ISSN 00978078, Water Resources, 2010, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 595–610. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2010.

Original Russian Text © V.N. Mikhailov, M.V. Mikhailova, 2010, published in Vodnye Resursy, 2010, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 515–530.

WATER RESOURCES AND THE REGIME

OF WATER BODIES

Delta Formation Processes at the Mississippi River Mouth

V.N. Mikhailova and M.V. Mikhailovab
a
Moscow State University, Leninskie gory, Moscow GSP1, 119991 Russia
b
Water Problems Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Gubkina 3, Moscow, 119333 Russia
Received November 26, 2009

Abstract—Specific processes of delta formation at the Mississippi River mouth are discussed. In the last
7000–8000 years, a series of large deltaic lobes was formed in succession at the Mississippi River mouth under
the condition of high river sediment runoff and stabilization of the ocean level after its sudden postglacial rise.
In the midXX century, the formation of a new deltaic lobe began at the Atchafalaya Branch mouth. Over the
last centuries, the processes of delta formation at the Mississippi River mouth slowed down as a result of the
river sediment runoff decrease after flow regulation of the Missouri and Arkansas tributaries; in some parts of
the deltaic plain, these processes gave way to degradation of marshes and seashore erosion under the impact
of intense land subsidence. The current processes of delta formation are under the great influence of local
economic activities.

Keywords: river, sea bay, delta, water and sediment runoff, delta formation, tides, hurricanes and
storm surges, land subsidence, degradation of marshes, coastal erosion.
DOI: 10.1134/S0097807810050015

INTRODUCTION dikes, urbanization of the delta, pumping out of oil

The Mississippi River delta is one of the most
extensively studied deltas of the world. The Coastal
Studies Institute, Lousiana State University, in Baton
Rouge dedicated many decades to the studies of this
delta. The efforts of geologists, geomorphologists,
hydrologists, ecologists, and representatives of other
specialities were aimed at studying the delta geological
history, the stratigraphy of deltaic deposits, the devel
opment of delta drainage system during the Holocene
epoch, the morphological structure and hydrological
regime of the modern delta, the processes of land sub
sidence in the delta and degradation of wetlands, the
environmental conditions of marshes, etc. In the sec
ond half of the XX century, the interest in studies of
delta formation processes at the Mississippi River
mouth became more intriguing for the following rea
sons: first, the river sediment runoff decrease as a
result of flow regulation of the Missouri and Arkansas
tributaries had a distinct impact on the delta processes;
second, the relative sea level rise was speeded up by the
eustatic ocean level growth caused by the climate
warming and intense land subsidence in the delta;
third, the processes related to the degradation of wet
lands, which are of great economic and environmental
value, became more intense; fourth, the beginning of
a new cycle in the development of the Mississippi del
taic plain was revealed, this development was caused
by the activation of the west delta branch of Atchafa
laya; fifth, the impact of local economic activities
(construction of different canals, manmade regula
tion of flow at the delta head, construction of defense
and gas, etc.) on the delta structure and regime.
The analysis of experience and results of studies of
hydrological and morphological processes in the Mis
sissippi River delta may be of great interest in the
course of further development of the theory of mouth
and delta formation processes. This analysis is useful
for specialists engaged in studying the river deltas of
Russia and working out the measures on use and pro
tection of their natural resources; the more so that the
information on the processes in the modern delta of
the Mississippi River is scanty in our literature, except
for some data presented in [2, 4]. The purpose of this
article is to give an analytical review of the results of
the American studies of the Mississippi River delta
HYDROGRAPHY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER DELTA
One of the largest deltas of the world is at the mouth
of the Mississippi River, the greatest river of North
America (the river basin area is 3238000 km2, the
length of the Mississippi River proper is 3766 km and
together with the Missouri River it amounts to
5970 km [23]). The Mississippi River delta is located
in the state of Louisiana, USA. According to the
recent American assessments [8], the delta area is
23900 km2.
Currently, the head of the Mississippi River delta
and the entire vast deltaic plain of this river (Fig. 1) are
located at the point of separation of the short (about

595
596 MIKHAILOV, MIKHAILOVA

1
2

4 DH

3
5 30

12 10 27
9
3
31 24 26
11 15 29
13
14
16 17
25
18
28 19

Gulf of Mexico 23
20 21 8
22 1
0 30 km
6 7

Fig. 1. Schematic map of the Mississippi River mouth area. Rivers: (1) Mississippi River; (2) Red River; delta watercourses:
(3) Mississippi Branch, (4) Old River Bypass, (5) Atchafalaya Branch, (6) Southwest Pass, (7) South Pass, (8) Pass a Loutre; lakes:
(9) Lake Pontchartrain, (10) Lake Maurepas, (11) Grand Lake, old channels (bayou): (12) Bayou Teche, (13) Bayou Cypremort,
(14) Bayou Sale, (15) Bayou Lafourche; bays: (16) Vermilion Bay, (17) West Cote Blanche Bay, (18) East Cote Blanche Bay,
(19) Atchafalaya Bay, (20) Caillou Bay, (21) Terrabonne Bay, (22) Tembalier Bay, (23) Barataria Bay, (24) Lake Borgne, (25) Bre
ton Sound, (26) Chandeleur Sound, (27) Mississippi Bay; islands: (28) Marsh Island, (29) Chandeleur Islands; towns: (30) Baton
Rouge, (31) New Orleans. DH is delta head. (1) is delta boundary

10 km long) Old River Bypass from the river upstream
of the town of Baton Rouge.
The present channel network of the delta consists
of two main branches: the left main Mississippi
Branch (a continuation of the river within the delta)
and the right branch, including the Old River Bypass
and the Atchafalaya Branch (Fig.1). The Mississippi
Branch about 515 km long [31] empties into the open,
very deep part of the Gulf of Mexico, thus forming a
number of large branches and small watercourses
within the boundaries of the Balize delta of “bird foot”
type. Each large branch here has its tribal name of
pass, which means a fairway, a navigable channel. The
main maritime branches (from west to east) are the
Southwest Pass, the South Pass, and the Pass a Loutre.
The area, where these passes leave the main channel of
the Mississippi Branch, is called the Head of Passes; it
is located 35 km from the gulf when counting along the
longest Southwest Pass. Small watercourses run away
from the Pass a Loutre: the North Pass runs to the left
and the Southeast Pass runs to the right. The parame
ters of watercourses in the Balize delta are different:
the width varies from several meters to 1km and the
depth varies from 1m to 30 m. The natural depth at
mouth bars of passes is usually less than 3 m.
The total length of the delta right branch (the Old
River Bypass and the Atchafalaya Branch) is about
220 km, the Atchafalaya branch accounting for
210 km. This branch begins from the confluence of the
Old River Bypass and the Red River (the basin area is
241000 km2, the length is 2080 km). The Atchafalaya
Branch runs through a system of lakes, of which the
main lakes are Grand Lake and Six Mile Lake. Down
stream of these lakes, the Atchafalaya Branch bifur
cates and forms two new watercourses: the larger, left
Lower Atchafalaya Branch and the smaller, right
branch running though the manmade Wax Lake and
having the name of Wax Lake Outlet. This watercourse

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010

 DELTA FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER MOUTH
represents a manmade canal meant to discharge
excess water from the Atchafalaya Branch system and
to protect Morgan City from inundation. Both water
courses empty into the Atchafalaya Bay, where two
small bayhead deltas are intensely developing now.
In addition to the existing deltaic branches, the
remains of ancient channels (the main branches of
large deltaic lobes formed in the past) are observed on
the deltaic plain surface. At present, these ancient
channels look like small, very sluggish watercourses,
often overgrown. They were transformed in places into
small canals for water supply to the delta. These
ancient channels are called here bayou. They are
mainly located in the western part of the deltaic plain
(Fig. 1): Sale, Teche, Cypremort, and Lafourche
(their names coincide with the names of correspond
ing ancient deltaic lobes).
There are many lakes in the deltaic Mississippi
plain (Fig. 1). Some of them represent residual water
bodies, i.e., elements of the estuary bay formed during
the intense Holocene transgression of the ocean. The
largest lakes are Lake Maurepas and Lake Pontchar
train located east of the Mississippi Branch, Lake Sal
vador located west of this branch, and Grand Lake,
through which the Atchafalaya Branch runs.
Vast areas called wetlands or marshes make up an
important part of the drainage system of the Missis
sippi River delta.
The following main sea bays are located along the
delta coastline of the Mississippi River from the west to
the east (Fig. 1): Vermilion Bay, West Cote Blanche
Bay, East Cote Blanche Bay, Atchafalaya Bay, Caillou
Bay, Terrabonne Bay, Tembalier Bay, Barataria Bay,
West Bay and East Bay (at the coasts of the modern
Balize delta), Breton Sound and Chandeleur Sound
(separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a system of bar
rier islands of the same name), Lake Borgne and Mis
sissippi Bay.
Apart from natural water objects, the Mississippi
River delta has many manmade watercourses,
including navigable, irrigation, and drainage canals.
There is a reach of the wellknown navigable Intrac
oastal waterway among them; it connects coastal ports
of the open part of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico. Lying within the boundaries of the deltaic
plain, this waterway runs from the Mississippi branch
near New Orleans to Morgan City located at the
Atchafalaya Branch and then goes on to Houston in
the state of Texas. To the east of the Mississippi
Branch, the Intercoastal waterway goes from New
Orleans to Mobil and then in the direction of the
Atlantic coasts of the United States.
Manmade components of the drainage system of
the Mississippi River delta may also include the regu
lation hydraulic structure in the Old River Bypass,
numerous defense dikes along branches (particularly,
in the lower reaches of the Mississippi Branch) and
coasts of some lakes, as well as a deep navigable canal
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010
597
through the Southwest Pass, and its mouth bar. This
canal permits heavytonnage sea ships to reach the
towns of New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
The width of the Mississippi mouth shelf, which is
bounded from the south by the isobath of about 120 m,
approximates 160 km from the west to the east of the
modern Balize delta (mean bottom slopes in this stripe
being i ~ 0.75‰). The bottom slopes are less and
amount to 0.3–0.4‰ within the shallowwater coastal
zone of the shelf (0–20 m), this zone is 50–75 km
wide. The continental slope (i > 15‰) begins outside
of the isobath of about 120 m.
The modern delta of the Mississippi River, i.e., the
Balize delta, is located near the shelf edge and is prac
tically progradated onto the continental slope. The
bottom slopes of the nearshore zone of this delta are
considerable (more than >20‰). According to [2],
the nearshore zone facing the modern Balize delta
may be considered to be very deep (i > 1‰); as for the
rest part of the delta, it may be considered moderately
deep (i varies from 0.1 to 1‰).
FACTORS OF DELTA FORMATION
AT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER MOUTH
Specific Features of Delta Formation at the Mississippi
River Mouth
The Mississippi River delta formation and evolu
tion of all the deltas of the world are under the impact
of a complex of natural and humaninduced factors.
The greatest impact on deltas is exerted by the river
water runoff and sediment runoff and their natural and
humaninduced variations, the rise or fall of the mean
level in a receiving water body as well as tides, surges,
sea waves, water management activities within a delta
[2].
Up to the midXX century, the Holocene delta of
the Mississippi River mainly formed under the impact
of fluvial factors. According to the classification of
deltas [17], the Mississippi River mouth was qualified
as a water object with distinct predomination of the
fluvial impact (river sediment runoff) with a certain
influence of sea waves and nearly total absence of tide
influence.
The high runoff of the Mississippi River predeter
mined the rapid delta switching (with breaks in the
channel and successive formation of deltaic lobes)
over the last 7000–8000 years. The formation of a
series of overlapping (formed on the surface of the old
delta) and adjacent (formed at the periphery of the old
delta) distinct deltas is typical of the mouths of rivers
having high sediment runoff at the sediment concen
tration exceeding 0.8 kg/m3 [2, 4] (the rivers of Hua
nghe, Amudarya, Terek, Ili, and others). Not long ago,
the Mississippi River mouth could be also referred to
this type of mouths.
In the second half of the XX century, the correla
tion between the influence of fluvial and marine fac
598 MIKHAILOV, MIKHAILOVA

Table 1. Distribution of the Mississippi River water flow within a year (at the Vicksburg gauging station) over the period of
1928–1983 [20]
Character
Jan. Feb. Mar Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Year
istics
Qmean, m3/s 16900 20040 23830 27380 24200 18570 14210 9630 7840 7810 9080 12340 15980
Qmean, % 8.8 10.5 12.4 14.3 12.6 9.7 7.4 5.0 4.1 4.1 4.7 6.4 100.0
3
Qmax, m /s 35900 55000 42300 52300 52400 43100 35800 24000 17100 15600 23100 32600 27810
Qmin, m3/s 4250 3680 3410 11500 9650 6110 5610 4040 3600 2890 3730 3660 8870

tors substantially changed. The construction of large
dams and reservoirs in the Mississippi River delta has
resulted in a noticeable decrease in the river sediment
runoff. At the same time, the impact of the eustatic
ocean level rise and, more important, the impact of
natural and humaninduced subsidence of deltaic
deposits on the delta increased. As a consequence, the
progradation of the active part of the delta into the
Gulf of Mexico slowed down, while the degradation of
deltaic lands in the rest part of the delta became more
intense. The Mississippi River delta gradually loses its
status of a delta having the dominant fluvial impact.
River Water and Sediment Runoff
Water runoff. The information on the value of the
Mississippi River water runoff available in literature is
rather contradictory. The publications offer the fol
lowing values: 15360 m3/s (485 km3/year) [9],
515 km3/year [29], 530 km3/year [24], 17740 m3/s
(560 km3/year) [8], and 610 km3/year [13]. In the
opinion of the authors of this article, the difference in
values was caused by the fact that the river water runoff
was recorded at different cross sections and calculated
for different periods of time.
According to the recent and complete data of the
United States Geological Survey [23], the mean water
discharge of the Mississippi River at the delta head is
16790 m3/s (530 km3/year). The system of the Red
River and the Atchafalaya Branch receives 4730 m3/s
(149 km3/year) of water from the Mississippi River
through the Old River Bypass. In this way, 530 – 149 =
381 km3/year of water enter the Mississippi Branch
downstream of the delta head.
According to [23], the mean water discharge of the
Red River at the head of the Atchafalaya branch (i.e.,
at the confluence of the Old River Bypass and the Red
River) is 1590 m3/s (50.2 km3/year). The water runoff
of the Atchafalaya Branch at its head is 50.2 + 149 =
199.2 km3/year. According to [23], the water discharge
in the lower reaches of the Atchafalaya Branch is a lit
tle higher (201 km3/year).
Thus, the total water runoff of the Mississippi
River, which enters the Gulf of Mexico, is 381 + 201 =
582 km3/year (18430 m3/s) [23]. This calculation
takes into account the Red River runoff and a certain
change in the runoff along the Atchafalaya Branch;
however, it does not take into account possible trans
formation of the water runoff along the Mississippi
Branch, which is rather long but is still poorly studied
because of the lack of data. The following data charac
terize the runoff value and its share in two main delta
branches: 381 km3/year (65.5%) for the Mississippi
Branch and 201 km3/year (34.5%) for the Atchafalaya
Branch (with regard to the runoff of the Old River
Bypass and Red River).
According to [23], the tributaries of Ohio
(7957 m3/s, 251 km3/year, or 43%), Missouri
(2158 m3/s, 68.1 km3/year, or 11.7%), Red River
(1590 m3/s, 50.2 km3/year, or 8.6%), Arkansas
(1161 m3/s, 36.6 km3/year, or 6.3%), and Illinois
(800 m3/s, 25.2 km3/year, or 4.3%) make the greatest
contribution to the mean water runoff of the Missis
sippi River (18430 m3/s, 582 km3/year).
Longterm and seasonal variations of the Missis
sippi River water runoff in the lower reaches of the
river can be judged from the results of measurements at
the gauging station of Vicksburg (about 750 km from
the gulf, the basin area is 2964000 km2, 91.5% of the
total area of the river basin). Over the period of
1928⎯1983 [20], the mean water discharge here was
15980 m3/s (504 km3/year), no trend in variations of
mean annual discharges was revealed. The most water
abundant years of that period were the years of
1973 (27810 m3/s), 1950 (24790 m3/s), and 1945
(23040 m3/s), while the most waterdeficient years
were the years of 1931 (8866 m3/s), 1934 (8870 m3/s),
and 1954 (9259 m3/s).
High water (spring flood from February to June,
five months) and low water (low flow from July to Jan
uary, seven months) periods, which account for 59.5
and 40.5% of the annual water runoff, respectively, are
clearly defined in the seasonal variations of the Missis
sippi River water runoff (Table 1). The most water
abundant months are April (14.3% of the annual run
off), May (12.6%), and March (12.4%); the most
water deficient months are September and October
(4.1% of the annual runoff in each). The maximum
mean monthly water discharges may reach 52000–
55000 m3/s in February, April, and May. The mini
mum mean monthly water discharges are observed in
October (about 2900 m3/s).
After World War II, a series of large dams and reser
voirs was constructed at the tributaries of Missouri (in

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010

 DELTA FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER MOUTH
Table 2. Suspended sediment runoff, million t/year, in the Mississippi River basin before the construction of reservoirs on
the rivers of Missouri (in 1953–1967) and Arkansas (in 1963–1970) and regulation structure in the Old River Bypass (in
1963) and after these measures (1970–1978) according to [21]
Watercourse Measurement site
Missouri R Hermann
Mississippi R. St. Louis
Arkansas R. Little Rock
Mississippi R. Arkansas City
Mississippi R. Vicksburg
Mississippi R. Delta head, upstream of branching of the Old River Bypass
Old River Bypass Sourse
Red River Alexandria
Mississippi Branch Downstream of delta head, Tarbert Landing
Atchafalaya Branch Simmesport
1953–1967) and Arkansas (in 1963–1970) with a view
to control floods, generate electric power, irrigate
lands, and improve navigation conditions. The largest
hydraulic structures were constructed at the Missouri
River: the Fort Peck Dam reservoir (filled in 1939, the
full storage capacity is 23.9 km3, the area is 980 km2)
[1], Lake Sakakawea and the Garrison Dam (1954,
29.4 km3, 1240 km2), the Oahe Dam (1963, 29 km3,
1505 km2) [1], Lake Sharp and the Big Bend Dam
(1966, 2.2 km3, 230 km2), Lake Francis Case and the
Fort Randall Dam (1956, 7 km3, 413 km2), and Lewis
and Clark Lake with the Gavins Point Dam (1957,
0.56 km3, 130 km2).
Because the water runoff of the tributaries of Mis
souri and Arkansas accounts for 11.7 and 6.3% of the
water runoff of the entire river, respectively, the con
struction of the reservoirs mentioned above did not
have a noticeable effect on the mean longterm runoff
at the river mouth and on the flow redistribution
within a year.
Sediment runoff. The available data on the Missis
sippi River sediment runoff are even more contradic
tory than the water runoff data. The publications offer
the values varying from 210000000 [24] and
240000000 [8] t/year to 610000000 [9] t/year. The
reasons for such difference are the following: firstly, as
in the case with the water runoff, the places of the sed
iment runoff recording are often unknown; secondly,
the Mississippi River sediment runoff considerably
decreased after the construction of reservoirs at the
tributaries of Missouri and Arkansas. The input of
these tributaries into the total sediment runoff of the
river is incomparably greater than the water runoff
input (according to [21], the sediment runoff in these
tributaries under natural conditions was no less than
90% of the Mississippi River sediment runoff). There
fore, the humaninduced decrease in the sediment
runoff in the tributaries drastically affected the sedi
ment runoff variation throughout the river length.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010
599
Before 1953 1970–1978
318.8 86.4
319.9 109.9
92.8 11.4
420 168.6
470 225.3
394 217
95.0 56.0
37.6 35.1
299.0 161.0
135.1 93.9
As follows from the data [24], the flow regulation of the
Missouri and Arkansas tributaries resulted in a decrease in
suspended sediment runoff at the Mississippi River mouth
by more than one half. At the end of the XIX century, the
river carried about 500000000 t/year of suspended sedi
ments at its mouth; in the first half of the XX century, it car
ried about 400000000 t/year; in 1900, the suspended sedi
ment runoff was as low as 210000000 t/year [24].
According to [24], before 1953, the Mississippi
and Atchafalaya branches carried together
394 000 000 t/year of suspended sediments into the
Gulf of Mexico; after 1963, this value decreased to
231300000 t/year. More reliable information on the
radical decrease in suspended sediment runoff at the
mouth of the Mississippi River in the second half of
the XX century is given in [21] (Table 2). The data in
Table 2 show that, before the flow regulation in the
Missouri and Arkansas tributaries, suspended sedi
ment runoff at the Mississippi River mouth approxi
mated 400000000 t/year but, after the flow regulation,
it dropped to 217000000 t/year. This was mainly
caused by a decrease in sediment runoff in the Mis
souri and Arkansas tributaries 3.7 and 8.1 times,
respectively.
The cited data [21] on the texture of bed load in the
lower reaches of the river and active Balize delta reveal
two regularities (Table 3): the grain size of bed load
noticeably decreases toward the gulf, while the share
of fine sand and mud in this load increases in the same
direction; after the flow regulation in the Missouri and
Arkansas tributaries and a radical decrease in the river
sediment runoff, the grain size of bed load also
decreased.
Sea Level Variations and Land Subsidence
During the last glacial regression of the World
Ocean 18000–20000 years ago, the level of the Atlan
tic Ocean was much lower than now. During the ensu
600 MIKHAILOV, MIKHAILOVA

Table 3. Texture of bed load in the Lower Mississippi Branch according to [21]

Distance Content of fractions, %

Median
from the Site of sampling Period coarse medium
gravel fine sand mud diameter, mm
gulf, km sand grained sand
35 Head of Passes 1932–1934 0 0 1 64 35 0.12
1966–1974 0 0 1 32 67 0.05
500 Tarbert Landing, Missis 1932–1934 2 2 23 68 5 0.30
sippi Branch origin 1966–1974 2 1 20 76 1 0.28
750 Vicksburg 1932–1934 8 2 26 61 3 0.36
1966–1974 5 3 42 48 2 0.44

ing thousandyear periods, the postglacial transgres
sion occurred, when the ocean level rapidly rose and
5000–6000 years ago it approached the presentday
level. The tendency for slow level rise remained.
According to the results of numerous studies, the
eustatic rise of the ocean level near the Mississippi
River mouth averaged 1–2 mm/year during the
XX century [14, 28, 32–34]. However, late in the
XX century–early in the XXI century, the ocean level
rise accelerated as a result of the global climate warm
ing, intense melting of ice caps, and thermal expan
sion of sea water [5]. Over the period of 1961–2003,
the mean global sea level increased at a rate of
1.8 mm/year, while from 1993 to 2003 it increased at a
rate of 3.1 mm/year. The tendency for the sea level rise
persists now and, according to the forecasts [5], it may
become stronger in the XXI century.
The subsidence of deltaic deposits plays more
important part in the water level rise at the mouth of
the Mississippi River. That is why the actual (observed)
sea level rise is represented by two components: the
lesser component, i.e., the eustatic (absolute) rise of
the level, and the greater component, i.e., the land
subsidence. The observed rise of water levels near sea
coasts was named the relative sea level rise (RSLR).
The RSLR value at the coast of the Mississippi River
delta is distinctly higher than at many other ocean
coasts, including river deltas [3, 28]. According to the
data from [14, 28], the RSLR exceeds 10 mm/year in
the Mississippi River delta. The maximum RSLR
value amounting to 16.1 mm/year at the coasts of the
Mississippi River delta is given in [32]. According to
[34], the RSLR at the coast of the deltaic plain of the
Mississippi River approximates 9 mm/year (while the
value of subsidence minus the eustatic rise of the sea
level approximates 8 mm/year).
The results of more detailed studies of the RSLR at
the coasts of Louisiana are cited in [25]. The maxi
mum values of the RSLR over the period of 1908–
1988 were revealed in the central part of the coast of
the Mississippi deltaic plain, in the area of the Terra
bonne Bay (from 10.4 to 11.9 mm/year). In the opin
ion of the authors of [25], the RSLR in the area of the
old Teche lobe may reach 18 mm/year. The RLSR val
ues decrease to 3.4–6.9 mm/year west of the Terra
bonne Bay and to 3.64.5 mm/year east of it. As noted,
the spatial variations in the RSLR values depend on
the thickness of Holocene deposits underlying the
present coastal lands. The larger this thickness, the
larger the possible value of the RSLR. The RSLR val
ues at the Mississippi delta coastline are five times
higher than the similar values at the rest coast of the
Gulf of Mexico and ten times higher than at other sea
coasts of the United States [25].
The land subsidence and related RSLR are typical
of many deltas of the world and are mainly caused by
the processes of compaction and dewatering of rela
tively recent and loose deltaic deposits as well as oxi
dation of organic substances contained in these depos
its. In addition to this, the tectonic factor is of impor
tance in some cases: many deltas are located in areas of
slow setting (trough) of the lithosphere. The main
cause for land subsidence and high values of the RSLR
in the Mississippi delta is considered to be the com
paction of deltaic deposits [32, 33]. In the last decades,
the land subsidence in some areas of the delta was
aggravated by pumping out of oil, gas, and groundwa
ter. The intense land subsidence along with the
eustatic rise of the ocean level was for the Mississippi
River mouth the main cause for the decrease in land
areas under marshes and the degradation of some parts
of the delta. This problem will be discussed below.
Sea Waves, Tides, and Hurricanes
The Gulf of Mexico, as a receiving water body for
the Mississippi water and sediments, represents a
semiclosed water object, which is characterized (as
mentioned in [6]) by relatively lowenergy sea condi
tions.
Waves in the Gulf of Mexico are low. The mean
wave height does not exceed 0.5 m, the maximum wave
height is 5m, and the mean wave energy is 0.034 W/m
[6, 11], which is far less than at delta coastlines of the
majority of oceanic deltas. In spite of the fact that the
waves are low, they constantly affect the Mississippi
delta coastline and cause, first, the formation of
coastal bars and beaches in relatively stable parts of the

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010

 DELTA FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER MOUTH
delta coastline and, second, the abrasion of those parts
of deltaic lobes that for whatever reason have stopped
their progradation into the sea.
The mean height of tides in the Mississippi near
shore zone is 0.43 m [6, 11]; therefore, this mouth can
be referred to the category of microtidal mouths. In
spite of the insignificant height, tides propagate along
the Mississippi Branch (which has very small water
surface slopes) over a distance of 400 km from the gulf.
Over the low flow period, salt water may spread along
the bottom during the tidal phase over a distance of
240 km.
Tropical hurricanes sometimes attack the coastal
area of the Mississippi River delta. These hurricanes
are accompanied by storm winds, high waves, and
surgeinduced rise of water levels. This, in turn, leads
to inundation of lands, erosion of seacoasts, destruc
tion of sand dunes, defense dikes, buildings and other
objects of economic activities. Hurricanes cause great
damage to the nature, population, and regional econ
omy.
In the last 50 years, the most disastrous hurricanes
were Betsy in September 1965, Camille in August
1969, Frederik in September 1979, and Katrina in
August 2005.
During the hurricane of Betsy, a surge 4.6 m high in
the lower part of the delta propagated upstream of the
Mississippi River delta head over a distance more than
520 km from the gulf [12]. During the hurricane of
Camille, many erosional channels crossing the coastal
bars and islands were formed [32]. The hurricane of
Frederik was accompanied by a surge 3.6 m high and it
caused heavy erosion in some areas of the seacoast; as
a consequence, the coast retreated by 15–40 m [32].
During the hurricane of Katrina, the surge height in
the lower reaches of the Mississippi Branch exceeded
the height of defense dikes (about 7 m), the dikes were
broken in many places, the greater part of New
Orleans was inundated [19]. The hurricane was
extremely disastrous: about 1600 persons died in the
state of Louisiana, the material damage caused by the
hurricane exceeded $100000000000. It also caused
severe erosion of seacoasts and led to the destruction
of some barrier islands. According to numerous assess
ments, the hurricane of Katrina turned out to be the
most severe natural disaster in the USA history [19].
In general, sea waves, tides, and hurricanes do not
have a pronounced effect on the processes of delta for
mation; their impact on the delta is usually local but
sometimes disastrous.
HOLOCENIC EVOLUTION
OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTA
Similar to the processes at mouths of all large rivers
of the world, the processes of delta formation at the
Mississippi River mouth depend on the base level of
erosion (ocean level) and river sediment runoff. The
coastline of deltas that existed at the Mississippi River
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010
601
mouth in the past, always had its reference to the level
of the Gulf of Mexico and moved either seaward or
landward depending on the gulf level change and sed
imentation intensity.
The last glacial low position of the Atlantic Ocean
level (100–120 m lower than now) was about
18000 years ago [6, 28]. At that time, the Mississippi
River valley was downcut in the maritime plain and in
the shelf. According to [6], the delta (or deltas) of the
Mississippi River formed at that time near the shelf
edge and contributed to the shelf progradation in the
direction to the south.
The ensuing rapid Holocene rise of the ocean level
(particularly rapid 12000–9000 years ago) resulted in
the delta submergence and displacement of the coast
line to the north. According to [6], a series of deltas
formed 18000–9000 years ago, the traces of these del
tas were revealed on the modern shelf. Intense deposi
tion of river sediments caused the burial of the down
cut valley of the Mississippi River and the upper
reaches of the canyon, which cut the shelf and the
continental slope and, probably, was a relic of ero
sional river channel downcutting over the periods of
the very low ocean level in earlier geological epochs
[18].
Seven or eight thousand years ago, the ocean level
rapidly slowed down rising and became closer to the
presentday level [28]. At that time, the inundation of
the maritime plain reached its maximum and the
coastline displaced to the north at a maximum dis
tance. An estuary bay was located at the site of the
modern delta of the Mississippi River.
Later on, the reverse process began under the con
ditions of the almost stable sea level and considerable
river sediment runoff; the reverse process included
intense deposition of river sediments in the estuary
bay, the formation of the modern deltaic plain, and the
coastline displacement to the south.
The Mississippi River delta progradation into the
Gulf of Mexico went on through formation of individ
ual deltaic lobes. As noted in [6, 9], these processes
were first mentioned in the works of R. Russel and
H. Fisk published in the 1930s–1940s. However, the
order of formation of individual deltaic lobes was not
adequately assessed. The first reliable scheme of for
mation of deltaic lobes was given in [22] (Fig. 2).
The first deltaic lobe formed at the Mississippi
River mouth was the Sale Cypremort lobe, which pro
gradated southward in the western part of the mouth
area (Fig. 2). Later on after the river flow ran in a new
direction, the Cocodrie lobe formed in the eastern part
of the mouth. Then, the large lobes of Teche, St. Ber
nard, and Lafourche formed in succession (Fig. 2). A
depression not filled with river sediments was located
between these lobes; the Plaquemine lobe and modern
active delta of Balize formed there later (Fig. 2). At
present, an intense formation of a new deltaic lobe is
602 MIKHAILOV, MIKHAILOVA

92° 91° 90° 89°

Baton Rouge

Mississippi R.

2
New Orleans
30°

6
5
1

7 29°

Gulf of Mexico

Fig. 2. Schematic map of large deltaic lobes at the Mississippi River mouth according to [22]. (1) Sale Cypremort; (2) Cocodrie;
(3) Teche; (4) St. Bernard; (5) Lafourche; (6) Plaquemine; (7) Balize.

going on at the mouth of the west branch of Atchafa ularities of formation of the socalled overlapping del
laya. tas at mouths of rivers having high sediment runoff like
The available literature offers different information the wellstudied mouths of the rivers of Amudarya, Ili,
on the lifetime of the mentioned deltaic lobes. The lat Terek, and Huanghe [2, 4]. The differences were the
est assessments are given in Table 4. According to these following: first, the development of the first deltaic
data, the development of the Holocene delta of the lobes at the Mississippi River mouth occurred under
Mississippi River began 7500 years ago and the life the condition of depressions preserved over a long
time of each of the abandoned lobes approximated period of time and residual water bodies, i.e., the relics
1700–2500 years. of the Holocene estuary bay; second, the significant
impact on degradation and dying out of old lobes after
Each of the large deltaic lobes of the Mississippi flow switching in a new direction as a result of intense
River generally developed in accordance with the reg land subsidence, which was more intense at the Mis
sissippi River mouth than at other river mouths.
Table 4. Main lobes of the Mississippi River Holocene delta According to [9], a complete cycle of development
according to [6, 9] of each deltaic lobe at the Mississippi River mouth
included two phases: regression (the sea recession is
Lobe Lifetime, years ago Area, km2 meant) with predomination of fluvial impact and
transgression (the sea ingression is meant) with pre
Sale Cypremort 7500–5000 15030 domination of marine impact. The first phase lasted
Teche 5500–3800 15570 for 1000 years, on the average, and included the fol
St. Bernard 4000–2000 15470 lowing stages (during which the water and sediment
Lafourche 2500–800 11310 runoff in the new channel increased): break in the river
channel and new channel direction; successive forma
PlaquemineBalize 1000–0 9930 tion of a lake delta, a bayhead delta, and a delta on the
Atchafalaya–Wax Lake 400–0 2800 shelf. The end of the first phase featured the loss of

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010

 DELTA FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER MOUTH
hydraulic advantages of the channel because of its
extension, break in the river channel and change in
direction, and beginning of formation of a new deltaic
lobe. The second phase began with changes in the old
deltaic lobe, this phase also lasted for 1000 years, on
the average. The old deltaic lobe gradually degraded
and died out (water and sediment runoff of the old
channel rapidly decreased). The old lobe dying out
went on in several stages: intensification of erosion of
its outer edge under the impact of waves; formation of
beaches, coastal bars, spits, and barrier islands; inun
dation of the delta; formation of submerged shoals.
These processes are under the great impact of the rel
ative sea level rise value.
Currently, there are simultaneously two deltaic
lobes at the mouth of the Mississippi River: the mod
ern delta of Balize and a new lobe at the mouth of the
Atchafalaya Branch, the formation of which began not
long ago. Under the natural course of development,
the Balize delta, which prograded far into the Gulf of
Mexico, would most likely be at the final stage of the
first phase of its cyclic development. The process of
flow redistribution at the delta head of the Mississippi
River into the Atchafalaya Branch, which began
400 years ago, indicated the start of the river flow
switching and change of direction. However, the man
made regulation of the river water and sediment out
flow into the Old River Bypass and the Atchafalaya
Branch, which was implemented early in the second
half of the XX century, disturbed the natural course of
the delta formation process. Therefore, it is hardly
probable that the Balize delta will die out under the
manmade regulated conditions, although slowing
down of progradation of this delta into the gulf and its
partial erosion are quite possible. The more intense
RSLR results in further erosion of the remaining parts
of the delta coastline of the Mississippi River, which
adjoin the abandoned deltaic lobes.
Studies of the dynamics of the Mississippi delta
coastline [30] showed that, over the period of 1812–
1954, the coast of the old deltaic lobes of Teche, west
ern and eastern parts of the Lafourche lobe retreated at
a rate of 2.8, 8.2, and 18.9 m/year, respectively. The
delta coastline east of the area under study and up to
the modern delta of Balize retreated at an average rate
of 4.9 m/year. The delta coastline at the site of the old
deltaic lobe of St. Bernard, including the Chandeleur
Islands, retreated at a rate of 4.1 m/year. The coasts in
the areas of abandoned deltaic lobes undergo erosion
and coastal bars and barrier islands move landward.
As assumed in [30], the revealed processes of
retreat of the coastline of the Mississippi deltaic plain
will go on in future.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010
603
DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN BALIZE DELTA
Processes of Delta Progradation
The age of the modern delta of Balize is assessed at
450 years [18] and together with the deltaic lobe of
Plaquemine it approximates 1000 years [6, 9].
The Balize delta area is about 600 km2, i.e., far less
than the dimensions of deltaic lobes formed earlier
(11000–15000 km2 each) (Table 4). However, the
thickness of deposits in the Balize delta (100–120 m)
is much larger than the thickness of deposits in more
ancient deltaic lobes (about 20 m). This was due to the
fact that the Balize delta formed not only on the shelf
but it also progradated onto the continental slope.
The first assessments of the intensity of Balize delta
progradation into the gulf were made in [15]. The
reconstruction of position of the main Southwest Pass
of the delta for about 400 years (Fig. 3) revealed that,
over the period of 1550–1947, the pass mouth progra
dated into the gulf by about 40 km at an average rate
approximating 100 m/year. Over the period of 1838–
1947, when reliable maps of the delta were available,
the progradation was about 9 km (about 80 m/year).
More faithful assessments of the intensity of the
Southwest Pass mouth progradation were made in
[18]: over the period of 1764–1959 (195 years), the
pass mouth progradated by 15 km with an average rate
of progradation of 77 m/year. The last quantitative
assessments of this process are given in [6]: over the
period of 1764–1979 (215 years), the Southwest Pass
bar progradated into the gulf by 17 km (79 m/year).
Over the period of 1959–1979 (20 years), the pass
became 2 km longer (100 m/year). Thus, during the
XVIII–XX centuries, the mouth of the Southwest Pass
progradated into the gulf at a rate of 70–100 m/year.
Possibly, the progradation of the Balize delta
branches into the gulf slowed down in the last decades
as a result of a drastic decrease in the Mississippi River
sediment runoff. There is no information about that.
As shown in Fig. 3, the progradation of the Balize
delta branches into the gulf is accompanied by the for
mation of thick fingerlike sand bar bodies, which
superimpose the layers of mud and clay deposited ear
lier in the nearshore zone of the river mouth. Accord
ing to [9, 15, 18], the thickness of sand bodies varies
from 30 to 90 m. It increases in the direction of the
Head of Passes; according to [6], this can be due to
gradual sinking of the sand body caused by compac
tion of underlying layers of mud and clay. Simulta
neously, the sand body increases in height.
Formation of Adjacent Deltas
Concurrent with the intense progradation of the
modern Balize delta into the gulf, distinct adjacent
deltas (subdeltas in U.S. scientific literature) formed
at its periphery in the coastal zone. This process is typ
ical of some active deltas of the world, which progra
date rapidly into the sea and hence have an elongated
604 MIKHAILOV, MIKHAILOVA

(а) development of four adjacent deltas, which formed in

the XX century (Table 5).
The evolution of adjacent deltas at the Mississippi
River mouth included the following stages: breach of a
C natural levee along the main branch channel (it usually
А L occurs during high floods), such breaches followed by
the formation of rills or crevasses in the Mississippi

5.5
River delta are called crevassing in the English litera

36
SE
SW Ю ture; gradual filling of a shallowwater (6–10 m deep)
D
interdistributary bay with river sediments; formation
90
of a new adjacent delta, its surface, and channel net
work; intense progradation of a new delta into the
0 20 km interdistributary bay; gradual decrease of slopes in the
B
new distinct delta, loss of its hydraulic advantage,
(b) slowing down and complete cessation of progradation;
h, m B А
0 land subsidence in the new delta, its degradation or
9

59
197

19 complete submergence by sea water. The use of a series

38
47
4

0
50

5
187
19

18

50
16
17

60 15 of maps permitted the detailed description of the his

120
180
80 60 40 20
(c)
h, mC S SE
0 began in the interdistributary bay of Rondo. By 1884,
60
120
0 10 20 30
1 3
2 4
Fig. 3. Schematic map of modern Balize delta (a) and ver
tical structure of deposits along longitudinal AB (b) and
transverse CD (c) profiles according to [15] with supple
ment provided by [6, 18]. Deposits: (1) Sands of mouth
bars; (2) Muddy sands of the lower part of mouth cone; (3)
Old deltaic clays; (4) Sea sands; (5) Transdistibutary layers
of mud and peat; passes: SW is Southwest Pass; S is South
Pass; SE is Southeast Pass; PL is Pass a Loutre; A is Head
of Passes; L is distance along profiles. Depth in the near
shore zone, m.
form. The formation of adjacent deltas differs funda
mentally from the development of overlapping deltas
on the surface of a more ancient deltaic plain [2, 4].
During the XIX–XX centuries, at least six small
distinct adjacent deltas formed to the left and to the
right of the Mississippi Branch main channel within
the Balize delta (Fig. 4). They are termed the subdeltas
in the Mississippi delta.
For the first time, the development of these deltas
was described in detail in [7] and then in [6, 9, 34]. Two
adjacent deltas of Dry Sypress Bayou and Grand Liard
formed in the period when maps of the Balize delta
were yet nonexistent. Therefore, there is no reliable
information on these deltas. However, it became pos
sible to have a quantitative assessment of the process of
tory of origination, development, and degradation of
the adjacent delta of Cubits Gap [6]. In 1862, fisher
man and oyster catcher Cubits dug a small ditch
through the natural levee on the left bank of the Mis
sissippi Branch slightly upstream of the Head of
0
L, km Passes. During the flood of 1862, the ditch was eroded
and a new channel 740 m wide gradually formed by
PL D 1868. The intense formation of a new small delta
its channel network has formed. The Delta progra
dated over a distance of 20 km and, by 1946, its area
40 reached 193 km2 (Table 5). After that, the delta pro
L, km gradation virtually stopped and intense land subsid
5
ence caused the beginning of the delta degradation. By
1980, nearly 75% of the delta formed earlier was cov
ered with water.
The complete cycle of evolution of the four adja
cent deltas under study varies from 90 to 160 years.
The period of delta progradation lasts from 31 to
93 years (Table 5).
The processes of formation and dying out of adja
cent deltas at the Mississippi mouth substantially dif
fered from similar processes, for example, at the Sulak
River mouth, where three adjacent deltas formed in
succession (in 1922–1929, 1929–1957, and 1957–
1977) [2, 4]. The adjacent deltas at the Sulak River
mouth were not subject to such intense subsidence like
at the Mississippi River mouth, and before the begin
ning of the drastic rise of the Caspian Sea level in 1978,
being abandoned and nearly completely desiccated,
these deltas still existed in the coastal zone in their
former dimensions (except for some small areas
eroded by sea waves).
Sedimentation Processes at the Bottom of the Nearshore
Zone of the River Mouth
The intensity of sedimentation is very high in the
nearshore zone of the modern Balize delta. During
floods, it may reach 3–4 m over the period of 2–
4 months in the area facing the main branches. The

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010

 DELTA FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER MOUTH 605

1 S

А 4

5 6 7
3

2 0 15 km

Fig. 4. Scheme of distinct adjacent deltas (subdeltas) in the modern active delta of Balize. (A) Dry Sypress Bayou, (B) Grand
Liard, (C) West Bay, (D) Cubits Gap, (E) Baptiste Collette, (F) Garden Island bay according to [7]. Branches: (1) Mississippi
Branch, (2) Southwest Pass, (3) South Pass, (4) Pass a Loutrel; bays: (5) West Bay, (6) East Bay, (7) Garden Island Bay.

intensity of sediment accumulation is far lower in
interdistributary areas and is equal to some centime
ters a year.
River sediments coming from branches of the Bal
ize delta to the nearshore zone of the river mouth are
subject to grading. More coarse bed load represented
with mediumgrained and fine sand is deposited on
the mouth bar. Suspended sediments are mainly
deposited in the area directed to the gulf. Sandy muds
are deposited closer to the coast, then come muds and
clays. Part of these deposits forms as a result of settling
of suspended sediments from the river flow moving in
the direction of the gulf over underlying salt sea water.
Part of muddy and clayey deposits is represented with
sediments displaced along the steep underwater slope
by action of gravity.
Considering the fact that the sedimentation area of
river sediments is displaced in the direction of the gulf
in the course of progradation of the delta branches,
clay layers occurring at large depths are gradually over
lapped by muddy deposits and muds are overlapped by
bar sands. Therefore, the deposit inversion is clearly
seen in the nearshore zone of the Mississippi River; the
fall diameter of deposits increases in upward. This

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010

606 MIKHAILOV, MIKHAILOVA
Table 5. Data on formation of four adjacent deltas (subdeltas) in the modern Balize delta according to [6, 7, 9, 34]
Adjacent delta Year Initial depth in the Duration of prograda
(subdelta) of breach coastal zone, m tion period, year share of river flow, % delta area, km2 growth, km2/year
West Bay 1839 4–10
Cubits Gap 1862 2–10
Baptiste Collette 1874 2–6
Garden Island Bay 1891 2–8
inverse bedding is well defined, for example, in front of
the mouth of the Southwest Pass (Fig. 3). Old deltaic
clays (they are called prodelta deposits in the United
States) form the main portion of deposit strata. They
are superposed by more recent mud layers deposited
on the marine slope of the mouth cone (they are called
the delta front deposits in the United States). Muds
are overlain by thick sand bodies, i.e., deposits of
mouth bars. They are surrounded on the sides by mud
layers and by thin layers of mud and peat at the top (in
interdistributary areas). In places, the thick stratum of
old deltaic deposits overlay sea sands, which have no
relation to the recent processes of delta formation.
The results of studies in the last decades [6, 9, 10]
made it possible to reveal the forms of relief, which
indicated the increased instability of the marine slope
of the mouth cone near the modern Balize delta. The
mud ground, of which this rather steep slope is com
posed, is unsteady and, when sliding, it makes up such
forms of the bottom relief as faults, scarps, and gra
bens. The resulting slides and mudflows lead to the
formation of erosional (rills and gullies) and accumu
lative forms of relief (mudflow lobes). Diapirs are typ
ical forms of the bottom relief; as mentioned in [9, 10],
they were revealed by J. Morgan at the Mississippi
River mouth. Diapirs represent mudlumps of muddy
or clayey deposits, which often break overlying sand
layers. The formation of diapirs is associated with the
pressure exerted on underlying layers of plastic muds
and clays by thick layers of sands (mouth bars are com
posed of them), which are progradating into the gulf.
RECENT PROCESSES OF DELTA FORMATION
AT THE ATCHAFALAYA BRANCH MOUTH
Some U.S. researches [6, 9, 26, 27] reason that a
new cycle in the development of the Mississippi River
delta, i.e., the process of formation of a new deltaic
lobe, has begun recently. It concerns the delta forma
tion in a depression preserved between channel ridges
of the two large deltaic lobes of Teche and Lafourche
in the western part of the deltaic plain of the Missis
sippi River. The depression receives water and sedi
ment runoff of the channel system of the Old River
Bypass, Red River, and the Atchafalaya Branch. This
depression with a number of lakes within it was named
the Atchafalaya Basin.
Maximum Mean rate of
93 4.4 300 3.23
83 13.2 193 2.33
72 2.6 57 0.79
31 4.0 124 4.00
As mentioned in [26], pioneers in studying the
delta of the Mississippi River, R. Russel, J. Morgan,
and H. Fisk, predicted, even in the early 1950s, the
possible intensification of the Atchafalaya Branch and
future changes of the coastal zone in the area of the
Atchafalaya Bay. The predictions of these researchers
came true. The reason for the intensification of the
Atchafalaya Branch is its hydraulic advantage in com
parison with the neighboring Mississippi Branch: the
length of the channel system of the Old River Bypass–
Atchafalaya Branch is nearly 300 km shorter than the
Mississippi Branch, the river continuation within the
delta.
The Atchafalaya Branch is known at least since the
year 1500 [26]. Up to the beginning of the XX century,
its role in flow distribution throughout the delta of the
Mississippi River was insignificant. The Old River
Bypass, through which some portion of the Mississippi
River flow entered the Atchfalaya Branch, was not rich
in water; in addition to this, it was blocked with mas
sive logs from time to time [26]. However, late in the
XIX century–early in the XX century, the evidence of
erosion and intensification of the Old River Bypass
was observed. Accordingly, the water runoff of the
Atchafalaya Branch started to grow. In 1900, no more
than 10% of the Mississippi River water runoff at the
delta head entered the Atchafalaya Branch; by the year
1925, this share increased up to 18%; by the year 1950,
it reached 30% [26]. According to the forecasts, the
share of the Atchafalaya branch water runoff might be
more than 40% of the total water runoff of the Missis
sippi River [31]. A real threat of interception of the
greater portion of the river flow by the Atchafalaya
Branch arose. Therefore, it was decided to construct a
regulation hydraulic structure in the Old River Bypass.
The construction began in 1956 and was completed in
1963. The regulation structure included a new man
made channel reach, a dam meant to span the bypass
and to regulate flow, as well as a lock. During the
extremely high flood of 1973, the regulation structure
was damaged. By the year 1986, it was restored and
supplemented by new structures [26].
The regulation structure in the Old River Bypass
had to maintain the Atchafalaya Branch water runoff
in the amount of about 30% of the entire river runoff.
This ratio is maintained at present. Although the
inflow of river water into the Atchafalaya Branch is
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010
 DELTA FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER MOUTH
regulated, the branch carries into the bay of the same
name large quantities of water and sediments. For
example, over the period of 1980–1994, the annual
suspended sediment runoff in the branch varied from
46000000 to 119000000 t [26], i.e., 73000000 t, on
the average (it should be noted that this value also
includes the Red River sediment runoff).
In the lower reaches of the branch the water and sed
iment runoff is divided in the ratio of 63 : 37 between
two watercourses: the Lower Atchafalaya Branch (left
watercourse, continuation of the main branch) and
the Wax Lake Outlet (right small manmade water
course).
Over the period of XVIII–XX centuries, the pro
cesses of delta formation within the system of the
Atchafalaya Branch had the following three phases
[26]: formation of lake deltas within the Atchafalaya
Basin; formation of a mouth underwater cone in the
Atchafalaya Bay; origination and development of two
bayhead deltas at the mouths of both watercourses.
Filling of Grand Lake, Six Mile Lake and others
(the first phase) with river sediments was most intense
during 1940–1950, when the runoff in the Old River
Bypass and in the head of the Atchafalaya Branch
noticeably increased. The formation of lake deltas in
the Atchafalaya Basin went on during the years that
followed [26, 27].
The second phase of delta formation began in the
mid1950s, when the major part of lakes was filled
with river sediments. The Atchafalaya Bay having the
depth of about 2.5 m was rapidly filled with sand and
mud coming through branches.
After the extremely high flood of 1973, when large
quantities of river sediments entered the bay, the for
mation of new land began (the third stage of the delta
formation process began) [26]. Two active deltas grad
ually formed at the mouths of both watercourses of the
Atchafalaya Branch (Fig. 5). The delta of the left
Lower Atchafalaya Branch rapidly increased. In 1982,
1989, and 1994, its area was about 70, 80, and 100 km 2,
respectively; in the same years, the area of the delta at
the mouth of the right Wax Lake Outlet was equal to
about 20, 45, and 53 km2. In 1994, the area of deltas
totaled 153 km2 [26]. According to [9], the area of two
deltas in the year 1998 was equal to 102 and 63 km2,
respectively (with the total of 165 km2).
In some years, the rate of the delta area expansion
at the mouth of the Lower Atchafalaya Branch approx
imated 5 km2/year. This value approaches the expan
sion values of rivers most dynamic in the past (the riv
ers of Huanghe, Ganges and Brahmaputra,
Amudarya).
According to the forecasts [26], just in the begin
ning of the XXI century, both deltas should merge and
cover the entire Atchafalaya Bay over the period of one
hundred years. Then, the fourth phase of delta forma
tion at the mouth of the Atchafalaya Branch will begin;
it is associated with the delta outlet onto the shelf and
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010
607
formation of a progradating delta on the open sea
coast.
Although the intensification of the Atchafalaya
Branch and formation of new deltas at the mouth of
this branch are now considered to be the most
dynamic geological and geomorphological event at the
Mississippi River mouth, in the opinion of the authors
of this article, this process cannot be treated as a new
cycle of the entire Mississippi River delta switching like
it has been made in [6, 9, 26, 27]. The development of
a new deltaic lobe at the mouth of the Atchafalaya
Branch cannot lead to switching of the total Mississippi
River flow in a new direction. The river inflow into the
Old River Bypass–the Atchafalaya Branch system is
regulated and will not cause interception of the new
river flow and dying out of the Mississippi Branch.
Therefore, the current processes of delta formation at
the Atchafalaya Branch delta differ fundamentally
from the processes of the Holocene epoch, which
resulted in consecutive formation of a number of sep
arate large deltaic lobes. This century will feature two
areas of delta formation at the Mississippi River
mouth; they are located at the mouths of the branches
of Mississippi (the Balize delta) and Atchafalaya.
FORMATION AND DEGRADATION
OF WETLANDS IN THE MISSISSIPPI DELTA
Wetlands represent overwetted areas in lower
reaches and deltas of many large rivers and in the
coastal zone of seas and lakes. These areas are partially
or completely and temporarily or permanently cov
ered with a thin water layer. According to the interna
tional terminology, such lands represented with bogs,
marshes, and plavs are called wetlands. In recent years,
wetlands attract close attention of ecologists due to
their great biological resources, biological diversity
and productivity as well as their evident role in main
taining the environmental balance not only within
their boundaries but also in vast adjacent land and
water areas. In 1971, the International Convention on
Wetlands Protection was concluded in Ramsar (Iran);
many countries joined this convention.
Wetlands cover 15800 km2 [32], i.e., 2/3 of the
entire delta area, in the deltaic plain of the Mississippi
River (both modern and old). Wetlands of the Missis
sippi River delta are areas of spawning and feeding of
numerous fish species, including fish species of com
mercial value. The state of Louisiana supplies 28% of
fish products for the United States. There are four
large fishery ports here. Wetlands are also habitats of
mollusks, furbearing animals, and waterfowl. This is
the place of harvesting wood and useful plants. Wet
lands represent a kind of protection buffer against the
destructive impact of storms, hurricanes, and sea
waves. Wetlands also have a recreational potential.
Viewing the above said, it can be concluded that wet
lands in the delta of the Mississippi River is an impor
tant natural object, which needs protection.
608 MIKHAILOV, MIKHAILOVA

5 10
12 6
13 20
3
1
11
14

17 4

0 10 km 15
19
2

Gulf of Mexico 16

18

Fig. 5. Scheme of the lower part of the Atchafalaya Branch and its two deltas according to [26, 27]. (1, 2) Lower Atchafalaya
Branch and its delta; (3, 4) Watercourse Wax Lake Outlet and its delta; remains of old channels (bayou): (5) Bayou Cypremort,
(6) Bayou Sale, (7) Bayou Teche, (8) Bayou Lafourche; lakes: (9) Grand Lake, (10) Six Mile Lake, (11) Wax Lake; bays: (12) Ver
milion Bay, (13) West Cote Blanche Bay, (14) East Cote Blanche Bay, (15) Atchafalaya Bay, (16) Four League Bay; islands:
(17) Marsh Island, (18) Point Aufer Island; (19) Reefs; (20) Morgan City.

The main areas of wetland location in the deltaic
plain of the Mississippi River are the following: the
strand of the state of Louisiana from Lake Borgne in
the east to the Vermilion Bay in the west, coasts of
lakes, lands of modern and old branches. Wetlands are
represented with several types of marshes: freshwater
marshes (near watercourses or far from the delta coast
line), salt water marshes (near the sea), and brackish
water marshes (in the intermediate zone) [33].
Wetlands in the Mississippi River delta look like
overgrown marshes, which originated and then were
subject to degradation as a result of formation and
dying out of overlapping and adjacent deltas simulta
neously with the processes of delta formation.
According to [33], the following factors contrib
uted to the formation of bogs and marshes in the delta
of the Mississippi River: first, sedimentation of the
delta surface caused by overflow of natural levees dur
ing floods or by breaches in levees; second, sedimenta
tion near channels during tides; third, accumulation
of vegetation detritus.
In the past, the rate of accretion of the surface of
marshes in the delta under the impact of the above
processes was about 1.4 cm/year near channels and
about 0.75 cm/year in the inner parts of the delta [32].
Under these conditions, the vertical accretion of the
surface of marshes overrode the impact of land subsid
ence.
From the early XX century, signs of wetland degra
dation, its gradual aggravation, along with wetland
area decrease, became evident in the Mississippi River
delta. These processes were called wetland loss.
According to [8], over the period from 1930 to the end
of the XX century, the area under marshes in the delta
of the Mississippi River decreased by 2800 km2 (the
rate of wetland loss averaged 40 km2/year). As seen
from the data in [16], the value of wetland loss was
17 km2/year in 1913 but then it rapidly increased: it
became equal to 41 km2/year in 1935, 73 km2/year in
1967, and 102 km2/year in 1980. The value of wetland
loss varying from 100 to 130 km2/year is given in [14,
28]. According to [32], such values of degradation of
marshes in river deltas are likely the highest values in
the world.
Interesting data on the wetland degradation in the
modern Balize delta are cited in [8]. Over the period of
1983–1995, the area under marshes in the studied part
of the Balize delta decreased by 280 km2. At the same

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010

 DELTA FORMATION PROCESSES AT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER MOUTH
time, new marshes 84 km2 in area came into being as a
result of sedimentation; simultaneously, 252 km2
under former marshes were submerged by sea water
and 112 km2 under former marshes were transformed
into economic objects.
According to [32], the maximum rate of marsh
degradation (more than 0.625 ha/year) was recorded
in the modern Balize delta and in the coastal zone of
the old delta. The value of wetland loss to the north of
this area is 0.312–0.625 ha/year and it becomes less
than 0.312 ha/year farther to the north.
The main reason for the enhanced degradation of
wetlands the Mississippi River delta is considered to be
the excess of the relative sea level rise over the value of
the delta surface accretion in many parts of the delta
[8, 14, 32, 33]. This, in turn, results from the follow
ing: considerable humaninduced decrease in the river
sediment runoff; dying out of old deltaic lobes; inten
sification of the relative sea level rise as a result of
acceleration of the eustatic sea level rise and land sub
sidence enhanced by pumping out of oil, gas, and
groundwater; construction of defense dikes and roads,
which decreased the river water overflow on the delta
surface. In addition to these reasons, the decrease of
the area under marshes was speeded up by the destruc
tive impact of waves on the coasts during more fre
quent storms and hurricanes as well as by the degrada
tion of the vegetation cover caused by consumption of
plants by invertebrates and large animals (geese, musk
rats, and nutrias) as well as water salinization and pol
lution.
The basic measures aimed at conserving and recov
ering wetlands in the Mississippi River delta are the
following [32, 33]: supply of additional volumes of
water and sediments through reconstruction of canals
and construction of new canals, regulation structures
and pumping stations (for example, provision of regu
lated flow for the Old River Bypass and then for the
Atchafalaya Branch as well as the construction of canal
170 km long to supply water and sediments to the area
of the old deltaic lobe of Lafourche); creation of man
made crevasses through natural levees to restore
marshes and to meet the needs of oil and gas compa
nies (such crevasses were made, for example, in the
modern Balize delta along the South Pass and Pass a
Loutre [9, 32]); engineering protection of sea coasts,
coastal bars, and barrier islands against waveinduced
erosion (for example, such measures were put into
effect in the area from the seaside of the island of
Rakkoun in the Terrabonne Bay).
CONCLUSIONS
The Mississippi River delta covering about
24000 km2 is one of the largest deltas of the world. The
structure, hydrological regime, and evolution of the
delta are relatively well studied. Analysis of the results
of these studies reveals what kind of changes in delta
formation processes may occur under the impact of
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010
609
global, regional, and local natural and human
induced factors. Up to the midXX century, intense
processes of delta formation occurred at the Mississippi
River mouth under the condition of high water (about
600 km3/year) and sediment (about 400000000 t/year)
runoff. Over the last 7000–8000 years, the delta devel
opment was accompanied by regular breaks in the
channel and formation of a series of large overlapping
deltaic lobes and small adjacent subdeltas. The role of
marine factors in delta formation processes was rela
tively insignificant. In the second half of the
XX century, the processes of delta formation in the
Mississippi River delta drastically changed as a result
of a nearly twofold decrease in the river sediment run
off (after its flow regulation) and acceleration of the
relative sea level rise (caused by speeding up of the
eustatic ocean level rise and intensification for natural
and humaninduced land subsidence). The impact of
fluvial factors on the delta development decreased,
while the impact of marine factors increased. The pro
cesses of inundation and erosion of peripheral parts of
the delta were enhanced. The degradation of marshes
became more intense, making it necessary to elaborate
measures on their conservation and rehabilitation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the Russian Founda
tion for Basic Research, project nos. 080500305 and
100500061.
REFERENCES
1. Avakyan, A.B., Saltankin, V.P., and Sharapov, V.A.,
Vodokhranilishcha (Reservoirs), Moscow: Mysl’, 1987.
2. Mikhailov, V.N., Gidrologiya ust’ev rek (River Mouth
Hydrology), Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Univ., 1998.
3. Mikhailov, V.N. and Mikhailova, M.V., Deltas as Indi
cators of Natural and HumanInduced Changes in the
Regimes of Rivers and Seas, Vodn. Resur., 2003, vol. 30,
no. 6, pp. 655–666 [Water Resour. (Engl. Transl.),
vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 602–612].
4. Mikhailov, V.N., Rogov, M.M., and Chistyakov, A.A.,
Rechnye del’ty. Gidrologomorfologicheskie protsessy
(River Deltas: HydrologicalMorphological Pro
cesses), Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, 1986.
5. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for
Policymakers, www.ipcc.ch
6. Coleman, J.M., Dynamic Changes and Processes in
the Mississippi River Delta, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 1988,
vol. 100, pp. 999–1015.
7. Coleman, J.M. and Gagliano, S.M., Cyclic Sedimen
tation in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain, Trans. Gulf
Coast Ass. Geol. Soc., 1964, vol. 14, pp. 67–80.
8. Coleman J.M. and Huh O.K. Major World deltas: A
Perspective from Space, www.geol.lsu.edu
9. Coleman, J.M., Roberts, H.H., and Stone, J.W., Mis
sissippi River Delta: An Overview, J. Coast. Res., 1998,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 698–716.
610 MIKHAILOV, MIKHAILOVA
10. Coleman, J.M., Walker, H.J., and Grabau, W.E., Sedi
ment Instability in the Mississippi River Delta, J. Coast.
Res., 1998, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 872–881.
11. Coleman, J.M. and Wright, L.D., Modern River Del
tas: Variability of Processes and Sand Bodies, Deltas
Models for Exploration, Houston: Houston Geol. Soc.,
1975, pp. 99–149.
12. Collins, J.I. and Fersht, S.N., Mixed Technique for
Computing Surges in Channels, J. Hydraul. Div. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Civil. Engrs., 1968, vol. 94, no. HY2,
pp. 349–362.
13. Dai, A. and Trenberth, K.E., Estimates of Freshwater
Discharge from Continents: Latitudinal and Seasonal
Variations, J. Hydrometeorology, 2002, vol. 3, pp. 661–
687.
14. Day, J.W. and Templet, P.H., Consequences of Sea
Level Rise: Implication from the Mississippi Delta,
Coastal Manag., 1989, vol. 17, pp. 241–257.
15. Fisk, H.N., McFarlan, E., Kolb, C.R., and Wilbert, L.J.,
Sediment Framework of the Modern Mississippi Delta,
J. Sedimentary Petrology, 1954, vol. 24, pp. 76–99.
16. Gagliano, S.M., MeyerArendt, K.J., and Wicker, K.M.,
Land Loss in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain, Trans.
Gulf Coast Ass. Geol. Soc., 1981, vol. 31, pp. 295–300.
17. Galloway, W.E., Process Framework for Describing the
Morphologic and Stratigraphic Depositional System,
Deltas—Models for Exploration, Houston: Houston
Geol. Soc., 1975, pp. 87–98.
18. Gould, H.R., The Mississippi Delta Complex, Deltaic
Sedimentation, Modern and Ancient, Soc. Econom. Pale
ontolog. Mineralog., 1970, Spec. Publ., no. 15, pp. 3–30.
19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
20. http://webworld.unesco.org/water/ihp/db/shiklomanov/
part'4/NORTH_AMERICA
21. Keown, M.P., Dardeau, E.A., and Causey, E.M., His
toric Trends in the Sediment Flow Regime of the Mis
sissippi, Water Res. Res., 1986, vol. 22, no. 11,
pp. 1555–1564.
22. Kolb, C.R. and Van Lopik, J.R., Deposition Environ
ments of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain, South
eastern Louisiana, Deltas and Their Geologic Frame
work, Houston: Houston Geol. Soc., 1966, pp. 17–61.
23. Largest Rivers in the United States. USGS. Science for
a Changing World, http://pubs.usgs.gov
24. Meade, R.H., RiverSediment Inputs to Major Deltas,
SeaLevel Rise and Coastal Subsidence, Dordrecht;
Boston; London: Kluwer Academ. Publ, 1996, pp. 63–
85.
25. Penland, S. and Ramsey, K.E., Relative SeaLevel Rise
in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico: 1908⎯1988, J.
Coast. Res., 1990, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 323–342.
26. Roberts, H.H., Delta Switching: Early Responses to
the Atchafalaya River Diversion, J. Coast. Res., 1998,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 882–899.
27. Roberts, H.H., Adams, R.D., and Cunningham, R.H.W.,
Evolution of SandDominant Subaerial Phase, Atcha
falaya Delta, Bull. Amer. Ass. Petrol. Geol., 1980, vol. 64,
no. 2, pp. 264–279.
28. Sea Level Changes and Their Consequences for
Hydrology and Water Management, State and Art
Repot. Int. Workshop. Hague, 1993.
29. Shiklomanov, I.A., Water Resources as a Challenge of the
TwentyFirst Century. Tenth IMO Lecture. WMO, 2003,
no. 959.
30. Stone, G.W. and McBridge, R.A., Louisiana Barrier
Islands and Their Importance in Wetland Protection:
Forecasting Shoreline Change and Subsequent
Response of Wave Climate, J. Coast. Res., 1998, vol. 14,
no. 3, pp. 900–915.
31. Toffaleti, F.B., Sedimentation Aspects in Diversion at
Old River, J. Hydraul. Div. Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil.
Engrs., 1960, vol. 86, no. HY6, pp. 37–46.
32. Walker, H.J., Coleman, J.M., Roberts, H.H., and Tye,
R.S., Wetland Loss in Louisiana, Geografiska Annaler,
1987, vol. 69A, no. 1, pp. 189–198.
33. Wang, M. and Adrian, D.D., Wetland Loss in Coastal
Louisiana, Int. J. Sed. Res., 1998, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–
10.
34. Wells, J.T., Subsidence, SeaLevel Rise, and Wetland
Loss in the Lower Mississippi River Delta, SeaLevel
Rise and Coastal Subsidence, Dordrecht; Boston; Lon
don: Kluwer, 1996, pp. 281–311.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 37 No. 5 2010