DOCSLIB.ORG

2008 Louisiana Recreational Fisherman and Health Advisory Survey Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2008 Louisiana Recreational Fisherman and Health Advisory Survey Report 2008 LOUISIANA RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN AND HEALTH ADVISORY SURVEY REPORT Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Award Number: 48629 By Ebenezer O. Ogunyinka David R. Lavergne Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Office of Management and Finance Socioeconomic Research and Development Section Baton Rouge, Louisiana June, 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to express our gratitude to those who have assisted us in the preparation of this report. Dr. Yeong Nain Chi’s work in gathering initial information for the survey is highly commended. A special thank you goes to Dr. Jack Isaacs who assisted not only in the preparation of the survey instruments but also in reviewing the preliminary draft of the survey report. His comments and suggestions have greatly contributed to the quality of the report. The contribution of Dr. Latika Bharadwaj, Michael Buckner, Herb Holloway, Vincent Hoang, Martin Bourgeois and Harry Blanchet are appreciated for their assistance during the preparation and mailing of the questionnaires. We also thank David Dousay and Bobbie Savant for their guidance and assistance with the database. The workers in the Enforcement Section of Louisiana Department of Wildlife of Fisheries also deserve our appreciation for allowing the use of their printer to print the survey instruments. Our appreciation also goes to the Fisheries Biologists, particularly Dr. Brian Alford and Mike Wood, who assisted in reviewing this report and provided valuable comments and suggestions. This study would not have been possible without the funding provided by the Department of Health and Hospitals and without the willingness of the survey participants who responded to our questionnaires. To all of you, we say thank you. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF BOXES ....................................................................................................................... xxiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 A. SYNOPSIS OF SURVEY FINDINGS ...........................................................................1 A.1: Demographic Information ..............................................................................1 A.2: Fishing Activities ............................................................................................1 A.3: Fish Consumption Pattern and Effects of Health Warnings ..........................2 B. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................3 C. SAMPLING AND SAMPLE DESIGNS ........................................................................5 1.0 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ON SURVEY RESPONDENTS ..................................10 1.1 GENDER .....................................................................................................................10 1.2 AGE .............................................................................................................................11 1.3 HOUSEHOLD SIZE ....................................................................................................11 1.4 PREGNANCY OR NURSING IN HOUSEHOLD .....................................................15 1.5 RACE / ETHNICITY ..................................................................................................16 1.6 LEVEL OF EDUCATION ..........................................................................................17 1.7 OCCUPATION ............................................................................................................19 1.8 LANGUAGES SPOKEN AT HOME .........................................................................19 1.9 HOUSEHOLD INCOME ............................................................................................22 2.0 BASIC FISHING INFORMATION ........................................................................................24 2.1 FISHING PARTICIPATION AND ACTIVITIES ......................................................24 ‐ i ‐ 2.2 FISHING EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................24 2.3 FISHING PERIODS ....................................................................................................26 2.4 REASONS FOR GOING FISHING ............................................................................27 2.5 PRIMARY FISHING METHOD ................................................................................28 3.0 FRESHWATER FISHING ACTIVITIES ...............................................................................29 3.1 FRESHWATER FISHING SPOTS .............................................................................29 3.2 DISTANCE TRAVELED TO FRESHWATER FISHING SPOTS ............................30 3.3 TRIPS TO FRESHWATER FISHING SPOTS ...........................................................32 3.4 FRESHWATER FISH SPECIES KEPT ......................................................................36 3.5 NON-FISH FRESHWATER SPECIES KEPT ............................................................38 4.0 SALTWATER FISHING ACTIVITIES..................................................................................40 4.1 SALTWATER FISHING SPOTS ...............................................................................40 4.2 DISTANCE TRAVELED TO SALTWATER FISHING SPOTS ..............................41 4.3 TRIPS TO SALTWATER FISHING SPOTS .............................................................42 4.4 SALTWATER FISH SPECIES KEPT ........................................................................47 4.5 NON-FISH SALTWATER SPECIES KEPT ..............................................................49 4.6 TOTAL NON-FISH SPECIES KEPT .........................................................................49 5.0 HEALTH / FISH CONSUMPTION BENEFITS AND ADVISORIES ..................................50 5.1 AWARENESS OF HEALTH BENEFITS OF FISH CONSUMPTION .....................50 5.2 SEAFOOD / FISH CONSUMPTION HABITS ..........................................................51 5.2.1 PERSONALLY CAUGHT SEAFOOD AND CONSUMPTION FREQUENCY ..............................................................................................53 5.2.2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF FISH CONSUMPTION PER MONTH .......................................................................................................53 ‐ ii ‐ 5.2.3 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS’ SELF-CAUGHT FISH ..................53 5.2.4 PERIODS OF FISH CONSUMPTION ........................................................56 5.3 AWARENESS ON HEALTH / FISH CONSUMPTION WARNINGS .....................57 5.3.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON HEALTH/FISH CONSUMPTION WARNINGS ................................................................................................57 5.3.2 HEALTH/FISH CONSUMPTION WARNINGS’ CONTENTS .................58 5.3.3 LAST TIME CONSUMPTION WARNINGS WERE SEEN, HEARD OR READ ABOUT ......................................................................................59 5.3.4 LEVEL OF DIFFICULTIES OF CONSUMPTION WARNINGS ..............60 5.4 RESPONSE TO HEALTH / FISH CONSUMPTION WARNINGS ..........................61 5.4.1 EFFECT ON FISHING ACTIVITIES ..........................................................61 5.4.2 EFFECT ON FISH CONSUMPTION HABITS ..........................................62 5.4.2.1 CHANGE IN FISH EATING HABITS ..........................................63 5.4.2.2 REASON FOR NOT CHANGING FISH EATING HABITS ........64 5.4.3 SUGGESTIONS ON INFORMATION DISSEMINATION METHODS ...65 5.5 TESTS / DIAGNOSIS OF MERCURY IN BLOOD ..................................................66 6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS BY RESPONDENTS .............................69 7.0 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY .......................................70 APPENDICES A - H .....................................................................................................................73 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE DESIGN TABLES ..............................................................................75 APPENDIX B: TABLES ON DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION .............................................79 APPENDIX C: BASIC FISHING INFORMATION TABLES ..................................................125 APPENDIX D: FRESHWATER FISHING TABLES ................................................................131 APPENDIX E: SALTWATER FISHING TABLES ...................................................................189 APPENDIX F: FISH CONSUMPTION TABLES ......................................................................231 APPENDIX G: TABLES ON HEALTH / FISH CONSUMPTION WARNINGS .....................247 APPENDIX H: SAMPLE OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................303 ‐ iii ‐ LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Geographical Areas ............................................................................................8 Figure 2: Survey Response Rates By Geographical Areas and Fishing License Categories..........9 Figure 3: Percentage of Survey Respondents By Gender and Fishing License Categories ..........10
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biogeography of the Blue Crab Fishery, Barataria Estuary, Louisiana. Eugene Jaworski Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1971 Biogeography of the Blue Crab Fishery, Barataria Estuary, Louisiana. Eugene Jaworski Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Jaworski, Eugene, "Biogeography of the Blue Crab Fishery, Barataria Estuary, Louisiana." (1971). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 1929. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/1929 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 71-20,601 JAWORSKI, Eugene, 1941- BIOGEOGRAPHY OF THE BLUE CRAB FISHERY, BARATARIA ESTUARY, LOUISIANA. The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1971 Ecology University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BIOGEOGRAPHY OF THE BLUE CRAB FISHERY, BARATARIA ESTUARY, LOUISIANA A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Geography and Anthropology by Eugene Jaworski B.S., University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1966 January, 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Sincere gratitude Is extended to Dr. William G. Mclntire, chairman of the dissertation committee, whose guidance and understanding made the project possible. Special thanks go to Dr. Jack R. Van Lopik, for arranging financial support through Louisiana State University's Sea Grant Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Delta Basinn
    2009 MMiissssiissssiippppii RRiivveerr DDeellttaa BBaassiinn Characterization Report Louisiana State Reservoir Priority and Development Program BASIN CHARACTERIZATION REPORT FOR THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTA BASIN The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is responsible for reviewing and prioritizing proposed reservoir projects for which State of Louisiana (State) funding is being sought, and then recommending projects to the State Legislature. To support reservoir project review, prioritization, and recommendation efforts, DOTD has prepared characterization reports of water resources conditions in each of the nine principal surface water Report Topics Page basins in the State. These characterization reports provide an overview of water uses, Basin Overview ...................................2 needs, and concerns, and can be used by applicants for State funding, and by State Land Use and Legal Entities ...................4 agencies as they evaluate the applications. The basin characterization reports also Physiographic and Climatic contain extensive references that interested parties can use to find more information Information ........................................5 from Federal, State, and local agencies or other sources. The reports represent a Water Use .........................................6 “snapshot” of conditions in early 2009 (or when the references cited in the reports Surface Water ....................................9 were published). Groundwater ....................................13 Flooding ..........................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Final Determination of the U.S
    FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS CONCERNING THE BAYOU AUX CARPES SITE IN JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA PURSUANT TO SECTION 404(C) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 11. Background and History 3 A. The project B. Litigation C. 404(c) proceedings 111. Description of the Site 9 IV. Ecological Values Associated With Site 11 A. Contribution to Barataria Bay Estuary B. Fishery values C. Wildlife values D. Water Retention and Pol 1ution Fi1 teri ng Values E . Recreat ion Val ues F . Concl usion V. Unacceptable Adverse Impacts 15 A. Impacts to Shell fish Beds & Fishery Areas B. Impacts to Wildlife Values C. Impacts to Water Retention & Pollution Filtering Values 0. Impacts to Recreation E. Impacts to the Barataria Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park F. Cumulative Impacts VI. A Discussion of the Report Prepared by Steimle and Associates, 2 0 Inc. on Behalf of the Property Owners VII. Restriction on the Use of the Bayou Aux Carpes Site for - Specification as a Disposal Site I. Introduction Under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq), the Administrator of the Environme~tal Protectior! Agency (EPA) is authFized to prohibit the specification (including withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a disposal site, and he is authorized to deny or restrict the use of any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of speci- fication) as a disposal site, whenever he determines, after notice and oppor- tunity for publ ic hearing, that the discharge of dredged or fill materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breediny areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeological Assessment: Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical
    1 D-3'1 ·. > "-'' • ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BARA T ARIA UNIT 1..JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK By John Stuart Speaker, Joanna Chase, Carol Poplin, Herschel Franks, and R. Christopher Goodwin Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 10 e I ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE BARATARIA UNIT, JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK By John Stuart Speaker, Joanna Chase, Carol Poplin, Herschel Franks, and R. Christopher Goodwin Contract No. PX 7530-5-0100 December 12, 1986 Submitted to: southwest Region National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior P.O. Box 728 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 Submitted by: R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 1306 Burdette St. New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 ABSTRACT This archeological assessment provides an overview of the natural and cultural environment, past and present, within the Barataria unit; it represents a synthesis of the results of previous investigations of the area. The archeological record of the study area is incomplete at present. Al though there have been several cultural resource investigations conducted pr imar i 1 y wi t!}.in the core area, few have offered data necessary to fill the gaps existing in the prehistoric record. It is imperative that existing sites and data be protected from adverse effects; otherwise the research potential that exists in this rich cultural and environmental setting may never be realized. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report presents the results of a literature review and archeological assessment of the Barataria Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park (JLNHP). During this effort, numerous environmental, archeological, and historical sources were utilized. The report identifies and discusses relevant data pert a in ing to the geomorphology, hydrology, ecology, and resource potential for the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Census Tracts in Jefferson Parish, La
    CENSUS TRACTS IN JEFFERSON PARISH, LA Lacombe Bayou du Chien Black Lake Bayou Bonfouca Slidell ) r d Pearlington D R 190 n s i l a i r a t r r a T c h LIVINGSTON ont h P s i n a HANCOCK Blind River p Eden Isle S Lake Maurepas ( Blind River ST. TAMMANY 3 3 4 e t R t S Little Lagoon 90 StRte 433 Double Bayou Lagoon Ruddock Canal 205.02 203.02 55 202.03 11 202.01 Irish Bayou Lagoon Sand Bayou Lake Pontchartrain O l dU S 201.01 H w Lake St Catherine y ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST 5 1 Big Deedie Lake Intracoastal Waterway 205.10 203.01 Lake Pontchartrain Cswy 10 55 51 51 y Garyville w Lake H w Pontchartrain e Blind Lagoon N 4 61 New Orleans Reserve te 4 tR St) Laplace S th ORLEANS (5 S t Rte 636−3 R Lagoon No 13 St Lake Pontchartrain Cswy (2nd St) te Lagoon 6 Airline Hwy StR 28 205.14 d) Maxent S te 4 L lv tR 4 o B t w ne e e ay Lake No 2 4 r G Bayou Piquant (H 4 u 7 Bayou la id 4 Bayou Michoud 8 Ca te e n N Lake tR Lake Barrington 1 7 Branche L o S 1 ev 7 Trail Dr 201.02 e 2 e t 3 e Lake No 1 Lagoon Lake Borgne R StHwy R t d 205.11 510 No 2 S Wallace Vin Lake Pontchartrain Cswy Lake No 3 Edgard ) 205.08 ta Lake Willow Elmwood Lagoon No 2 d 10 g e d Metairie Lake Kenilnorth D C ) r v 8 Big Lagoon R l Lagoon No 12 d a 2 C Walker Canal Dun B n StRte 640 205.12 K R 6 Homestead s C 205.13 Ave N Arnoult e r ( e Can No 10 Ave Duncan Canal m n S e 204 t 8 Bayou la Branche Bayou Traverse c Rd a t v 2 a i u R i l l n C b t 6 i an No R u W Esplanade Ave S C Can No 2 e ( Power y False Mouth Bayou W 2 r w t 205.07 Clifford Dr H a Blvd b ur e Paris Rd R a t 205.09
    [Show full text]
  • Shedding Light on Our Estuary & Our Economy
    Shedding Light on Our Estuary & Our Economy Environmental Indicators in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary System 2010 1 Courtesy of Guy Fanguy Friends: The Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program’s first environmental indicators report, Healthy Estuary, Healthy Economy, Healthy Communities... Environmental Indicators in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary System: 2002, provided a valuable overview of the environmental health of the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary System (BTES), and remains one of the Program’s most popular products. It is therefore a great pleasure for me to introduce an update to this report. The general format remains the same. A series of ten focus questions that residents of the BTES commonly have posed to the BTNEP Partnership is used to organize the environmental indicators presented in this report. The indicators under each focus question represent some of the BTES’ vital signs. They tell us how our estuary is doing and establish an associational link to how the BTNEP Partnership’s restoration efforts are working. The devastation brought to the BTES—our home—by the 2005 and 2008 hurricane seasons only emphasizes how important the health of our estuary is to the safety and sustainability of our communities. Post-storm analysis has shown that intact, healthy wetlands can protect homes and businesses from hurricane surge much better than degraded wetlands. The horrific experience of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita highlights the real tragedy for BTES residents and for the nation: the fact that this region is being lost to the Gulf of Mexico at an extraordinary rate. Our land loss problem will only make our communities, businesses, and entire infrastructure increasingly vulnerable to future hurricanes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bayou Segnette Waterway Dredged Material Placement Study Preliminary Assessment Summary of Findings and Recommendations
    ERDC/EL TR-13-3 ERDC/EL TR-13-3 Bayou Segnette Waterway Dredged Material Placement Study Preliminary Assessment Summary of Findings and Recommendations Glenn M. Suir, Candice D. Piercy, and James B. Johnston March 2013 Environmental Laboratory Environmental Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) solves the nation’s toughest engineering and environmental challenges. ERDC develops innovative solutions in civil and military engineering, geospatial sciences, water resources, and environmental sciences for the Army, the Department of Defense, civilian agencies, and our nation’s public good. Find out more at www.erdc.usace.army.mil. To search for other technical reports published by ERDC, visit the ERDC online library at http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default. ERDC/EL TR-13-3 March 2013 Bayou Segnette Waterway Dredged Material Placement Study Preliminary Assessment Summary of Findings and Recommendations Glenn M. Suir and James B. Johnston Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Wetlands and Environmental Technologies Research Facility Louisiana State University - Wetland Resources Building Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Candice D. Piercy Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180 Final report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ERDC/EL TR-13-3 ii Abstract The Bayou Segnette Waterway (BSWW) has a history of shallowness due to shoaling and consequently requires periodic dredging to maintain its navigability. However, traditional dredged material placement sites along the BSWW are either at or near capacity. Therefore, this study set out to identify viable options for future maintenance dredging and recommend innovative methods of transport and placement of material dredged from the BSWW.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
    Prepared in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Water Resources of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Introduction 7.16 Mgal/d from groundwater sources1 (table 1). Power generation accounted for about 91 percent of the total water This fact sheet presents a brief overview of groundwater withdrawn. Other water-use categories included public supply, and surface-water resources in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana industrial, rural domestic, livestock, and general irrigation (table (fig. 1). Information on the availability, use, and quality of 2). Water-use data collected at 5-year intervals from 1960 to water from groundwater and surface-water sources in the parish 2010 (fig. 2) indicated that water withdrawals peaked at about is discussed. Previously published reports (see References 1,600 Mgal/d during 1975 and 1980 in Jefferson Parish. The Cited section) and data stored in the U.S. Geological Survey’s large increase in surface-water withdrawals from 1970 to 1975 is National Water Information System (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ primarily attributable to withdrawals for power generation. nwis) are the primary sources of this information. In 2010, about 817 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of 1Tabulation of withdrawals in the text and tables may produce different totals water were withdrawn in Jefferson Parish, approximately because of rounding; nonrounded numbers are used for calculation of total 810 Mgal/d from surface-water sources and approximately withdrawals. 90°10' 90°00' 89°50' 90°10' 90°00' Lake Pontchartrain 30°10' Area enlarged 10 30°05' PARISH PARISH PARISH Lake PARISH Jf-178 ORLEANS JEFFERSON PontchartrainPontchartrain JEFFERSON 47 A ORLEANS 90 Jf-178 A PARISH Jf-186 Intracoastal Waterway Metairie Intracoastal Waterway 30°00' Kenner 610 Jf-186 510 30°00' 610 MMissis ississip Jf-156 isissisip M pi New Orleans Jf-156 ppi ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Suitability/Feasibility Study: Jean Lafitte National Cultural Park
    suitability/feasibility study UA^ i NATIONAL CULTURAL PARK • LOUISIANA This report was prepared pursuant to authorization in the fiscal year 1973 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 92-369 of August 10, 1972), with the further guidance of House Report 92-1119 on that bill and Assistant Secretary Reed's letter of October 12, 1972, to the late Congressman Hale Boggs. Publication of the findings and recommendations herein should not be construed as representing either the approval or disapproval of the Secretary of the Interior. The purpose of this report is to provide information and alternatives for further consideration by the public, the National Park Service, the Secretary of the Interior, and other Federal agencies. PROPOSED JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL CULTURAL PARK* LOUISIANA This is a feasibility study: It locates and describes resources for potential inclusion in a prospective new unit of the National Park System, determining their national significance and suitability for visitor use. It also identifies and evaluates alternative courses of action for protection, development, and public use (including management category — natural, recreational, historical, or cultural); recommends one; and, if the recommendation is accepted, suggests that a master plan be prepared. CONCLUSIONS 4 SYNOPSIS 7 BACKGROUND 9 History of the Proposal 9 10 Parish Boundaries Map The Study Area 11 The Regional Context 12 16 Resource Map PARK RESOURCES 17 Natural Resources 17 Recreational Resources 21 Archeological Resources 23 Cultural and Historic Resources 26 52 Bayou and River Boat Trip Route Map Summary Evaluation of the Jean :te Marsh as a Park Site 55 ALTERNATIVES 58 Alternative 1 58 Alternative 2 59 Alternative 3 60 Alternative 4 62 66 Boundary Map 67 Development Concept Map RECOMMENDATION 69 Alternative 1 69 Alternative 2 69 Alternative 3 69 Alternative 4 69 70 Barataria Marsh Map EVALUATION 71 APPENDIXES 75 Sf 'rf "M//7/ aren'f f/?ere any national parks here — here where all these people come? Guess it's because we don't have any mountains or canyons or geysers.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
    Prepared in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Water Resources of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Introduction about 2,471 Mgal/d from surface-water sources and about 4.24 Mgal/d from groundwater sources1 (table 1). Withdrawals Information concerning the availability, use, and quality for power generation accounted for about 79 percent of the total of water in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana (fig. 1), is critical for water withdrawn (table 2). Other use categories included public proper water-supply management. The purpose of this fact sheet supply, industrial, rural domestic, and livestock. Water-use data is to present information that can be used by water managers, collected at 5-year intervals from 1960 to 2010 indicated that total parish residents, and others for stewardship of this vital resource. water withdrawals in the parish generally increased from 1960 to Information on the availability, past and current use, use trends, and water quality from groundwater and surface-water sources 2005 but decreased by about 20 percent from 2005 to 2010 (fig. in the parish is presented. Previously published reports (see 2). Most of the decrease resulted from reduced surface-water References Cited section) and data stored in the U.S. Geological withdrawals for industrial uses (U.S. Geological Survey, 2014a). Survey’s National Water Information System (http://waterdata. 1 usgs.gov/nwis) are the primary sources of the information Water-withdrawal data are based on reported site-specific and aggregated data, which are distributed to sources. For a full description of water-use presented here. estimate methodology, see “Data Collection” in Sargent (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Barataria Basin
    LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE & FISHERIES OFFICE OF FISHERIES INLAND FISHERIES SECTION PART VI -A WATERBODY MANAGEMENT PLAN SERIES BARATARIA BASIN LAKE HISTORY & MANAGEMENT ISSUES 1 CHRONOLOGY April 2014 - Prepared by Tim Ruth, Biologist Manager, District 8 Gary Vitrano, Biologist Manager, District 8 August 2015 – Update by Gary Vitrano, Biologist Manager, District 8 August 2017 – Update by Gary Vitrano, Biologist Manager, District 8 Matthew Duplessis, Biologist Supervisor, District 8 December 2019 – Update by Gary Vitrano, Biologist Manager, District 8 Matthew Duplessis, Biologist Supervisor, District 8 Jonathan Winslow, Biologist 3, District 8 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS WATERBODY HISTORY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 GENERAL INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Major Waterbodies: ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Parishes Located: ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 AUTHORITY ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Phytoplankton Growth: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Or Grazers?
    Control of Phytoplankton Growth: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, or Grazers? •David Wong1, Nancy N Rabalais2,3, R. Eugene Turner3, Ling Ren4 •1.Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection •2.Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium •3.Louisiana State University •4.George Mason University Primary production (P): P Growth t Mortality Advectionx, y,z Diffusionx, y,z Sinking •Frost 1991 Phytoplankton Growth Control in Lakes • Bottom-up Control: Nutrient Limitation on Phytoplankton Growth • Top-down Control: Microzooplankton, mesozooplankton, and Bivalves Upper •New Orleans Barataria Basin •Davis Pond Diversion •Lac des Allemands •Lake •Cataouatche •Lake Salvador Phytoplankton Growth Control • Bottom-up Control: Nutrient Limitation on Phytoplankton Growth • Top-down Control: Microzooplankton, mesozooplankton, and Bivalves Experimental Lakes • Lac des Allemands • Lake Salvador • Lake Cataouatche •Wong et al. 2016 The physical conditions during the experiments: ambient lake salinity and Secchi disk depth, experiment duration •Ren et al. 2009 Nutrient Limitation Experiments • +N • +P, • +Si • +N+P • +N+Si • +P+Si • +N+P+Si • Control Nutrient Limitation Experiments • Nitrite+Nitrate • Phosphate • Ammonium • Silicate • Chl a • Phytoplankton Identification • Phytoplankton Enumeration • Suspended Particulate Matter • Samples taken at Time 0h, 6h, 12h, • Temp and 24h, • Solar Radiation • Every 24h after the first day and ended when Chl a started to • Light Intensity decrease The initial concentration of chlorophyll a (Chla), SPM, nutrients in lake
    [Show full text]