River. According to very recent statistics (Tri-S, 1976) St. Bernard Parish has become the second fastest growing parish in the state since 1970. This is not particularly surprising when it is realized that this parish contains the bulk of the developable prime land near the center city. Also, this land is relatively accessible: no bridges across the Mississippi are necessary to reach it. The pace of development likely will not be maintained for long, since as the prime land lies mainly along a natural levee of the Mississippi in a narrow ridge. New development is forced out along this corridor which rapidly diverges from the area of the developed core. St. Tammany Parish is now the fastest growing parish in the area (Tri-S, 1976). (Note that both St. Tammany and St. Bernard have moved ahead of Jefferson; this is a situation not predicted by the Segal population projections. It must, however, be remembered that these growth percentages are calculated from relatively small base populations.) The situation in St. Tanmmany is that its growth is limited to those families which can afford the time and money to commute across Lake Pontchartrain at least until substantial develop- ment of job opportunities occurs in the parish. 205 The Transportation Improvement Program, FY77 (fiscal year 1977) which also contains projections to 1981, yields some insight to the question of future access to these develop- able areas (Regional Planning Commission, 1976b). In general, the plan shows continued commitment to private auto trans- portation, but with significant recognition of the need for improved mass transit. With regard to automobile transporta- tion, "the most significant development in the (extended) time frame will be the construction of the downstream parallel span bridge" (Voneida, 1976). No other bridges across the Mississippi are shown as even contemplated. Most of the highway and street improvements are planned for already developed areas: some to relieve increasing congestion, others more in the way of routine maintenance. Notable exceptions with regard to street construction help to delineate the expected pattern of development. In particular, the plans show extension and upgrading of roads in Orleans Parish from Interstate 10 to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. In West Jefferson, most new construction is planned in the area of the Westbank Expressway and Lapalco Boulevard (Regional Planning Commission, 1976b). The effect of these roads will be to open new areas for subdivision and residential construction. Much of the land so opened, however, is presently wetlands and is, therefore, of marginal developability. There are no plans shown for improving access to the upstream areas of West Jefferson or to the Lower Coast of Algiers. St. Bernard will become more 206 accessible through improvements to Louisiana 46 and Louisiana 47 (Paris Road). There is little to be done to bring St. Tammany "closer" for automobile traffic beyond the construc- tion of a new causeway, which is not even in the planning5 stages. Automobile access in 1980 will remain roughly similar3 to that in 1976. By 1985 the planned Mississippi River Bridge may be completed; but, if the recommended corridor isI used, this bridge will do little more than relieve existing3 congestion on the current bridge. Since it takes approximately five years from the beginning of construction to operation,3 it is unlikely that any other bridges can be planned and built before 1985 (Von'eida, 1976).1 Gasoline and related fuel products are expected to3 remain relatively plentiful for the forseeable future, barring another OPEC embargo. The price of this fuel will increase3 at a rate above the rate of inflation, due to increased dril- ling costs as well as politically administered pricesI (Commoner, 1976). Apparently, the American driver has been willing and able to absorb the increased price of gasoline as is shown by the fact that 1975-76 consumption is the highest3 ever (Motor Trend, 1976). The importance of these related items is that distance alone is probably not a deterrent to the settlement of an outlying area. Families who desire and can afford to do so are still likely to locate in the exurban subdivisions.3 2073 A large number of New Orleanians, however, are not capable of absorbing the costs involved with a long daily commute. For most of these, mass transit is an obvious answer. With so little land available near the primary employment nexus of the central city, the availability of transit to outlying areas is crucial. In the past, New Orleans proper has had adequate-to-excellent mass transit, but the suburban parishes have not. This situation could change in the next ten years. All of the parishes show some commitment to improving mass transit as is shown by the equipment upgrades listed in the Transportation Improvement Program (Regional Planning Commission, 1976b: i, ii). The sufficiency of such programs is not ascertainable in light of the unknown effectiveness of the proposed Regional Transportation Authority. A signifi- cant improvement in transit to the central city from eastern New Orleans and Jefferson Parish should devolve from the Park- and-Ride operations. These could lower travel and parking costs, decrease highway congestion, and improve the access of low and moderate income families to areas in eastern New Orleans. There are no expectations of an in-place rapid transit system being developed before 1985. Such systems are being considered, both with regard to mode and corridor, but their implementation is costly and time consuming. A rapid transit system around, or across, Lake Pontchartrain is a long-term 208 possibility; however, it will not influence the settlement pattern of the population increment relevant to this study (Thayer, 1976). With the transportation factors in mind, a survey of the demographic and economic characteristics of the population whould help to clarify the location and type of housing which will be built. The next section analyzes these considerations. HOUSING COSTS AND INCOME Table 3.2 shows that certain demographic and economic characteristics of the New Orleans SMSA population are changing. Most importantly, there will be more people in the working age population and fewer (relatively) in age groups which traditionally have required private and public support (the old and the young). A related statistic shows family size declining as a result of the lower fertility rates. Also, real income per capita is expected to increase at approximately the same rate as the national average which will mean an increase in effective buying power. In-migration to the SMSA as a whole will make up about 25 percent of the population increase. Most of the immigrants will be in the 25-34 age group and will contribute directly to the working age population. Further, since the rural to urban migration is largely over (due to the depopulation of the agricultural lands in previous decades), this group can be expected to bring urban skills and adjustments to the SMSA (Taeuber, 1973: 3-5). 209 These trends suggest that the New Orleans SMSA will be relatively more affluent in 1980 and even more so in 1985. A smaller proportion of total personal income will be necessary to support schools and senior citizens, thus increasing personal disposable income. It appears that the latter will partially offset the increase in transportation costs alluded to in the previous section. However, before analyzing the effect of these changes on the effective demand for housing, it is also necessary to evaluate the changes in the costs of housing relative to income. The most important consideration in this regard is that the price of all housing has been (and is expected to continue) increasing at a rate faster than family income. From 1967 to 1972, median family income nationally increased by 12 percent, while the price of shelter increased by 23 percent (Council of Economic Advisors, 1974: 274, 300). This trend implies that a house which cost $25,000 in 1970 would cost approximately $46,500 in 1985. In order to comfortably afford a $25,000 house in 1970, a family would have needed an income of $10,000 per year. It would need to earn at least $18,600 in 1985 to buy the same house. But the projected income of that family for 1985 is about $14,000. While the above could pose a national problem of some magnitude, it is a critical consideration in evaluating the demand for housing in New Orleans. In New Orleans proper, only about one-third of the households own (or are buying) a family home. For the SMSA, the proportion of home owners 210 to total households is approximately 45 percent (Bureau of the Census, 1972). In the United States, the home ownership rate is nearly 55 percent. There is every indication that the low rate of home ownership in New Orleans is directly attributable to the highly skewed distribution of income. Median family income in the United States in 1970 was more than $10,600 (Council of Economic Advisors, 1974: 274). In the New Orleans SMSA, median family income in that year was only $8,444. Perhaps more importantly, only 40.5 percent of all families had annual incomes over $10,000 and 29.5 percent had incomes below $5,000 (Bobo and Charlton, 1975: 172-3). The structure of expected employment increases is such that while all incomes will increase absolutely, the distribution will remain skewed because most of the employment additions will likely be in the lower paying service and commercial areas (see Table 3.3). As a result of increasing shelter costs, increasing transportation costs, and skewed income distribution, relatively few families will be able to purchase privately financed owner-occupied homes. If housing costs continue to increase at the 1967-1972 rate, it can be projected from the income data in Table 3.2 that about 30-35 percent of new dwelling units will be in this category. 8 8This percentage estimated by comparing %A in Income with %A in the price of housing, taking the difference, and then calculating % of families who could have afforded to buy a house, if it had cost that much more. 211 A recent study (Copelin and Associates, 1975: 22) projects an even more dismnal view. It reports that 65.1 percent of all new dwelling units (including rentals) will require some form of direct federal subsidy. Of this total subsidized housing, 33 percent will be single-family, owner-occupied. When comnbined, privately financed single family units combined with subsidized units could make up between 50 percent and 55 percent of total dwelling units. However, land use restrictions and increased transportation costs may cause this figure to be unrealistically high. A later section explores the relationship between available land and transportation costs as that relationship can be expected to influence density of housing in New Orleans in the projected time frame. SCENARIO I: HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ON AVAILABLE PRIME LAND More available land implies, generally, a lower density in new residential construction. Likewise, lower per mile transportation costs (including time costs) imply lower density. Again, higher incomes and relatively more even income distributions imply more lower density developments. For the New Orleans SMSA, the converse of each of these has been shown to be more applicable. Even if it is assumed that the ratio of single family dwellings to multi-family units will approach the national average for new increments of housing, it is safe to assume 212 that most of these will be "satisficing" rather than5 "optimizing" units. In general, they will be constructed on smaller lots and they will be surrounded by less public green space. Prototypical examples of the type of moderate3 income housing which is likely to be federally subsidized is found in the University City area of Kenner. These Section1 235 units are built on lots which are 50 x 120 feet (Kennedy, 1976). This allows 7.25 units per housing acre, or when 331 percent more land is added for roads, right of ways, neigh-3 borhood green areas, etc., a bout 5.5 units per total residential acre may be built. Many wealthier home purchasers3 (and building contractors) in the New Orleans area have also opted for very small lots. On the East Bank of JeffersonI Parish it is not unusual to see a $75,000 house on a3 minimally legal one-eighth acre lot (Jefferson Parish Council, 1972: 433).3 The reason behind such high density single family development is, of course, land price. Much of the currentlyI developed area of the city was originally wetlands, as is much of the surrounding area. The cost of improving this land is high; the price of desirable property is under-3 standably quite expensive. Increased construction, mainten- ance and flood insurance costs may add as much as-$6000 (1974 dollars) per dwelling unit to the effective price of housing (Mumphrey and Waterman, 1976). Some of these considerations do not add directly to the price of land,3 213 but they certainly influence density by reducing the effec- tive housing budget of the prospective home purchaser. Scenario I (outlined in the following tables) is a simplified expression of one possible equilibrium of the housing market in 1980 and 1985. Each parish, it is assumed, increases in population in accordance with the Segal (1976) projections. This scenario implicitly recognizes the probable increase in land prices caused by the total SMSA change in population and land scarcity and translates these into increases in density. Note that the intensity ratio for the residential increment is significantly higher than the average existing density computed using the SPO-LUDA9 study. In this scenario, the ratio of single family to multi-family homes is maintained at 55 percent - 45 percent in each of the parishes on the south side of Lake Pontchartrain. Planning densities used for projection of residential land needs were 5.3 single family units per acre and 15 multi-family units per acre, including infrastructure and open space. These dwel- ling unit densities are relatively high (they imply approxi- mately thirty-eight persons per housing acre), but are consistent with Planned Unit Development and New Town densities (Smolkin-Bost-Miestchovich, 1975). The exception- ally high cost of transport and the relatively large amount of prime land change the density pattern for St. Tammany Parish. Low income wage earners, who work in central city 9This study was done by the State Planning Office to provide them with a method for computing land use densities. See State Planning Office (1975) Land Use and Data Analysis Program. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: State Planning Office. 214 SCENARIO I: LAND REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSE "EXPECTED" POPULATION, BY PARISH JEFFERSON PARISH 1972 Intensity Ratio Lan (Acres/User) 1980 Intensity Land Ratio Required (Acres/User) Acres 1985 Intensity Land Ratio Required (Acres/User) Acres ad in Use Acres Land Use Category Urban and Built Up Land (11) Residential and (17) Strip and Cluster (12) Commercial and Service and (16) Institutional (13) Industrial (15) Transportation, Communication and Utilities (19) Open and Other (21-24) Agricultural Land (41-43) Forest Land (51-55) Water Features Wetlands (61) Forested Wetlands (62) Non-Forested Wetlands (71-75) Barren Land (14) Extractive TOTAL AREA 44683 50022 53627 .286 .038 .145 122 30134 3458 5434 1729 5928 3705 104 .038 145 122 34594 4320 5434 1774 3900 104 .038 145 122 37655 4864 5434 1774 3900 cn Oq 3339 3705 363337 107692 26429 81263 14573 44707 584402 363337 107692 26429 81263 14573 44707 584402 363337 107426 26163 81263 14573 44707 584402 IIMIIImm~mI///mIII/ m mmm m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m SCENARIO I: LAND REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSE "EXPECTED" POPULATION, BY PARISH ORLEANS PARISH 1972 Intensity Ratio La (Acres/User) 198 C Intensity Ratio (Acres/User) D 1985 Land Intensity Land Required Ratio Required Acres (Acres/User) Acres Lnd in Use Acres Land Use Category 44707 46203 48186 Urban and Built Up Land (11) Residential and (17) Strip and Cluster (12) Commercial and Service and (16) Institutional (13) Industrial (15) Transportation, Communications and Utilities (19) Open and Other (21-24) Agricultural Land (41-43) Forest Land (51-55) Water Features Wetlands (61) Forested Wetlands (71-75) Barren Land 104 .034 .145 .122 30296 6253 4940 2787 3910 247 139 .038 .145 122 27664 4446 4940 2717 4940 247 5681 97812 64961 6669 58292 741 988 104 .038 145 122 29012 5554 4940 2787 3910 247 4185 2202 97812 64961 6669 59292 97812 64961 6669 58292 741 741 988 (14) Extractive 988 TOTAL AREA 215137 215137 215137 SCENARIO I: LAND REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSE "EXPECTED" POPULATION, BY PARISH ST. BERNARD PARISH 1972 Intensity Ratio Land in Use (Acres/User) Acres 1980 Intensity Ratio R (Acres/User) - 1985 Intensity Ratio E (Acres/User) Land Required Acres Land Required Acres Land Use Category Urban and Built Up Land (11) Residential and (17) Strip and Cluster (12) Commercial and Service and (16) Institutional (13) Industrial (15) Transportation, Communication and Utilities (19) Open and Other (21-24) Agricultural Land (41-43) Forest Land (51-55) Water Features Wetlands (61) Forested Wetlands (62) Non-Forested Wetlands (71-75) Barren Land (14) Extractive TOTAL AREA 7410 8586 9004 7322 381 741 .498 .038 145 6422 247 741 104 .038 145 6956 329 741 104 .038 145 N 741 2470 10374 1212770 265525 4199 261326 27911 560 560 2470 2470 9198 8760 1212770 265525 4199 261326 1212770 265525 4199 261326 2791 1 1527201 1527201 1527201 //mmmI/mI/I/II/IImmmI mmm mm m m m m m m m m m mm m m mm m SCENARIO I: LAND REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSE "EXPECTED" POPULATION, BY PARISH ST. TAMMANY PARISH 1972 Intensity Ratio L (Acres/User) 1980 Intensity Ratio (Acres/User) 1985 Intensity Land Ratio Required (Acres/User) Acres Land Required Acres Land in Use Acres Land Use Category Urban and Built Up Land (11) Residential and (17) Strip and Cluster (12) Commercial and Service and (16) Institutional (13) Industrial (15) Transportation, Communication, and Utilities (19) Open and Other (21-24) Agricultural Land (41-43) Forest Land (51-55) Water Features Wetlands (61) Forested Wetlands (62) Non-Forested Wetlands (71-75) Barren Land 31122 33575 34251 1.36 .038 145 .122 26182 1729 494 741 1976 94107 249717 149435 179322 122265 57057 .333 .038 145 .122 28658 2303 494 760 680 94107 247264 149435 179322 122265 57057 333 .038 .145 .122 30331 2666 494 760 680 94107 245908 149435 179322 122265 57057 (14) Extractive 2223 2223 2223 705926 705926 705926 TOTAL LAND are in general not able to compete for this land simply f because of the journey-to-work costs. Therefore, the more affluent will make up most of the population increase in that parish. They will most probably opt for single family homes on larger tracts. In St. Tammany Parish, the projected density in this scenario is about four families per housing3 acre. Population Distribution Without Wetlands Reclamation: Evaluation of Scenario I Scenario I, in the previous section, delineates one possible allocation of economic activity and housing for the expected population of the New Orleans SMSA in 1980 and 1985.3 This scenario follows the previous trends of population growth by parish. It shows that with substantial increases3 in residential density (which might be expected when land, housing and transportation costs are increasing faster than3 income), each parish could house its projected increase on3 available prime land. It might appear that the additional construction costs3 would cause the reclamation of land to be far too expensive as a large scale solution to the land shortage. However,I they must be traded off against either increased transporta-3 tion costs or the somewhat less measurable costs of increased density. Figure 3.2 is a schematic of direct3 journey to work costs per month (for a single individual in a typical automobile) from various areas of the SMSA. TheI 219 FIGURE 3.2; APPROXIMATE DISTANCE AND MONTHLY COMMUTING COSTS AVAILABLE LAND AREAS NOSMSA Source: Derived by Authors, See text. 220 mnethod of calculation is shown in the legend. Table 3.9 shows the capitalized present values of those costs. An attempt is made in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.9 to show some of the additional costs of congestion. Access from possible residential areas has been measured along existing corridors to a point in the central city near the Superdome. At peak traffic hours, all major highways lead- ing to the central city are operating above capacity and traffic is slowed perceptibly. Hence, all costs shown are below the journey-to-work costs as perceived by drivers using these roads at this time. These generalized costs of congestion are not here considered, but the extra time costs to Westbank residents created by the paucity of bridges over the Mississippi are significant and must be taken into account. One report (Kaiser Engineers, 1974) estimates this time differential to be about 15 minutes for the Lower Coast of Algiers. Table 3.9 adjusts the monthly journey to work costs for areas on the Southside of the River using this differential transformed into "equivalent" miles which could be traveled in that quarter-hour. While Scenario I seems realistic in the sense that higher densities seem ordained by the economic considerations, it ignores the accessibility costs of intensive development on the Westbank of the Mississippi in both Jefferson and Orleans Parishes. If no wetlands reclamation was allowed (where wetlands include all areas as shown on the 1975 SPO- LUDA map), the area of primarily forest and agricultural land 221 -m- - - - - - -- --- - - - - - - TABLE 3,9 M1ONTIILY AND CAPITALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS VERSUS PRIVATE LAND RECLAIMATION COST PRESENT VALUE OF PRIVATE COST OF LAND RECLAIMATION $6,0002 1,3002 PRESENT VALUE TOTALS FOR ALL AREAS OF AVAILABLE LAND $60,000 40,000 25,200 12,500 16,000 24,000 28,800 28,800 19,200 DIFFERENTIAL TOTALS: LOWEST COST ALTERNATIVE SUBTRACTED OUT $47,500 27,500 12,700 0 3,500 11,500 16,300 16,300 6,700 DESIRABILITY BY RANK, GIVEN COST CONSIDERA- TIONS ONLY 7 7 5 1 2 4 6 6 3 MONTIILY1 COMMUTING AREA OF SMSA COSTS Covington area $300 Slidetl area 200 Orlandia area 96 Eastern New Orleans 56 St. Bernard above Violet 80 St. Bernard below Violet 120 Lower Coast of Algiers 144 Waggaman area 144 Kenner area 96 CAPITALIZED PRESENT VALUE i = 6>; n = A $60,000 40,000 19,200 11.200 16 ,000 24,000 28,8003 28,8003 19,200 Source: Derived by authors. iCommuting Costs are for 20 journey to work round trips. Costs figured at 20�/mile plus current tolls. 2Per dwelling unit. Eastern New Orleansfigure is for price of fill only (from Mumphrey, et al., 1975).. 3Monthly cost adjustment ($48) calculated from: Adjusted in miles = time difference x average miles/hr. 1-10 peak Adjusted in Dollars = adjusted in miles x cost/mile/month where: time difference = .25 hours average miles/hr. = 24 mph in West Jefferson from the Parish Line to Avondale (referred to in Table 3.9 as the Waggaman area) and the similar area in what is known as Lower Algiers in Orleans Parish would possibly develop in such a manner. More probably (it is felt) a spillover of residential population would occur in St. Bernard and the east bank of St. Charles Parishes simply due to the better accessibility of these areas. A clearer understanding of the accessibility problem can be gained from Figure 3.3. This figure shows the main areas of available prime land in 1972 in the three SMSA parishes on the southside of Lake Pontchartrain. 10 Much of the land which was vacant in East Jefferson in 1972 (e.g., the University City area in Kenner) is now fully developed with single family housing. The effect (as the map clearly indicates) is this: much of the multi-family housing projected for Jefferson and, to a lesser extent, Orleans for 1980 and 1985 would have to be built on the Westbank. The housing "slump" of the last three years somewhat clouds the picture because very little multi-family housing has been built at all (Siegel and Associates, 1976). Multi-family housing has not proven consistently successful on the Westbank, nor would one expect it to. It is 10 There are, of course, minor tracts within the existing developed areas which might be developed more intensively. The total quantity of vacant land of this nature in Orleans Parish does not appear to exceed 10%o, and in Jefferson probably does not exceed 15% of the necessary land to house the expected 1980 population. Much of this land which does exist is being held for speculation or is not otherwise available for residential use. 223 unusual for higher density housing to compete with single family homes. Most often this housing is found in areas which maximize access to urban amenities and minimize transportation costs. If only 45% of the additional households expected in Jefferson by 1980 were multi-family and if even 50 percent of these were built on the Westbank, then 10,000 new dwelling units would be needed. By 1985, the figure would be over 16,000 new multi-family units. This projection would imply that either much of the increment in jobs would have to occur on the Westbank or that congestion and total transport costs would rise percipitously because of the lack of bridges. It is more reasonable to project that more accessible areas will develop more intensely and that those large tracts on the Westbank will see slower and more traditionally suburban development. One factor which will make this possible is that large tracts of open land (which are shown in wetlands in the SPO-LUDA study, but which have in fact long been impounded and drained) exist in the area of Eastern New Orleans between Downman Road and Paris Road and between Lake Pontchar- train and U.S. 90. This area ;contains the most accessible open land in the SMSA and, because it is no longer considered as viable wetlands (Mumphrey et al., 1,975), it will most likely be permitted to develop. The added costs to home purchasers or developers will likely be primarily land fill, at an estimated $1,300 per dwelling unit ~(Mumphrey et al., 1975). 224 SCENARIO II: THE PROBABLE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, 1980, 1985 Scenario II attempts to project a more realistic distri- but ion of population within the New Orleans SMSA for 1980 andI 1985. The distribution of economic activities in this scenario is unchanged. However, the population growth rate in Jefferson Parish has been reduced by 33 percent to reflect the scarcity of accessible land for development in that parish. This population is shifted on the basis of 75 percent to Orleans, 12.5 percent to St. Tammany, and 12.5 percent to St. Bernard. All of the shift in population to Orleans is assumed to be of the multi-family housing segment. Hence, 75 percent of the 33 percent has been added to the Orleans Parish multi-family housing market. And 12.5 percent of the 33 percent has been added to the single-family housing segment in St. Bernard and St. Tammany. 11 One further consequence of the perceived Eastbank- Westbank differential in transportation cost has been the very rapid development of the Eastbank of Jefferson Parish. This has led to almost unplanned expansion of residential and commercial land uses. What little land is now leftI for development is priced extremely high. An unfortunate outcome of this is that there is little possibility of These percentages are, of course, arbitrary, but they are not capricious. They are based on the author's judgment of the available land for high intensity developmentI which remains in East Jefferson. 225 MM MM - MM MMIM - "mm mm mm m m - SCENARIO II: LAND REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSE "REALLOCATED" POPULATION, BY PARISH JEFFERSON PARISH 1 ( INTENS ITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) 985 ACRES 52456 37884 4864 5434 1774 2500 1637 363337 107692 26429 81263 14573 44707 584402 1 ! INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) 972 ACRES 46683 30134 3458 5434 1729 5928 3705 3705 363337 107692 26429 81263 14573 44707 584402 1 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) 980 ACRES 48759 34731 4320 5434 1774 2500 3705 1629 363337 107692 26429 81263 14573 44707 584402 LAND USE CATEGORY Urban and Built Up Land (11) Residential and (17) Strip and Cluster (12) Commercial and Service and (16) Institutional (13) Industrial (15) Transportation, Communication and Utilities (19) Open and Other (21-24) Agricultural Land (41-43) Forest Land (51-55) Water Features Wetlands (61) Forested Wetlands (62) Non-Forested Wetlands (71-75) Barren Land (14) Extractive TOTAL LAND .286 .038 �145 � 122 .16 .038 �145 �122 .16 .038 � 145 � 122 t% D 0% SCENARIO II: LAND REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSE "REALLOCATED" POPULATION, BY PARISH ORLEANS PARISH 1972 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) ACRES 1980 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) ACRES 1985 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) ACRES LAND USE CATEGORY Urban and Built Up Land (11) Residential and (17) Strip and Cluster (12) Commercial and Service and (16) Institutional (13) Industrial (15) Transportation, Communication and Utilities (19) Open and Other (21-24) Agricultural Land (41-43) Forest Land (51-55) Water Features Wetlands (61) Forested Wetlands (62) Non-Forested Wetlands (71-75 Barren Land (14) Extractive TOTAL LAND 44707 48014 51382 .139 .038 � 145 .122 27664 4446 4940 2717 � 134 .038 � 145 .122 30823 5554 4940 2787 .134 .038 .145 .122 33492 6253 4940 2787 3910 147 5381 97812 61594 3302 58292 741 988 215137 4940 3910 147 5681 97812 63436 5144 58292 741 988 215137 247 5681 97812 64961 6669 58292 741 988 215137 M um m aft"a" mm mm m m mm NM M m m-m l l me I: l m: m m m N so SCENARIO II: LAND REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSE "REALLOCATED" POPULATION, BY PARISH ST. BERNARD PARISH 1972 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) ACRES 1980 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER). ACRES 1985 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) ACRES LAND USE CATEGORY Urban and Built Up Land (11) Residential and (17) Strip and Cluster (12) Commercial and Service and (16) Institutional (13) Industrial (15) Transportation, Communication and Utilities (19) Open and Other (21-24) Agricultural Land (41-43) Forest Land 7410 9564 10659 .498 .038 � 145 6422 247 741 .22 .038 � 145 7934 329 741 .22 .038 .145 8977 381 741 741 2470 10374 560 560 2470 8591 2470 7758 (51-55) Water Features 1212770 1212770 1212770 Wetlands (61) Forested Wetlands (62) Non-Forested Wetlands (71-75) Barren Land 265525 4199 261326 27911 265525 27911 265525 27911 (14) Extractive TOTAL LAND 1527201 1527201 1527201 SCENARIO II: LAND REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSE "REALLOCATED" POPULATION, BY PARISH ST. TAMMANY PARISH 1 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER) 972 ) ACRES 31122 26182 1729 494 741 1976 94107 249717 149435 179322 122265 57057 1 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER 980 ) ACRES 32988 28751 2303 494 760 680 94107 247851 149435 179322 122265 57057 1 INTENSITY RATIO (ACRES/USER L985 ) ACRES 35128 30528 2666 494 760 680 94107 245711 149435 179322 122265 57057 2223 705926 LAND USE CATEGORY Urban and Built Up Land (11) Residential and (17) Strip and Cluster (12) Commercial and Service and (16) Institutional (13) Industrial (15) Transportation, Communication and Utilities (19) Open and Other (21-24) Agricultural Land (41-43) Forest Land (51-55) Water Features Wetlands (61) Forested Wetlands (62) Non-Forested Wetlands (71-75) Barren Land (14) Extractive TOTAL LAND .36 .038 .145 .122 .28 .038 .145 122 .28 .038 145 .122 2223 705926 2223 705926 gm _ No n _ , _ so _ _ s to l m m Jefferson Parish obtaining the quantity of urban recrea- tional land (shown as "open and other" in Scenario 1) recom- mended by the Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission (1974). Scenario II adjusts the 1980 and 1985 recreation space for Jefferson to a more realistic figure by reducing this category. Evaluation of Land Use Projections: Scenario II Scenario II indicates a much different distribution of population than that in Scenario I. In Scenario I, there would be no development of wetlands, but there would be inten- sive development on the Westbank of the River. Scenario II, on the other hand, projects much development on previously relaimed wetlands in eastern New Orleans and a significant shift of population away from the Westbank of Jefferson and Orleans. In evaluating this second scenario, it is appropriate to restate the factors of economic and demographic change which could affect the density and allocation of increments in population and economic activity. A partial listing of these factors includes: 1) the kind, amount and location of employment generators; 2) land prices and housing costs; 3) accessibility of developable areas and the transportation system; 4) family size and household generation; 5) political regulation of development. 230 Factors two and three have been extensively considered in this chapter and, in fact, have led to the land use projections in both scenarios. In Scenario I, factor two was emphasized to show that the increasing densities which may be expected from higher land prices and housing costs could effectively lead to a situation in which the expected population could be housed on available prime land. In analysis of Scenario I, it was suggested that the additional transportation costs involved with intensive development of the Westbank might, in the absence of regulation, lead instead to more rapid development of eastern New Orleans as an alternative. Scenario TI thus emphasizes factor three in its projection of residential land use. While indicative of a range of alternatives with regard to population distribution, neither of these two scenarios has been shown to be an equilibrium position for the allo- cation of housing or economic activities. An understanding of the probable distribution of employment (Factor 1) will be useful in determining the equilibrium pattern of settlement. Contributing further to the determination of equilibrium will be an analysis of the type of housing desired by population increments. Factor four must therefore be considered. Factor five can "distort" or modify the equilibrium determined by factors one through four in both passive and active ways. Simply, passive intervention is used here to mean an overall or general attitudinal or legalistic climate 231 if ~for particular types of development. Active intervention refers here to specific promotion, or prohibition, of any I ~~activity. 5 ~~Factor 1: Throughout this study, access to the Central Business District (CBD) has been consdiered a major determin- ing factor in the allocation of residential land. The � ~~validity of this measure is, of course, dependent upon the distribution of new jobs within the SMSA. Table 3.3 yields * ~~an insight into the distribution of employment through analysis of the types of new jobs expected. It can be seen from this table that retail employment, wholesale employment, service g ~~and financial sector employment and government employment will lead the fields of growth. Each of these has traditionally 3 ~~been a major function of the Central Business District, and with the exception of retail employment, has shown strong I ~~concentration in this area of the city. There has been a 3 ~~tendency in recent years for each of these employment sectors to disperse somewhat, but until recently, only wholesale S ~~trade employment has shown a tendency to cluster in areas outside of the CBD (e.g., along Jefferson Highway and Edwards Avenue in Jefferson Parish). - Three new "satellite" business districts, however, have begun to develop and a fourth is almost certain. Of these, * ~~the most clearly obvious area is found along Causeway Boulevard in Metairie. The primary generator for this area I ~~was originally the Lakeside Shopping Center, itself a major 232 employer in retail trade. But the "Pat City" CBD, as it has9 come to be known, now includes such diversified functions asg employment agencies, insurance firms, banks, travel agencies, government offices and, perhaps most importantly, a city-5 wide entertainment district. It is not felt that this area will seriously challenge the main CBD for basic employment in the near future, but it will undoubtedly continue to grow in importance with regard to city-serving functions. The Oakwood Mall area on the Westbank has also come into some prominence as a satellite center. Because of the geographic barrier posed by the River, this center primarily serves Westbank residents; for them it serves many, if not most, of the traditional service functions of the centralI business district. Because of its proximity to the Harvey Industrial Canal and other Westbank industrial locations, this general area (which stretches along the Westbank4 Expressway and General DeGaulle Drive) contains offices and service facilities for many basic and city-wide employers.U The growth of this center is largely dependent upon its3 accessibility, which will be improved with the new Mississippi River Bridge. The completion of that link, however, will9 not significantly affect the distribution of employment within the projection period, since it is not scheduled before 1982.t The Plaza Regional Shopping Center is the newest of the satellite CBD's in the SMSA; in fact, it is not clear that it has yet achieved that status. The development of this 233 center is reasonably certain, however, given any further expansion of housing in eastern New Orleans and its location relative to Orlandia. Auxillary development proximate to the shopping center has already begun. Only slightly less certain is the development of a full service center in Chalmette or elsewhere in-St. Bernard Parish. There is as yet no clear core around which such a growth center has focused and lineal developments (such as that dictated by the geography of the prime land in the parish) have traditionally been slow to develop such a core. But the expected increase in petroleum refining capacity in the parish and other developments associated with Superport (see Table 3.3), as well as the rapid increase in population would seem to indicate at least the beginning of such a center before 1985. Taken together, these satellite centers can be expected to drain a respectable amount of the increases in employment away from the main CBD. If it were not for the apparent revitalization of the older core through employment generated by the Superdome and other central city develop- ments, the use of CBD as a prime access focal point might be questionable. It seems clear, however, that these develop- ments will, it sum, outweigh the effects of growth in other areas. Because the CBD is expected to remain strong and because the commercial and service growth in the Plaza area should at least balance that in Metairie, it is felt that 234 allocation of economic activity between parishes using5 12 existing-share ratios is appropriate. Figures using this method are the same for both Scenarios I and II. With regardI to the distribution of the residential land increment, the5 foregoing discussion suggests that Scenario II more accu- rately fits the expected relationship between place off residence and place of work since it yields significantly lower total transportation costs.I Factor 4,: Families seeking new housing locate not only with9 respect to employment, but also with concern for neighbor- hoods, schools, shopping, entertainment and other urbanI services. Because this factor is so complex, it is difficult to use it to project the type and location of desired housing. However, to assume that past trends and previously revealed preferences will.prevail can also be misleading. Factor 4 is used simply to indicate some of the marginalI changes which may take place in this time frame.g Certain emerging trends have become important enough recently to indicate that the massive outmigrat ion of the3 middle class to the suburbs may be tapering off. One indi.- cation of this is the renewed interest by middle class families in the central city housing stock. Renovation of older homes may cause a reversal of the tendency of the 12 St. Tammany Parish has not been explicity considered in this analysis because, despite its rapid growth, it is unlikely to develop much more than local service employ- ment in the next ten years due to its geographic location. 235 I ~~older areas toward blight, which, in the long run, could 5 ~~lead to a much healthier urban core. If this occurs, there should be less of a tendency towards metropolitan spread 3, ~because proximity to the central city might well be per- ceived as a "good" (i.e., as a positive externality of I ~~location). The location of more middle class families in the old city may have the effect of removing some of the working class nonrenovated housing fromn the rental segment of the market. As more of the older homes are renovated, some people could be pushed into the less locationally desirable rental housing on the outskirts of the central city. It is clear that, if this process develops as described, Scenario I II~1 is much more likely (and socially desirable) than Scenario 3 ~~I because in Scenario II more multi-family housing would be located in eastern New Orleans, resulting in transportation * ~~savings for those forced out of the old city. The above description will, of course, affect only a I ~~small portion of the housing market directly. Many middle 5 ~~class home buyers will still be locating in suburbia. And many lower income people would, by preference, choose to live in the fringe of the city (given reasonable transporta- tion) in any case. The fact that the central city is attrac- I ~~ting more of the relatively affluent also has an indirect � ~~implication, however, about the preferences of at least certain households with regard to schools and urban services. � ~~A primary reason for believing that this recent trend is indicative of other changes in preference lies in the 236 changing nature of the household. Families are becoming smaller, and, as mentioned in an earlier section, the ratio of working age population to total population is increasing. When the projected rate of growth of households (2.8 percent annually) is compared to the rate of growth in population (1.3 percent annually) (Segal, 1976: 78-79), it is clear that more households will have fewer children and will, therefore, logically require smaller hosing units. This argument is not meant to imply that most people still would not prefer to own their own homes, only that the size of the desired house and lot may well be smaller than in recent years. Since fewer children are likely to be entering school, the suburban parishes may lose some of their attrac- tiveness. A more numerous adult population may also prefer to have access to urban entertainment and 8hopping. Once again, Scenario II seems a logical allocation of population, both between and within the parishes. Factor 5: In the time frame under consideration in this study, all of the population increment could be housed on available prime land as shown in Scenario I. One purpose of developing this Scenario was to show a possible effect of political regulation of wetlands development. If no development was allowed in any of the areas shown as wet- lands on the SPO-LUDA base map (1972), then it might be considered that some allocation of population like that in Scenario I was "lrational". However, as this section and 237 others have shown, such an allocation would involve greater total transportation costs and very probably greater densities. Since an optimal allocation of population must be one which max.imizes net social benefits, it would appear that the decision to regulate or not should depend upon measuring the total costs of wetland development in eastern New Orleans against the benefits derived therefrom. Such a study is, of course , not within the scope of this chapter. When an acre of wetland is part of a viable estuarine system, it has a value far beyond that which it has in isolation (see Mumphrey et al., 1975: 96-137). Once that land has been impounded, its environmental value diminishes greatly. The areas which have been projected for develop- ment in this study fall into this latter category.- All of the land necessary for development in New Orleans in the forseeable future has been leveed; much of it has been drained. Apparently, the environmental damage has been done: the further ecological costs will probably not be great. 12 Any active political intervention is likely to be in favor of development as the New Orleans City Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor's Office have given full support to the development of certain areas in eastern New Orleans, and particularly to Orlandia (City 12 However, continuing public opposition to projects such as Orlandia may be expected. 238 Planning Commission, 1975). It should not be necessary to develop any other wetland areas before 1985 since only in Jefferson would the population pressure sustain the private costs of development. In Jefferson, however, the wetlands are to a great extent, on the Westbank of the River and hence, suffer from the same access problem encountered by the prime land. This section has shown that from an economic stand- point, with respect to the location of jobs, from a social standpoint, with respect to changing preferences in housing, and from an environmental standpoint, Scenario II is a rational allocation of residential population and economic activity. The following section concludes the substantive portion of the chapter with a discussion of the allocation of economic activity and housing within each parish. NOTES ON THE INTRAPARISH DISTRIBUTION POPULATION AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: AN INTERPRETATION UNDER SCENARIO II This section contains a verbal description of the kind, amount, and specific location of economic activity and housing which each parish (under the assumptions of Scenario II) is projected to receive by 1985. This allo- cation is, of course, only an estimate. It is based on available land, accessibility, previous settlement patterns and the authors' judgments. The verbal descriptions are 239 __l followed by a set of locational matrices by type of land use and by area within each parish. These matrices (Table 3.10) are keyed to the grid system on Figure 3.3. jefferson Parish may still expect very substantial growth through 1985. The adjusted projection, based on Scenario II, is an increase of 28,733 households from 1972 to 1980 and an additional increase of 19,725 households by 1985 (Table 3.11). Approximately 7,000 additional acres will be required for housing from 1972 until 1985. In the period from 1972 to 1976, most of the growth in residential housing has been in East Jefferson, primarily in the city of Kenner. This area (of approximately 2,200 acres) has developed largely in smaller single family homes. Since the density of this housing is relatively high, the area provides space for about 12,000 post-1972 dwelling units. By 1980, all of the vacant land in and around Kenner should be fully developed. There are approximately 7,000 acres of developable prime land on the Westbank of Jefferson Parish. As noted, most of this land (over 5,000 acres) is in the upstream portion of the parish near the St. Charles boundary. The remainder is scattered throughout the southern portion of the parish and is predominantly in agricultural use. All of the forest land near Avondale and most of the farm land in this area may be expected to develop in low density housing before 1985. There will at that time be few, if 240 FIGURE 3.3; NEW ORLEANS SMSA, AREA KEYS 1 '2'3 '4' 5 6'7'8' I A S''. 'I'ABNY I'ARSSII B C, ' K L Source; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1i73. 241 I am m a m No m- - mym m TABLE 3.10 DISTRIBUTION OF NEW INCREMENTS OF LAND USE BY TYPE WITHIN EACH PARISH, 1980-1985 JEFFERSON PARISH TYPE "OF DEVELOPMENT" (ACRES) COMMERCIAL, TRANSPORTA- TOTAL TYPE OF LAND LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SERVICE & TION, COM- NEW DEVELOPED FIGURE 3.4 & STRIP INSTITU- MUNICATION DEVELOP- SPO-LUDA AREA KEY AREA OF PARISH CLUSTER TIONAL & UTILITIES MENT PRIME WETLANDS 1980 E-1 Kenner 2250 210 -- 2460 2460 -- F-1 Elmwood 200 216 45 461 361 100 F-i Avondale 1547 245 -- 1792 1792 -- Other Jefferson 600 191 -- 791 591 200 Total Jefferson 4597 862 45 5504 5204 300 1985 E-1 Kenner . . . . . ..... ~ 1 t'l 4b 3 F-I F-i Elmwood 400 2783 514 3697 400 2783 514 3697 200 2533 420 3153 200 250 94 544 Avondale Other Jefferson Total Jefferson Source: Derived by Authors from Scenario II. See text. 1lncludes only areas which have been previously impounded. TABLE 3.10 DISTRIBUTION OF NEW INCREMENTS OF LAND USE BY TYPE WITHIN EACH PARISH, 1980-1985 ORLEANS PARISH TYPE "OF DEVELOPMENT" (ACRES) COMMERCIAL, TRANSPORTA- iTIAL SERVICE & TION, COM- IP INSTITU- MUNICATION ER TIONAL & UTILITIES TOTAL TYPE OF LAND NEW DEVELOPED DEVELOP- SPO-LUDA' MENT PRIME WETLANDS LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 3.4 AREA KEY AREA OF PARISH RESIDEN & STR CLUST] 1980 248 610 150 E-3 E-2 F-2 F-3 Orlandia East. New Orleans Algiers Lower Algiers Other Orleans Total Orleans 1190 1438 2449 -- 1438 -- 2449 1769 200 70 350 350 w 100 1108 100 100 4337 450 3159 70 3887 1985 E-3 E-2 F-2 F-3 Orlandia East. New Orleans Algiers Lower Algiers Other Orleans Total Orleans 1443 826 150 250 301 1744 1111 1744 -- 1111 -- 213 21 3 285 63 50 300 300 2669 699 3368 513 2855 Source: Derived by Authors from Scenario II. See text. Includes only areas which have been previously impounded. M m m _ - m mm m Iam F m me s m N m d a m d we w no go an TABLE 3.10 DISTRIBUTION OF NEW INCREMENTS OF LAND USE BY TYPE WITHIN EACH PARISH, 1980-1985 ST. BERNARD PARISH TYPE "OF DEVELOPMENT" (ACRES) COMMERCIAL, TRANSPORTA- TTIAL SERVICE & TION, COM- IP INSTITU- MUNICATION ER TIONAL & UTILITIES TOTAL TYPE OF LAND NEW DEVELOPED DEVELOP- SPO-LUDA MENT PRIME WETLANDS LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 3.4 AREA KEY AREA OF PARISH RESIDEN & STR] CLUSTI 1980 F-3 F-4 Above Violet Below Violet Total St. Bernard 1212 300 66 1278 1278 16 316 316 1512 82 1594 1594 1985 F-3 F-4 Above Violet Below Violet Total St. Bernard 650 393 35 685 685 17 410 410 1043 52 1095 1095 Source: Derived by Authors from Scenario II. See text. TABLE 3.10 DISTRIBUTION OF NEW INCREMENTS OF LAND USE BY TYPE WITHIN EACH PARISH, 1980-1985 ST. TAMMANY PARISH TYPE "OF DEVELOPMENT" (ACRES) COMMERCIAL, TRANSPORTA- TOTAL TYPE OF LAND RESIDENTIAL SERVICE & TION, COM- NEW DEVELOPED & STRIP INSTITU- MUNICATION DEVELOP- SPO-LUDA CLUSTER TIONAL & UTILITIES MENT PRIME WETLANDS LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 3.4 AREA KEY AREA OF PARISH 1980 B-2 C-3 Covington Lacombe 645 538 150 19 814 814 100 638 638 0N D-4 Slidell Other St. Tammany Total St. Tammany 782 604 2569 174 956 956 150 574 754 754 19 3162 3162 1985 B-2 Covington 446 127 573 573 C-3 D-4 Lacombe Slidell Other St. Tammany Total St. Tammany 372 541 418 1777 65 437 437 81 622 622 90 508 508 363 2140 2140 Source: Derived by Authors from Scenario II. See text. MM mmm-m mm m mMm mm mm" - MI MM - " TABLE 3.11 REALLOCATED POPULATION BASED ON AVAILABILITY OF LAND SEGAL 1972 SEGAL 1980 MODIFIED 1980 SE GAL 1985 MODIFIED 1985 SE GAL 1972 1972 1980 1985 MODIFIED 1972 1972 HOUSEHOLDS PARISH 1980 1985 Jefferson 105000 147885 133733 177325 153458 41 69 27 46 Orleans 197900 210863 221477 223209 241109 6. 5 13 12 22 St. Bernard St. Tammany 14900 20007 19200 26605 21776 28374 23531 31628 26514 34612 34 58 46 78 39 65 48 so NO SMS A 337000 405360 405360 455693 455693 20 35 20 35 Sources: Original population figures from Segal (1976). Projections modified by reducing Jefferson Parish growth by 33% on the basis of available land. Of this difference 75% is allocated to Orleans and 12.5% is allocated to each of the other parishes. This allocation reflects the rank order of growth as shown in the recent special censuses (Tri-S, 1976). any, large tracts of prime land left for development in the3 Westbank of the parish. A certain amount of commnercial development, primarily local-service activity, can also be expected in the area3 upstream of Avondale. Other economic activity on the West- bank will probably be in the few remaining developable3 tracts along the Barataria corridor. In total, approxi- matley 500 acres of new economic activity can conservativelyI be projected for the Jefferson Parish Westbank. On the Eastbank of Jefferson, most of the commercial and service activity will probably locate in the recently3 opened area between Airline and Jefferson Highways known as Elmwood. This area, between Clearview Parkway on the east3 and Hickory Avenue on the west, contains approximately3 1300 acres of which over 800 acres are shown as vacant in 1972. It may be expected that retail and wholesale trade,3 transportation, and multi-family housing will totally fill this area by 1985.1 Scenario II projects 2,500 acres of "open and other"~ category land in 1980 and 1985. Of this total, 440 was already in urban recreation use in 1972. Another 1703 acre park was added in 1975; this area will likely be the only addition to Eastbank recreation land before 19803 (Terranova, 1976). There are, however, plans for linealg parks along the Lakefront; and the possibility exists for batture area recreation development near Harahan before3 1985. A generous estimate of total recreational urban areas 247 in Jefferson by the end of the projection period is around 1,000 acres. The remaining 1,500 acres of "open and other land" will be split between land held for speculation, cemetaries, and land which is in transition from one use to another. In summary, the Eastbank of Jefferson Parish will be fully developed and essentially unable to absorb further population increases after 1980. By 1985, prime develop- able land on the Westbank will be scarce. Commercial and industrial activity will be distributed along corridors on both sides of the River. Urban park space, particularly on the Eastbank, will be in short supply with little land available to make up the difference. Orleans Parish has been projected to decline slightly in total population through 1985 (Segal, 1976: 152). Scenario II shows this to be unlikely. New growth, much of it derived from the land scarcity in Jefferson Parish, will easily outweight the out-migration. Most of the new growth will in all probability occur in the area east of the Industrial Canal. 1-10 and U.S. 90 will be the main corridors around which this growth will focus. The new roads referred to in the transportation section will help open the area for residential and commercial development. With adequate mass transit in this area of the SMSA a likeli- hood, the expectation is for much of the new multi-family housing to be in the form of garden apartments clustered around these thoroughfares. 248 Single family housing will predominate further from the central city, particularly in Orlandia. The ratio of new single family to multi-family housing in Orleans Parish will be much lower than in the suburban parishes. In this area, a different mix of services will have to be provided. More light commercial in eastern New Orleans along with entertainment and various service activities will probably develop. The Central Business District is likely to be the focus of many new jobs, although, of course, the land required for new developments will be transformed in use rather than added as a net increase to "turban and built up land". New increments of land will be required for the expansion of economic activity in other areas of the city. Several hundred acres around and including the Plaza Regional Shopping Center will be necessary. Wholesale trade, trans- portation and service activities will locate mostly in the area between the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet and Chef Menteur Highway (U.S. 90). Recreational space in Orleans Parish is essentially adequate. With the addition of Joe Brown Park in 1975 (an area of over 300 acres), the new increments of population will probably have sufficient urban recreation facilities until 1985. The Westbank of Orleans Parish will develop slowly at least through 1985. Not only is the Westbank in general 249 difficult to access, but the available prime land lies mostly to the east of the Intracoastal Waterway (Lower Algiers) which is cut off even from Algiers by the lack of bridges over this channel. Probably no more than 300 acres of the 4,700 acres available will be developed by 1985 and this will be in large lot, suburban single family homes. To summarize, New Orleans growth will lie predomin- antly to the east, with the area from Downman Road to Read Boulevard experiencing the greatest growth from 1972 to 1980 and with much of the growth after 1980 being centered in Orlandia (east of Paris Road to U.S. 11). St. Bernard Parish had until recently, not developed very rapidly. The social, economic, and locational advantages which made Jefferson Parish a primary growth node during the 1960's and early 1970's were evidently not perceived to exist in St. Bernard. But this situation has changed recently, in part due to the scarcity of land in East Jefferson and in part due to a matrix of factors such as improved public education, better access routes and the growth of Kaiser Aluminum. The parish is now undergoing very substantial growth. The prime land from the Orleans Parish line downriver to Chalmette is now fully developed. Most of the new develop- ment has been in single family housing and new increments are likely to continue this trend. Commercial interests 250 are scattered along the St. Bernard Highway (Louisiana 46)U and Judge Perez Drive. Major industrial plants are locatedg primarily along the river and some space exists for expansion. Between 1972 and 1985, at least 2,500 acres will be3 needed for housing and 130 more will be needed for commercial and service. There is plentiful prime land above the Violet Canal to supply this need. No reclamation should be necessary during the projection period. St. Tammany Parish will continue to expand around existingU nodes in Covington and Slidell. Further growth will most� likely also occur along U.S. 190 between Slidell and Lacombe. The northern portion of the parish will remain primarily3 in agriculture and forests. Eastern St. Tammany wetlands should be protected from development by the availability of3 more suitable prime land. The projected 4,000 acres of prime land projected for future development in St. Tammany is a very small per-3 centage of the land available. If growth should double or even triple (which as shown is most unlikely), there is no3 reason to believe that any major effect on surrounding land uses would be felt. 251 APPENDIX 3.1 Definitions, Land Use Classification tDEFINIIIONS 1l fuIn the (hlfinitions presell t,dl here, an attempt ha1s Ibeeln Inade to include sufficient detail to !rovide a general undlerstaning of what is in'h,d(d in eatch category aIt Levels I and 11. Many or the uses idescribed in detail will not he vis;ible on spacecraft and high-altitude imagery. Ilowever, the detail will aid in the interpretation process, and the additional information will be useful to those who have large-scale aerial photographs and other supplemental information available. 01. Urban and Built-Up Land Urban and Built-up L,and comprises areas of inl.tlesive ulse wvith much of the land covered by sltructlres. Included in this category are cities, i towns, villages, strip developments along high ways, transportation, power, and comllnullications facilities, and such isolated uniits as mills, mines, and quarries, shopping centers, and institutiong. As development progresses, small blocks of land of less inteinsive or nonconforming use may J be isolated in the midst of built-up areas and will ge(nerally be included in the 01-category. Ag,riculttral, forest, or water areas on the fringe of Ilrhanli and Built-up areas will not be iincluded exc(.-pt where they are part of low-lensity urban dlevelornpment. The Urban and Built-up Land category takes precedence over others when the criter'ia for more than one category are met. Thus, residential areas that have sufficient tree c(ov(er to meet Forest T,and criteria will be placed i in the Residential category. 'IThe Level II categories of Urban and tBuilt-tup Land are: Residential; Commercial and i Services; Industrial; Extractive; Transportation, ComnMulnications, and Utilities; Institutions; Strip and Clustered Settlements; Mixed; and | � Open and Other. 01-01. RESIDENTIAL * 12Residential land uses range from high density, represented by the multiple-unit structures of urhan cores, to low lrensity, :llere hlloses are on lots of Inore than aln acre, ol t.he periphery of urban expansion. Linear residential developments along transportation routes extending outward from urban areas should I)e included as residential appendages to urban centers, but care must be taken to dlistinguish them fromn commercial strips in the samne locality. The residential strips generally have a uniform size and spacing of structures, linear driveways, and lawn areas; the commercial strips are more likely to have buildings of different sizes and spacing, large driveways, and parking areas. Residential development along shorelines is also linear anld sometimes exte(nds back only one residential parcel from the shoreline to the first road. Areas of sparse residential land use will be included under another category. In some places, the boundary will be clear where new housinlg developments abut against intensively used agricultural areas, but the boundary may be vague and difficult to discern when residential development is sporadic, or occurs in small isolated units over an extended period of time in areas of mixed or less intensive uses. A careful evaluation of density and the overall relation of the area to the total urban complex must be made. Residential sections may also be included in other use categories where they are integral parts of the other use. Ilousing on military bases, at colleges and universities, living quarters for laborers near a wvork base, or lodging for employees of agricultural field operations or resorts are often difficult to identify and mnay be placed within the institutional, industrial, agricultural, or commercial categories. 01-02. COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES Commercial areas are those used predominantly for the sale of products and services. They are often abutted by residential, agricultural, or other contrasting uses which help define them. The principal components of the Commercial-use category are urban central business districts; shopping centers, usually in Source: Anderson, J.R. et al. (1972) A Land-Use System for Use With Remote-Sensor Data. Survey Circular 671. Washington, D.C.: Survey. Classification Geological U.S. Geological 252 urlimps, and exll .lsted sources of nlaterial :;Stplly anre often lvidenlt. I,evel II c:tegories of larLren Land :are: Salt Flats, Beachles, Sanlld Other Thaun Benaches, Bare Exposed Rock, arid Other. 07-01. SALT FLATS Salt flats are the flat-floored bottoms of interior desert basins. For a short time after a cloudburst, they may be covered by a sheet of water, or playa lake. On vertical air photographs they appear as white scars in the desert because the soil, flatness, and color cause a diffused reflectancy much higher than the albedo of other desert features. 07-02. BEACHES Beaches are the smooth sloping accumulations of sand and gravel along shorelines. The surface is stable inland, but the shoreward part is subject to erosion by wind and water, and material is deposited in protected areas. The Beach category is not used if there is vegetative cover or another land use. 07-03. SAND AND OTHER THAN BEACHES Sand Other Than Beaches is composed primarily of dunes, accumulations of sand of aeolian origin. Dunes are most commonly found in deserts although they also occur on shore and strand lines, coastal plains, river flood plains, deltas, and in periglacial environments. They are of various shapes, the crescentic being the most elementary; and range in size from diameters of a few to several thousand meters and in height from one to several hundred meters. Isolated crescent-shaped dunes migrate freely, but longitudinal dunes tend to remain nearly fixed in position. 07-04. BARE EXPOSED ROCK The Bare Exposed Rock category includes areas of bedrock exposure, desert pavement, 06-0)2. Nonforested Wetland Nonforested WVetlands consist of seasonally flooded basins aud flats, meadows, marshes, and l ,,^,. \'.. tl.alb;rs 're ul:u;lly rl;ltiv.ly level areas. I r!ir,,nrm ij.,-ltific;ltion is lifficult Ibecause the v;:,t!;l:id ;ras lnh;rnge as the result of such f;t to(rs as IrIg, telrn droughlt, high rainfall, seasonal flucl.ations in precipitation, and diurnal tides. 'The observations must be- c(,lrolated with tide and weather information to o)hl:Ain c'onsistenit results. Op,ln sa;linc- and fresh-water areas, sounds, ';eId ,:ays arc inchlded under 05-WVater. Wetland trvas with a 10 pefrcent forest crown cover, or wvlhre rv-u-nt clear cutting has occurred, are p!:,c'-d in 04-Forest Land. Nonforested Wetland may be either Veg,etated or BaPre. Vegetated Nonforested Wetland includes areas where the forest crown cover is less than 10 percent or the vegetation is nonwoody. Cattails, tules, and gras.ses such as Indian rice grass and saw grass occur in fresh-water marshes, and salt-tolerant grasses such as Spartina occur in the salt marshes. Bare nonforested wetland has Tidal flats as its main component. 07. Barren Land Barren land is land of limited ability to support life and little or no vegetation. In general, it appears to be an area of oily soil, sand, and rocks. Vegetation, if present, is more widely spaced and scrubby than that in the Desert Shrub subcategory of Rangeland except when unusual conditions, such as a heavy rainfall, occasionally result in growth of a short-lived more impressive plant cover. Land may be temporarily barren owing to man's activities, but such land is usually included in another land-use category. Agricultural land may be temporarily without vegetation because of tillage practices. Sites for urban development may be stripped of cover before construction begins. Areas of extractive and industrial land have waste and tailings I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I U 253 I I RE FERENCES Alonso, W. (1964) Location and Land Use. London: Oxford University Press. Bobo, J.R. and J.M. Charlton (1975) Statistical Abstract of Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Division of Business and Economic Research, University of New Orleans. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (March 1972) Current Population Reports, Series P-25 No. 477. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (1972b) 1970 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (October 1975) Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 601. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce (1974) Area Economic Projections 1990. Washington: D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Burford, R.L. and S.G. Muryezn (1972) Population Projections by Age, Race and Sex, for Louisiana and Its Parishes 1970-1985. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Division of Research, Louisiana State University. Chapin, F.S. (1965) Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Cbapin, F.S. and S. Weiss (1962) Urban Growth Dynamics In a Regional Cluster of Cities. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Christou, G.C. and H.S. Segal (1973) Population Projections to 1980 and 1990 for Louisiana and Its Parishes. Research Study No. 1S. New Orleans, Louisiana: Division of Business and Economic Research, University of New Orleans. Commoner, B. (1976) The Poverty of Power. New York, New York: Alfred Knopf. Copelin and Associates (1975) Housing Allocation. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission. Council of Economic Advisors (1974) Economic Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 254 Feldt, A.G. (1965) The Cornell Land Use Game. Miscellaneous3 Papers No. 3. Ithaca, New York: Center for Housing and Environmental Studies, Cornell University. Fennel, 0. (1976) Economist, Economic Development Council. New Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, July. Flores, A. (1976) Manager, Commercial Development Department,I Economic Development Council. New Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, July.1 Forrester, J.W. (1969) Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Garnick, D.H. (1976) Chief, Regional Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis. New Orleans, Louisiana, telephone interview, June 29.3 Goodman, W.I. and E.C. Freund (1968) Principles and Practices of Urban Planning. Washington, D.C.: International City Managers' Association. Hill, D.M., D. Brand and W.B. Hansen (1965) "Prototype Development of Statistical Land-Use Prediction Model for Greater Boston Region'" Highway Research Record,3 Jefferson Parish Council (1974) Comprehensive Zoning3 Ordinance. No. 7530. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish Council. Kaiser Engineers and Land Ventures, Inc. (1974) Pontchar- train - Revised Financial Analysis. New Orleans, Louisiana: Kaiser Engineers.3 Kennedy, R. (1976) Director of Housing, Jefferson Parish. Metairie, Louisiana, telephone interview, August.3 Krueckeberg, D.A. and A.L. Silvers (1974) Urban Planning Analysis. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lathrop, G.T. and J.R. Hamburg (1965) "An Opportunity-3 Accessibility Model for Allocating Regional Growth." Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Volume 31, No. 2, 14-21. Louisiana Department of Employment Security (1975) "Employment Trends," unpublished manuscript. Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission (1974) Outdoor Recreation in Louisiana, 1975-1980. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State Parks and RecreationI Commission. 255 Lowry, I.S. (1964) A Model of Metropolis. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation. Unsigned Editorial (1975) Motor Trend. June. Mouledous, R. (1975) Residential Land Use for 1990, Part 2. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission. Mumphrey, A.J. Jr., et al. (1975) Louisiana Metropolitan Wetlands: A Planning Perspective. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. Mumpbrey, A.J., Jr. and J. Waterman (1976) Costs and Benefits of New Town Development in Wetlands Areas. New Orleans, Louisiana: unpublished manuscript. New Orleans City Planning Commission (1975) Coastal Zone Management Plan. New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans City Planning Commission. N-Y Associates (1973) Interim Land Use Plan. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission. Office of Management and the Budget (1973) Social Indicators. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Perrin, S.F. (1976) The Effect of Superport Development on Louisiana: A Summary. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Offshore Terminal Authority. Regional Planning Commission (1971) Open Spaces Inventory. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission. (1976) Staff Members (1976) Regional Planning Commission, New Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, July. (1976b) Transportation Improvement Program FY 77. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission. Segal, U.S., G.A. Saussy, F.M. Wrighton, D.C. Wilcox and R.L. Burford (1976) Projections to the Year 2000 of Louisiana Population and Households. New Orleans, Louisiana: Division of Business and Economic Research, University of New Orleans. Siegel and Associates (1976) Special Census of the Population. Chalmette, Louisiana: St. Bernard Parish Police Jury. Smolkin-Bost-Miestehovich (1975) Orlandia. New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans East, Inc. 256 State Planning Office (1975) "Louisiana's Land Uses." Baton Rouge, Louisiana: unpublished manuscript. Taeuber, C.M. (1973) Measuring Patterns of Urban Growth. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.I Terranova, D.R. (1976) Assistant Director, Planning Depart- ment, Jefferson Parish. Metairie, Louisiana, personal interview , July. Thayer, R. (1976) Director Urban Studies Institute, University3 of New Orleans. New Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, August. Tri-S Planning (1976) Special Census of Population. Ruston,I Louisiana: In Review. Voneida, J.D. (1976) Transportation Specialist, MetropolitanI Area Transportation Study. New Orleans, Louisiana: personal interview, July. Wilson, A.G. (1974) Urban and Regional Models in Geography and Planning. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons. 257~~~~~~ CHAPTER 4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS AFFECTING WETLANDS The process for initiating and implementing projects affecting wetlands in the New Orleans Standard Metro- politan Statistical Area (SMSA) will be discussed in this chapter. Major types of projects initiated in the four parishes will be identified; flow diagrams will be presented to illustrate the process followed in developing these projects. TYPES OF PROJECTS There are three basic categories of projects initi- ated in the four parishes that affect the wetlands of the SMSA. These are: 1) Extraction 2) Transportation 3) Reclamation Extractive activities affect the wetland areas mainly through oil and gas production and pipelines. The transportation system includes canals, roads, and rail- roads that traverse the coastal areas. Reclamation projects drain wetlands in order to create an environment that will sustain development. 258 Extractive Industries In the SMSA the major extractive industry is the production and distribution of natural gas and oil. There is a potential for much damage to wetlands due primarily to the extensive channelization needed for access to the3 oil and gas wells and pipeline canals for the transporta- tion of oil and gas to the refinery. McGinnis et al. (1972)3 has estimated that there is about 0.5 square miles of marshland removed for each 100 miles of pipeline constructed. According to Barrett (1970) there are nearly3 4600 miles of canals and channels in coastal Louisiana, many of which are related to oil and gas extraction. Over3 a period of time, the indirect effects of channelization cause greater land loss than that resulting from theI initial construction. The altered salinities and water3 circulation patterns of these canals cause permanent changes in critical estuarine regimes.3 Private firms initiate oil and gas exploration, production and pipeline installation. According to the Bureau of Land Management (1974: 28-79) approval of3 some or all of the following agencies may be necessary to build and maintain a pipeline through a local area.l 1For a discussion of pipeline construction, see Mumphrey et al.(1976: 103-108). 259 1) Department of Interior a) Bureau of Land Management (has jurisdiction over rights of way for common carrier pipe- lines on the outer continental shelf (OCS). b) Geological Survey (has jurisdiction over producer-owned gathering lines and flow lines on the OCS). c) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (responsible for protecting fish and wild- life resources, through consulation with the Corps of Engineers). 2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (issues permits for construction on OCS and in other navigable waters2). 3) Federal Power Commission (grants certificates of convenience and necessity prior to the con- struction of interstate natural gas pipelines). 4) Interstate Commerce Commission (grants approval of the tariff rates for transportation of oil by common carrier pipeline). 5) Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety (establishes standards for pipeline con- struction and maintenance). 6) National Marine Fisheries (inputs into U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process). 2Under section 404(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (U.S. Congress, 1972) the permitting authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been expanded to navigable waters and their contiguous wetlands as of July 1976 (Buisson (1976)). 260 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the main permit- ting agency for companies that install pipelines in the estuarine areas. Based on reviews from agencies such as National Marine Fisheries, the Environmental Protection3 Agency (EPA), and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries, the Corps makes an environmental assessment of any private construc-3 tion project, such as a pipeline. If it is determined by the district engineer that a project is of "minor significance", an environmental impact statement (EIS) is3 not required and the permit can be granted. If it is determined that an action is "significant" in its impact33 then the private concern must retain a consultant and produce all relevant information as provided for by lawI to the Corps. The Corps then issues the draft EIS, since3 they are the "lead" agency with jurisdiction in this case (Decker, 1976). Only after review, comment, and approval,3 can the project begin. Oil drilling companies must also obtain a Corps permit for dredge and fill operation and3 an EPA permit if they dump pollutants into the surround-3 ing water. They also need a permit from the United States Geological Survey in order to drill.3 Most contacts for permits to implement projects in open wetland occur between the Corps of Engineers (andU other federal agencies) and the private firms that initiate the projects. Because the Federal Government has control ~~~~~~~~~~~~3 3This is done through an in-house environmental assessment. 261 over the unleveed wetlands in the four parishes of the SMSA, the parish governments are largely bypassed in the permitting process. For example, in St. Bernard Parish, Chetta (1976) has admitted that all pipeline permits, canals, and utility rights of way are rubber stamped by the Police Jury since there is no CZM ordinance clearly dealing with these problems. The only difficulty encountered by private enterprises is from the federal regulating agencies. Tr.asnport at ion A highway, canal or railroad can be a major factor affecting the condition of estuarine areas in Louisiana. Canals for transportation tend to be deeper and wider than pipeline canals. This consequently results in more estuarine loss due to dredging and spoil deposition. As with pipeline canals, altered estuarine regimes increase land loss also. All three types of transporta- tion arteries block water circulation patterns. Roads and railroads act as levees. Canals alter salinities and enable wave action to erode surrounding marshland (see Mumphrey, et al. 1975: 82-93). Most new transportation construction in the wetlands deals with roads or canals. Many roads and canals are far too expensive to be constructed soley with private, local or even state funds. The federal government, therefore, either constructs these projects directly, or 262 the state or local governments do the work with the help of Federal monies. Under the National Environmental Protection Act (U.S. Congress, 1969) federally funded projects are subject to formal impact assessment before construction can begin. In the case of highways, the State of Louisiana would be responsible for drawing up an EIS for a proposed roadway (if it were determined that the action would have signifi- cant impact). This would be submitted to the lead agency, which would be the Federal Highway Administration in this case). If it goes through wetlands, the Corps of Engineers would also be required to issue a permit, after having received an EIS. Water discharged from the highway would require an EPA permit. By law the State Highway Department would have to submit the EIS to the Council on Environmental Quality for review also, as well as any other relevant federal agency such as National Marine Fisheries (Louisiana State Highway Depart- ment, 1976). Figure 4.1 presents the organization of the EIS section of the Louisiana Highway Department. The initiation of a highway project may come from the federal, state or local level. Major roadwork is implemented by the state, whether it is a state or federal roadway. If the construction of a highway involves a bridge over a navigable body of water (the Mississippi River, for example) the Coast Guard must issue a permit for construc- tion. The Coast Guard require an EIS for the project if it is determined to beof "significant" impact. 263 m-------- - - FIGURE 4.1 a O tb MAM WANMS WIT efmom"ET*I. TEM UMT I. I I I I I nxm W LOMU &f M A.. A-WM I&-osm I WIRbfawma I*~ 01tftC WAIuM EI AM OCAPRMM 1VTO Ii-m ~ ~ ~ *~ I,=" arwmm I OWA9ML IDATEI REvl%OU I MWOM.a7 Source: Louisiana Department of Highways, 1976: 2-5. Canals for navigation purposes are always built as Public works projects and administered through the U.S.3 Army Corps of Engineers. Examples of major canal construc- tion in Louisiana are the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. Although these projects are administered by the CorpsI of Engineers, the funds come from Congress. The initial impetus for construction can come from any group - private municipal, state - that persuades its congres- sional representatives to push for a particular public works project. The Corps of Engineers may also initiate3 projects itself. Figure 4.2 illustrates the permit appli- cation and EIS review procedures of the Corps of Engineers. The basic steps that occur from the time a project is proposed to the time construction begins are outlined below 4 (Burk and Associates, Inc., 1975: 52-53):1 1) A project is conceived by local, state, or federal entities and is in'troduced to the Commit-I tee on Public Works of either the House or3 Senate for consideration. 2) The committee then adpots a resolution calling3 for a preauthorization study, and forwards this to the Corps Chief of Engineers.I 4 See Appendix 4.1 for flow charts for various activities performed by the Corps of Engineers regarding permitting,I in house projects, etc. 265 3. The Chief of Engineers then directs the proper Corps district to proceed with the preauthoriza- tion study. 4. The preauthorization study assesses the general feasibility and environmental impact of the proposed project. Included in this study is a draft environmental impact statement. If the project is found to be technically feasible and the benefit-cost analysis ratio is determined to be 1:1 or greater, a district project report is written recommending further study. A benefit- cost ratio of less than 1:1 indicates the project is not feasible. 5. The district project report is sent to Division Headquarters and then to the Chief of Engineers for review. 6. If the personnel at these levels concur with the conclusions of the report, it is returned to the Public Works Committee. If the project or project report is found to be inadequate, it is returned to the district level for revision. 7. If the report is favorable and the committee concurs, it is placed before the full House or Senate as part of a bill. If it is passed, the Corps is directed to conduct a post-authoriza- tion study. 266 8. In the post authorization study, the project is examined in much greater depth for technical feasi- bility and the impact statement is refined and expanded if necessary. If this study shows that the benefit-cost ratio is still 1:1 or greater, it is sent to the divisional and national level for review. 9. If the review at both these levels is favorable, it is returned again to the Public Works Committee for their review. If they concur with the results of the study, a general design study is author- ized in which the general design specifications' are determined. A revision of the EIS is included in this study. 10. With the completion of this study, a project report is returned to Congress for project authorization. The project is included as a part of a bill, passed by Congress, and signed by the President. 11. Before obtaining funding, the bill is examined by the Office of Management & Budget (OMB). If they concur that the project should be funded, the project is returned to Congress in an appropri- ations bill. 12. Once Congress passes the appropriations bill, the project is funded and can go to development of detailed design specifications and construction. 267 I I GENERALIZED CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIGURE 4.2 268 FIGURE 4.2 Continued PERMIT APPLICATION AND EIS REVIEW PROCEDURE t* Source: Burk and Associates 1975: 54-55. 269 This process is followed for any major public works project involving canal building, levee construction, and dredging and filling, including reclamation projects (to be discussed below). The construction of major interparish roads, and canals through wetland areas is implemented at the federal3 or state levels. Parish governments could reject these projects but they do not actively institute, plan, orU construct these transportation arteries. They may include3 these new projects in comprehensive plans so as to incor- porate them into the future scheme of land use as3 envisioned in such a plan. The parish participation in these projects, therefore, is mainly that of reaction to,I rather than initiating of, major roads or canals that3 impact on wetland areas. ReclamationI This type of activity can be initiated by privateI firms, local, state or federal governments, and follows the permit process presented in the previous section. An example of a private reclamation project is the Eden Isles3 development along the shores of Lake Pontchartrain in St. Tammiany Parish. This is a "Florida type" development in which canals are dredged and the spoil deposited on the banks as landfill. This fill provides homesites with water frontage; if enough spoil is dredged, the fill provides3 high ground safe from flooding. For this type of 270 development, a dredge and fill permit is needed from the Corps of Engineers. A permit from EPA is needed to dump waste water and sewerage effluent into the canals. Under the expanded authority of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, anyone seeking a permit to undertake this kind of development in viable wetlands would face serious difficulties due to the stringent requirements of the act. The serious detrimental effects of such a development on wetlands is discussed in Mumphrey et al. (1975: 47-82). Most larger traditional reclamation projects are now the province of state and federal agencies, primarily the various state levee boards and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since protection from flooding is essential, the first item that is needed in a reclamation project is a levee to keep out floodwaters. According to Buisson (1976) the prime purpose of the Corps of Engineer's flood protection works is flood protection, not reclamation. In the past, as residents moved into low-lying areas, they clamored for increased flood protection. This pressure caused new projects to be devised and levees extended or pushed further into wetland areas to accommodate new growth. In some cases uninhabited lands were leveed off, based on the probability of population expansion into that area. An example of this anticipatory type of protection plan is the Lake Pontchartrain Louisiana and Vicinity 271 Hurricanes Protection Plan. Part of this plan was de'visedI with the idea of increasing protection for a large tract of undeveloped wetland in eastern New Orleans slated for a 28,000 acre development called "Orlandia". This type of3 action has led some to accuse the Corps of being in the land development business rather than flood protection. if3 a developer sustains a " wnfl" profit from a Corps project, he is required to pay a percentage of the cost of the levee project. However, this provision is sometimes easy to3 avoid, resulting in federal subsidy of private development. Federal Flood Insurance requirements of a +10 ft. Mean Sea3 Level (M.S.L.) (Burk, 1975) slab elevation outside of leveed areas in Louisiana now make it prohibitively expen-I sive to develop wetlands privately. Only the federal and3 state governments have sufficient funds to accomplish traditional reclamation and flood protection activities3 without which it is impossible to develop wetlands safely. Therefore, despite the fact that local governments or large developers may initiate plans for development of3 wetlands, they cannot implement their plans without public funds. Even the state cannot afford to construct large3 projects alone. Although the various levee boards are responsible for the maintainence of all levees once theyI are complete, they can no longer afford to construct them without federal funds. The last levee constructed in New Orleans, for example, totally by the Orleans Levee Board3 was in the mid-1960's (McNamara, 1976). 2721 The levee boards, however, still cost share with federal agencies on new projects. As with the Corps of Engineers, anyone can propose a project to a Levee Board. The boards are so dependent on federal money for large pro- jects, however, that the Corps of Engineers is effectively the major agency to consider when requesting new levees or other flood protection projects. The Comprehensive Plans of Jefferson (1974). Orleans (1970), St. Bernard (1971),, and St. Tammany (1972) do not deal with any wetland related issues. Since new land that is to be considered developable must already have a levee protecting it, the only things that land use regulations concern themselves with are proper alignment of streets, proper drainage and sewerage, standards for construction, etc. The city or parish must meet EPA requirements to obtain permits for effluent dumping into the Mississippi or other body of water, but the primary impetus for development of wetlands must come from the Corps of Engineers. Without their projects, it would be virtually impossible to safely develop a majority of the wetlands areas for urban use. SUMMARY Extractive activities are initiated and constructed by private concerns. Transportation and reclamation activities are primarily public works projects that are con- structed by governmental agencies; the projects may be initiated by any private group or agency. The U.S. Army 273 Corps of Engineers is the lead agency for all development inI wetlands. Whether the Corps initiates projects or not, every- thing must be funnelled through them for approval and permit- ting. Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control3 Act of 1972 has given them virtually unlimited power in the wetland areas of the New Orleans SMSA. The parish government3 officials themselves initiate little if any of the projects that have impact on the coastal zones of the SMSA. TheU officials respond to initiatives from private industry or theI public sector, mainly the federal government. 274~~~~~~ m mm mm mm m m - - -mm-mmm mm APPENDIX 4:1 Flow Charts for environmental permitting, Survey Reports, Authorized Projects etc. of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ; t4,c I C~~~~~~*~~~~~nNo~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~--I '\~~~~~~~~~Futs j---nh co,nmen?s _ OC.PAO ______________VA 6 CE IP"",d DE -J 02 d.ft EIS N IaeI 0r.ftEtS DcNU D p~~l. ummrl D~~sDirEmre F~~rm~~D t o F-; Stm. D Co~p~( O *r~a if D pnPR SJDE wilown " !-o-l --i a. fE 3rt C. ' r~ n n.: '.?" * i smrd,�~�cnc IZ rirm�ld hmircltdy - , b V. 02. Els rc F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~t. I I A .LZI Rar*i ~ F Draft CIS u,bI. F vr.'"n olaalefl F.,c E IScuc, E E 0DE LEGEtio DE iftiat fnfin* DIE 2 Dc'c..en E,ip -E Off" Ch iefo fo1EnOmn 3IRe - uoid of Ec&iftm Im Ri'm and Hmbm PAD - t- Aft.!,, 0!c(. CFO - C .i1eo"mIvirmMul us.tty CSA - C'.:, Sc--.y e i. Auy lIS - Eccimonc.cI Sin,cmnt 0 - C!% Offi" of W 11"'IMnc .c,cJ Source: Office of the Chief Engineers, Department of the Army, 1973: Appendix D. Type t Amtian - 5--*y r"om. CHRONOLOGY - Pnqraim &Md Cowlm.Awn of Erwimf. 5i,tcci.3 APPENDIX 4:1 Continued 11- - ri---. ftW._ I I M. !__, 1. 1, i i. I --- --I L ,r:aWt 1.1" .JiS ' d I I " -1 w~ DE - iuiElsnome Di. E Diixian Ei-gim.em OCF Otlict of Chief Of Engiw OERN D owd of EtBinm o l Riom SWmad wsin f-O putAic An**$ Office CEO - C.donc~o Enoooomul~ Otahity OSA -Oficti. Secmtwy of tic. AIMy EM E-ioomnirda St-tao,.t Type Of Actiona - W11.IAL PROJECTS AND CONTINUING AUTHORITIES- CFI4GNOLOGY - pPearation VAn Cwdiunati of EMRtOMant']l Satmi-smt - - - - - - - m - APPENDIX 4:1 Continued w -.3 -3 ILEaEND De1E :0iwi,E mm Div DwW E soM4f E ft oil" .Cbt.Iorf cool MP V1 itf C- Ofm1 RJ,M.rdi aidBu pb Twoe of AtlAs- DISPOMA Of LANG CHR~obiLov - Emkormoo.adm. EihuutaIEmgats APPENDIX '4:1 Continued w~ --I (omit it Parmit is Doniod) LEGEND DE DiOhukt Er*Mw Di Divilion EnorAw. OCE *offw IC, PI,w Ql�nhmf BERN" Board of Enginear, for Ains wd H~bf PAO -Public Aftows Of fict fCEO C~mllmo E#w1irnmauni GOWIIV OmA - CHIC s.aolmy of U* N Aff EI S -EmioweoWl Swuiwot ome * 04fic of MmnapiwrA snd Budpl TypS of Atiom - REGkULATORY PIIiMITS CHRMNLOOV - FWqw.ta WR N Comdkmwff of Ecirko"Meal Sommom~ - - m m m m m m - - m m m m APPENDIX 4:1 Continued FORt PAWOECTS WITHOIJT PRIOR ENVIROMMENTAL MTTEMENT glatoE moo.t. 1'Typ o A.i ~. -. A'Jl h-IIILI~ i.. jJ .J.~ 4OT S!AnlTs C.4eOOMOLOGY #.~~l.. ~j. ,. APPENDIX 4:1 Continued MRq UfiOICnVTHPIM wi IpneNVORCMEWNAL STATEN!NT - -n -- PWAK - I I - 4 .MI. I. $CCOfl ~ ~ ~ ~ i L-- - - - - - 00 00 Leatmo OS tm,N.. Socretary of SWr A,my 25 * emfacftw Stabe"oefl OMO K W huftjp4M NW1 sar bg TV"e of Att"a - AMHM4OIZFD pp"JCTI NOT StARTIO - m m m - ----- m mm- m "m- m mm m -- APPENDIX 4:1 Continued LEGEND DE - C;ac E:12hw Div F DwOrmm En.niV OCE O t tim Ch of 10a PC1 Bowd of ttr2nlw,fw Rim;&WpI'helpm PAO P- bl AlWa. Cflic C~A O lt-.. sw~uly of ow AmYy E9S -Ewm,,c-W.W SuTom0n OMB D"kfbof M~lm NWfia Budgat CHRONOLOGY - P.pftwmmm. "' Cowd!'Mtkmf of Emhom"w'd, S .% REFERENCES Barrett, B.B. (1970) Water Measurements of Coastal Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. Buisson, B. (1976) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: New Orleans District. New Orleans, Louisiana, telephone interview, July., Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior (1974) Final Environmental Statement: Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas General Lease Sale Offshore Texas, Volume 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Burk and Associates, Inc. (1975) Louisiana Coastal Resources Inventory, Volume 2. New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. Burk, D. (1975) President, Leisure Inc., Slidell, Louisiana, personal interview, May. Chetta, A. (1976) Director, St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission. Chalmette, Louisiana, personal interview, June. Decker, C. (1976) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: New Orleans District. New Orleans, Louisiana, telephone interview, August. Jefferson Parish Council (1974) Progressive Jefferson: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish Council. Louisiana Department of Highways (1976) State of Louisiana: Action Plan for Consideration of the Social, Economic, and Environmental Effects of Highways. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Department of Highways. McGinnis et al. (1972) Environmental Aspects of Gas Pipeline Operations in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle. McNamara, J. (1976) Chairman, Orleans Levee Board. New Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, June. Mumphrey, Anthony J. et al. (1975) Louisiana Metropolitan Wetlands: A Planning Perspective. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. 282 Mumphrey, Anthony J. et al. (1976) The Impacts of OuterI Continental Shelf Development on Lafourche Parish. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. New Orleans CitY Planning Commission (1970) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for City of New Orleans. New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans City Planning Commission. Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army (1973) Regulation ER 1105-2-507: Preparation andI Coordination of Environmental Statements. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission (1971) Parish of St. Bernard Louisiana: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Chalmette, Louisiana: St. Bernard Planning Commission. St. Tammany Parish Police Jury (1972) The Comprehensive Plan: St. Tammany Parish Land Use Regulations. Covington, Louisiana: St. Tammany Parish Police Jury. U.S. Congress (1969) Public Law 91-190 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (1972) Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Ammendments of 1972. Washington, D.C.:I U.S. Governmnent Printing Office. 283~~~~~~~ CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND AN EVALUATION OF CZM PROGRAMS IN THE NEW ORLEANS SMSA INTRODUCTION Nature of the Coastal Zone The term "coastal zone" has been used extensively to describe the interface between land and sea in the United States. Thirty states and four United States territories possess lands that have a direct relationship with the oceans, gulfs, or lakes near them, thus possessing a "coastal zone"' (Coastal States Organization: 1974) (see Table 5.1). This interface may be abrupt, as in California with its rocky cliffs and beaches, or broad, as in Louisiana with its deltaic-estuarine system of low-lying lands extending many miles inland. It has been recognized increasingly that these "meetings of land and water" are valuable, productive areas requiring careful management. What constitutes the coastal zone of a particular state has created conflicts among government officials as they seek to define it. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (U.S. Congress, 1972) defines it as: The coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelines (including the waters therein and thereunder) strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shore- lines of the several coastal states, and 284 TABLE 5.1 COASTAL STATES AND TERRITORIES Mississippi New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island Samoa South Carolina Texas Virginia Virgin Islands Washington Wisconsin Alabama Al aska California Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Illinois I nd ian a Louis ian a Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota U I Source: Coastal States Organization, 1974: Frontpiece. 285 I I I includes transitional and intertidal areas in the Great Lakes as cited in Robbins and Hershman, 1974: 306). Using this general definition, various states have deter- mined their coasts using different criteria. California, a state having a sharply defined coastline and coastal influence, has established a continuous boundary mainly consisting of: ..the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range or five miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is the shorter distance (Robbins and Hershman, 1974: 318). Connecticut has defined and described its coastal zone by means of vegetation characteristics and the criteria of being one foot below or above tidal waters (Robbins and Hershman, 1974). Through the Louisiana Coast and Marine Resources Conservation and Development Act of 1965, Louisiana defined the coastal zone as: ..the lands, waters, tidal and submerged lands, bays, estuaries, marshes, coastal and intertidal areas, harbors, lagoons, inshore waters, and channels landward of the outer limit of the territorial sea of the United States or of the state of Louisiana or of other waters subject to the jurisdiction of Louisiana... extending inland to the landward extent of marine influences (Robbins and Hershman, 1974: 321-322). The definitions of what constitutes a state's coastal zone vary considerably from state to state because of the differences in the coasts being considered. It is certain, however, that the coastal areas are too valuable a resource 286 to be allowed to continue to deteriorate as has been the case in recent years. This chapter deals principally with one coastal state, Louisiana. After a brief review of the value of Louisiana's coastal areas, a model for developing a coastal zone manage- ment (CZM) program is developed. Finally, the various parish coastal zone plans in the New Orleans Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area are reviewed and evaluated against the model and against the proposed State Coastal Resources Program (Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976). The following description of Louisiana's coastal zone illustrates the need for a sound coastal management practice. Louisiana: A State of Wetlands Louisiana has more land areas that can be considered part of the coastal zone than any other state. Of the 30 million acres of estuarine waters and wetlands in the United States, Louisiana possesses 6,780,644 acres. Of these, 3,457,012 acres are classified as nonforested wetland, or marsh. 3,323,632 acres are classified as forested wetlands, or swamp (Louisiana State Planning Office, 1975a, Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources (1973). These wetlands were formed primarily by fluvial deposition from the Mississippi River since the last great Ice Age. This dynamic interaction between river delta-building and sea erosion has evolved into the most productive wetlands, ecologically and economically, in the United States (Louisiana 287 3 ~~Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, 1973). According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (1975), I ~~Louisiana's commercial landings totaled 1,228,906,000 pounds 3 ~~in 1974. This was approximately 25 percent of the total U.S. fish catch of 4,939,600,000 pounds. The closest rival to � ~Louisiana was California, with only 61 percent of the Louisiana catch for 1974 (see Table 5.2). I ~~~These productive coastal lands in Louisiana are 5 ~currently sustaining multiple use in many areas. Some of these uses are detrimental to the natural system. This has 3 ~stimulated concern at federal, state, and local levels, inducing Louisiana to begin the long process of developing I ~management plans that seek to balance the needs of man--such � ~~as population growth; commercial, industrial, and residential expansion; and recreation--with the needs of the fragile and 3 ~complex ecological system that must co-exist with man in the coastal zone. I ~~~In developing a coastal resources plan for Louisiana, one of the first items that had to be determined was exactly where the coastal influence ceased. The seaward and lateral boundaries of the state were set by law, but the determination of where the broad coastal areas ended was a difficult task 3 ~for the planners in Louisiana. After considering many factors, a study by McIntire et al. (1975) determined the exact land- ward boundary of coastal influence. McIntire used primarily the contact line between Pleistocene and recent sediments 288 TABLE 5.2 U.S. COMMERCIAL LANDINGS TEN MOST PRODUCTIVE STATES: 1974* I State Pounds 1,228,906,000 745,047,000 507,293,000 456,864,000 304,794,000 268,659,000 206,683,000 171,394,000 166,962,000 147,822,000 Value $ 86,694,000 130,381,000 59,031,000 141,120,000 16,355,000 61,784,000 17,544,000 66,367,000 16,607,000 41,410,000 Louisiana California Virginia Alaska Mississippi Massachusetts North Carolina Florida New Jersey Maine I S I 10-State Total 3,813,104,000 $637,293,000 Total U.S. Catch 4,939,600,000 $898,500,000 *Ranked by pound catch. Source: National Marine Fisheries, 1974: 18. 289 I I I - I (ordinarily depicted near the coast by the five-foot contour line). Before deciding on this line, 21 biophysical and legal parameters were employed to determine the landward extension of coastal effects (see Table 5.3) as well as the lateral and seaward boundaries. This provided the state of Louisiana with exact demarcation lines for the coastal zone, enabling it to accurately determine where the limits of coastal influence are located (see Figure 5.1). Problems of the Louisiana Coastal Zone The Delicate Ecologic Cycle A balanced delicate natural system has evolved over many thousands of years in Louisiana's coastal areas. Tampering with the system causes imbalances that upset the equilibrium of the biological and chemical cycles and, ultimately, affects natural productivity. Clark (1974) has defined some physical properties of estuaries that govern their productivity (see Table 5.4). These properties must exist for the system to function effectively. For example, anything that restricts or overenhances water flow, or causes interruptions in the production of d tiuIcan severely res�trict or even destroy the estuary system functions. A study by Day et al. (1973) 1Darnell (1967) has defined detritus as all types of biogenic material in various stages of microbial decomposition which represents potential energy sources for consumer species. Detritus can be likened to the fuel that runs the whole system and is a large determinant of its productivity. 290 ! TABLE 5.3 PARAMETERS DEFINING THE COASTAL ZONE Biophysical 1. Geology -- Pleistocene/Recent Contact 2. Elevation -- 5 foot and 25 foot Contours 3. Soils -- Wetland/Nonwetland Boundary 4. Vegetation -- Wetland/Nonwetland Boundary 5. Hundred-Year Flood and Tidal Inundation Level 6. Salinity -- Inland Intrusion 7. Occurrence of Rangia cuneata (brackish water clam) 8. Inland Records of Crabs and Marine Fish a. Callinectes sapidus (blue crab) b. Totally freshwater fish (young and adult) c. Fish occurring in freshwater only as young d. Marine fish (occasional freshwater visitors) 9. Mammal and Reptile Ranges a. Reptiles b. Mammals 10. Birds -- Coastal Hiatus of Spring Trans- Gulf Migration Legal/Governmental 1. Lateral Boundaries 2. Seaward Boundary 3. Inland Boundary a. Hundred-Year flood elevation line b. Storm surge reference line c. Coastal Zone Management Act requirements d. Federal Constitution requirements e. State law requirements f. Miscellaneous Source: McIntire et al., 1975: 1-11. 3 291 - mm m - - -m-- -m - - FIGURE 5.1l BOUNDARY OF THE COASTAL ZONE OF LOUISIANA Source: McIntire et al., 1975: 3. TABLE 5.41 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES GOVERNING PRODUCTIVITY3 OF ESTUARINE SYSTEMS 1. Confinement a) provides shelter that protects estuary from wave action5 b) allows plants to root c) allows clams to set d) permits retention of suspended life and nutrientsI 2. Depth a) allows light to penetrate to plants on the bottomI b) fosters growth of marsh plants and tideflat biota c) discourages oceanic predators which avoid shallow water5 3. Salinity a) freshwater flow may create a distinct surface layer over saltier, heavier bottom layer, indicatingU beneficial stratified flow b) fresh water dilution deters oceanic predators and encourages estuarine formsI 4. Circulation a) sets up beneficial system of transport for suspended3 life when stratified such that the bottom layer flows in and the surface layer flows out b) enhances flushing5 c) retains organisms in favorable habitats through behavioral adaptations 5. Tide Driving Force a) transports nutrients and suspended life b) dilutes and flushes wastes c) tidal system acts as an important regulator of feeding, breeding, etc. 6. Nutrient Storage a) trapping mechanisms store nutrients within the estuary b) marsh and grass beds store nutrients for slow releaseI as detritus c) richness induces high accumulation of available� nutrients in animal tissue Source: Clark, 1974: 2.3 2933 elaborates on the relationships described by Clark that occur among the marsh, sediment, and water in one estuary system, the Barataria. This estuarine area is located near New Orleans and is of great interest because of its high pro- ductivity and its proximity to an expanding urban area. Day's study confirms the intricate and fragile nature of an estuary that is part of a system that, according to Perret (1971), provides for 75 percent of all fish and invertebrates and 90 percent of the eight most abundant fish and invertebrates that inhabit Louisiana's coastal waters. Destruction of the Coast Studies by Gagliano and van Beek (1970), Craig and Day (1976) and others have indicated that Louisiana is gradually losing its productive estuary system. Currently, 16.5 square miles of wetland disappear each year under the Gulf of Mexico. Many estuaries are experiencing the effects of man's activities in the form of altered salinities, water pollution, elimination of sediment and detritus, and other factors. These studies and others have alerted governmental officials and, to some extent, the public, to the need for a management program to retain the valuable resources that Louisiana and many other states currently possess and which are now under attack. With this in mind, the following section of this chapter will propose a model for developing just such a plan. This model, hopefully, will enable states like Louisiana to strike a balance between man and nature, thereby preserving a valuable resource for future generations. 294 A MODEL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The purpose of this section is to discuss various aspects that should be considered in developing a coastal zone management process. These concerns should be identified, discussed, and integrated into the final decisions regarding coastal areas. All of the aspects discussed will be tied together in a framework for a model state CZM program. The impetus of most of the coastal zone management act- activities in the United States is The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The 1972 Act was designed to encourage states possessing a coastal zone to develop management plans, thus enabling them to deal more effectively with problems inherent in coastal areas. According to Armstrong et al. (1974), the Federal Act presents the following objectives for considera- tion by the various coastal states: 1. A clear intent to raise the level of consciousness at all levels of government regarding the importance of the resources of the coastal zone, and the need for their balanced management; 2. The need for states to understand and articulate the impacts that can result from various uses of the resources, and to understand the short and long term consequences of such impacts on the coastal zone; 3. The need to minimize adverse impacts; 4. The need to broaden and diversify the decision- making process to include a spectrum of those affected by management decisions. 295 This Act further focuses on a management process rather than substantive elements to be included in a CZM program. First the process is developed and then implemented. In too many instances, states had little or no management of their coastal areas, which led to overuse and squandering of coastal assets for the sake of short-run economic gain. "Balanced Management" encourages uses of the coastal zone which neither destroy the wetlands and what they produce, nor eliminate the economic, recreational or social potentialities which exist in a given area. The Act, in a sense, is "environmentalist" legislation, for it points out that the natural ecological systems are valuable to man and worth protecting. By aiding in identifying and minimizing adverse impacts this Act will hopefully educate citizens who live in coastal areas as to the wisest use of the renewable resources that surround them. Considerations of a Model Coastal Zone Management Plan Basically, there are five broad areas that should be considered and weighed in developing a process for developing the coastal zone. These are: 1. Ecologic System--The natural system and man- induced stresses. 2. Economic Considerations--Current economic uses in the coastal zone and projected future needs. 3. Political and Legal Considerations--The political climate, laws and bureaucracy necessary to deal with CZM public participation. 296 4. Social Considerations--Impacts of CZM on various age, income, racial groups and means for handling public participation.3 5. Aesthetic Considerations--The future of the visual scenic assets of the coastal areas.3 These five areas will be discussed and elaborated upon in subsequent sections to provide planners with a broadI perspective upon which to achieve "balanced management"' of3 the coastal zone. Ecological ConsiderationsI The Natural SystemI One of the reasons that the coastal zone has deterio-3 rated is ignorance of the natural system--how it functions, and the services it provides. The following is a set of ecologic principles that hold true to a greater or lesser extent in all estuarinie systems.I 1. Ecosystem Integrity--No one part of an ecosystem operates independently of any other. 2. Linkage--Water provides the essential linkage of land and sea elements of the coastal ecosystem. 3. Inflow--The natural volume, pattern, and seasonal rate of fresh water inflow provides the optimum ecosystem function. 4. Basic Circulation--The natural pattern of water circulation within basins provides for optimum ecosystem function. IIt may be noted here that admninistrative factors and the3 logistics involved in assembling and implementing a CZM plan are purposely left out. It is felt that each state has different organizational systems and may wish to route the process differently. 297 5. Energy--The flow and amount of available energy governs life processes within the coastal ecosystem. 6. Storage--A high capability for energy storage provides Foroptimum ecosystem function. 7. Nitrogen--Productivity in coastal waters is normally governed by the amount of available nitrogen. 8. Light--The natural light regime provides for optimum Ecosystem function. 9. Temperature--The natural temperature regime provides for optimum ecosystem function. 10. Oxygen--High concentrations of dissolved oxygen provide f or optimum ecosystem function. 11. Salinity--The natural salinity regime provides for optimium ecosystem function. (Clark, 1974: x-xi) Whether it be Lcuisiana, Maine, Florida, or any other coastal state, the study of a state's coast can be approached by investigating the following parameters: 1. Geologic History and Current Geologic Activity; 2. Geomorphic History--In the case of Louisiana, the alluvial morphological features created by the Mississippi deltaic system as well as erosional processes would be prime studies; 3. Climatological Data--Precipitation, temperature, winds, the effect of tides on the coast, the effect of storms on the coastline. 4. Biological Considerations--Detailed studies of plants, terrestrial animals, birds, reptiles, freshwater and marine fish and invertebrates, their habitats, and interaction in the coastal zone. 298 5. Chemistry--Water chemistry and the biochemical energy flows through the system; also salinity- regimes.3 6. Ecological Overview--The tie-ins between all of the processes so as to explain the operation of3 the system. At first it may seem difficult to gather all the requiredI information to adequately consider the ecological parameterg of the decision making process. However, each state has agencies, universities and private groups that are engaged in basic research in these areas. In Louisiana, for example, a partial list of suggested agencies or groups to aid in this3 task are: 1. LSU SystemU a. Coastal Studies Institute (LSUBR) biological, morphological processes in coastal zone; b. State Climatologists (LSUB3R)I statistical weather, information, pollution;3 C. Geology Department (LSUBR) geology d. Urban Studies Institute (UNO) regional, social, political, economic, and environmental planning; e. Sea Grant Legal Program (LSUBR) legal aid, coastal law; 2. Louisiana State AgenciesI a. Wildlife and Fisheries Commission wildlife inventories, habitats,5 monitoring pollution; b. Stream Control Commission3 chemistry of water pollution, water quality;3 299 3. Federal Agencies a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers general inventories, hydraulic studies, mapp-ing, flood control; b. U.S. Soil Conservation Service soil mapping and use suitability descriptions; c. National Marine Fisheries fish populations, commercial catch, migration, monitoring; d. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean processes and weather information e. Environmental Protection Agency environmental standards, technical information, legal information; 4. Private Groups a. Audubon Society bird studies, general information; b. Sierra Club general information; C. Louisiana Wildlife Federation general information; preservation, restoration of wildlife and other natural resources; d. Private Consulting Firms general information; e. Fishing and Hunting Clubs wildlife statistics, generation information. These agencies and groups could assist planners in describing the natural system and, soon to be discussed, evaluating impacts on that system. The eleven ecologic 300 principles discussed previously can then be modified and elaborated upon, to fit the individual system under study. Adverse Impacts After investigating the coastal zone, it soon becomes apparent that nowhere is the system operating in its natural state. Louisiana is no exception. Here, as elsewhere, man's habitation and use of coastal areas have resulted in a miulti- tude of impacts on the natural system, many of them harmful. One major problem is human habitation in delicate coastal areas. Modern man's living spaces, mainly cities, require extensive modifications to the lowlying, generally flooded estuarine lands that are currently inhabited. Mumphrey et al. (1975) has enumerated three basic effects of urbanization on wetland estuarine areas. These are water pollution, reclama- tion, and channelization. 1) Water Pollution Water pollution can be generated by urban runoff, point source discharges from industrial plants, polluted rivers, among others. This polluted water contains heavy metals, exotic nonbiodegradable chemicals, and poisons such as herbicides, pesticides, defoliants. Fertilizers in the form of sewage or inorganic nitrogen substances speed up eutrophi- cation processes by increasing nutrient content in small water bodies. These substances interfere with life cycles and chemical cycles of water. The system has evolved over 301 millions of years to its optimum state, ecologically. Water pollution stresses this system. The city of New Orleans, for example, a city located entirely within a dynamic coastal zone, must pump all of its drainage water into two productive estuarine systems which it straddles. The city has become a "bathtub," i.e., subsidence of its land has caused the city land to sink below sea level, necessitating levees to keep water out (Wagner and Durabb, 1976). On the average over 11.1 billion cubic feet of water fall on the city each year. This results in a large volume of polluted runoff being pumped into a system that has difficulty handling it. A study by Craig and Day (1976) has indicated that eutrophic conditions already exist in the upper portion of one of the estuaries New Orleans straddles. This condition is traceable, in large part, to drainage water from the New Orleans Metro- politan Area and is merely one of many stress situations resulting from water pollution. 2) Reclamation Another result of urbanization, rural settlement, agriculture, or most of man's other activities in the coastal zone is reclamation. Reclamation directly removes land from the estuarine system. Some of the effects on the natural system are: 302 a. Loss of habitat for birds, fish,I reptiles, etc. b. Loss of nursery area for birds and3 fish LOSSOF ANDC. Loss of detritus to the estuary TO THE d. Loss of nutrient input into the ESTUARY estuary e. Drop in total productivity f. Loss of freshwater g. Loss of wetland to the ocean (AdaptedI from Mumphrey et al., 1975: 64). Referring to the ecological principles outlined earlier it is noted that ecological principles I through 6 are3 abused in the reclamation process. Water flows are blocked; the production of detritus, the food of the estuary, is3 lowered; habitat and nursery area is destroyed; and wetland is permanently taken out of the system. 2 In some areas, thisI practice of reclaiming land from the estuary has proceeded3 on a large scale. As of 1972, for example, over 110 square miles of former estuarine wetland have been converted to3 urban land in the New Orleans SMSA (Mumphrey et al., 1975). Currently, there are other projects in the area that willI increase the total even maore.3 3) Channelization The myriad number of canals that have been dug for drainage, navigation, oil and gas pipelines, and logging3 2This is caused largely by subsidence which will be discussedI more fully in a later section. 303 have extensively damaged estuarine areas. Some of the effects of channelization on wetlands are: 1. Interfering with sheetwater flow through the system; 2. Allowing destruction of marsh by wave action; 3. Reducing nutrient exchange with natural channels and marsh; 4. Decreasing large biologically productive interface of brackish water; 5. Causing increased salinities, resulting in plant deaths and resultant marsh erosion and land loss; 6. Destruction of marsh and interfering with nutrient exchange by spoil banks of dredged material. 7. Destruction of marsh by construction of channel itself (Adapted from Mumphrey et al., 1975: 93). In Louisiana over 42,000 acres of wetland have been destroyed by construction of canals (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 82). Other negative effects of channelization have contri- buted to a land loss rate of 16.5 square miles per year in Louisiana.I There have been many studies which deal in detail with individual aspects of stresses on the ecological system of wetlands; they all more or less agree as to the damaging effects that man has had on the coastal zone. In Odumn et al. (1974), there is a lengthy discussion on emerging new systems associated with man such as estuarines that are impounded, receive heated water, pesticides, or dredged spoil, etc. 304 Attempts are now being made to model the way whole estuarine3 systems behave when subjected to various man-induced stresses. It is hoped that quantitative models describingU all inputs and outputs of a system experiencing ecological3 stresses can be developed so that the extent of ecological deterioration can be more accurately measured. Until this3 is done, reliance must be placed on qualitative descriptions and descriptive statistical procedures to measure ecologicalU stress.5 Results of Consideration of Ecologic Parameter Once the studies covering the various aspects of the ecological framework have been completed, the followingI process should be accomplished at the state level,:3 1. Construction of an accurate albeit general picture of estuarine function and natural productivity; 2. Compilation of a list of general impacts; 3. Delineation of coastal zone boundaries; 4. General inventory of natural and man-made features in the coastal zone;3 5. Establishment of "critical areas," "areas of concern," "management areas," "develop-3 ment areas," etc. in a final CZM Plan can follow.3 Item 1/2--This is obviously the outgrowth of compiling and/ or acquiring reports on the various natural parameters that3 compose the estuary. 305 Item 3--Once the functioning of the estuary is understood and lands essential to this function have been identified, the boundaries of the coastal ecosystem can be located. Any lands found not to be in the coastal zone due to extensive modification can be removed from the system classification. For example, a study done by Mlclntire et al. (1975) described the Louisiana coastal boundary (inland) based on twenty-one biophysical parameters that had been measured by previous studies. Legal boundaries made up the lateral and seaward boundaries of the coastal zone of Louisiana. This study used ecological syst-em parameters to describe the important inland coastal zone boundary. The coastal zone is a natural system, and it should be defined as such if it is to be managed properly. Item 4--Examples of inventories are studies by Burk and Associates (1976) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973b). The Burk study inventories unique ecological features of the Louisiana coastal zone; the Corps study is a general environ- mental atlas of south Louisiana containing information on most activities in the coastal zone. These studies and others can be used to compile master inventories of all features in the coastal zone. Item 5--All of the studies can be used together with other relevant information to develop land use zones in the coastal areas. These land use classifications will be developed and discussed later in this chapter. 306 Economic Criteria Having addressed some general ecological guidelines1 that should provide input into the decision making process, economic considerations as they relate to state coastal zoneI management are now discussed.I Economics vs. Ecology: How Much Conflict?I From a brief scan of the impacts that have occurred on wetlands and are continuing to occur, it appears that manyI economic activities in coastal areas are incompatible with the natural system. Rettig (1974) has described combination of activities that can occur in a given area. Relationships may be of two general types, symmetrical or asymmetrical. In symmetrical relationships, activities may be mutually competi- tive, mutually complementary (cooperative) or mutually inde- pendent (supplementary). In asymmetrical relationships, activity A may depend on activity B, but activity B may not depend on A or vice-versa. In other words, the mutuality of the activities does not exist. In coastal areas, classifica- tion of activity according to relationships between the economy and the wetlands would greatly aid in understandingI stresses in the whole system. Using Rettig's classifications,I activities could be listed as to their specific relationship to the wetlands. Since impacts on the estuarine areas are fairlv well documented, the task at hand would be to relate these impacts to classes of activities occurring in a givenI area. 307 Land Use Projections 1) Current Land Use One method of describing economic activity is to do a land use analysis of a given area, which involves mapping out commercial, industrial, residential, recreational, and other activities in terms of the amount of space they occupy. Having information on current land use is important because most of man's activities have an impact on estuarine areas, such as reclamation to make the land usable, channelization to aid in the flow of goods, services, and people into and out of the area, drainage of the land, and water pollution. 2) Population Next, the population of a given area must be known. Table 5.5 lists the parishes in Louisiana wholly or partially in the coastal zone (as defined by McIntire et al., 1975), and the 1970 census populations. Using the "Cohort Survival" method of projection, the 1985 estimated populations were computed by Segal et al. (1976). As can be seen from this Table, over 50 percent of the population of Louisiana lives in the coastal zone. By 1985 this figure is expected to rise slightly. A look at individual parishes reveals areas like Jefferson will gain greatly in population (201,681 increase) by 1985. According to the U.S. Soil Conservation maps (1971a), 312 square miles of the 409 square mile land area of Jefferson is either undrained freshwater swamp, freshwater 308 I I TABLE 5.5 POPULATION IN THE COASTAL PARISHES* I I 1985 1970-1985 1970 Projected Increase in Parish Population Population Population I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ascension 37086 51435 +14349 Assumption 19654 21182 +1528 Calcasieu 145415 161739 +16324 Cameron 8194 9817 +1623 Iberia 57397 67284 +9887 Jefferson 337568 539249 +210681 Jefferson Davis 29554 28432 -1122 Iberville 30746 30201 -545 Lafourche 68941 80731 +11790 Livingston 36511 52882 +16371 Orleans 593471 541964 -51507 Plaquemines 25225 29007 +3782 St. Bernard 51185 76986 +25801 St. Charles 29550 40206 +10656 St. James 19733 20073 +340 St. John 23813 28864 +5051 St. Martin 32453 36917 +4464 St. Mary 60752 59200 -1552 St. Tammany 63585 94455 +30870 Tangipahoa 65875 77800 +11925 Terrebonne 76049 95821 +19772 Vermillion 43071 46356 +3285 TOTAL 1,855,828 2,190,601 +334773 TOTAL Louisiana 3,641,306 4,183,112 Coastal Parishes: Percent of Total La. 1970 Population: 51 Percent of Total La. 1985 Population: 52 Source: Segal et al. (1976) 56-209. *Note: List of coastal parishes based on SPO definition of coastal zone (McIntire et al., 1975). 309 marsh, or saltwater marsh. This obviously puts pressure on the wetlands, since additional land must be reclaimed if such a population is to be supported. By using the population data and employment projections, land use by type (residential, recreational, industrial, etc.) can be projected using several methods, the most common of which is the planned requirements approach. Economic Value of Wetlands Using Rettig's classification, we find that some economic activities can exist in wetlands that do little or no harm to them. These activities have an asymmetrical relationship to estuarine areas, i.e., they depend partially or totally on the estuarine system, but the estuaries can function without them. All of these activities involve the use of renewable resources that the coastal areas provide. These include seafood and recreational activities because they stimulate economic activity (for example, boat sales for recreational' use). The following is a partial listing of such activities. 1) Commercially a) Fish Harvested b) Shellfish (Oysters, Clams) Resources c) Shrimp d) Crabs e) Crawfish, Lobsters f) Furbearing Animals (Nutria, Muskats, etc.) g) Reptiles (Turtles, Alligators, etc.) 3Afuture land use projection was done in Mumphrey et al. (1975: 170-189) for the Lafayette SMSA using economic base analysis, employment data, and the planned requirements approach. 310 2) Recreational a) Boating Activities b) Sportfishing c) Crawfishing, Crabbing d) Duckhunting. Commercial fishing is a big industry in many coastal states. In Louisiana, it is a multi-million dollar industry. Commercial fishing (including all types--i.e., fish, shrimp, oysters, etc.) employs many people directly in Louisiana. Table 5.6 lists the ten leading states in the U.S. in terms of full-time and part-time commercial fishermen. As one can see from Table 5.6, all of these states are coastal states and most possess either an exceptionally large coastline or a well-developed estuary system or both. In addition to jobs generated by actual fishing, there is employment in the processing-wholesale end of the industry. Table 5.7 lists employment in the processing-wholesale fish industry for the ten leading states in 1973. In Louisiana, if we assume no change in processing and wholesale employment from 1973 to 1974, the total employment in fishing, processing, and wholesaling is 18,846 individuals. Obviously, there are others who also profit directly and indirectly from the fishing industry. Examples of this are the retail seafood markets, markets that handle seafood as a portion of their operation, and restaurants that depend on quantities of cheap seafood for their operation. This whole industry depends on a healthy, functioning estuarine system. 311 TABLE 5.6 FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME COMMERCIAL FISiERMEN, LEADING U.S. STATES, 1974* Full-Time Fishermen 12045 7220 7682 4500 9500 9850 3155 4089 6500 3966 Part-Time Fishermen 8723 10581 6676 9750 4050 2100 7696 5815 575 2283 State Alaska Maine California Maryland Louisiana Florida Washington Massachusetts Texas Virginia Total 20768 17801 14358 14250 13550 11950 10851 9904 7075 6249 TOTAL 68507 U.S. TOTAL (50 states) 86699 58249 82074 126756 168773 *Ranked by total employment. Source: National Marine Fisheries, 1975: 76. 312 TABLE 5.7 PROCESS ING-WHOLE SALE EMPLOYMENT LEADING U.S. STATES, 1973* I Seasonal Employment 10556 9178 6221 6144 5707 5435 5296 5134 4921 4035 Yearly Average 5500 7547 5440 6037 4959 4011 3624 3421 3293 3080 Number of Plants 227 152 405 5 201 196 226 235 160 ISO State I I Alaska California Florida Puerto Rico Massachusetts Virginia Louisiana Maine Texas Maryland TOTAL 62627 46912 1987 U.S. Total (50 states) 93747 71723 3552 *Ranked by seasonal employment. Source: Adapted from National Marine Fisheries, 1974: 79-80. I I 313 Another industry that exists in some estuarine areas is trapping for fur-bearing animals. In Louisiana, with its large expanses of wetlands, a large area of habitat is provided for many animals of commercial value. According to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission (1975), the value of pelts and meat obtained by trappers was $10,133,900 in the 1974-1975 season. This figure does not include value added by processing. (This figure was not available.) As with fishing, this economic activity relies on a healthy viable wetland system for its continued existence. Tertiary waste treatment is a very important and often ignored aspect of the economic value of the wetlands. A study by Gosselink et al. (1974) indicates that: The most important contribution marshes and estuaries can make on waste treatment is to remove and recycle inorganic nutrients, a very expensive process ... if carried out by man in artificial systems. When nutrient with effluents enter a marsh, the nutrients are effectively trapped by the tidal circu- lation pattern and assimilated in the produc- tive biosystem. (Gosselink et al., 1974: 13) In Louisiana, according to Mumphrey et al. (1975: 121) approximately 2.875 x 10 pounds/year of BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) from domestic sewerage is dumped into the Louisiana estuarine system. Add to this the approximately 1.44 x 10 gallons per day of industrial effluent that are dumped into the system and it becomes obvious that the marsh is essentially providing a free service to the residents of the coastal zone. 314 The resources of the coastal zone provide for many recreational activities. The Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission (1974) has listed recreational activities with high participation rates in Louisiana. The following activities can be utilized in Louisiana's coastal zone. Water Skiing Motor Boating Canoeing Sailing Saltwater Fishing Tent Camping Trailer Camping Swimmniin g Craw fishing Crabbing Hiking Picnicking Nature Walks B irdwat chin g Driving for Pleasure Sightseeing Hunting Big Game Hunting Small Game Hunting Waterfowl (Adapted from Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1974: 2. 2-2. 3). These activities require purchases of equipment such as boat and motors, sailboats and accessories, crab and crawfish nets, bail, fishing tackel, guns, ammunition, binoculars, tents, trailers, water skis, etc. These items are bought from local sporting good stores, boat sales, and bait and tackle shops, thus pouring dollars into the local economy. Such 315 activities also depend partially or totally on the coastal zone's healthy status for their existence; they generally cause little or no damage to the system. It is true, however, that overuse in the estuary can damage these delicate lands. Pollution from boats and people, marinas (reclamation), roads into the wetlands (reclamation), deepening of natural water- ways (channelization) can put added stress on the system. it is felt, however, that recreation puts only a minor stress on the ecologic system while bringing economic benefits to the area. Table 5.8 lists numbers of New Orleans businesses that deal with some aspects of recreational boating and other activities in the coastal zone. These are but a few examples of the many enterprises relying upon the estuary for their survival. Based on studies by Gosselink (1974), Mumphrey et al. (1975), and others, values of wetlands have been estimated. Using the components of commercial fisheries, noncommercial fisheries, recreational activities and tertiary waste treat- ment functions, the total annual return from Louisiana's wetlands was $760,307,944 or $131.07 per acre. On a present value basis, this amounts to $2,975.63. It must be remembered that this production will continue more or less indefinitely if left alone. Economic Costs of Wetland Development Thus far we have looked at two components of our economic analysis. The first was activities that destroyed estuarine 316 I I TABLE 5.8 NUMBER OF RETAIL OUTLETS PROVIDING GOODS AND SERVICES FOR USE IN COASTAL ZONE: NEW ORLEANS AREA Type of Retail Outlet Number of Retail Outlets Boat Covers Tops and Upholstery 8 Boat Dealers 49 Sporting Goods 371 Fish Nets (Retail) 7 1Some dealers deal exclusively with items not associated with the coastal zone (e.g. tennis). I Source: South Central Bell, 1975; authors. 317 I laAds. Next we looked at benefits derived from utilizing the system without destroying it (i.e., fishing, hunting, etc.). Now we will look at some extra costs associated with wetland development. These extra costs can be divided into three categories: 1. Subsidence Costs and Drainage 2. Protection from River and Hlurricane Flooding 3. Loss of Buffer Against Storms These three items cause the residents of reclaimed wet- lands and nearby areas to incur extra costs over that which would ordinarily be expected. 1) Subsidence Costs One extra cost of wetland development is that of subsi- dence. This cost accrues to all sectors of the economy: the homeowner, business sector, public sector. It stimulates increased spending in areas such as home maintenance, hurricane protection and drainage. Due to a general drop in land level the land is more vulnerable to severe flooding should the protective systems fail. In Louisiana, the mechanisms that produce subsidence involve three basic processes. These include: a) Geologic Downwarping and Compaction b) Peat Decay and Water Loss c) Drainage a) Geologic Downwarping Beneath the land mass of Louisiana there exists a large dip in the earth's crust termed the Gulf Coast geosyix-line, the 318 axis of which passes beneath coastal Louisiana. This axis area is very prone to active faulting as the earth attempts to adjust to the pressure of the 40,000 feet of sedimentary deposits that have accumulated over basement Mesozoic rock (Coastal Environments, 1972) during the millions of years that this system has existed. This faulting and general subsidence have resulted in slow geologic sinking of large portions of the coastal zone. Gagliano and van Beck (1970) have deter- mined that the average subsidence rate for the coastal zone of Louisiana is 0.36 feet per century. This subsidence is not a result of man's activity and may not sound like much until one realizes that, with the exception of natural levee deposits, almost all of the coastal zone is less than five feet above sea level and the marshes and swamps are at or slightly below sea level. Any subsidence of this land can result in land loss, if there is no mechanism to keep pace with it. Besides geologic subsidence, simple compaction of sedi- ments over time results in a settling process that lowers elevations. Since man has severely restricted the ability of the Mississippi River to spread new sediments over its deltaic system lands by means of levees, land levels continually subside back into the Gulf of Mexico. Compaction and geologic subsidence have resulted in subsidence rates as high as two feet per century in St. Bernard Parish (Coastal Environments, 1972). 319 b) Peat Decay and Water Loss Fortunately, there is a mechanism working in marshlands and swamps that can stabilize the land. This process is the slow accumulation of peat. Peat is partially decomposed organic matter that, due to submergence in water, ha~; remained in a stable state. These deposits, over the years, can keep pace with subsidence if the rates are not too high. The results of this pr'ocess,are thick peat deposits in many of the older decaying distributary systems of the Mississippi. When this type of land is drained, the water table is lowered and the peat begins to oxidize and literally disap- pear. According to Clement (1976) of the Soil Conservation Service, when oxidized, peat can lose 80 percent of its former volume. The same is true for the organic clays, although volume loss is lower. According to Coastal Environ- ments (1972), this process has resulted in some areas of New Orleans sinking to elevations of -12 feet m.s.l. Besides peat decay, which is an ongoing process after the water table is lowered, initial land lowering is accomplished by removal of water from a wetland area. Accord- ing to Colvin (1975), some marsh areas are as much as 70 percent water. Removal of this water will lower land levels in the reclaimed area because of soil shrinkage. What effect does all of this have on human habitation of the reclaimed areas? The following description of a soil common in the wetlands around New Orleans illustrates some of the problems: 320 Lafitte muck--This is a very poorly drained thick organic soil at low elevations. The surface layer is very dark brown to black organic material 50 to 100 inches thick which is underlain by semifluid gray clay... .The water level is several inches above the soil surface most of the year ... This soil will not readily support human foot traffic. If protected and drained.., the soil will consolidate and shrink with a resulting loss in elevation of two or three feet within the first year after drain- age. The organic layers may catch fire and burn when dry. Continued subsidence at a slow rate over a long period will occur until all organic material above the water table has been oxidized... .Drainage ditches and levees are difficult to construct because of the semifluid nature of the organic layers. Levees constructed from the organic materials shrink and cracks form. The capacity of ditches is gradually reduced because of the continual subsidence of organic layers. Flooding may occur if pumnps and levees fail. (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1970a: 70) Besides the difficulties mentioned by the U.S. Soil Conservation Services, unequal subsidence can cause damage to streets, sewer lines, driveways, sidewalks, drainage lines, etc. Anything not supported by piles will suffer damage from the subsidence problem. A study by Earle (1975) determined that the average amount of money that a homeowner residing on reclaimed marshland (with the characteristics previously mentioned) will have to spend is about $120 per year on wetland related maintenance. A new large-scale development, Orlandia, in the eastern portion of New Orleans (New Orleans East, Inc, 1975) projects 50,000 households living on reclaimed marshland by the year 1990, when the development is completed. Using Earle's figure, this results in about, $6,000,000 per year in extra maintenance costs that these 321 50,000 homeowners will have to pay because of their location. This figure does not include extra construction costs (pilings) and public maintenance costs (streets, sewer lines, etc.) that would also be higher in areas like eastern New Orleans. There are o-ther costs involved, too,like extra fill to meet Federal Flood Insurance requirements. c) Drainage Since subsidence and below sea level conditions are the inevitable result of reclamation of most wetlands areas, there is an extra cost involved in keeping these areas dry after they are drained. In New Orleans, a city built totally in wetlands, a system of twenty-one pumping stations, 240 miles of canals, 1500 miles of drain pipes and 40,000 catch basins drain 55,085 acres of New Orleans (Sewerage and Water Board, 1975a). The average rainfall in New Orleans (57.85") amounts to 12.1 billion cubic feet of water, weighing 377 million tons. The system is capable of pumping out 25,000,000,000 gallons of water per day or enough to empty a lake of ten square miles eleven feet deep in twenty- four hours (Sewerage and Water Board, 1975a). With the torrential rainfall that occurs in the city, it is essential to have that kind of capacity. Most of the city is below sea level due to subsidence, so the water table must be arti- ficially drawn down by the pumps. If they were turned off, ground water seepage would eventually fill up most of the city with water. The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans must 322 maintain a 61,000 KW power station (enough power to serve a city with a populatioa of 78,000 people). The separate system is necessary because, when the system was initially designed,I it was decided to use 25 cycle power rather than 60 cycle3 power, making the power station incompatible with other power stations. The system is antiquated and subject to frequent breakdowns. Taxes levied to pay for all of this are insufficient to meet needs.I In 1975, revenue from the drainage tax amound to $4,105,624; operating costs were $3,441,876 and debt service was $718,098 for bonds (Sewerage and Water Board, 1975b).3 Therefore, no drainage system funds could be expended for capital projects. With new wetland areas opening up for3 development, there are canals to dig and maintain, pumps to build, land to drain. All of these needs may result in increased taxes and clharges. There is already a plan to3 float $16,529,000 for bonds to enable capital improvements to begin. The 1975 aninual report of the Sewerage and Water3 Board recommends a tax increase to remedy the problem of antiquated equipment and future needs.3 2) Flooding from the River and Hurricane FloodingI Since the New Orleans area and the rest of the coastal3 zone of Louisiana were formed by deltaic deposition and over- bank flooding of the Mississippi River, these areas must beI 323 protected from the river if they are to be habitable. Projects like the Morganza Floodway, Bonnet Carr-e Spillway, and Old River Control Structure are relief valves to keep the Mississippi River from uncontrolled flooding along its lower reaches. This is in addition to miles of levees along the river. All of this was needed to protect the urbanized areas of south Louisiana during the flood of 1973, a so-called "Project Flood." Other than these extreme conditions, whic-h occur very rarely, the river is kept in its place by the elaborate flood protection system built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hurricanes are a different story. High tides from these storms together with waves put tremendous pressure on reclaimed subsided wetlands. A 100-year frequency storm like Hurricane Camille produced a 22.6 foot tide near where it entered land. New Orleans sustained $9,800,000 worth of damages, despite the fact that it was not directly within the path of the storm. A computer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office was programmed to simulate a direct hit of Camille on New Orleans. The result: 10 feet of flooding and 100,000 deaths (Orleans Levee Board, 1972). A study by Byrne et al. (1976) has shown that wave heights from a storm such as this would exceed 75 feet4 in 100 feet waters off the Louisiana coast. Even with a new $327,000,000 hurricane protection plan, New Orleans 4Camille had an estimated top wind of 201.5 miles per hour and a central pressure of 26.61 inches, second lowest of all recorded hurricanes. 324 levees will only be +[4 feet m.s.l. on the outer perimeter. If Orlandia develops .here will be 150,000 more people living below sea level with ,)nly one levee between them and the sea. While a storm like Camille is a "100-year frequency storm," one must consider the consequences of flooding in low reclaimed areas from this and lesser storms, as a factor in the decision to reclaLm in any wetland near the cost. 3) Loss of a Buffer Against Storms A consideration directly relating to development of wetlands near the coast is the loss of a buffer against storms. Day (1976) and others have indicated that marshes and swamps serve to slow down tide rises and break the force of waves. If land is reclaimed too near the edge of the open water; or if, by development inland, extensive deterio- ration of marshes betveen people and the sea occurs, the levees protecting reclaimed land must take the brunt of the force of storm water unabated by marsh. A summary of the economic costs that are incurred by development in wetlands reads as follows: Extra Development Costs: A. Subsidence--Homeowner and Business 1. Maintenance a) Extra Landfill b) Broken Sewer Lines c) Broken Walks and Driveways d) Flood Damage 325 2. Construction a) Extra Foundation b) Extra Fill c) Extra Taxes and Bonds for Municipality to Pay Public Costs B. Subsidence--Public 1. Land a) Replacement and Maintenance of Streets, Other Public Works b) Replacement and Maintenance of Utilities c) Fill Materials d) Flood Damage C. Drainage--Public 1. Drainage Canal Maintenance 2. Pumps and Pipes 3. Extra Electricity for Drainage D. Flooding Protection 1. Levees a) Cost of Building on Wetland Sites b) Maintenance of Subsiding Levees 2. Flood Protection Works a) Construction and Maintenance of Floodways b) Construction and Maintenance of Barriers E. Loss of Buffer Against Storms Judging Economic Criteria Basically, we can divide economic activities into three groups, both of which are asymmetrical in their relationship to the coastal zone. Group I includes the exploitable activities of man. Some depend on the coastal zone, but it does not depend on the-n. These activities compete with the estuary and cannot coexist in the same place at the same time. Group II includes the asymmetrical activities that depend on the coastal zone, do not exploit or damage the 326 ecosystem, and upon which the ecosystem does not depend. Group III lists activities that do not damage the estuarine system if practiced in an approved manner, but the ecosystemI does not depend on them (see Table 5.9). Summary To summarize theni, all three aspects of the economies of the coastal zone must be considered. These are:I 1. Benefits of reclaiming the land, present and future land-use needs;I 2. Benefits of maintaining the natural system; 3. Costs of reclaiming wetland. Most of the data concerning these three factors is available or can be generated fairly easily. Almost all of the data can also be placed in monetary terms for easy comparison. Having such data available allows the decision maker to consider pro.jected results of alternative courses of action. Aesthetic Considerations Aesthetic considerations are perhaps the most difficult to grasp and weigh in the decision making process because of their intangible nature. However, there is considerable impetus existing in the United States to consider theI aesthetic resources in the coastal zone. Mann (1975) has3 listed federal legislation dealing with aesthetic resources. These are:U 327 --- mm mm mm mm- mm------ TABLE 5.9 MAN'S ACTIVITIES IN THE WETLANDS Group II Activities* Fishing (including processing) Trapping Waste Treatment Recreational Areas (boating swimming, etc.) Recreational (hunting, fishing, birding) Group III Activities* Oil Extraction Sulphur Mining Salt Mining Clay Mining Group I Activities* Heavy Industry Manufacturing Most Commercial Businesses Recreational Areas (Parks and Playgrounds) Housing Developments 00 Port and Shipping Tourism Oil Transport Shell Dredging Source: Derived by author. 1. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Sections 302b, 303a, 303b, and 306) 2. Natural Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 101b, 2, 4)I 3. Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 4. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 5. The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 6. The Historic Preservation Act of 19661 These acts deal in general and sometimes specifically with aesthetic considerations that should be part of any3 coastal zone management plan. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 states:I The Congress finds that the coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial,I recreational, industrial, and aesthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the present and future well being of the nation (U.S. Congress, 1972: Sec 302b). Aesthetic Resource Definition It is necessary to attempt to define "aesthetic resource" so as to be able to identify such resources in the coastal3 zone. An aesthetic resource is a resource that appeals to the senses in a pleasing manner. This resource may be natural3 or man-made, be visual or nonvisual, and it may or may not have economic value. A man may decide to plant a tree in hisI backyard for a number of reasons--to provide shade, to3 increase property value, etc. First of all, however, he probably planted it because it "added" something to his yard. It pleased him--the shape, color, size of the tree. This man was providing himself with a resource--an aesthetic resource.I 329 There are many such similar resources in the coastal zone appealing to a diversity of groups: the beach to a sunbather or swimmer, the salt spray to a fisherman, the wilderness to a nature lover. All have value and must be considered as part of any state CZM Plan. Requirements To be included in the decision-making process, aesthetic considerations must meet the following requirements: 1. They must meet the requirements of the 1972 CZM Act and reflect key related legislation such as the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act. 2. They must be comprehensive, to accomodate different perceptions and different resources in the coastal zone. 3. They must deal with man-made and natural aesthetic elements. 4. They must be consistent, but flexible, to deal with different situations. 5. They must be practical, to enable recommen- dations to be adopted by designated coastal zone management agencies. 6. They must provide assistance to political agencies of state and local governments in identifying tools to use in maintaining whatever aesthetic resources are deemed worthwhile (adapted from Mann, 1975: 3-4). Under the requirements of the CZM Act, the aesthetic resource parameter must: 1. survey, ident'ify, assess, inventory, and map aesthetic resources; 330 2. delineate geographic areas of particular aesthetic concern; 3. analyze adverse and beneficial impacts of uses which could be designated as permis- sible within the coastal zone by use, structure, and area; 4. deduce uses permissible without condition, permissible with conditions, nonpermitted entirely, permitted within certain areas (adapted from Mann, 1975: 4). Using existing environmental inventory or executing new studies, aesthetic resources that are important, and activities or uses that could alter such resources in a detri- mental manner would be identified. Local governments, individuals and groups can be especially helpful in identifying these resources because of familiarity with their regions and personal preferences. Once such a list has been compiled for a specific area , the decision maker would then delineate areas that are particularly sensitive as well as analyze all possible activities for which the areas under consideration could be utilized. The determination would then be made as to which uses and activities should be permitted or not in the area if the resource is to be preserved. Final judgment on the resource must await the weighing of all other parameters--economic, political, social. In Louisiana, a partial list of resources with aesthetic value would include: 1. City Parks 2. Playgrounds 3. Historic Buildings 331 4. Scenic Boulevards 5. Man-Made Water Features 6. Tidal Marshes 7. Barrier Islands 8. Old Tree Groves 9. Overflow Swamps 10. Archaeological Sites 11. Beaches and Dunes 12. Scenic Bayous and Rivers 13. Mudlumps 14. Saltdomes 15. Historic Sites 16. Scenic Gardens 17. Virgin Forests 18. Cheniers 19. Bird Nesting Areas Legal and Political Considerations Before making deAisions about the future of the coastal zone, attention must Le given to legal and political para- meters, two considerations that could "make or break" what- ever plan that would ,ventually be devised. Legal Considerations There are several items that must be accomplished before a state coastal zone nanagement plan could be adopted. These are: 1. conformity with essential elements of the Coastal gone Management Act of 1972 and all other relevant federal legislation; 2. conformity with existing state and local statutes regulating uses in the coastal area; 332 3. identification of federal legislation that3 could provide legal support and/or money to) help implement elements of a coastal zone . management program; 4. creation of a strong state CZM statute that avoids, as much as possible, loopholes, vagueness, and contradiction so as to with- stand legal suits; 5. coordination with already existing federal and state agency guidelines regarding5 activities in the coastal areas. 6. development of guidelines for local CZM plans.f Coastal zone management must be in conformity with the major provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.3 For example, section 306(e) of the CZM Act establishes as a requirement for federal funds that a state must:I 1. establish criteria and standards for local government implementation; 2. direct state land and water use planning and regulation;3 3. review for consistency (with the state CZM plan) all development projects or plans,3 land use regulations, etc. proposed at the state or local level. (Adapted from the5 Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, 1973.)1 If the state does not fulfill these requirements, needed federal monies would not be granted enabling a state to carry3 out its proposed program. Since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Pr'otection Agency (EPA) haveI vast powers in the wetlands already, it would be an easy step to reject a state program and force a state to submit to direct federal regulation.3 3331 Conformity also means that legal research should be performed to determine what laws exist at the fede~ral level and how best to set up a plan to conform with laws and criteria based on laws to put the plan into practice. A natural outgrowth of conformity is coordination. If all relevant legal statutes and already developed federal criteria regarding coastal uses and activities are known, then it may be easy to coordinate the state plan with these criteria. For example, EPA has set maximum allowable concen- trations of toxic substances, other than biocides, in water. In its considerations of the water pollution parameter of the ecological system, a state plan obviously should develop criteria similar to that of the EPA. This is being done in Louisiana. The Louisiana Stream Control Commission (1973) devises water quality criteria for water bodies in Louisiana and submits these findings to EPA for approval. Thus, coordination and conformity are achieved between the state and federal agencies in the field of water pollution and water quality control. This type of process is needed through- out the entire spectrum of coastal zone management. As part of the legal research into relevant federal legislation dealing with the coastal zone, important tools and additional sources of monies could also be located. Mann (1974) has listed several laws and programs that could be applied to aesthetic resource management. These were discussed earlier. 334 The wording of the statute to be adopted as a CZM law must be especially clear. As the task of CZM moves into the political arena, there may be attempts to undermine its provisions by vested interest groups. The fewer legal loop- holes that exist, the easier it will be to implement the program. Clear wording will also help the courts decide the validity of any legal challenges that may arise. In addition to clear wording, all state statutes must be brought into conformity with this act to avoid legal entanglements after passage. Even the state constitution may need revision if that is necessary to enable the act to take full effect. Failure to do this will lead to chaotic situa- tions when opposition forces attempt to weaken the law. Many parish governments may wish to develop their own CZM plans, allowing local leaders, who are more familiar with the conditions and problems of their area, control over the use of wetlands in their jurisdiction. In order to do this, local officials must have guide-lines and criteria from the state to insure that any local plan is in conformity with the aims of state and federal legislation. Development of local plans will enable the state managment agency to be freed of the many local problems that could be handled best by parish governments. Under this system, the state would promulgate general goals and specific criteria and guidelines for CZM management. The parishes would then adapt and modify, if necessary, these criteria to their local environments (subject to approval from the state). 335 Political Considerations This parameter may well be the most important one. No matter how comprehensive and efficient a CZM plan may be, it can be destroyed by a hostile political climate. To fore- stall this possibility, local and state political leaders should be included, as much as possible, in the process of developing a CZM plan. Consideration should be given to the following tasks: 1. educating and fostering input from state and local political leaders; 2. identifying political opposition and various means to overcome it; 3. utilization of "carrot and stick"? techniques to convince local leaders of the desirability of participation in coastal zone management; 4. placation of vested interest groups who stand to lose if a CZM plan is adopted; 5. education of the general population on the benefits of coastal zone management for them; solicitation of public interest pressure groups as a political counterbalance against increased opposition; holding of numerous public meetings with extensive media coverage to elicit as much public participation as possible in the plan; 6. including formal public participation in CZM plan development. 1) Education of Public Officials and Input to the Process It is extremely important to present information to the people who will ultimately decide the future of the coastal 336 zone. Seminars, community meetings, and private conferences could be used to dessiminate information pertaining to eco- logical, economic, and aesthetic considerations in the coastal areas. This also means widespread distribution of reports and findings witten for the layman so that state and local governmental leaders can avail themselves of information, and cannot claim ignorance or "secrecy" as a reason for not knowing about coastal problems. Such a procedure provides for input of political opinions to the management agency. 2) Identification of Opposition By allowing input from the political sector in a state, one can determine the source of opposition and its reasons for being against the plan. This identification of the opposition allows the planning agency to seek compromises acceptable to both parties or, if particularly intransigent, to plan strategies to overcome opposition. 3) "Carrot and Stick Technique" Most states depend heavily on federal money for many essential programs. Much money is available to the state to distribute to local governments for CZM planning if they qualify. Thus, the carrot. Alternately, there is the definite possiblity of federal control of the coastal zone should a state show no motivation in establishing a CZM plan. The federal government possesses the authority to control the coastal zone if local governments fail to manage it themselves. 337 It may be easier and motre efficient for local officials to regulate their coastal uses and activities than to become involved in bureaucratic controls, which is the stick. 4) Placation of Vested Interesit Groups Vested interests, mainly landowners, sometimes resist "land use controls," probably the essential element of a state CZM plan. In order to forestall heavy opposition from these groups and to be equitable in the management process, incentives should be given to land owners in areas that may be declared "nondevelopable" or an "estuarine sanctuary," or any other classification that denies the owner of the land the option to do what he wants with it. This could be done by: 1. making such land tax-exempt; 2. swapping state land in other nonwetland areas; 3. paying for such land not to be developed; 4. purGhasing the land; 5. long-term leasing of estuarine land; 6. transferring development rights. These methods and others should be considered as a means of compensating owners for the loss of some development rights associated with their land. It might also be of use to point out that, in areas that are zoned, land use controls are for the benefit of the general public and are not designed specifically to hurt anyone. 338 5) Education of the Public and Public Participation Besides educating political leaders, it might be wise to educate the public, especially the voters who have the ultimate power in any state. All reports should be made available to them and public hearings should be held at which public input would be elicited. Media campaigns to inform the public about the importance of coastal zone management could be used. In a recent survey by Pinkey and Pattersen (1976), it was found that, of the total sample of Louisiana residents, 57.3 percent questioned did not know of any problems in the coastal areas. 21.3 percent cited ecological problems, 13.3 percent cited hurricane flooding and the remaining 8 percent stated economic, legal, or political problems. It seems evi- dent, therefore, that with over half of the population unaware of problems in the coastal zone, education should be a high priority item. Public meetings can help identify public interest groups which are interested in working for coastal zone management, as well as identifying implementation problems, value systems, and needs of the general population. New ideas can surface from public sources previously unrecognized, thus helping to formulate additional goals and objectives in the final plan. The public should also have a say in the conclusions and recomimendations gleaned from the various i-nformation sources. Formal public representation in the internal management agency from the various sectors of the coastal zone should be allowed 339 to vote on the various recommendations as they are put forth as well as make their own suggestions. The possibility of a referendum on these preliminary recommendations might also be considered. This presupposes that the public has been kept steadily informed as to what is being done regarding CZM in Louisiana so as to enable them to vote intelligently on the issues. Public participation, education, political placation and information dissemination should enable the political sector and all segments of the public sector to effectively participate in the process leading up to the final stages of a state CZM plan. This process should include the formula- tion of goals and objectives, the passage of an entire act, and finally, the efficient implementation of the plan in the coastal areas. A Decisionmaking Framework for the Coastal Zone Having obtained information concerning the various parameters in a coastal area, the decision maker now must face the problem of deciding on a plan of action for managing the coast. This is especially difficult because of the diversity of activities and pressures that occur in estuarine areas. Some activities can be measured in dollars; some are non- quantifiable. Some activities benefit man; some benefit the natural system. Some activities benefit specific groups while ignoring the general population. 340 The question arises: how does one weigh the various activities and compare dissimilar uses? Normally, one usesg � form of benefit-cost analysis to evaluate alternatives in � land use situation, but here the situation is confused.3 However, by inputing the various factors previously discussed, and including public and private goals, a set of meaningful3 general goals can be developed. Then, a benefit-cost model can be derived and used to make decisions about various projects based on data and the goals system. Problems3 Before any goals system or model is considered, it must be remembered that no model or goals statement is value-free.I Nash, Pearce and Stanley (1975) have argued for criteria to3 judge evaluation techniques (mnodels). They state that a good evaluation technique should: 1. reflect individual preferences; 2. be publically accountable;I 3. be operational;3 4. be cognizant of systems effect (Nash, Pearch and Stanley, 1975: 83).3 What Nash, Pearce and Stanley are advocating is "value senisitivity analysis" (Nash, Pearce and Stanley, 1975: 83),3 i.e., allowing the decisionmaker to identify the underlying valuie set and test how the specific outcome presented reactsI to changes in the value set. Just as one tests the sensitivity of alternative projects by varying discount rates, 341 M__ costs and benefits, so should one test "alternatives" sensitive to underlying value judgments. Thus, when one evaluates a specific decision or a general good statement on land use in the coastal zone, one should know: 1. one's own b-ias, 2. the bias of the techniques one uses, 3. the bias of the actors involved in land use decisions, 4. the bias of the federal legislation. Bias in Federal Legislation An argument could be made that bias exists at the source of coastal zone management, the enabling federal legislation. The CZM Act of 1972 was passed because it was felt that a valuable resource was not being managed properly. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that analysis of a state's coastal areas lead to the establishment of "geographic areas of particular concern" and a priority of uses in these zones (Armstrong et al., 1974). Several states which have already adopted CZM Acts have designated zones of restriction or control of land use. These include Florida, North Carolina, and California (see Douglas, 1973). In the U.S. Senate, hearings on the CZM Act, "areas of critical concern" were designated as areas where uncontrolled development could: 1. result in irreversible damage to important historic values, cultural values, aesthetic values, natural systems or processes; 342 2. unreasonably endanger life and property as aI result of natural hazards of more than local significance;3 Examples of such areas cited at the hearings included: 1. coastal wetlands mar~shes and other lands3 inundated by the tides, 2. beaches and dunes,3 3. estuaries, shorelands, and floodplains of rivers, lakes and streamns,3 4. rare or valuable ecosystems. Since the preceeding definition of "areas of environ-3 mental concern" includes landforms and systems that make up most of Louisiana' s wetlands, it would seem that maintenanceI of the natural system is a high priority item (bias) in the5 eyes of the federal government and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Therefore, in any model developed to aid in land use and3 decision making, inclusion of a practical constraint to preclude or limit development that would unduly damage theU fragile areas of the wetland ecosystem should be considered. Having already gathered data on ecological impacts, future land use, etc., it should be relatively simple to predict5 where pressures on wetlands will be the severest and to forestall reclamation if these wetlands are critical to the3 system. Goals At this point, the state agency "setting up" the mechan- isms of coastal zone management should derive a system of3 general goals and objectives of the plan they intend to 343 implement. These goals should include the practical constraint mentioned above, as well as a priority system of land uses and criteria. An excellent discussion of a model for a goals system appears in Mumphrey et al. (1975: 217-227). In this model, the value set used states that a, desirable goals system should result in benefits for both the "haves" and "have-nots" while not worsening the position of the "halves." This situation introduces the concept of "equity"--the distribution of costs and benefits over groups--as another constraint toward a goals system formulation. Besides equity, the goals system should have three other attributes according to Mumphrey. These are: efficiency, comprehensiveness, and implementability. Efficiency requires the maximization of net monetary benefits. Comprehensiveness requires that all segmaents of the communtiy be considered. Finally, implementability implies that goals should be feasible and a method for implementation should be presented. A logical sequence for developing a set of goals might be the following: 1. Consideration of ecological system and impacts on it; delineating areas of environmental concern, management areas, developable areas based on the ecological system. 2. Consideration of economic factors, such as current land use; projections of future needs for housing, industry, etc. and where this will occur; consideration of economic costs of development. 344 3. Legal considerations, including requirements of federal legislation and agencies; conformity with all existing laws relating to coastal areas. 4. Aesthetic considerations, including all relevant federal and/or state criteria relating to the management of aesthetic resources; compilation of an inventory of aesthetic resources and impacts on them. 5. Political considerations, including awareness ofI the views of public officials, vested interest groups such as developers, landowners, and environmental groups; devising methods of reconciling differences between groups.I 6. Public participation considerations, encouraging at all stages public input, opinions, aid; awareness of opposition at local and state levels. 7. Decisionmaker's value set, incorporating what the decisionmaker considers important, along with the opinions of other consultants; the bias of the enabling legislation, CZM Act of 1972, should be remembered. 8. Inclusion of an "equity" constraint. Remember the enabling legislation (CZM Act of 1972) and the thrust or bias of it. 9. Develop an in-house set of general goals for CZM. 10. Develop specific criteria for implementing goals. A Model After this process is completed, a model for evaluating individual projects should be considered. Benefit-cost models are commonly used to evaluate public projects; since all development in wetland areas depends on public projects being 3451 erected, a benefit-cost model should allow the decisionmaker to forecast the economic benefits and costs of a project and to whom they will accrue. This result can then be evaluated against the goals system already in place. Mumphrey et al. (1975: 191-217) presents a capsule dis cussion of various benefit-cost models that have been developed, including the strong and weak points of each method and its suitability to the task confronting the decisionmaker in CZM. The most important part of the discussion is the development of a "Synthesis Model," or "Equity-Constrained Benefit-Cost Model." In this model, benefits can be monetary, quantifiable but nonmonetary, and nonquantifiable. Costs can be defined likewise. Benefits, therefore, are positive inputs of a project, while costs are negative inputs. These para- meters are entered in an evaluation matrix (as developed by Mumphrey) which considers all costs and benefits and their distribution. The goals developed for a program (like CZM) state the desired distribution of costs and benefits. If the goals define a desired benefit as "preservation on critical wetlands," then proposed projects can be matched against this goal. Thus, the goals statement is incorporated into the model for decision-making. A CZM Statute Having developed goals, criteria, and a model for evaluation, a coastal zone management statute can then be written. The statute should address the logistics of a CZM 346 program. These would include the establishment of a CZM agency responsible for regulating the program, creation of permitting fees, fines, etc. Once the thrust of the manage- ment program has been developed, then it can be decided in the3 political arena whether implementation will be on the state or local levels.3 The Test3 The final test comes when the statute is presented to the3 state legislature for adpotion. Attempts by lobbyists and others to weaken or change the legislation should be expected.I If the bill's proponents have done their homework, and the legislature votes in good faith, then a comprehensive billI should pass.3 Figure a2 illustrates diagramatically the proposed process resulting in a CZM law.3 EVALUATING COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLANS3 FOR THE NEW ORLEANS SMSA I NTRODUCT IONI The four parishes of the New Orleans SMSA--St. Tammany,I Jefferson, St. Bernard and Orleans--are included in the coastal zone as defined by the State Planning Office. Under the proposed State Coastal Resources Program (Louisiana State3 Planning Office, 1976), "All state and local agencies are required to fully coordinate their activities affecting the3 347 "I m m I I m M a mm - - - FIGURE 5.2 DIAGRAM OF MODEL TO DEVELOP A CZM PLAN Initial . General Coastal Set CZMm Management Develops- Goal Write Zone, submits t taLe Usre - m Agency Statements Statute Lei slaturel l l 4asses: CZM Considers Derives Which Considers Which honsiders 1~~r~v-~~1I C o 7nsers I-a4_ ~~~~~~~~~~J ~~~~~~ ~ h c 5 onsiders. I Considerations I w Economic I N ConsiderationsI 0 0a)i e a I Political I Considerationsl opgeclI I Goals I I organization. Set-Up of CZM Agencv CZM |Fines, Fees j I Exempt ions I I Funding and| I Assistance I 1 PermittingJ I CZM Program l 1 Fundin I - Land Use I Iclassificationsl I Special Interest Groups I I IPublic Inputi Information for Local Governments i i Aesthetic Considerationsi I Value Set I I - I Benefit/Cost Model to valuate Prolects Political I Modlifi ationI I Legal I ConsiderationsI I Public I Inputs Source: Author coastal zone with the management program established by this statute" (Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976: See 2008 C). Furthermore, the proposed CZM statute provides that Local governments may develop a local coastal zone program in accordance with the require- ments and procedures of ... the state statute (Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976: See 2015 A).3 One parish in the New Orleans SMSA has completed a CZM plan; another parish is in the final stages of developing a3 plan. The other two parishes have only just begun to consider developing local plans. This section, therefore, will dealI primarily with the evaluation of CZM plans in the two parishes,3 Orleans and St. Bernard, which have concrete proposals. The evaluation will be presented from two viewpoints:3 1. Evaluation under the proposed State Coastal Resources program; and3 2. Evaluation under the model designed in the previous section.3 The State Coastal Resources Program3 Local Requirements According to the proposed statute, local governments should:I A. Afford full opportunity for municipalities within the parish which have an interest in the uses of the coastal zone regulated under this act to participate in the development of the local program.3 B. A local coastal zone program developed under this Section (2015) must be done with full opportunity for public3 participation and involvement of interested persons. 3493 C. A local coastal zone program developed under this Section shall be consistent with the State management guidelines and with the policies and objectives of this act. It should consist of: 1. Reasonable modifications, amplifications, or additions to the state management guidelines which are necessary because of the peculiar local environmental conditions or user practices. 2. A description of the natural resources and natural resource users of the coastal zone area within the parish, the most pressing social and economic problems or needs within particular areas of the coastal zone of the parish and the general order of priority in which the problems or needs should be met within particular areas. 3. A description of the procedures used by local govern- ments to make regulating decisions affecting users of coastal zone resources and to make public facility improvement decisions such as those relating to drainage, road improvement, flood protection, water supply, waste disposal and the like. 4. A statement showing the manner in which the regulatory and public facility improvements decisions set forth above include specific procedures and methods for considering the problems and needs within particular areas of the coastal zone within the parish and for considering the state management guidelines, and any local modifications, amplifications, or additions to them (Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976: Section 2015 A-D). No local coastal zone program can take effect until it is approved by the Commission (set up in this act). Once it is approved, all public and private local uses (as defined by the act) must be consistent with the program established by local officials. 350 The above items are the qualifications that a local CZM1 plan must possess before it can be implemented under the provisions of this proposed act. Goals and Objectives3 As stated in the proposed legislation, the aims of the3 CZM statute are to: 1. encourage multiple use of the coastal zoneI resources consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of renewable resource managementI and productivity and the minimization of adverse effects of one resource use upon another;U 2. to develop a coastal resource management program with full participation of state agencies, local governments and other persons which is based on knowledge of our resources, the environment, and the needs of the people of the state;U 3. to develop a coastal resources management program with sufficient expertise, technical proficiency, and legal authority to enable Louisiana to determine permissable land and water uses of the coastal zone and to regulate the influence of federal agencies to a position of dealing with issues involving a clear national interest; 4. to ensure that the policies allow renewable resource management which alters the naturalU system in order to enhance particular plants and animals in a particular area (Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976: Section 2002 B). This legislation will enable the state of Louisiana to:I 1. define relevant terms relating to the coastal areas,I 2. define the coastal zone boundary, 3511 3. establish jurisdiction and assign agencies, 4. determine uses of more than local concern, 5. determine geographic areas of particular concern, 6. determine exclusions: uses partially in the coastal zone, 7. establish coastal commission membership, pro- cedures, relation to local government, user groups, compensation, conflicts of interest, S. establish an interagency advisory committee on coastal revenues, 9. provide for research, monitoring and advisory assistance, 10. provide recommendations for specific development projects, 11. develop a consolidated coastal use program, 12. establish criteria for decisions, appeals, procedures during emergency regarding permit program, 13. determine commission's action on appeals, 14. establish general permits, 15. initiate enforcement, injunctions, pen-alties, programs, 16. set use fees, 17. set effective dates and transition period (Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976). Basically, the inatent of this bill is to conserve the resources of the wetlands, minimize conflicts between competing uses, retain management control of these lands at the local and state levels, and streamline the permitting process. CZM Plans Of SMSA Parishes The four parishes that comprise the New Orleans SMSA encompass parts of two estuary s ystems: the Pontchartrain, 352 Maurepas, Borgne, Catherine system and the Barataria system.3 According to the Louisiana State Planning Office (1975a), out of a total land area of 3,032,666 acres in these four parishes,I 2,484,079 acres are cLassified as wetlands, water, or barren3 land. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1975b) currently has 39 water resources projects planned or under construction in3 or near the SMSA for drainage, navigation, reclamation, etc. The area sustains an urban population of 1,094,388 personsI (Jones and Denton, 1976). Coastal zone management is3 necessary, therefore, to maintain a balanced system of resource use. In this section the coastal zone management plans, if3 any, of each parish will be reviewed and evaluated by the two methods stated previously.I Jefferson Parish3 Presently, Jefferson Parish has no coastal zone manage-3 ment plan nor are they working on one. However, Jefferson Parish has just recently decided that they will undertake the3 compilation of a coastal zone plan. According to Mr. Donald Terranova (1976), Principal Parish Planner, they expect toI get under way shortly with the first phase of their plan.3 While some of the woik will be done in-house, most will be done under contract to private planning consultants.3 St. Tammany Parish3 Mr. Craig Sinder (1976), director of the planning depart-3 ment of St. Tammany Y'arish, said that the parish has hired a 353 planner to develop a local CZM plan. He is still in the pro- cess of acquiring other staff. Mr. Sinden said that he favors development for the parish, but wants balanced growth as a general goal. Presently, the only land use restrictions in wetland areas of the parish are found in the St. Tammany Parish Comprehensive Plan--Land Use Regulations (St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, 1972). Section 2.2 establishes an 'IF District" that requires all floor elevations to be of a height "not less than one foot above the highest flood levels as recorded since 1921."1 Along Lake Pontchartrain, this translates to a height of not less than +8 feet m.s.l. St. Bernard Parish Mr. Angelo Chetta (1976), outgoing director of the St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission, said that St. Bernard has been active in coastal zone management since 1972, when the first phase of their CZM plan was begun. The impetus for their involvement was the impending construction of the Violet Ship Canal and Lock, which was considered by many in the parish to be detrimental to the environment. Concerns of CZM Since the CZM plan for St. Bernard is incomplete at the present time, Mr. Chetta outlined the main concerns that will be considered in the plan. These are to: 354 1. mitigate the adverse effects of the MRGO on the parish; 2. reclaim fresh and brackish water marsh areas3 (turned salty by the MRGO) for development and maintenance;3 3. control shoreline erosion, especially on the eastern section of the parish; 4. establish "wetland zoning" and management areas to preserve and protect valuable wetlands; 5. limit all development to lands that are already3 behind levees or are in the process of being leveed by the Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and3 Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan; 6. upgrade Paris Road by designating it as part of an I-410 spur ending at Chalmette; 7. establish a new permit procedure for wetlands uses. The Baseline Study3 The completed part of St. Bernard's plan is the Environ- mental Baseline Study (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972).3 The purpose of this study, as envisioned by the authors, is:3 to provide an environmental baseline of the parish as it currently exists, taking into account cultural and natural factors thatI have modified the landscape to this point in time. The study is intended to set manage- ment guidelines for the system and provide a basis for which future modifications to the environment can be judged with a high degree of predictability concerning probable impact (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1972: 2). The study basically outlines the natural environment and traces the various impacts that man has made upon it and the result of these impacts. The final part of the study deals3 with geographical management units and management 355 possibilities for the area under study. The purpose of management, according to the study, is to achieve an optimum relationship between use and conservation of an area' s cultural and ecological resources. It should also ensure that the long-term use of a particular resource is an asset to the area. Various alternatives, including no management at all, are considered and their consequences assessed. The authors observe that this study is only preliminary, dealing with only part of St. Bernard Parish,5 the urban portion that is now under critical development. Other studies are expected to follow which delve deeper into the possibilities raised by the initial work. Orleans Parish Of all the parishes in the New Orleans SMSA, Orleans has come closest to establishing a process for local coastal zone management. The staff of the City Planning Commission (1975) has completed a three-volume plan to manage the parish's remaining wetlands. The plan, however, has yet to be adopted by the City Council, which would give it the force of law. Volume I states that the CZM Plan: was prepared to furnish the City of New Orleans with the initial means by which to control land uses and environmental quality within viable marsh areas. Through implementation, this plan should allow the City of New Orleans to attain the following goals: 1. the maintenance of a high level of quality within estuary areas in particular, and within the City of New Orleans in general; 5Currently, a second study of the entire St. Bernard Parish is being prepared by Coastal Environments, Inc., to be completed by October, 1976. 356 2. the formulation of land use policies and techniques appropriate to marsh-estuary areas; 3. the formulation of a means by which energy resources may be exploited without adversely impacting environmental quality; 4. the provision of adequate open space and recreational areas for the benefit of the citizens of the New Orleans Metropolitan Area, and the State of Louisiana; 5. to protect for perpetuity the economic and ecologic resources of the natural environment; 6. the efficient utilization of existing governmental agencies, in a coordinated fashion, in the management of sensitive environmental areas; 7. the establishment of land use guidelines and priorities in estuary areas (City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: Vol. I, iii). The three volumes of the plan provide an environmental inventory, assess impacts and bureaucratic machinery, and analyze alternative methods of management. Finally, there is a proposed statute for implementing the plan. In evaluating this document, the volumes will be taken individually and analyzed as to their effectiveness and compatibility with the proposed State Coastal Resources Program, the proposed CZM model, and against its own goal statements. EVALUATION OF LOCAL PLANS UNDER THE STATE COASTAL RESOURCES PROGRAM St. Bernard Parish Problems in Evaluation St. Bernard's coistal zone management program is difficult to evaluate for two re~asons: 1. it is in2omplete; and 2. the stat-3 coastal resources program is incomplete. 335 7 Since the St. Bernard Plan has not been completed, it is impossible to evaluate the thrust of the entire plan in any- thing other than a general fashion. Nor is the state coastal resources program complete. The only specific criteria that the state has presently are those delineating the boundary of Louisiana's coastal zone (McIntire: 1975) and (Harrison and Adams: 1976). Specific criteria for other sectors of the planning process are still being developed. The statute proposed by the state deals with the process of managing the coastal zone. It has yet to be adopted. A weakened version of the original statute passed the state House of Representatives on July 17, 1976, and was sent to the Senate for further study. In this report, the St. Bernard and Orleans CZM plans will be evaluated under the proposed statute of the State Planning Office and not the House bill. Evaluation The St. Bernard Parish Baseline Study presents the following information: 1. an environmental inventory of the study area; 2. an overlay of the impacts of man on the natural system (see Figure 5.3 for the study area boundary); 3. separate management zones, based on the current ecologic conditions in each, within the study area; 4. a set of alternative management practices and their expected results if implemented. 358 FIGURE 5.3 BOUNDARY OF STUDY AREA, ST. BERNARD Source: Coastal Environments Inc., 1972: 3. mmigImm~imm/NIIgIImm Section 2015 of the proposed state CZM statute specifi- cally states that a description of natural resources be undertaken and problems identified. At the state level, studies by Burk and Associates (1975), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973a; 1975a) and others have provided detailed work that identifies ecological and cultural resources in this area of the coastal zone. As such, only general infor- mation is needed in a particular parish to supplement the data that the State Pl.anning Office already has. A baseline study such as this one for St. Bernard "individualizes" a parish by showing how the processes work in a specific area. Unique problems of an area may also surface as a result of such a study. As there were no criteria for management available from the State Planning Office when this study was done, the authors of the study established their own for the purpose of evaluating St. Bernard's plan. The management suggestions offered are admittedly' only preliminary ones, but they do provide a framework o-- which to develop mnore comprehensive information (see Figure 5.4). Section 2007 of the proposed state statute outlines the need for establishing "Geographic Areas of Particular Concern"' for special mnanagement. The detailed breakdown of the St. Bernard study area is accurate enough to lend itself to a system of priority use and management based on classifi- cations. Under currenit zoning ordinances, most of the viable 360 FIGURE 5.4 ~~~~~~nF r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~un I I 1-1v ro"F !I Mr� i1 7 ' MA it0 i I iI~; ak Q W14 9 M'-~ % W UNIT LEVEL I UNIT LEVEL II UNIT L-E\'V "' Ultr LEtVEL IV IT, I CV CI I Coastal Zone Source: Coastal Environments Inc., 1972: 125 m _ mm m m m - m m wetlands of the parish are zoned "IA-1 Rural" (St. Bernard Planning Commission, 1971), a zoning classification that offers little protection for the wetlands it encompasses (see Figure 2.3). Since this was a "baseline study," no consideration was given to the machinery or permitting process that would be needed to manage the area. Likewise, there was no "public participation" plan in this study, such as the one developed by the State Planning Office (1975b). The second phase of the plan (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1976) gives greater con- sideration to the process of implementation, but still does not consider the importance of public participation. Figure 5.5 illustrates the current level of conformity of St. Bernard Parish: CZM planning to date with the requirements established in the proposed state CZM statute for local governing bodies to follow. Orleans Parish Volume I Volume I of the New Orleans CZM plan, entitled the "Technical Report," contains summary information relating to the geologic history, current environmental conditions, archa- eological sites, cultural history, demography and economic conditions of the New Orleans area. This volume is compre- hensible to the lay person and intended for general public distribution. The references used provide excellent background 362 I I I FIGURE 3.5; EVALUATION MATRIX I State Coastal Resources Program: Local Requirements St. Bernard Parish Baseline Study Opportunity for Municipalities within Parish to Participate in Development of Plan Opportunity for Public Participation Reasonable modifications to state guidelines because of local N/A O conditions or user practices ,0 Description of natural resources in parish M Description of natural resource r � users Social and Economic Problems � ~ and Needs O General order of priority for > needs to be met a) > W+P Description of procedures used d by local governments to make ' regulatory decisions affecting � users of coastal zone resources wXe and make public facility d improvement decisions 4)~ Q Statement illustrating manner 4 in which regulatory and public 'D facility improvement decisions o include specific procedures o for considering: A: Problems and needs within particular area of the '* coastal zone O v B: State Management Guidelines N/A C: Local Modifications NA (to guidelines)/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND: Total fulfillment of _ requirements Partial fulfillment of 0 requirements Q Requirements not fulfilled N/A Not Applicable Source: Author 1) There has been no specific State Guidelines issued as yet for managing methods. The State Program is not proposed and, as yet, is incomplete. I I I 363 information to support the summaries. This document, then, is written on a simpler level than the St. Bernard Environ- mental Baseline Study, which was intended to be a technical report for "in-house" use. Demographic detail is provided in this report. Popula- tions and their characteristics as well as trends in each of the planning districts of New Orleans are presented. This information gives the reader a general idea as to who lives where and which areas are growing, an important factor in coastal zone management. There is also a brief discussion of the economic conditions in the area, i.e., major industries, commercial bank deposits, construction employment, effective buying income, etc. This summary provides the reader with a general picture of what is important in the New Orleans economy. The report recognizes that Orleans Parish is a part of the coastal zone, and as such concurs with the findings of McIntire et al. (1975) regarding the coastal zone boundary. By compiling an inventory and assessing the impacts in New Orleans, volume I complies partially with section 2015 of the proposed state statute. Otherwise, this volume is insignifi- cant in relation to the state program. According to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1970b), of the 199 square mile area of Orleans Parish, 175 square miles, or 88 percent of the total area, could be classified as having been originally marsh or swamp (before human habitation). Of that total, approximately 121 square miles of 364 that total, approximately 121 square miles of wetland have been reclaimed, including the land behind the Lake Pontchar- train Louisiana and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Levee System (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973a). Much of the land area of Orleans Parish, therefore, has already been reclaimed for uses other than estuarine functions. The viable wetland that remains, about 54 square miles, is the main focus of the New Orleans CZM plan. Section 2015 of the proposed state CZM statute contains the general requirements for a local CZM plan. Volume I of the plan, the technical report, accomplishes the intent of subsection C2 by describing the natural system, impacts on it, the users of the resources, and the economic and social condi- tions in the parishes. This volume, although general in scope, deals succinctly with the basic issues of the natural system. While written for the layman, it does rely, however, on several technical reports published previously. Volume II Volume II elaborates on descriptions offered in Volume I on thegeologic factors that shaped the natural history of Orleans Parish and adds a time sequence. Marsh-estuary relationships are also briefly discussed, with emphasis on the current state of the estuarine area in the parish. Based on information gathered earlier, the third section classifies wetlands in Orleans Parish according to their current ecological status. The following areas are delineated: 365 I Highly Urbanized Area II Contained Marsh Area III Nonurbanized Levee Area IV Estuarine Marsh Area. Boundaries for the four areas are described in the section. Within the Estuarine Marsh Area are "Critical Areas," defined as "those viable marsh and forest areas which should be preserved because of their value as recreational and economic resources" (City Planning Commission, 1975: Vol. II, 30). The critical areas are located mainly in the eastern section of Orleans Parish (see Figure 2.14). Section IV of this volume discusses urban growth and the economic value of wetlands. Section V, entitled "Governmental Agencies Exercising Control over Environmental Quality," identifies those federal, state and local agencies with jurisdiction in coastal areas and those with research capa- bilities. These agencies are then integrated into a matrix relating their function to areas of concern in the coastal zone. Section VI examines existing legal control mechanisms, the Municipal Code, Building Code, and Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, that could be used in managing the coastal zone. The authors of the plan have proposed ammending the existing codes so that the following goals can be attained: 1. the provision of adequate open space and recreational areas for the benefit of citizens of the New Orleans Metropolitan Area; 366 2. the perpetual protection of the economic and ecologic resources presented by the natural environment; 3. the establishment of land use guidelines and priorities in the estuary areas (City Planning Commission, 1975: Vol. II, 53). Currently there are no ordinances that deal specifically with problems of the coastal zone. Section VII lists various alternatives for Coastal Zone Management. These are: 1. Urbanization without management 2a. Controlled development--without management 2b. Controlled development--with management 3a. Prohibited development--without management 3b. Prohibited development--with management. After evaluating each of the alternatives, the staff con- sidered alternative 2b the most feasible. This alternative would place restrictions in areas designated as environ- mentally sensitive and establish a program to maintain the areas. Figure 2.14 shows the areas that would come under the jurisdiction of this management plan. This volume outlines environmental parameters, focusing on current conditions relating to land loss, flood control, faulting, soils and marsh-estuary functions. On the basis of this, Orleans Parish is divided into four areas. This volume complies, therefore, with section C2 of the state statute, which requires that areas of geographic concern be delineated. 367 In this volume the areas designated as "critical" coincide basically with the term "Geographic Areas of Particular Concern" in Section 2007 of the statute, since they have "unique and valuable characteristics," requiring "special management guide- lines" to ensure a harmonious relationship between public and private interests. The designation :)f "Geographic Areas of Particular Concern" should be a gtate responsibility, but since the state has yet to develop ba,ilc criteria for such designations the authors of the New OrLeans plan created their own. Certain areas, which have beei partially altered were designated as semi-critical. The proposed New Orleans CZM plan contains a list of governmental agencies (federal, state and local) with control in the coastal zone, identifying their duties and objectives. Section 2010 of the proposed state CZM statute authorizes an Interagency Advisory Committee on Coastal Resources to "assist the administration, the Commission and local govern- ments in the development of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Management Program and to facilitate close and continuing coordination between the coastal resources management program and other natural resources management programs affecting use of the coastal zone." This committee would identify and coordinate agencies with an interest in coastal resources. The State Planning Office has been gathering information on governmental agencies for some time. A report by Burk and Associates (1975) has identified major projects planned or 368 under construction by federal, state, local or private interests. Appendix 1.1 of this study is a resource directory of persons interested in or influential in the coastal zone. This directory includes technical experts, special interest groups, and general iqterest groups. Because such information was not available whei the New Orleans Coastal Zone Plan was developed, the author3 had to compile their own list. as more information becomes av'ailable from the state, the list can be expanded and modified. The next section of the CZM plan lists existing control mechanisms for regulating land use in the city and suggests amendments that would better regulate the coastal areas of the parish. The section on management alternatives attempts to project various scenarios that could occur if each of the five suggested management alternatives were adopted. In the dis- cussion of each alternative, general means for developing and implementing each course of action are suggested, and the results of that action are projected. The reader is thus able to follow the rationale of the authors in their designa- tion of the most feasible alternative, 2B--Controlled Development. This alternative states: 2B--Controlled Development. This alternative would place restrictions upon development and land use in ecologically sensitive areas and also provide for the development of an overt action plan designed to maintain and/or enhance natural systems (City Planning Commission, 1975: Volume 11, 65). 369 Besides preserving the character of wetlands in eastern New Orleans by restricting development, alternative 2B embarks on a positive program to restore and maintain the natural resources that currently exist in the area. Section 2002 B(l) of the proposed state CZM statute states legislative policy as: Encouraging multiple use of coastal zone resources consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of renewable resource management and productivity and the mini- mization of adverse impacts of one resource upon another. Alternative 2B restricts but does not prohibit all uses of ecologically viable wetlands. It also fosters the development of a management plan that includes baseline studies, measure- ments, and a resource management plan for these areas. (See Figure 2.14 for boundaries of viable wetlands selected for management.) Thus, there is a potential for improving these wetland areas, not merely adopting static use restrictions. The authors of the plan were realistic in their choice of areas to be protected. The partially-altered wetlands to the west of the management areas have already been substantially altered in the past. These lands could be considered "forest lands" o.r "areas surrounded by levees, already drained and substan- tially developed" (Section 2008 A(2)). These wetlands have been partially developed and surrounded by levees cutting them off from interaction with the estuarine system and making them freshwater areas instead of saltwater. Also, development 370 pressure is heavy on these lands (for example, Orlandia). ByU protecting areas not yet under severe pressure to be reclaimed,u there is more opportunity for legal mechanisms to be effective.3 Volume III3 This volume disc isses problems that the urbanizing expand- Ping city of New Orleaas has created for the Pontchartrain, Maurepas, Catherine, B3orgne estuary system that surrounds it.3 The problems are identified by area (see description of Volume III above), then the results of the problems on that area are3 presented. Some of the problems such as pollution from fish- ing camps can be corrected. Others, like storm water dischargeI into Lake Pontchartrain, will only increase as new lands are3 developed and drained. The solution to treating stormwater may be too costly for the city or state to implement. River3 pollution is mainly a task for federal and state authorities as the major impacts are not under the jurisdiction ofI Orleans. Floodway problems in "fast" lands are discussed in some detail. These lands are not part of the coastal zone as they have been permanently altered and removed from the estuarine system. However, the problems of subsidence, andI flooding of these former wetlands should be included as part of a coastal zone management plan because of the hazards included in inhabiting them after reclamation. 371 The recommendations for the nonfast lands in eastern New Orleans have both good and bad features. The idea of actually purchasing these lands is good in theory, but may be impractical if the money for the purchase is expected to be generated by local or state sources. The remaining restric- tions sufficiently curtail intensive, damaging development. In the discussion of soil conditions, five methods for developing the highly organic soils of eastern New Orleans are listed. Clement (1976) of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service has outlined what he considers the best procedures for minimizing adverse impacts of development of wetlands soils. These are: 1. drain down the water table; 2. allow oxidation, subsidence, compaction to occur for at least 25 years; 3. fill the land with at least enough fill to return to the original level of the land (in some cases, this could exceed ten feet); 4. raise the water table up to the fill and hold it there (to minimize any future decom- position of organics in the soil); 5. begin development. This may be the best way but it is also the most expensive. Whether anyone could afford to develop land in this manner is highly doubtful. The New Orleans CZM plan lists Clement's method as well as four others that would have cheaper first costs. These are as follows: 372 1. Use of a wet drainage method a. maintains water at a specified level b. allows land surface to subside to desired levels C. then fills land to desired level with mineral soil 2. Traditional dry method 3. Dry method but incorporating a waiting period until major soil subsidence has occurred 4. Dry method but requiring pumping six feet of river sanid to expedite subsidence of soil and restore elevations. 5. Encourage other land uses for those sections that may subside greatly. (Adapted from New Orleans City Planning Commission, 1976, Vol. III, 7-9.) Each method possesses certain benefits and costs that make it desirable. It is felt that, in the long term, the method described by Clement (1976)(similar to Method I of the plan) would cause the least problems for future residents of a reclaimed area. Another serious problem discussed in the plan is soil erosion. According to Gagliano and van Beek (1970), rates of shoreline retreat as high as 13 feet per year were observed in the eastern New Orleans marshes. The average rate of retreat for the whole area was slightly less'than seven feet per year. This erosion process is a "iperfectly natural phenomenon" that occurs once an area no longer receives land building sediment from the Mississippi River system. Wave action and local subsidence (geologic) begin to take their 373 toll and, eventually, most of the area becomes a shallow lake or bay instead of marsh. The authors of the plan propose barrier islands of rip- rap or junk to forestall the action of waves. There is, however, little that can be done about subsidence. One can only keep a wetland healthy and hope that the peat accretion rate keeps pace with subsidence, something that apparently is not occuring in eastern New Orleans. The final recommendations of the City Planning Commission are for legislative action on a CZM bill at the state level and fourteen suggested management measures to be adopted by the State of Louisiana.6 These fourteen measures are all included in the current proposed state statute under consider- ation by the Louisiana Legislature. Volume III, the "summary report," contains recommendations for implementating the proposals suggested in the CZM plan. To maintain a balanced environmental setting, the report lists four basic needs of New Orleans: 1. the need to expand the economic base of the City of New Orleans; 2. the need to provide additional flood protection for both residents and property owners of the City of New Orleans; 3. The need to retain and increase middle income families.within the Central City area of New Orleans; 6See Appendix 5.1 for complete listing. 374 4. the need to avoid the uncontrolled urban sprawlI phenomenon (City Planning Commission, 1975: Volume III, 1).1 The remainder of the report lists the problems and needs, with recommendations for remedial action. The report's complete list of problem areas are:3 1. Lake Pollution a. Fishing Camps3 b. Storm Water c. Boat Discharges 2. River PollutionI 3. Flooding a. Areas Outside the Levees b. Areas Within the Levees C. Flood Protection System3 4. Wetland Development Pressures a. Expansion of Urban Development3 b. Expansion of Fishing Camp Developments C. Mineral Exploration Activities 5. FaultsI 6. Soil Conditions 7. Loss or Damage to Archaeological Sites3 8. Erosion 9. Lack of Statewide Coastal Zone Management3 Legislation and Coordination (New Orleans City Planning Commission, 1975: Vol. III,3 2-10). In the epilogue it is recomnmended that the City Council:3 1. use said report to guide and direct land use, development and capital program evaluation; 2. seek councilmatic approval to consider amimending the zoning ordinace;3 3. pursue inclusion of necessary studies within the Coastal Zone Management study as well as studies called for by other agencies;I 375 4. pursue funding sources for implementing recoin- mendations contained in the report; 5. support necessary state legislation to implement the Coastal Zone Management Program for the City of New Orleans. To support the proposed ordinance, the "Comprehensive Zoning Law of the City of New Orleans," a planned "CM-Coastal Mlanagement District'" was formulated and listed in this section. In the Appendix to Volume III of the CZM plan a proposed ordinance for instituting a "CM--Coastal Management District," with permitted uses, conditional uses, height, area, and bulk requirements etc., is outlined. To be consistent with the proposed state coastal resources statute, the uses governed by this ordinance must be in agreement with the ''local uses"~ definition in the statute section 2006A (1-6). 7An example of a local use would be a drainage or reclamation activity affecting 20 acres or less and intended to make land available for new industry, commerce, residences, etc. If, for example, a 1000-acre project were proposed for the eastern portion of the parish, within viable wetlands, it would be classified as a use of "more than local concern" due to its size. Private camps, piers, etc. in wetlands would be considered a local use. 7Local uses, as defined by the proposed CZM statute, are those which: ... directly affect coastal waters such as those enumerated as uses of more than local concern but which are smaller in scale and affect only local interests (Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976: See. 2006A). 376 As long as the guidelines established by the state inU sections 2005 and 2006 are met, there would be no conflict between the state and city over the establishment of land use guidelines in the newly created CM district. Figure 5.6 lists3 the proposed state guidelines for local governments and an evaluation of how well the New Orleans plan fulfills these requirements Summary The New Orleans Plan accomplishes the following tasks:I 1. inventories the natural system, including geology, current conditions, archaeologicalI sites, and cultural history, etc.; 2. describes current economic activities and social conditions in the city; 3. describes environmental characteristics of the3 area and partitions the area into management units;3 4. discusses urban growth potentials; 5. lists governmental agencies with control in wetlands;I 6. elucidates existing control mechanisms in the city of New Orleans that would be applied to3 wetlands management; 7. describes four management alternatives, proposed1 legal implementation, and the results of each of the alternatives;I S. recommends controlled development with a management program for the area; 9. lists environmental problems in the area andI proposed solutions; 10. lists le:,islative recommendations and program3 recommendtations to the state to facilitate cooperation and coordination of plans;3 3771 FIGURE 5.6: EVALUATION MATRIX II State Coastal Resources Problem: Local Requirements ORLEANS PARISH COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN: VOL. I, II, III Afford Opportunity for Municipalities within Parish to participate in N/A Development of Plan Opportunity for Public Participation Reasonable modifications to state guidelines because of local conditions or user problems N/A2 _0 4-3 H.r4 4-) 4- O, Description of natural resources in the parish Description of natural resources users Description of social and economic needs and problems General order of priority for needs to be met Description of procedures used by local governments to make regulatory decisions affecting users of coastal zone resources and make public facility improvement decisions Statement illustrating the manner in which regulatory and public facility improvement decisions include specific procedures to consider: A: Problems and needs within particular areas of the coastal zone B: State management Guidelines N/A2 N/A2 C: Local modifications 1) There is only one municipality in Orleans Parish 2) There are no specific State Management require- ments at this time LEGEND: Completely complies with W requirements Partially complies with 0 requirements Q Does not comply N/A Not Applicable Source: Author 378 11. lists pr)posed ordinance for establishment of a "CM--Coastal Management District." The City Plannin'T Commission, therefore, appears to be in agreement with the basic features of the proposed state statute. The state has set no criteria, so New Orleans has had to set its own. The process established by the City Plan- ning Commission to implement a local plan and coordinate it with the state program seems adequate enough to be successful. The local plan addresses most of the concerns set out in its list of goals. Thirough implementation of the plan, goals 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 would probably be attained. Goals 3 and 4 are more difficult to accomplish and are not directly in the scope of the CZM plan as it is now written. The drafting of this plan, however, is unique among the coastal parishes in the New Orleans SMSA. This plan has not been adopted, however, and does not have the force of law which is similar to the situation at the state level. EVALUATION UNDER THE PROPOSED CZM MODEL St. Bernard Parish To avoid wasting time and limited funds, local coastal zone plans should complement, not duplicate, the CZM process at the state level. The St. Bernard baseline study complements the CZM process as proposed under the model very well. The baseline inventory supplements state data necessary for accomplishing results 1, 2 and part of results 3 and 5 of the ecologic parameter discussed above, and, therefore, is an 379 excellent supplement to work that should be done at the state level. The baseline study and the goal statements illustrate that, at this point, the parish is headed toward a good CZM plan. Orleans Parish The Orleans Parish CZM plan provides an example for the other parishes within the SMSA of a supplemental plan that, functioning under a.developed State Coastal Resources Program, could serve the purpcse for which it was written. Under the model, a strong, viable program at the state level should already exist to proNide structure, information, and assis- tance to the local gcvernments attempting to manage their wetlands. The New Orleans Plan, however, was written with little guidance from the state (since no state program existed at the time). Therefore, the City Planning Commission had to do some of the~ work that should have been done at the state level. Ecological Parameter New Orleans considers itself to be in the coastal zone, using criteria developed earlier by investigators. Even though there was no formal statement by the state at the time the New Orleans plan was written, reports such as the Louisiana Advisory Commission (1973) have placed New Orleans within the coastal zone. Operating from that assumption, the proponents of the plan began to gather baseline data. 380 Volumes I and 2 deal, in part, with the ecological portion of a model CZM plan. An earlier section lists a number of such considerations. In Volumes I and 2 the New Orleans Plan accomplishes results 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the proposed model. The natural system and impacts upon it are discussed; a general inventory of the parish as to its cultural and natural features is provided; alternatives and tests for their efficiency in managing the wetlands are presented. The task of defining the coastal zone (result 3) has already been accomplished at the state level. It may be advisable at some future date to execute a formal baseline study similar to St. Bernard's for an indepth look at the environment but, keeping in mind that this report supplements an overall state plan, the depth of presentation is sufficient to be acceptable in terms of considering ecological factors. Economic Parameter Although there is no formal land use projection model developed in the plan, enough information regarding populations and the economy is presented to allow the reader to form a general picture of development pressures and where they conflict with wetlands preservation, these areas having been identified by means of four classifications (see City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: Vol. II, 25). It is felt, however, that an economic model for valuating wetlands such as the one developed in Mumphrey et al. (1975: 96-137) should be used in order to make land use decisions 381 for the future. Economic benefits of wetlands (in their natural state) are briefly presented in the plan. A large segment of the public is not aware of the inherent economic value of wetlands. Therefore, greater stressing of this point could enable the proponents of the plan to gather public support for ultimate passage of the CZM proposals. Insufficient attention is paid in the study to some of the economic costs of developing former wetlands. No mention is made of extra costs directly attributable to subsidence as well as to the precarious position that populations residing in such an area are subjected to in the event of a hurricane. The problems regarding drainage, flood protection and subsi- dence that will confront the city occur only after the decision to reclaim a wetland area is made. If the public was aware of the extra maintenance costs to themselves and the city, as well as their ultimate vulnerability to storms, there might not be a rush to buy land in the eastern areas of the city (former wetlands), thus easing some of the pressure on the viable wetland areas located near there. Unfortunately, not enough emphasis was placed on this argument against develop- ment in the plan. Pollution in Lake Pontchartrain from storm water drainage is identified as a problem, yet the new Orlandia area will add more, not less, drainage water to the Lake. If Lake pollution from this source is serious enough to list as a major problem (City Planning Commission, 1975: Vol. III, 3), the CZM plan should carefully weight the costs and benefits of Orlandia regarding pollution; other considerations, 382 including soil subsidlence costs and the, dangers of storm flood-U ing should also be ccnsidered. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers5 apparently feels thal the Orlandia project is of sufficient impact to warrant further study. Decker (1976) has indicated3 that the developers cf this project will be required to file an environmental impect statement before construction canI begin.I A proper CZM plan should contain a benefit-cost model for the economic evaluation of wetlands, thus giving the decision-3 maker solid data on uhich to base his/her decision. Such an analysis would bolster the concept of coastal zone management.I Aesthetic Considerations3 No attention is paid to the aesthetic resources of theU coastal zone, except as they relate to the economy (i.e., fishing, tourism, etc.). This occurs despite the fact that3 the federal CZM Act of 1972 requires that the aesthetic para- meter be considered. Schumacher (1973) and others have questioned the validity of attempts to reduce everything to3 its monetary worth. In too many analyses, that which cannot be valued monetarily is ignored. This CZM plan does not ignore3 all nonmonetary aspects of the coastal areas, but does not elaborate on the many aesthetic resources of the cc4stalI zone. Perhaps this should be done at the state level. This3 was the first parish plan to be completed, and as such, is expected to be somewhat flawed. Failure to adequately consider3 aesthetic resources in Orleans parish is one of those flaws._ 383 Legal and Political Considerations Perhaps the strongest part of this plan is the attention it pays to the mechanisms to legally implement the recommenda- tions suggested in Volume 3 of the plan. By proposing ordin- ances and amendments to the three existing control mechanisms in city government, a smooth transition to CZM enforcement should result, with a firm legal basis supporting it. Political considerations are largely ignored in the plan. However, buying land ind bringing it into the public domain is proposed as a method of preserving wetland areas. This tactic should result Ln placation of the landowners. The use of existing systems oC control can avoid an additional bureaucracy. An increased bureaucracy would possibly be opposed by sectors in the political arena. The various possible political tactics discussed in the model to be used to pass the CZM plan must await the passage of the State Coastal Resources Program before any real pressure can be brought to bear on the local government for adoption of the New Orleans CZM plan. Public Participation The only formal mechanism for public participation in the New Orleans Plan is a set of formal public hearings by which public input can be solicited. The City Planning Commission (CPC) worked unofficially with several nongovernmental interest groups such as the Seirra Club, Ecology Center, and the 384 American Institute ol Planners. These groups provided infor-. mation used in the formulation of the report. However, they had no formal voting power or representation at the City Planning Commission vhen the content of the report was decided3 upon. While more public participation (other than hearings)3 would be desirable ir Orleans Parish, perhaps the mechanisms for such participatic,n should be determined at the state level so that each parish can have guidelines as to how to include3 the general public directly in the decision-making process. The authors of the plan admit that the primary guidelines3 for CZM should emanate from the state (Volume III, 10). After analyzing the rlan, it appears that the plan has beenU designed to supplement a final state comprehensive resources program from the state (see Apendix 5.1). Social ConsiderationsU Although the plan describes social conditions in NewI Orleans, there is little else said about the impacts of3 Coastal Zone Management on various social groups. Obviously, these groups can make their opinions known during publicI hearings held to elicit comments on the plan. However, when the plan is reworked and rewritten, more attention should beI paid to the inclusion of a section dealing with impacts of3 CZM on various social groups and the mechanisms for including them in the decision-making process.3 385 Goals and Objectives After analyzing Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the New Orleans CZM Plan, it is unclear how the goals stated in the prefaces of the volumes were derived. It is clear that the goals apparently were determined beforehand and the plan prepared with the intent of achieving them. These goals and objectives follow closely the intent of the proposed State Coastal Resources Statute against which this plan has been evaluated previously. The plan accomplishes many of the goals and sets up the framework for achieving the rest. Under the proposed model, these goals, as well as general criteria and specific recommendations, should have come from the State. Again, since there was no state plan the city had to develop reason- able objectives themselves that followed what was thought to be the thrust of a future state program. Conclusions The New Orleans CZM Plan, intended as a supplement to a state coastal resources program, cannot be easily evaluated against the proposed model that has been designed to set up a state level process. Despite this fact, the New Orleans Plan does incorporate elements that are necessary for a local plan to possess. When the state has completed its work and gives the city more direction as to what, specifically,.the' plan should address itself, the New Orleans CZM Plan can be 386 reworked and its fla,%s corrected. Considering that it is the first local wetlands managment plan completed at the parish level, it is considered a good, sound, and ultimately workable plan. 387 APPENDIX 5.1 Recommended Measures for the State Legislature to Implement CZM Recommeindation on State Legislation: It is recommended that the State Legislature adopt Coastal Zone Manage - ment measures encompassing tie following: 1. That the State'a Coastal Zone Management Program consist of three programs: management, long range planning, and long range research, all under the supervision of a Coastal Resources Commission. 2. Tinat she Coastal Resources Commnission membership contain not less theli ten (10) members nor In excess of fifteen (15) members. 3. That parish Chief Executive Officers be authorized to designate a representative to serve oin tile Coastal Resources Commialsiale. Sucith esignee so repressented be granted full membership powers witlh resaect to issues affecting his parishll. Ilat tile local representative have an ihltlal velo over any proposal affecting said partaish, with the veto capable of being over-ruled by the Commission on appeal after a 30 day delay and public hearing withiin the pariah so affected. 4. That the Commission be granted tie powers to promulgate rules;, regulations, criteria and standards to properly manage the Coastal Zone. 5. That no rules, regulations, criteria, standards, etc. be promulgated whlichl would affect existing rules, regulations, criteria, standards, etc. governing previously leveed or drained areas. 6. That tile Commission be granted thle powers to establish goals, priorities, and objectives for the Louisiana Coastal Zone after Input froim local governing bodies. � 7. That local governing bodies be authorized to formulate, inact, and enforce local Coastal Zone Management plans whichl are formulated, enacted, and enforced under State guidelines and supervision, andl that such local plans be Incorporated Into the State Coastal Zone Management Plan provided that sclh local plans are consistent with the objective of the Act. 8. Iliat tile Commission formulate guidelines and supervisory procedures to monitor local govenuing bodies who would be granted the power to hlear and rule on permit application. 9. Tlat the Commissial lonrulate guidelines and supervisory procoe urea to monitor local governing bodies wvho would be granted lite power to acct and administer funds and grants. 10. lThat the Commission formulate guidelines and supervisory pro- ceadures to monitor local governing bodies who would be grailted the power to acquire land. II. That an office of Coastal Zone Management witlin the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisherles Commission be establilshed to aid thie State Planning Office with long-range planning functlons and to aid Louisiana State University with long-range research projects concerning the State's coastal zone. 12. That all coastal zone regulatory functions be consolidated Into a single regulatory agency. 14. That tie authority vested In the Commission become effective only upon adoption of a Coastal Zone Managenient Plan (or part ttereof) and upon adequate funding (boilh operational and capital) to permit plai tniplelnclinatlntl. Source: City Planning Commission of New Orleans, 1975: Vol. III: 10. 388 RE FERENCES Armstrong, J.M. et al.. (1974) Coastal Zone Management: The Process of Progr-am Development. Sandwich, Maryland: Coastal Zone Management Institute. Burk and Associates, Inc. (1975) Louisiana Coastal'Resources Inventory: Vol. 3 Significant Coastal Plans and Projects. New Orleans, Lotisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. (1976) Unique Ecological Features of the Louisiana Coast. New OrlEans, Louisiana: Burk and Associates, Inc. Byrne, P. et al. (19'76) Barataria Basin: Hydrologic and Climatologic Prc-cesses. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University. Chetta, A. (1976) Director, St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission, Chalmette, Louisiana, personal interview, June 24. City Planning Commission of New Orleans (1975) Coastal Zone Management Plan, 1975: Volumes 1, 2, 3. New Orleans, Louisiana: Planning Commission of New Orleans. Clark, J. (1974) Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of the Coastal Zone. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation. Clement, D. (1976) Director, U.S. Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Metairie, Louisiana, personal interview, July 16. Coastal Environments, Inc. (1972) Environmental Baseline Study: St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Environments, Inc. (1976) Resource Management: St. Bernard Parish Wetlands. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Environments, Inc., draft. Coastal States Organization (1974) The Coastal States Speak. Austin, Texas: Coastal States Organization. Colvin, G. (1975) Director, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Metairie, Louisiana, personal interview, May 24. Commoner, B. (1971) The Closing Circle. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc. 389 Craig, N. and J. Day (1976) Cumulative Impact: Effects of3 Eutrophication and Salinity Changes on the Nursery Zone of Barataria Basin. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University.3 Darnell, R.M. (1967) "The Organic Detritus Problem"~ in Estuaries AAAS publication No. 83, as cited in Day et al. (1973) Community Structure and Carbon Budget of a Salt Marsh and Shallcw Bay Estuarine System in Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LoLixsiana: Center for Wetlands Resources, Louisiana State University. Day, J. (1976) Marine Biologist, Center for Wetlands Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, personal interview, June 18. Day, J. et al. (1973) Community Structure and Carbon Budget of a Salt Marsh and Shallow Bay Estuarine System in Louisiana. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetlands Resources, Louisiana State University. Decker, C. (1976) Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, New Orleans, Louisiana, telephone interview, August 15.1 Douglas, Peter M. (1973) "Coastal Zone Management--A New Approach in California." Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 1, Number 1, 1-26. Earle, D.W., Jr. (1975) Land Subsidence Problems and Maintenance Costs to Homeowners in East New Orleans, Louisiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Gagliano, S.M. and J.L. van Beek (1970) Geologic andI Geomorphic Aspects of Deltaic Processes, Mississippi Delta System: Report I. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetlands Resources , Louisiana StateI University. Gosselink, J. et al. (1974) The Value of the Tidal Marsh. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetland Resources,I Louisiana State University. Harrison, H. N. and R.D. Adams (1976) Description of the Inland or Northern Boundary of the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetlands Resources , Louisiana State University. Jones, K. and B. Denton (1976) "Estimates of the Population of Louisiana Parishes," The Louisiana Economy, Vol. #3. New Orleans, Louisiana: College of Administration andI Business: Research Division, University of New Orleans. 390 Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources (1973) Louisiana Wetlands Prospectus. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetlands Resources, Louisiana State University and Louisiana Office of State Planning. Louisiana Revised Statute Bulletin 51: 1361 et seq. (1965) Louisiana Coast and Marine Resources Conservation and Development Act, as cited in Robbins, J. and M. Hershman (1974) "Boundaries of the Coastal Zone: A Survey of State Laws," Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 1, Number 3, 321-322. Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission (1974) Outdoor Recreation in Louisiana 1975-1980. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission. Louisiana State Planning Office (1975a) Land Use and Data Analysis Program. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State Planning Office. (1975b) "Development of the Coastal Resources Program," Cote de la Louisiane, Vol. 1, No.l. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: State Planning Office, 1-3. (1976) Proposed Coastal Resources Management Statute. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State Planning Office. Louisiana Stream Control Commission (1973) State of Louisiana: Water Quality Criteria. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Stream Control Commission. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. Fur Division (1975) Comparative Takes of Fur Animals in Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. McIntire, G. et al. (1975) A Rationale for Determining Louisiana's Coastal Zone: Report No. 1, Coastal Zone Management Series. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University. Mann, Roy Associates, Inc. (1975) Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Roy Mann Associates, Inc. Mlumphrey, A.J. et al. (1975) Louisiana Metropolitan Wetlands: A Planning Perspective. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. 391 Nash, C., D. Pearce, and J. Stanley (1975) "Criteria forI Evaluating Project Evaluation Techniques," Journal of the American Instiltute of Planners, Vol. 41, March, 18-22. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (1975) Fisheries of the United States, 1974. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office. New Orleans East, Inc. (1975) Orlandia, the Newest New Orleans.I New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans East, Inc. Odom, H.T., B.J. Copeland, and E.A. McMahan (1974) Coastal Ecosystems of the United States: Vol. III. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation. Orleans Levee-Board (1972) Nature Changes from Moment toI Moment: A Report from the Orleans Levee Board. New Orleans, Louisiana: Orleans Levee Board.3 Perret, W.S. et al. (1971) Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuary Inventory and Study, Louisiana: Phase I and IV. New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. Pinkney, T. and K. Paterson (1976) "Environmental Concern as a factor in Coastal Zone Development: A Study ofI Louisiana Citizens," Coastal Zone Management Journal Vol. 2, Number 3, 297-310.1 Rettig, R. (1974) "Some Economic Aspects of Conflicts over Land Use in the Coastal Zone," Coastal Zone Management Journal, Volume 1, Number 3, 291-303.3 Robbins, J. and M. Hershman (1974) "Boundaries of the Coastal Zone: A Survey of State Laws," Coastal Zone Management Journal, Volume 1, Number 3, 305-332. St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission (1971) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: Parish of St. Bernard Louisiana. Chalmette, Louisiana: St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission. St. Tammany Parish Police Jury (1972) The Comprehensive Plan:I St. Tammany Parish. Covington, Louisiana: St. Tammany Parish Police Jury. Schumacher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. New York, New York: Harper and Row, Inc. 392 Segal, H. et al. (1976) Projections to the Year 2000 of Louisiana Populations and Households. New Orleans, Louisiana: Division of Business and Economic Research, College of Business Administration, University of New Orleans. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (1975a) The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans: How it Began, The Problems it Faces, The Way it Works, The Job it Does. New Orleans, Louisiana: Sewerage and Water Board. (1975b) Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans: 1975 Annual Report. New Orleans, Louisiana: Sewerage and Water Board. Sinden, C. (1976) Director, St. Tammany Parish Planning Department, Covington, Louisiana, personal interview, July 16. South Central Bell (1975) Greater New Orleans Phone Directory: Yellow Pages. New Orleans, Louisiana: South Central Bell. Terranova, D. (1976) Principal Planner, Jefferson Parish Planning Department, Metairie, Louisiana, personal interview, June 23. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973a) Final Environmental Statement: Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project. New Orleans, Louisiana: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1973b) Inventory of Basic Environmental Data: South Louisiana, Mermentau River to Chandeleur Sound. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Topographic Laboratories. (1975a) Inventory of Basic Environmental Data: New Orleans-Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Topographic Laboratories. (1975b) Water Resources Development in Louisiana. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division. U.S. Congress (1972) Public Law 92-583, Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1970a) Soil Survey of Portions of Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard Parishes - Louisiana. Alexandria, Louisiana: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 393 (1970b) General Soil Map: Orleans Parish Louisiana. Alexandria, Louisiana: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1971) General Soil Map: Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Alexandria, Louisiana: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Wagner, F. and E. Durabb (1976) "The Sinking City," Environ- ment, Volume 18, Number 4, 32-39. 394~~~~~~~