Five Year Review Include the Following

THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT

FOR THE

DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT SUPERFUND SITE DUTCHTOWN, ASCENSION PARISH, LOUISIANA

AUGUST 17, 2011

PREPARED BY:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Dallas, Texas

THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site EPA ID No. LAD980879449 Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana

This memorandum documents the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) performance, determinations, and approval of the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site (Dutchtown Site) third five-year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 United States Code Section 9621(c), as provided in the attached Third Five-Year Review Report prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA) on behalf of EPA.

Summary of Third Five-Year Review Findings

The third five-year review for the Dutchtown Site was performed through a review of site documents and site-specific requirements; a site inspection performed on June 1, 2011; interviews with personnel from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., the contractor to the Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site Participating Group (also known as the Dutchtown Steering Committee); and a review of data collected for the site during the third five-year review period.

The site remedy included monitored natural attenuation of groundwater; maintaining the existing clay cap and fence; closing out the well on the former Watts (now Gaudet) property and drilling a replacement well; applying physical on-site controls such as access restrictions and installation of signs; implementing institutional controls (ICs) in the form of restrictions on future use of property, conveyance notifications, and/or restriction on use of groundwater from the site water wells. The remedial action (RA) was initiated in July 1997 with site mobilization; construction completion was attained in January 1998. Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities were scheduled quarterly for the first year after the RA, then semiannually from years 2 through 5. Starting in year 6, O&M activities were scheduled annually.

The previous Five-Year Review Report (EPA 2007) stated that monitoring wells MW-10, MW-14, and MW-20 were lost, and they remain lost at the time of the current review. To date, the french drain located on the western edge of the site has not been formally investigated for the site-specific contaminants of concern (COCs). Monitoring wells MW-16 and MW-17 were plugged and abandoned in December 2003. The removal of these wells prevents monitoring of the groundwater south of the cap. Monitoring well MW-12 was plugged and abandoned in 2007.

The third five-year review found that the selected remedy is performing as intended, and is protective of human health and the environment. The remedy will be protective in the long term provided the land use remains unchanged and site maintenance continues.

Actions Recommended

The O&M Plan should be updated to reflect the current monitoring network as well as provide an analysis of whether the lost monitoring wells (i.e., MW-10, MW-14, and MW-20) could provide a conduit for contamination to lower ground water intervals. A plugging and abandonment report should be provided for MW-12. The branches that have fallen on the fence should be removed and minor damage to the fence should be repaired. Should site land use change in the future, then it may be necessary to sample the french drain for the Dutchtown Site COCs. Based on the analytical results, future actions can be determined concerning the final disposition of the french drain. If development is proposed in the future, it may also be necessary to add one or more monitoring wells along the south side of the cap. Additional

1 rcs and/or access controls should also be considered at that time, to ensure that the selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.

Site inspections should continue to be performed at least once per year to check the condition ofthe cap and site access restrictions (fencing and warning signs), and miscellaneous repairs and mowing should be performed as necessary to maintain current conditions.

Determinations r have determined that the remedy for the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment and that current human exposure is controlled. Thus the remedy is protective, and it will remain so provided the action items herein are addressed and corrective actions implemented.

Samuel Coleman, P.E. Date I 1 Director Superfund Division, Region 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2 CONCURRENCES:

THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT SUPERFUND SITE EPA ID No. LAD980879449

By: 1)ddJcfJJv Date: -----=-~L-----13.__L_0___'_11__ _ MfChaelHebert, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager

By Date: f UI &f4; ~ ----4//3~~------Cathy Gilmore, U.S. EPA Section Chief, LouisianalNew Mexico/Oklahoma Section

Date: Donald Williams, U.S. EPA -»';----/------+---/(n- B~;;fanCh Date: -----;~~,------g,----v--(J~~-- 41i'£. Faultry, U.S. EPA / Associate Director, edial Branch

Date: _?!----'--1-'---9tiJ__

B y : ~:::::::::~~~~~===-____ Date: ~/Il ! ( Mark Peycke, U. ----~,~~------Chief, Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel

Date: _0-'--U_7 <-----/I__f B Y ~Pam Phillips,~ ~ U.S. EPar Deputy Director, Superfund Division

CONTENTS

Section Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY ...... 2 3.0 BACKGROUND ...... 4 3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ...... 5 3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE USE ...... 5 3.3 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION ...... 5 3.4 INITIAL RESPONSE ...... 5 3.5 BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION ...... 6 4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS...... 7 4.1 SELECTED REMEDY ...... 7 4.2 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION ...... 8 4.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 8 4.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ...... 10 5.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW...... 10 5.1 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT FROM SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ...... 10 5.2 SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ...... 11 5.3 STATUS OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ...... 11 6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS ...... 12 6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS ...... 12 6.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...... 12 6.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW ...... 12 6.4 DATA REVIEW ...... 13 6.5 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENT REVIEW .. 14 6.5.1 Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ...... 15 6.5.2 Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ...... 16 6.5.3 Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ...... 16 6.6 SITE INSPECTION ...... 16 6.7 SITE INTERVIEWS ...... 17 7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ...... 18 7.1 QUESTION A: IS THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION DOCUMENTS? YES...... 18 7.2 QUESTION B: ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS USED AT THE TIME OF REMEDY SELECTION STILL VALID? YES...... 19 7.3 QUESTION C: HAS ANY OTHER INFORMATION COME TO LIGHT THAT COULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY? NO...... 19 7.4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ...... 19 8.0 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ...... 20 8.1 TYPES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS IN PLACE AT THE SITE ...... 20 8.2 EFFECT OF FUTURE LAND USE PLANS ON INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ...... 20 8.3 PLANS FOR CHANGES TO SITE CONTAMINATION STATUS...... 21 9.0 ISSUES ...... 21 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ...... 22

11.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ...... 24 12.0 NEXT REVIEW ...... 24

Attachments

1 Site Location Map and Site Layout Map 2 Announcement of the Third Five-Year Review 3 Documents Reviewed 4 Site Visit Checklist 5 Interview Records 6 Site Inspection Photographs 7 Summary of Reported BTEX Concentrations 8 Benzene and Ethylbenzene Concentration Trend Graphs 9 Feasibility Study for Interchange at Interstate 10 and Highway 74

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS ...... 3

2 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ...... 10

3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS ...... 18

4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED ...... 21

5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ...... 23

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGM ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement ARCADIS ARCADIS U.S., Inc. bgs Below ground surface BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act COC Contaminant of concern Dutchtown Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 ERA Emergency Response Action FCOR Final Closeout Report FS Feasibility study G&M Geraghty & Miller, Inc. I-10 Interstate Highway 10 IC Institutional control LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality LDOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development MCL Maximum Contaminant Level NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and maintenance OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response PCOR Preliminary Closeout Report PRP Potentially responsible party RA Remedial action RAO Remedial action objective RECAP Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program RI Remedial investigation ROD Record of Decision SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act UAO Unilateral Administrative Order

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA) has conducted the third five-year review of the remedial action (RA) implemented at the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site (Dutchtown Site) in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. The purpose of this third five-year review was to determine whether the selected remedy for the site continues to protect human health and the environment. This review was conducted from January to September 2011, and its findings and conclusions are documented in this report. The first five-year review of the RA was signed on September 16, 2002 and the second five-year review of the RA was signed on September 12, 2007. Signing of the second five-year review established the third five-year review period of September 12, 2007 to September 12, 2012. However, this third five-year review has been completed after only four years as part of an effort by EPA to balance its workload and most successfully address the responsibility of the many five-year reviews that are now required each year.

Several documents were reviewed as part of this third five-year review, including those containing the following data: (1) groundwater sampling summaries, (2) monitoring well water levels, (3) analytical sampling results, and (4) inspection summaries. At this time, the selected remedy appears to be performing as intended.

During the Emergency Response Action (ERA), the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for the site was initiated and completed with the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) on June 20, 1994. The selected remedy for the site was monitored natural attenuation and institutional controls (ICs). On July 24, 1997, EPA approved the Remedial Design/Remedial Action work plans, and under EPA supervision, the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) conducted the RA from July to December 1997. Since most of the contamination had been addressed during the ERA, the RA only involved installation of a new monitoring well, the plugging and abandoning of a residential well, and the initiation of operation and maintenance (O&M) activities.

O&M of the site includes maintenance of the clay cap constructed above the treated soil, groundwater monitoring, and fence inspection. Groundwater monitoring was scheduled quarterly for the first year of O&M, semiannually from years 2 to 5, and annually from years 6 to 30. At this time, annual groundwater monitoring is occurring. Other O&M activities such as mowing and fence trimming are scheduled as needed to keep up with the growth of vegetation.

ES-1

The third five-year review focused on data obtained during routine inspections and sampling events conducted at the Dutchtown Site since the second five-year review was completed.

Responses to the site survey questionnaires were generally favorable. No complaints or concerns were noted. All returned surveys are attached to this report.

Issues noted during this five year review include the following:

• O&M Plan: The updated O&M Plan (ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. [AGM] 2002) does not accurately reflect the current monitoring well network. Four wells listed in the O&M Plan can no longer be sampled because they have been lost or plugged and abandoned (MW-10, MW-14, MW-20, and MW-12), and the school wells are no longer used for drinking water, so they are no longer sampled. • Monitoring well MW-12: MW-12 was plugged and abandoned in 2007, but no plugging and abandonment report has been provided. • Minor Fence Maintenance: Barbed wire has fallen down in some places, some of the chain-link fabric has been stretched, and some branches have fallen on the fence. Fences are in need of minor maintenance to preserve their effectiveness. • French drain, additional wells: The french drain has not been formally investigated for the site specific COCs. If land use changes, this should be done. If additional development is proposed, then additional monitoring wells should be considered.

Recommended follow up actions are: 1. Revise the O&M Plan to reflect current conditions and requirements. 2. Provide plugging and abandonment report for MW-12. 3. Continue with removal of fallen branches and conduct fence maintenance. 4. If land use changes, investigate the french drain for the COCs. If additional development is proposed, then additional monitoring wells should be considered. 5. Provide an analysis of whether the lost monitoring wells (i.e., MW-10, MW-14, and MW-20) could provide a conduit for contamination to lower ground water intervals.

At this time, based on the information available during the third five-year review, the selected remedy at the Dutchtown Site is protective of human health and the environment in the long-term.

Those issues impacting the PRPs have been communicated to them. The operating unit issues requiring PRP effort were discussed with the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Steering Committee consultant during the site visit on June 1, 2011.

ES-2

Five-Year Review Summary Form SITE IDENTIFICATION Site Name (from WasteLAN): Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site EPA ID (from WasteLAN): LAD980879449 Region: 6 State: Louisiana City/County: Dutchtown/Ascension Parish SITE STATUS NPL Status: Final Deleted Other (specify) Remediation Status (choose all that apply): Under Construction Operating Complete Multiple OUs?* YES NO Construction Completion Date: December 1997 Has site been put into reuse? YES NO REVIEW STATUS Reviewing Agency: EPA State Tribe Other Federal Agency Author Name: Mr. Michael Hebert Author Title: Remedial Project Manager Author Affiliation: U.S. EPA Region 6

Review Period:** January-September 2011 Date(s) of Site Inspection: June 1, 2011 Type of Review: Statutory Policy Post-SARA Pre-SARA NPL-Removal only Non-NPL Remedial Action Site NPL State/Tribe-lead Regional Discretion Review Number: 1 (first) 2 (second) 3 (third) Other (specify) Triggering Action: Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU Actual RA Start Construction Completion Previous Five-Year Review Report Other (specify) Triggering Action Date (from WasteLAN): September 12, 2007 Due Date (Five Years After Triggering Action Date): September 12, 2012 * “OU” refers to operable unit. ** The review period refers to the period during which the five-year review was conducted.

ES-3

Five-Year Review Summary Form (Continued)

Issues:

1. O&M Plan: The updated O&M Plan (AGM 2002) does not accurately reflect the current monitoring well network. Four wells listed in the O&M Plan can no longer be sampled because they have been lost or plugged and abandoned (MW-10, MW-12, MW-14, and MW-20), and the school wells are no longer used for drinking water, so they are no longer sampled. 2. Monitoring well MW-12: MW-12 was plugged and abandoned in 2007, but no plugging and abandonment report has been provided. 3. Minor Fence Maintenance: Barbed wire has fallen down in some places, some of the chain-link fabric has been stretched, and some branches have fallen on the fence. Fences are in need of minor maintenance to preserve their effectiveness. 4. French drain, additional wells: The french drain has not been formally investigated for the site specific COCs. If land use changes, this should be done. If additional development is proposed, then additional monitoring wells should be considered.

Recommendations and Follow-up Actions:

1. Revise the O&M Plan to reflect current conditions and requirements. 2. Provide plugging and abandonment report for MW-12. 3. Continue with removal of fallen branches and conduct fence maintenance. 4. If land use changes, investigate the french drain for the COCs. If additional development is proposed, then additional monitoring wells should be considered. 5. Provide an analysis of whether the lost monitoring wells (i.e., MW-10, MW-14, and MW-20) could provide a conduit for contamination to lower ground water intervals.

Protectiveness Statement:

Based on the information available during the third five-year review, the selected remedy for the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment.

Long-Term Protectiveness:

At this time, based on the information available during the third five-year review, the selected remedy at the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment in the long-term.

ES-4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA) has conducted a third five-year review of the remedial action (RA) implemented at the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site (Dutchtown Site), located near Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana, for the period between the completion of the second five-year review in September 2007 through September 2012. The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site remains protective of human health and the environment, and to document the methods, findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in a Five-Year Review Report. Five-Year Review Reports identify issues found during each review, if any, and make recommendations to address the issues. This Third Five-Year Review Report documents the results of the review for the Dutchtown Site, conducted in accordance with EPA guidance (EPA 2001) on five-year reviews.

The five-year review process is required by federal statute. EPA must implement five-year reviews consistent with the CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA Section 121(c), as amended, states the following:

“If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.”

NCP Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) states the following:

“If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.”

The EPA five-year review guidance further states that a five-year review should be conducted for the following types of actions:

• A pre-Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) RA that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure

• A pre- or post-SARA RA that, once completed, will not leave hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure but will require more than five years to complete

• A removal-only site on the National Priorities List (NPL) where the removal action leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure and no RA has or will be conducted.

Because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Dutchtown Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review is required.

This is the third five-year review for the Dutchtown Site. The period addressed by this five-year review for the Dutchtown Site extended from September 2007 to September 2011. The EPA recently recognized that potential problems might arise from several five-year review reports being due for completion at the end of the 2012 fiscal year (i.e., September 2012). To help minimize these potential problems and more evenly distribute the EPA workload of five-year reviews, this review is being completed only four years after the most recent five-year review for the Dutchtown Site, which was completed on September 12, 2007. The third five-year review was conducted from January through September 2011, and its methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are documented in this report.

This report documents the five-year review for the Dutchtown Site by providing the following information: site chronology (Section 2.0), background information (Section 3.0), an overview of the RAs (Section 4.0), progress since the second five-year review (Section 5.0), the five-year review process (Section 6.0), technical assessment of the site (Section 7.0), institutional controls (Section 8.0), issues (Section 9.0), recommendations and follow-up activities (Section 10.0), protectiveness statement (Section 11.0), and discussion of the next review (Section 12.0). Attachment 1 provides the site location map and site layout map. Attachment 2 provides the announcement of the third five-year review. Attachment 3 provides a list of documents reviewed. Attachment 4 provides the site inspection checklist. Attachment 5 provides the interview records. Attachment 6 provides the site inspection photographs. Attachment 7 provides a historical benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) data table. Attachment 8 provides benzene and ethylbenzene concentration trend graphs. Attachment 9 provides the feasibility study and environmental inventory for the interchange of Interstate Highway 10 (I-10) and LA Highway 74, located near the site.

2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY

A chronology of site events for the Dutchtown Site is provided in Table 1. Additional historical information for the site is available online at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/0600633.pdf (EPA 2011).

TABLE 1

CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT SUPERFUND SITE

Date Event 1965 - 1982 Site operated as an oil refinery and reclamation facility August 1983 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) issues order for property site closure January 17, 1984 LDEQ declares site abandoned November 1984 - June 1985 LDEQ site investigation and referral to EPA July 1985 - March 1987 EPA site investigations January 22, 1987 EPA proposes site for inclusion on NPL March 1987 EPA emergency response to clean spill from site vandalism July 27, 1987 EPA finalizes site for inclusion on NPL December 1987 - January 1988 EPA conducts removal assessment February 1988 EPA issues engineering evaluation/cost analysis March 25, 1988 EPA issues emergency response action (ERA) memorandum May 23, 1990 Potentially responsible parties (PRPs) sign ERA consent decree January 1991 - August 1991 PRPs conduct ERA site activities November 30, 1992 PRPs’ remedial investigation (RI) report completed May 19, 1993 PRPs’ feasibility study (FS) report completed October 28, 1993 EPA conducted formal public meeting on proposed remedy June 20, 1994 EPA Record of Decision (ROD) signed December 30, 1996 EPA issues Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) for removal action (RA) work plan February 4, 1997 PRPs comply with order and initiates RA work plan July 24, 1997 EPA approves RA work plan July 1997 - September 1998 Year 1 natural attenuation and monitoring August 1997 - December 1997 PRPs conduct RA December 12, 1997 PRPs’ RA report completed January 12, 1998 EPA preliminary closeout report (PCOR) completed October 1998 - October 1999 Year 2 natural attenuation and monitoring August 24, 1999 EPA final closeout report (FCOR) completed November 1999 - August 2000 Year 3 natural attenuation and monitoring November 16, 1999 EPA deletes site from NPL September 2000 - August 2001 Year 4 natural attenuation and monitoring October 2001 - July 2002 Year 5 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation September 16, 2002 First five-year review report completed

Date Event August 2002-August 2003 Year 6 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation December 16, 2002 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan updated September 2003-October 2004 Year 7 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation December 12, 2003 Plug and abandon 11 monitoring wells and 1 piezometer December 17, 2003 Plug and Abandonment Report completed July 9, 2004 Site purchased by the Ascension Holding Company November 2004 - August 2005 Year 8 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation October 13, 2005 EPA site visit to evaluate potential adverse impacts from Hurricane Katrina September 2005 - December 2006 Year 9 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation December 13, 2005 Hurricane Katrina Evaluation Report completed June 9, 2006 Conveyance notification filed and recorded at the Ascension Clerk of Court January 2007 - February 2008 Year 10 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation September 12, 2007 Second five-year review report completed March 2008 - August 2009 Year 11 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation February 20, 2009 Consent Decree entered by United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana September 2009 - December 2009 Year 12 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation January 2010 - March 2011 Year 13 natural attenuation, monitoring, and statistical evaluation Notes:

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERA Emergency Response Action FCOR Final Close Out Report FS Feasibility study LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and maintenance PCOR Preliminary Close Out Report PRP Potentially responsible party RA Remedial action RI Remedial investigation ROD Record of Decision UAO Unilateral Administrative Order

3.0 BACKGROUND

This section discusses the site’s physical characteristics, land and resource use near the site, history of site contamination, initial response to the site, and the basis for the response.

3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The Dutchtown Site is a former waste oil reclamation plant located near Dutchtown in Ascension Parish, Louisiana (Attachment 1), at the intersection of I-10 and Louisiana Highway 74. The fenced waste site complex consists of a 5-acre plot, which previously contained a 0.8-acre holding pond, a 0.07-acre waste oil pit, seven aboveground vertical storage tanks, two small horizontal tanks, and a railroad tank car used as a horizontal tank.

The site is currently clear of brush and trees, with the exception of two large trees located in the southern section of the property. The northern portion of the property outside of the fence remains wooded with heavy undergrowth. The only structures on the site are a concrete pad, which was constructed for equipment decontamination during the ERA, and a well house.

3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE USE

Historical land use is unknown prior to the establishment of the oil refinery and waste oil reclamation facility in the mid-1960s. The land surrounding the Dutchtown Site is primarily zoned as residential and commercial property. The Dutchtown Middle School is located ½ mile to the west of the site. Based on population density figures found in 2009 United States Census Bureau data, the population within a 1-mile radius of the site is estimated at approximately 3,600, up from 1,836 reported in the 1994 ROD. A site location map and site layout map are provided in Attachment 1.

3.3 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION

Historically, the site received waste oil and other waste materials (solvents and petrochemical wastes) from offsite sources, processed them, and redistributed them to offsite customers. The State of Louisiana ordered the suspension and proper closure of operations at the site in August 1983. On January 17, 1984, the State declared the site abandoned after failure by facility owners to properly close the site in accordance with regulations.

3.4 INITIAL RESPONSE

Following the declaration of site abandonment, the LDEQ conducted a series of investigations and presented a site closure strategy plan to EPA in June 1985. Following the presentation of the site closure strategy plan by LDEQ,

EPA conducted a series of site investigations in 1985, and investigative sampling in 1986 and 1987. An emergency response to clean up a spill that resulted from vandalism to the rail tank car and finished oil storage tank was required in March 1987. The site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL on January 22, 1987, and was promulgated on the NPL on July 27, 1987.

On March 25, 1988, EPA issued an action memorandum to perform an ERA. On May 23, 1990, the PRPs signed a consent decree to design and implement the ERA. The ERA was conducted from January through August 1991. It involved the removal of 449,810 gallons of waste oil from the holding pond, waste oil pit, and storage tanks, as well as the removal and treatment of 3,451,999 gallons of storm water from the pits and holding ponds. Seepage of contaminated groundwater into the excavated pond led to the installation of a french drain that would enable recovery and treatment of groundwater during the RI/FS phase. A total of 75,792 gallons of groundwater were recovered through August 1992. The pond and pit were backfilled with 4,400 cubic yards of fly ash-stabilized soil that had been washed to reduce benzene concentrations below 4 parts per million.

Following the completion of the ERA, compacted caps of imported clay were installed over the backfilled holding pond, the french drain in the excavated waste oil pit, and the areas previously occupied by the storage tanks. The compacted clay cap is 18 inches over the backfilled holding pond and waste oil pit and 6 inches over the areas occupied by the storage tanks. The site was also surrounded by a 6-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed-wire along the top.

3.5 BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION

During the ERA, the RI/FS for the site was initiated. On November 30, 1992, the RI report was completed and on May 19, 1993, the FS report was completed. The RI/FS identified two water-bearing units: an upper unit from 0 to 14 feet below ground surface (bgs), and a lower unit from 30 to 35 feet bgs. Neither of these identified water-bearing units has been used for drinking water and only the upper unit was found to be contaminated. No exposure pathways were identified between these Class III groundwater units and potential receptor populations. (Class III groundwater is not suitable as a source of drinking water.)

Surface and subsurface soils were found to be residually contaminated near their onsite sources. The residual contamination lay below a clay cap, and all surface and subsurface soils were within EPA’s acceptable risk range. In addition, further analysis of contaminant transport modeling also predicted that contaminant concentrations would be well below Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) before reaching the shallowest drinking water aquifer (encountered at 100 feet bgs and extending to 300 feet bgs).

A formal public meeting was conducted on October 28, 1993, regarding proposed EPA remedies to address the unusable upper water-bearing unit and residual soil contamination found at the site. Following the formal public comment period, the ROD for the site was signed on June 20, 1994. The ROD selected monitored natural attenuation and institutional controls (ICs) for the site remedy.

4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

This section discusses the selected remedy, remedy implementation, O&M activities, and O&M costs.

4.1 SELECTED REMEDY

The FS determined that natural attenuation was the best remedy to meet the remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the site. The RAOs as stated in the ROD are as follows:

• Prevent human exposure to the contaminated groundwater • Prevent contamination of underlying 150-foot-deep drinking water aquifer, • Restore contaminated shallow groundwater, based on its classification, for future use.

The selected remedy included:

• Monitoring groundwater to determine if current conditions improve through time, remain constant, or worsen. This included installation and monitoring of both onsite and adjacent private wells.

• Implementing contingency measures at the site if groundwater monitoring indicates a confirmed 30-percent increase in contaminant concentrations (either vertically or horizontally). The contingency measures, if warranted, may include: installation of additional monitoring wells, increasing the frequency of sampling, construction of a slurry wall, active extraction of contaminated groundwater, or in situ treatment.

• Implementing ICs in the form of access restrictions, including installation of signs, restrictions on future use of property, fencing, deed notices, and restriction on the use of groundwater from site wells.

• Installing additional monitoring wells to provide additional data on plume movement towards any drinking water wells and/or beneath I-10.

• Maintaining the existing cap and fence.

• Close out the residential well on the Watts property (later sold to Gaudet) and drill a replacement well.

4.2 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION

On December 30, 1996, EPA issued a UAO to the PRPs for implementation of the selected remedy. On February 4, 1997, the PRPs notified EPA of their intent to comply with the UAO and initiated RA work plan activities. The RA work plan was approved on July 24, 1997, and RA onsite construction was initiated in August 1997. The RA completed at this site included the following major work elements:

• Installation of a flush-mounted, 15-foot deep monitoring well (MW-21) on the Babin and Smith, Inc. property located east of I-10.

• Plugging and abandonment of the 260-foot deep water well located on the Watts’ property in accordance with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD) Water Well Rules, Regulations, and Standards.

• Inspection of the perimeter fence and clay cap, and installation of “Danger Keep Out” signs along the fence at 200-foot increments.

• Sample and analyze site monitoring wells for BTEX using EPA SW-846 Method 8020. One of two drinking water wells at the Dutchtown Middle School was sampled as well. The pump in the second water well was inoperable and therefore, was not sampled. It was determined during the RA that monitoring wells MW-14 and MW-20 were lost and, consequently, not sampled.

4.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The initial O&M work plan was prepared in July 1997 and O&M activities were initiated with the first groundwater sampling event in August 1997. Groundwater monitoring was scheduled quarterly for the first year of the O&M, semiannual from years 2 to 5, and annually from years 6 to 30. Other O&M activities include inspection and maintenance of the clay cap and perimeter fence on an annual basis, and clearing of vegetation and site mowing, as required.

Based on EPA recommendations during the first five-year review, several monitoring wells were plugged and abandoned, leaving seven Shallow Zone monitoring wells (ranging from 4 feet to 13 feet bgs) and one Deep Zone monitoring well (36 feet bgs) at the Dutchtown Site. An updated O&M Plan (ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. [AGM] 2002b) was developed and submitted on December 16, 2002.

The requirements for the Dutchtown Site, as stated in the updated O&M Plan (AGM 2002b), are as follows:

• Thirteen monitoring wells, where contaminants have never been detected, and a piezometer installed during the ERA will be plugged and abandoned. These wells include: MW-1, MW-2A, MW-8, MW-9, MW-11, MW-15, MW-16, MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-21, MW-14 (if located), MW-20 (if located), and P-1.

• Groundwater sampling and analysis for BTEX will be performed annually until cleanup goals are attained. During these sampling events, static water levels will be measured.

• Conditions (i.e., 30-percent increase in concentration in shallow aquifer wells [EPA 1994]) that trigger contingency measures for the site will be evaluated during each annual monitoring event. A detailed explanation of the procedure is available in Section 5.0 of the updated O&M Plan.

• The clay cap and perimeter fence will be inspected annually by a licensed engineer in the State of Louisiana. The engineer will provide an inspection report to be included in the Annual Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report.

• The Natural Attenuation Evaluation report will be prepared annually.

• A statistical evaluation of groundwater monitoring data will be performed for each well to determine whether the constituent concentrations are increasing or decreasing.

• The site will be evaluated for attainment of cleanup standards (RECAP [LDEQ 2003]).

Below is a summary of major milestones that have been conducted during the O&M activities for the third five-year review period:

• Monitoring well plugging and abandonment—Monitoring well MW-12 was plugged and abandoned in October 2007. Monitoring wells MW-14 and MW-20 were searched for and again not located and monitor well MW-10 was not located. Therefore the wells were not plugged and abandoned. This is documented in a letter from ARCADIS to EPA dated June 10, 2009.

• Monitoring well sampling—Groundwater sampling of the remaining six Shallow Zone monitoring wells (MW-2, MW-3, MW-3A, MW-4A, MW-6, and MW-13) and one Deep Zone monitoring well (MW-7) has continued on an annual basis.

• Engineering inspection— The clay cap and perimeter fence was inspected annually by a licensed engineer in the State of Louisiana. The results of these inspections are included in the Annual Natural Attenuation Evaluation Reports. During the five year review period these inspections have indicated that there are no site concerns with the clay cap and minor maintenance issues concerning the perimeter fence.

• Statistical evaluation— Beginning in 2003, the statistical evaluation was completed annually using the Mann-Kendall statistical methodology; this was continued through the third five-year review period. The details of these analyses were included in the Annual Natural Attenuation Evaluation Reports. For the only two constituents, benzene and ethylbenzene, detected during the five year review period, the ground water statistical analyses indicated either no trend or else decreasing trends in the individual monitoring wells.

4.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST

ARCADIS, the contractor to the Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site Participating Group (also known as the Dutchtown Steering Committee), provided approximate associated annual costs for the Dutchtown Site during O&M activities since the last five-year review. The costs include but are not limited to the following activities:

• Operation and maintenance of the site • Groundwater sampling and analysis • Consulting and reporting activities Table 2 below provides the approximate costs for the years stated.

TABLE 2

ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT SUPERFUND SITE

Dates Total Cost Rounded to Nearest $1,000 From To Contractor Costs 9/2006 6/2011 $91,000 The average cost per year has been approximately $18,200.

5.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

This is the third five-year review for the Dutchtown Site. The first five-year review was completed in September 2002 and the second five-year review was completed in September 2007. This third five-year review is being completed after only four years as part of an effort by EPA to balance its workload and most successfully address the responsibility of the many five-year reviews that are now required each year. The site appears to have been properly maintained during the period between reports.

The scheduled date for the fourth five-year report is September 2016. However, the final commitment date is 5 years from the signature date of this third report.

5.1 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT FROM SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

The Second Five-Year Review Report (EPA 2007) concluded that the remedy for the site continued to be protective of human health and the environment.

5.2 SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

The second five-year review of the Dutchtown Site, completed in September 2007, recommended the following follow-up actions:

• Locate MW-10, plug and abandon it, if possible, and provide its status in future annual reports. Replace MW-10 if necessary and then update the O&M plan upon replacement of the well. • Repair the hinge on MW-13 if excessive corrosion inhibits access to the well. • Repair the damaged portions of the fence. • Replace “Danger Keep Out” signs along the fence. • Remove vegetation immediately adjacent to the fence. • Clear and maintain the vegetation surrounding MW-12. • Upon land use change, conduct analysis of the french drain and the western boundary of the Site around MW-4. Possibly plug and abandon the french drain if necessary. • Upon land use change, install a monitoring well south of the cap and update the O&M plan. • Locate MW-14 and MW-20 and plug and abandon them if possible.

5.3 STATUS OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

This section describes the current status of implementation of the recommendations included in the Second Five-Year Review Report as follows:

• MW-10 was extensively searched for in 2007 during the second five-year review, no remnants of the well were found. Efforts to locate MW-10 were abandoned and the well was removed from the monitoring program. • The hinge on MW-13 was repaired in 2009. • Fence repairs were completed in 2009. • Six additional signs were placed on the fence in 2009. • Vegetation clearing was performed in 2007 and 2008. Herbicide spraying of vegetation on the fence was performed in 2009. • MW-12 was properly plugged and abandoned in 2007 at the suggestion of LDEQ with EPA concurrence, removing the need to clear vegetation. • Land use has not changed for the Site, thus no action has been taken regarding the french drain or the western boundary around MW-4. • Land use has not changed for the Site, thus no action has been taken regarding installation of a monitoring well south of the cap. • MW-14 and MW-20 have been removed from the monitoring network. Searches were conducted in 2001 and 2003, with no further effort taken since the previous review period to locate remnants of the wells. Plugging and abandoning the wells was not completed due to the lack of locating the wells.

6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

This section presents the process and findings of the third five-year review. Specifically, this section presents the findings of site interviews, the site inspection, an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) review, and a data review.

6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS

The Dutchtown Site third five-year review team was lead by Mr. Michael Hebert of EPA, Remedial Project Manager for the Dutchtown Site, with participation from Mr. Hugh (Tommy) Doran Jr., the LDEQ project manager. Mr. Ted Telisak, a representative from EA, assisted in the review process.

In January 2011, the review team established the review schedule, which included the following components:

• Community involvement • Site inspection • Local interviews • ARAR review • Data review • Five-Year Review Report development and review

6.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The third five-year review was announced to the public in The Advocate, a newspaper published in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 9, 2011. A copy of the Public Notice is provided in Attachment 2.

Upon signature, the Third Five-Year Review Report will be placed in the information repositories for the site, including: the Ascension Parish Library repository; the LDEQ office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and the EPA Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas. Another notice will then be published in The Advocate to summarize the findings of the review and announce the availability of the report at the information repositories.

6.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW

This third five-year review for the site included a review of relevant site documents, including decision documents, construction and implementation reports, sampling reports, and related monitoring data. The complete list of documents reviewed during this third five-year review is provided in Attachment 3.

6.4 DATA REVIEW

A review of the Natural Attenuation Evaluation Reports (AGM 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2011) indicates the RAOs are being met. The following sections discuss the 2007 through 2010 data associated with operation and maintenance of the Dutchtown Site since the second five-year review.

In 1997, the original groundwater monitoring network at the Dutchtown Site consisted of 22 wells. Seventeen wells were screened in the uppermost water-bearing zone (0 to 14 feet bgs), which is referred to as the Shallow Zone. Five of the wells were screened in the second water-bearing zone (30 to 35 feet bgs), which is referred to as the Deep Zone.

Three wells have been subsequently lost since installation. Two of the network wells (MW-14 and MW-20) located in the I-10 right-of-way appeared to have been destroyed between 1992 and 1997 as per the Revised RA Report (G&M 1997).

“It appears the well surface completions were removed sometime during the time interval of 1992 and 1997 as a result of operation and maintenance of the Interstate ditch system.”

The Revised RA Report (G&M 1997) indicates an extensive search was conducted utilizing shovels, other hand tools, a push probe, and a metal detector. A surveyor was brought to the site and was also unable to locate MW-14 and MW-20. MW-10, located on the western side of the site on private property, was identified as lost in 2004 prior to the second five-year review. Given the extensive search previously performed, no further effort will be given to this issue.

The ROD (EPA 1994) states that the groundwater sampling program consists of “collecting samples from the Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site monitoring wells, as well as the Dutchtown Middle School water well(s).” The Revised First Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report (AGM 1998) stated the following concerning the school wells:

“The Dutchtown Middle School has two drinking water wells… For the August and November sampling events, only one of the wells was in operation. Groundwater samples were collected from this well. The pump for the other well was not operational, and therefore, groundwater samples from this well could not be collected. For the February and May 1998 sampling events, the pumping mechanisms for both wells were not operational and groundwater samples were not collected from the Dutchtown Middle School wells. According to personnel at the Dutchtown Middle School, the school is now connected to the municipal water supply system.”

Thus, the two Ascension Parish Board Wells, LDOTD 179 and 427, have not been sampled since then.

Eleven monitoring wells and one piezometer were plugged and abandoned during a December 12, 2003 field effort. This issue was extensively covered in the second five-year review. In the period of the third five-year review, only monitoring well MW-12 was plugged and abandoned.

Beginning in 2003, the groundwater monitoring program at the Dutchtown Site was reduced to sampling on an annual basis per the ROD (EPA 1994). The updated monitoring well network currently consists of six Shallow Zone wells (MW-2, MW-3, MW-3A, MW-4A, MW-6, and MW-13) and one Deep Zone well (MW-7), for a total of seven monitoring wells.

Deep Water-Bearing Zone

According to the first five-year review report (EPA 2002) and second five-year report (EPA 2007), BTEX was not detected in the Deep Zone wells. Following the plugging and abandoning of three monitoring wells and the inability to locate another monitoring well, only one remaining Deep Zone well (MW-7) has been sampled yearly since 2003. Contaminants have never been detected in this well. There is no evidence of vertical contaminant migration, thus the remedy continues to be protective of the shallowest drinking water aquifer (encountered at 100 feet bgs and extending to 300 feet bgs).

Shallow Water-Bearing Zone

According to the first five-year review report (EPA 2002) and the second five-year review report (EPA 2007), concentrations of BTEX did not exceed the Class III groundwater corrective action level from 1997 through 2006, when taking into account the natural attenuation factor of 173 identified in the O&M work plan (G&M 1997). From 2007 to 2011, concentrations of BTEX remain below the Class III groundwater corrective action levels detailed in the Updated O&M Plan (AGM 2002). Attachments 7 and 8 summarize the analytical data in detailed tabular and graphical formats, respectively.

6.5 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENT REVIEW

As part of this five-year review, Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) identified in the Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site ROD (EPA 1994) were reviewed to determine if any newly promulgated or modified requirements of federal and state environmental laws have significantly changed the protectiveness of the remedies implemented at the site.

The RAOs set for in the 1994 ROD relating to groundwater were as follows: 1. Prevent human exposure to contaminated water, 2. Prevent contamination of the underlying 150-foot-deep drinking water aquifer, and 3. Restore contaminated shallow groundwater, based on its classification, for future use.

The ROD (EPA 1994) divided ARARs pertaining to remedial activities for the site into chemical-, action -, and location -specific categories.

No changes in ARARs were identified in the first two five-year reviews conducted in 2002 and 2007. No newly promulgated or modified ARARs were identified during the third five-year review that would change the protectiveness of the remedies implemented at the site.

6.5.1 Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health or risk-based numerical values or methodologies used to determine acceptable concentrations of chemicals that may be found in or discharged to the environment.

According to the ROD, the risk assessment associated with the RI did not identify a pathway between the shallow water-bearing unit and any potential receptor population. Therefore, numerical health-based cleanup levels were not developed. According to the EPA (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response [OSWER] Directive 9283.1-2), health-based drinking water levels are usually not appropriate for Class III groundwater (non-potable and poor yield). Environmental considerations and prevention of plume expansion determine cleanup levels for Class III groundwater.

The shallow groundwater zone remains a Class III aquifer and no complete exposure pathways from the shallow water-bearing zone to potential receptors exists; therefore, no new chemical-specific ARARs were identified during this five-year review process.

No ARARs relating to risk-based media concentrations for soils (existing to 14 feet bgs) were identifed in the ROD for the Dutchtown Site, since exposure to surface and subsurface soils at the site is not expected to result in any excess risk/hazard to human health and the environment under current and no action conditions, and since no current or future exposure pathway was identified for the contaminated shallow aquifer. No new ARARs relating to soil were identified during this five-year review process.

The Safe Drinking Water Act gives the EPA authority to set drinking water standards, which is the basis for MCLs. Based on the second RAO listed above for the third water-bearing unit, one of the goals for long-term monitoring was to assess groundwater concentrations in the 30-foot bgs (Deep Zone) unit as a sentinel for the 150-foot drinking water aquifer in comparison to MCLs; however, MCLs were not specifically listed as an ARAR in the ROD (EPA 1994).

6.5.2 Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Action-specific ARARs are usually technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on actions or conditions involving specific substances. These requirements are triggered by the particular remedial activities that are selected to accomplish the remedy. Because the remedy for this site was a passive action, no action-specific ARARs were identified in the ROD. No other action-specific ARARs were identified during this review.

6.5.3 Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Location-specific ARARs restrict actions or contaminant concentrations in certain environmentally sensitive areas. Examples of areas regulated under various federal regulations include floodplains, wetlands, and locations where endangered species or historically significant cultural resources are present (EPA 1989).

No location-specific ARARs were identified in the ROD, and no additional location-specific ARARs were identified during this review.

In summary, it appears that no other new laws or regulations have been promulgated or enacted that would call into question the effectiveness of the remedy at the site to protect human health and the environment. EPA will continue to monitor this site and any future changes in ARARs will be reported in the next five-year review.

6.6 SITE INSPECTION

A site inspection was conducted on June 1, 2011 to assess the condition of the site and the measures employed to protect human health and the environment from the contaminants of concern (COCs) still present at the site. Attendees included: (1) Michael Hebert (EPA); (2) Tommy Doran (LDEQ); (3) George Cramer (ARCADIS); and (4) Ted Telisak (EA). The site inspection checklist is included in Attachment 4. Site survey forms (interview records) are provided in Attachment 5. A photographic log of the site inspection is included in Attachment 6.

No evidence of contamination was visible at the site. The site’s general appearance is good, with a healthy stand of vegetation. The inspection team investigated the site within the boundary of the fence, as well as the area immediately adjacent to the site. In addition, the team observed the condition of the groundwater monitoring wells.

The vegetation at the site appeared to be in good condition, considering that the area has had little rain recently, and the grass had been recently mown. The cap did not appear to have eroded, showed only minor dessication cracking, and was free of trees, shrubs, and tall weeds. The wells appeared to be locked and in good condition. Site access appeared to be sufficiently restricted. No evidence of vandalism was observed, and the fence, gates, and locks were in good condition. A few areas of the fence are stretched, and some of the barbed wire has broken and fallen from the top of the fence, but site access is still restricted. There was no evidence of recent use of the site for any purpose.

6.7 SITE INTERVIEWS

In accordance with the community involvement requirements of the five-year review process, key individuals to be surveyed were identified by EPA. Completed survey forms for the following individuals are included in Attachment 5: • Terrell Moran, Owner of Terrell Moran Inc., Adjacent Property Owner • Tommy Doran, Project Manager, LDEQ • George Cramer, Associate Vice President, ARCADIS

Overall, the received responses were positive. Responding interviewees indicated they were not aware of any trespassing or vandalism, they did not know of any negative impacts on the community, and they all considered themselves well informed. Interviewees reported seeing evidence of on-going maintenance. Mr. Cramer, the PRP’s consultant, reported that a lawsuit had been filed against the PRPs by neighboring property owners:

“On November 25, 2008, Linda Day and Aimee Gaudet, who own property adjacent to the western boundary of the Dutchtown Site, filed a lawsuit entitled Linda Day, et al. v. Northrop Grumman, et al., No. 91049, 23rd Judicial District for the Parish of Ascension, Louisiana, against a number of Potentially Responsible Parties for the Dutchtown Site.

“Day and Gaudet allege damage to their property due to contamination allegedly associated with the west side of the Dutchtown Site and allegedly caused by the PRPs’ remediation of the Dutchtown Site.”

The PRP representative mentioned other parties who were also involved, the reasons for being involved, and then summarized the PRPs’ opinion regarding the matter: “The PRPs believe there is no merit to this lawsuit. The monitored natural attenuation remedy set forth in the Record of Decision specifically provides for the natural biodegradation of the

contaminants over time. Further, the PRPs have undertaken all remediation activities at the Site under the supervision of the EPA and the LDEQ.”

7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The conclusions presented in this section support the determination that the selected remedy for the Dutchtown Site is currently protective of human health and the environment. EPA Guidance indicates that to assess the protectiveness of a remedy, three questions (Questions A, B, and C) shall be answered.

7.1 QUESTION A: IS THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION DOCUMENTS? YES.

• RA performance—Based on the review of documents, ARARs, and the results of the site inspection, the selected remedy for the Dutchtown Site is functioning as intended by the ROD (EPA 1994). The remaining monitoring wells (MW-3, MW-3A, MW-4A, and MW-6) with detected concentrations of benzene and ethylbenzene have been statistically analyzed using the Mann-Kendall statistical methodology. The statistical trend results from the Thirteenth Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report (ARCADIS 2011) are provided in the table below (Table 3).

• Cost of system and O&M—O&M cost information since September 2006 was an average of approximately $18,200 annually. Current O&M activities appear sufficient to maintain the effectiveness of the current remedy.

• Early indicators of potential issues—There is no indication of remedy failure. Continual fence maintenance is needed to assure continued restriction of site access.

• Implementation of ICs and other measures – Implementation of the ICs at the site includes a conveyance notification which was filed and recorded with the Ascension Clerk of Court in 2006, indicating that the site is a CERCLA site and prohibiting disturbance of soil and groundwater. A 6-foot chain link fence restricts access to the site.

TABLE 3

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT SUPERFUND SITE

Monitoring Well Constituent Statistical Results Benzene Downward Trend MW-3 Ethylbenzene Downward Trend Benzene Downward Trend MW-3A Ethylbenzene No Trend Apparent Benzene No Trend Apparent MW-4A Ethylbenzene No Trend Apparent MW-6 Ethylbenzene No Trend Apparent

7.2 QUESTION B: ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS USED AT THE TIME OF REMEDY SELECTION STILL VALID? YES.

• Changes in exposure pathways—There have been no changes that bear on the protectiveness of the selected remedy.

• Changes in standards, newly promulgated standards, and to-be-considered—No new laws or regulations have been promulgated or enacted that would call into question the effectiveness of the remedy at the site to protect human health and the environment.

• Changes in toxicity and other contaminant characteristics—There have been no changes since the last five year review that bear on the protectiveness of the selected remedy.

• Changes in land use—There have been no changes in land use near the site since the last five year review that bear on the protectiveness of the selected remedy.

• New contaminants and/or contaminant sources—There have been no new contaminants or contaminant sources identified at the site.

7.3 QUESTION C: HAS ANY OTHER INFORMATION COME TO LIGHT THAT COULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY? NO.

The type of other information that might call into question the protectiveness of the remedy includes potential future land use changes in the vicinity of the site or other unexpected changes in site conditions or exposure pathways.

Since the last five year review, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD) has conducted a feasibility study for an interchange at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 74 and Interstate Highway 10. The FS report (Volkert 2009) may be found in Attachment 9. However, LDOTD currently has no further action planned on this issue, and the preferred plan for the interchange identified in the feasibility study does not require right-of-way through the Dutchtown Site. No other potential land use changes have been identified.

In summary, at the time of this report, no firm intentions to change the land use of the site have been identified. No other information has come to light as part of this third five-year review for the site that would call into question the protectiveness of the site remedy.

7.4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

According to documents and data reviewed, the site inspection, and interviews, the remedy appears to be functioning as intended by the 1994 ROD. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the

19 protectiveness of the remedy. No new ARARs have been found that would call into question the protectiveness of the remedy. There have been no changes in toxicity factors for the primary COCs since the last five-year review, and there has been no change to the standardized risk assessment methodology that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy. There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

8.0 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

ICs are generally defined as non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal tools that do not involve construction or physically changing the site and that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land and/or resource use (EPA 2005). ICs can be used for many reasons including restriction of site use, modifying behavior, and providing information to individuals (EPA 2000). ICs may include easements, covenants, restrictions or other conditions on deeds, and/or groundwater and/or land use restriction documents (EPA 2001). The following sections describe the ICs implemented at the site, the potential effect of future land use plans on ICs, and any plans for changes to site contamination status.

8.1 TYPES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS IN PLACE AT THE SITE

A conveyance notification was filed and recorded with the Ascension Clerk of Court, indicating that the site is a CERCLA site and prohibiting disturbance of soil and groundwater. The conveyance notification remains effective until EPA and LDEQ determine the property can support unlimited uses.

8.2 EFFECT OF FUTURE LAND USE PLANS ON INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

The land is currently not in use. No future land uses have been formally established for the site that would require an adjustment to the ICs currently being implemented. Furthermore, should future land use change, then an assessment should be conducted with respect to whether additional ICs and/or access controls are needed to ensure that the site and the selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.

A FS and environmental inventory was conducted for LDOTD, for possible construction of an interchange at I-10 and LA Highway 74 (Attachment 9). Currently this interchange project is at a standstill with no development in the foreseeable future. The report to the LDOTD (Volkert 2009) indicates the preferred configuration for a new interchange would not encroach on the Dutchtown Site.

8.3 PLANS FOR CHANGES TO SITE CONTAMINATION STATUS

No changes to the status of the contamination at the site are anticipated, other than natural attenuation.

9.0 ISSUES

This section describes issues associated with the Dutchtown Site identified during the third five-year review:

• O&M Plan: The updated O&M Plan (AGM 2002) does not accurately reflect the current monitoring well network. Four wells listed in the O&M Plan can no longer be sampled because they have been lost or plugged and abandoned (MW-10, MW-14, MW-20, and MW-12), and the school wells are no longer used for drinking water, so they are no longer sampled. • Monitoring well MW-12: MW-12 was plugged and abandoned in 2007, but no plugging and abandonment report has been provided. • Minor Fence Maintenance: Barbed wire has fallen down in some places, some of the chain-link fabric has been stretched, and some branches have fallen on the fence. Fences are in need of minor maintenance to preserve their effectiveness. • French drain, additional wells: The french drain has not been formally investigated for the site-specific COCs. If land use changes, this should be done. If additional development is proposed, then additional monitoring wells should be considered. A summary table (Table 4) is provided below, listing issues identified and whether they currently affect the remedy protectiveness.

TABLE 4

ISSUES IDENTIFIED DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT SUPERFUND SITE

Currently Affects Remedy Issue Protectiveness (Yes/No) Outdated O&M Plan No Missing plug and No abandonment report, MW-12 Minor fence maintenance No French drain, additional wells No

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

In addition to the yearly sampling of monitoring wells to assess contaminant concentration, inspections should continue at least once per year, to check the condition of the cap, review the condition of site access restrictions (fencing and warning signs), and assess compliance with institutional controls on use of the property or its soil and groundwater. Repairs and mowing should be performed as necessary to maintain current conditions. Follow-up actions to address the issues identified in Section 9 are as follows: 1. Revise the O&M Plan to reflect current conditions and requirements. 2. Provide plugging and abandonment report for MW-12. 3. Continue with removal of fallen branches and conduct fence maintenance. 4. If land use changes, investigate the french drain for the COCs. If additional development is proposed, then additional monitoring wells should be considered. 5. Provide an analysis of whether the lost monitoring wells (i.e., MW-10, MW-14, and MW-20) could provide a conduit for contamination to lower ground water intervals.

Table 5 summarizes the recommendations and follow-up actions for the Dutchtown Site.

TABLE 5

RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT SUPERFUND SITE

Follow-up Actions Affect Recommendations and Party Oversight Milestone Long-Term Remedy Issue Follow-up Actions Responsible Agency Date Protectiveness (Yes/No)

Outdated O&M Update the O&M Plan to reflect the current DSC EPA March 31, 2012 No Plan monitoring well network, including an explanation of lost monitoring wells MW-10, MW-14, and MW-20, identify the plugged and abandoned MW-12, and explain the lack of sampling the middle school wells. MW-12 Plug and Provide a plug and abandonment report for DSC EPA March 31, 2012 No Abandonment MW-12, which was plugged and abandoned in Report 2007. Minor Fence Remove fallen branches and make fence DSC EPA March 31, 2012 No Maintenance repairs (replace fallen barbed wire, etc.) French Drain and If land use changes are implemented at the site, DSC EPA Before initiation of No Land Use Change sample the french drain for COCs and conduct land use change an analysis of the structure. If additional development is proposed, then additional monitoring wells should be considered. Lost Monitoring Provide an analysis of whether the lost DSC EPA March 31, 2012 No Well Potential monitoring wells (i.e., MW-10, MW-14, and Conduit Evaluation MW-20) could provide a conduit for contamination to lower ground water intervals. Notes: COCs - Contaminants of concern DSC - Dutchtown Steering Committee MW - Monitoring well O&M - Operation and maintenance

11.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

At this time, based on the information available during the third five-year review, the selected remedy at the Dutchtown Treatment Plant site remains protective of human health and the environment in the long-term.

12.0 NEXT REVIEW

The Dutchtown Site requires ongoing five-year reviews. The next review will be conducted within the next five years, but no later than September 2016.

Attachment 1

Site Location Map and Site Layout Map

TX Beaumont Shreveport ¦ §¨ 49 AR LA Lafayette Lafayette « ¬ 74 Location Location Site MS Baton Rouge Rouge Baton Jackson Jackson Dutchtown Dutchtown Superfund 0 250 500 Site Site Feet Feet

¦ §¨

10 Society, 2009. 2009. Society, Geographic National by provided layer, Online ArcGIS ESRI Source: 10 Highway Interstate

Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana

LA 74 Highway

Dutchtown TreatmentPlant Site Location Map Map Location Site

Superfund Site Site Superfund Figure 1

2011-06-06 r:\federal\epa\rac ii\0069-dutchtown\gis\mxds\fig01_sitelocation.mxd EA-Dallas jschwertz

P P P * 2 % %

* MW-18 ³

P P C MW-9

WATER

P P P * % 2 Linda Day %

* MW-19 Kenneth Phillips Aimee Gaudet ! ( MW-11 0 60 120

MW-10 P P 2 % Feet MW-12 < 2 < %

BM #A-45 MW-4 2 % P P MW-6 * % 2 %

MW-8 MW-7* Legend

< < Bench Mark

*%* Deep Zone Monitoring Well

P P % 2 2 % Shallow Zone Monitoring Well 2 %

2 % MW-3A *

Ascension Holding Company, LLC. 2

MW-16 %

MW-3

MW-13 *%P Plugged and Abandonded P P Deep Zone Monitoring Well 2 % MW-17 2%P Plugged and Abandoned Shallow Zone Monitoring Well

!( Lost Monitoring Well T O L A. H W Y 7 3 > 7 Y ─ W A. H O L T P P P C Water Well * %

* MW-1 P P Property Boundary 2 % MW-15 2 %

MW-2 P P 2 % Terrell Moran, Inc. MW-2A

L A . H W Y 7 4 7 Y W . H A L

¦§¨10

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10

< ─ T O U S. H W Y 6 1 6 Y W S. H ─ O U < T P P 2 % MW-21

Figure 2

Source: Modified from Arcadis (2011) Site Layout Map Image Source: NAIP 2010 Imagery. Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site

Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana 2011-06-13 r:\federal\epa\rac ii\0069-dutchtown\gis\mxds\fig01_sitelayout.mxd EA-Dallas jschwertz

Attachment 2

Announcement of the Third Five-Year Review

CAPITAL CITY PRESS

Publisher of THE ADVOCATE Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site r l ' .• " ".' ,PUBLIC NOTICE U ~S.EPA Region ,eBeginsThird Five-Year " ,, " Review of Site Remeely. PROOF OF PUBLICATION The U,S. Environmental ProteCtl9llAgejjcy (EPA) '" Onc$CQmplet8(l.,the results of the Third Five-Year Region 6 has begun a Third Five-Year Review of Review will be made available to the public at the The hereto attached notice was the remedy for IhepLitchtown Tf:eatment Pllint Su following information repository: published in THE ADVOCATE, piirfund Site, 'The 'Site Is located In Ascension Par iSh', Loulslana:-nearthe intersection of Interstate 10 . i 'Meanllion Par'lIh Library a dally newspaper ofgeneral circulation and LouiSlari~ Highway 74. The review wiUevaluate 708 S. lnria BlVd. pubUshed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, whether th~', remedy remains protective of t~ ~ public GOItZ.,•••·LQulaiana 70737 - .,.. . and the Official Journal health and the environment The ,review is sched~ of the State ofLouisiana, ~ Ied to be c~mpletedby OctOber 2011 EPAls Mk2 InfQrmatlon on the' put~htoYm Treatment PlantSu Ing for input from members of the community, p~rfimd Site i$ available at the following Internet City ofBaton Rouge, adOre!J.!>: ._ ... , . ' and Parish of East Baton Rouge, ~~g'i nn',ng in t~ ~1960S the ~Ite received wast~oU _' hHpJlwww,epa · 9QvJreglpn6/~$f/pdffile&/0600633 . in the following issues: and other waste materials from offsite sources. pc;lf processed them, and redistributed them until it was closed in 1983. An ''Smergency cleanoup was· FOJlJ\ore information ,abol:lUhs Site or to comment, 5/9/2011 conducted in 199t, and a remedial aetion was con contact: ducted in 1997. " Mr Michael Hebert The site remedy incJudechnonit'orednaturaiattenu Remedial Project Manager alion of groundwater; maintaining the existing claY U.S, EPA, RegiimS cap and. fence; closing out iii private water well and 214.665.8315 Shen~y Canoni, Public Notice Clerk drilling a wplapement well; applYi~g phY~ldal on-site ~00 . 533~o08 (toll free) controls !Jucha!Jaccess .restrictiOris an~lnstallatjon of ~rgrS; rrnple~eRtin9 insu.t~.tionalcontrQls t(t,'th'e Mr Tomffiy Doran, form of restrictions on future use of property, con Louisiana Oepai1rrien\ ()f Emiironinental Quality vtilyance notifications, and/ol' restriction on use of 225.219.3019 .... , Sworn and subscribed before me by the groundw,~ter from the Site wilt~r , \II,(elI8. , ., , " ',. ,888.763J;i424(Jollfree) person whose signature appears above The principal contaminants on the site were ben Please direct media inquiries to the EPA Press Of- . zene, ethyl benzene, 'toluene; xylene, and leaB,. Cur ficeat . rently ground water is being monitored to verify that 214.665.2200 May 10. 2011 the contaminants. are. not spreadil'lQ air they are be ing degraded by natural processes. . 4464457-may 9-1t ~ .'.\'.J~Q.] ..~.~ M. Monic McChrisWt,n, Notary Public ID# 88293 \\\\111/J11/ State ofLouisiana " C McCIt II ...... ' -~\ ••••••••••• I?I.n. 1/ My Commission Expires: Indefinite ..... 0 0" ~'{ F'Us··'u).-/ ::: ~o"'~~' n :~ ',\. 0>': - cP' 0 _: iN.::!._l, : ~ ",. ~ .... --;.~•••• "/;;~~r;;,.•"~~ "///':t: "'~·· .. ,!r...... NO· •• ••,CO .... ~...... "'" /1, OF LOU \ \,' EA ENGINEERING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 1/ J44d445~ LEEANN KELLY 405 S HWY 121 BYPASS STE C-lOO LEWISVILLE, TX 75067

Attachment 3

Documents Reviewed

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (AGM). 1998. Revised 1st Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site. Prepared for Dutchtown Steering Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. September 8. ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 2002. Operation and Maintenance Plan (Updated). Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site (AI 5217). Prepared for Dutchtown Steering Committee by AGM, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. LA002166.0003.00001. December 16. ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 2008. Tenth Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site. LA002713.0001.00001. February 29. ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 2009a. Response to Second 5-Year Review, Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. LA002713.0001.0001. June 10. ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 2009b. Eleventh Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site. LA002713.0001.00001. August 10. ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 2009c. Twelfth Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site. LA002713.0001.00001. December 7. ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 2011. Thirteenth Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site. LA002713.0001.00001. March 22. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G&M). 1997. Revised Remedial Action Report. Prepared for the Dutchtown Steering Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. G&M Project No. LA1511.001.003. December 12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, Interim Final, EPA 540/G/89/004, OSWER 9355.3-01. October. EPA. 1994. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Dutchtown Treatment Plant, EPA ID: LAD980879449, Ascension Parish, LA. June 20. EPA. 2000. Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups. EPA 540-F-00-005. September. EPA. 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. EPA 540-R-01-007. June 2001. EPA. 2002. First Five-Year Review Report for the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. September. EPA. 2005. Institutional Controls: A Citizen’s Guide to Understanding Institutional Controls at Superfund, Brownfields, Federal Facilities, Underground Storage Tank, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Cleanups. EPA-540-R-04-003. February. EPA. 2007. Second Five-Year Review Report for the Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. September. EPA. 2011. Dutchtown Treatment Plant (Ascension Parish), Louisiana. EPA ID# LAD980879449, Site ID: 0600633. On-line Address: http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/0600633.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2011. Publication date: April 28. Volkert. 2009. Stage 0 Feasibility Study and Environmental Inventory Interchange at I-10 and LA Highway 74, Ascension Parish. State Project No. 700-03-0001. October 9.

Page 1 of 1

Attachment 4

Site Visit Checklist

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE VISIT CHECKLIST

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site Name: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Date of Inspection: 1 June 2011 Location: Ascension Parish, Louisiana EPA ID: LAD980879449 Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: Weather/temperature: EPA Region 6

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) Landfill cover/containment Groundwater pump and treatment Access controls Surface water collection and treatment Institutional controls Other (Monitored natural attenuation)

Attachments: Inspection team roster attached Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M Site Manager George Cramer Principal Hydrogeologist 8 June 2011 Name Title Date Interviewed: by mail at office by phone Phone no. Problems, suggestions: Report attached

2. O&M Staff Name Title Date Interviewed: by mail at office by phone Phone no. Problems, suggestions: Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e.; State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.). Fill in all that apply.

Agency Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Contact Tommy Doran Environmental Scientist 31 May 2011 (225) 219-3019 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems, suggestions: Report attached

Agency Contact ______Name Title Date Phone no. Problems, suggestions: Report attached

4. Other interviews (optional): Reports attached to Five-Year Review Report

III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents O&M manual (O&M Work Plan) Readily available Up to date N/A As-built drawings Readily available Up to date N/A Maintenance logs Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks: 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan Readily available Up to date N/A Contingency plan/emergency response plan Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks: 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks: 4. Permits and Service Agreements Air discharge permit Readily available Up to date N/A Effluent discharge Readily available Up to date N/A Waste disposal, POTW Readily available Up to date N/A Other permits Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks: 5. Gas Generation Records Readily available Up to date N/A 6. Settlement Monument Records Readily available Up to date N/A 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records Readily available Up to date N/A 8. Leachate Extraction Records Readily available Up to date N/A 9. Discharge Compliance Records Air Readily available Up to date N/A Water (effluent) Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks: 10. Daily Access/Security Logs Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks:

2 IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization State in-house Contractor for State PRP in-house Contractor for PRP Other 2. O&M Cost Records Readily available Up to date Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period Date Date Total Cost From 2006 to 2011 $91,000 - Breakdown attached From to $ - Breakdown attached From to $ - Breakdown attached From to $ - Breakdown attached From to $ - Breakdown attached From to - Breakdown attached From to - Breakdown attached From to - Breakdown attached

These costs provided by ARCADIS, PRP Consultant.

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period None V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Applicable N/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged Location shown on site map Gates secured N/A Remarks: Minor damage to barbed wire B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures Sign locations depicted with shown on site map N/A Remarks:

LA 74

3 C. Institutional Controls

1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Yes No N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Yes No N/A Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Self-reporting Frequency Mowed every other month Responsible party/agency Contact Name Title Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date Yes No N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency Yes No N/A Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Yes No N/A Violations have been reported Yes No N/A Other problems or suggestions: Report attached

2. Adequacy ICs are adequate ICs are inadequate N/A Remarks: D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing Location shown on site map No vandalism evident Remarks: 2. Land use changes onsite N/A Remarks: 3. Land use changes offsite N/A Remarks: Trailers removed from the east side, now a commercial parking area VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads Applicable N/A 1. Roads damaged Location shown on site map Roads adequate N/A Remarks: B. Other Site Conditions Remarks:

4 VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable N/A A. Landfill Surface 1. Settlement (Low spots) Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks: 2. Cracks Location shown on site map Cracking not evident Lengths Widths Depths Remarks: A few minor dessication cracks due to drought 3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks: 4. Holes Location shown on site map Holes not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks: 5. Vegetative Cover Grass Cover properly established No signs of stress Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks: Drought has caused grass to go dormant 6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) N/A Remarks: 7. Bulges Location shown on site map Bulges not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks: 8. Wet Areas/Water Damage Wet areas/water damage not evident Wet areas Location shown on site map Areal extent Ponding Location shown on site map Areal extent Seeps Location shown on site map Areal extent Soft subgrade Location shown on site map Areal extent Remarks: 9. Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map No evidence of slope instability Areal extent Remarks: B. Benches Applicable N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.) 1. Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks: 2. Bench Breached Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks: 3. Bench Overtopped Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks:

5 C. Letdown Channels Applicable N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, rip rap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.) 1. Settlement Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement Areal extent Depth Remarks: 2. Material Degradation Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation Material type Areal extent Remarks: 3. Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion Areal extent Depth Remarks: 4. Undercutting Location shown on site map No evidence of undercutting Areal extent Depth Remarks: 5. Obstructions Type No obstructions Location shown on site map Areal extent Size Remarks: 6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type No evidence of excessive growth Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow Location shown on site map Areal extent Remarks: D. Cover Penetrations Applicable N/A 1. Gas Vents Active Passive Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M N/A Remarks:

2. Gas Monitoring Probes Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M N/A Remarks: 3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M N/A Remarks: 4. Leachate Extraction Wells Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M N/A Remarks: 5. Settlement Monuments Located Routinely surveyed N/A Remarks:

6 E. Gas Collection and Treatment Applicable N/A 1. Gas Treatment Facilities Flaring Thermal destruction Collection for reuse Good condition Needs O&M Remarks: 2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds, and Piping Good condition Needs O&M Remarks: 3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) Good condition Needs O&M N/A Remarks: F. Cover Drainage Layer Applicable N/A 1. Outlet Pipes Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks: 2. Outlet Rock Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks: G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Applicable N/A 1. Siltation Areal extent Size N/A Siltation not evident Remarks: 2. Erosion Areal extent Depth N/A Erosion not evident Remarks: 3. Outlet Works Functioning N/A Remarks: 4. Dam Functioning N/A Remarks: H. Retaining Walls Applicable N/A 1. Deformations Location shown on site map Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement Rotational displacement Remarks: 2. Degradation Location shown on site map Degradation not evident Remarks: I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Applicable N/A 1. Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks: Sheet flow eastward 2. Vegetative Growth Location shown on site map N/A Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent Type Remarks: 3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks: 4. Discharge Structure Functioning N/A Remarks:

7 VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable N/A 1. Settlement Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks: 2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring Performance not monitored Frequency Evidence of breaching Head differential Remarks:

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Applicable N/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical Good condition All required wells located Needs O&M N/A Remarks: 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances Good condition Needs O&M Remarks: N/A 3. Spare Parts and Equipment Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided Remarks: N/A B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical Good condition Needs O&M Remarks: 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances Good condition Needs O&M Remarks: 3. Spare Parts and Equipment Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided Remarks:

8 C. Treatment System Applicable N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) Metals removal Oil/water separation Bioremediation Air stripping Carbon absorbers Filters Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) Others Good condition Needs O&M Sampling ports properly marked and functional Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Equipment properly identified Quantity of groundwater treated annually Quantity of surface water treated annually Remarks: 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (Properly rated and functional) N/A Good condition Needs O&M Remarks: 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs O&M Remarks: 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances N/A Good condition Needs O&M Remarks: 5. Treatment Building(s) N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks: 6. Monitoring Wells (Pump and treatment remedy) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition All required wells located Needs O&M N/A Remarks: D. Monitored Natural Attenuation Applicable N/A 1. Monitoring Wells (Natural attenuation remedy) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled (yearly) Good condition All required wells located Needs O&M N/A Remarks: X. OTHER REMEDIES If there are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.

9 XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). Remedial Action Objectives were as follows: • Prevent human exposure to the contaminated water • Prevent contamination of underlying 150-foot-deep drinking water aquifer, • Restore contaminated shallow groundwater, based on its classification, for future use. O&M of the site includes maintenance of the clay cap constructed above the treated soil, groundwater monitoring, and fence inspection. At this time groundwater is sampled annually. Other O&M activities such as mowing and fence trimming are scheduled as needed to keep up with the growth of vegetation. The remedy is effective and functioning as designed, as indicated by results of groundwater monitoring.

B. Adequacy of O&M Good

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure None

D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. None, unless land use changes

Attachment 5

Interview Records

SUPERFUND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE SURVEY Site Name: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Site EPA ID No.: LAD980879449 Location: Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana Date: April 15, 2011

Contact Made By:

Name: Michael Hebert Title: Remedial Project Manager Organization: U.S. EPA

Telephone No.: (214) 665-8315 Street Address: 1455 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 E-Mail: [email protected] City, State, Zip: Dallas, Texas 75202

Name: Ted Telisak Title: Project Manager Organization: EA

Telephone No.: (972) 459-5017 Street Address: 405 S. Highway 121, Building C, Suite 100 E-Mail: [email protected] City, State, Zip: Lewisville, Texas 75067

Individual Contacted:

Name: George H. Cramer, P.G. Title: Associate Vice President/ Organization: ARCADIS Principal Hydrogeologist

Telephone No.: (225)205-8259 Street Address: 10352 Plaza American Drive E-mail Address: City, State, Zip: New Orleans, LA 70816 [email protected]

Survey Questions

1. What is your general impression of the work conducted at the site since the second Five-Year Review period (since September 2007)?

The work has complied with all approved documents and has been appropriate for the level of effort required at the site. Mowing has been performed on a continuing basis, along with fence maintenance as appropriate.

2. What effect have site operations had on the surrounding community since the second Five-Year Review?

The sole operations at the site have been the mowing, occasional fence cleaning and the yearly groundwater monitoring. These activities have had no effect on the surrounding community.

3. In the past five years, are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please provide details.

On November 25, 2008, Linda Day and Aimee Gaudet, who own property adjacent to the western boundary of the Dutchtown Site, filed a lawsuit entitled Linda Day, et al. v. Northrop Grumman, et al., No. 91049, 23rd Judicial District for the Parish of Ascension, Louisiana against a number of Potentially Responsible Parties for the Dutchtown Site.

Page 1 of 2 SUPERFUND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE SURVEY (continued) Site Name: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Site EPA ID No.: LAD980879449 Location: Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana Date: April 15, 2011 Survey Questions (Cont.)

Day and Gaudet allege damage to their property due to contamination allegedly associated withthe west side of the Dutchtown Site and allegedly caused by the PRPs’ remediation of the Dutchtown Site. Also listed as plaintiffs in the suit are David Shackelford, Henry Schexnayder, III, HAD Properties, LLC, and SKR Construction, LLC, who allegedly attempted to purchase Linda Day's property in order to develop a subdivision. These plaintiffs claim they were unable to purchase and develop the property because of the alleged contamination.

The Plaintiffs' allegations are based on the results of the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment prepared by EcoScience (which is attached).

The PRPs believe there is no merit to this lawsuit. The monitored natural attenuation remedy set forth in the Record of Decision specifically provides for the natural biodegradation of the contaminants over time. Further, the PRPs have undertaken all remediation activities at the Site under the supervision of the EPA and the LDEQ.

4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site in the past five years such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please provide details.

None in the last review period other than two years ago a side gate was found open from the adjoining property on the east side. No trespass or vandalism was apparent.

5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress?

Yes

6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management or operation?

None

Page 2 of 2 SUPERFUND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE SURVEY Site Name: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Site EPA ID No.: LAD980879449 Location: Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana Date: May 31, 2011

Contact Made By:

Name: Michael Hebert Title: Remedial Project Manager Organization: U.S. EPA

Telephone No.: (214) 665-8315 Street Address: 1455 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 E-Mail: [email protected] City, State, Zip: Dallas, Texas 75202

Name: Ted Telisak Title: Project Manager Organization: EA

Telephone No.: (972) 459-5019 Street Address: 405 S. Highway 121, Building C, Suite 100 E-Mail: [email protected] City, State, Zip: Lewisville, Texas 75067

Individual Contacted:

Name: Tommy Doran Title: Environmental Scientist Organization: LDEQ

Telephone No.: (225) 219-3019 Street Address: 602 N. Fifth Street, Third Floor E-mail Address: [email protected] City, State, Zip: Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Survey Questions

Should you choose to respond, please return your survey form to Ted Telisak at EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. via e-mail or postal service by May 16, 2011.

1. What is your general impression of the work conducted at the site since the second Five-Year Review period (since September 2007)?

I have recently been assigned this site, and have not had much if any experience with the work conducted, but based upon a historical records search, the work does appear to have conducted in a satisfactory manner.

2. What effect have site operations had on the surrounding community since the second Five-Year Review?

In my search of the site records, I discovered no comments concerning the surrounding community during the last five-year period

3. In the past five years, are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please provide details.

In my search of the site records, I discovered no comments concerning the surrounding community during the last five-year period

5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress?

I have been provided information from Consultants and the USEPA about all upcoming events, and have access to all LDEQ records concerning the site.

6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management or operation?

None presently.

Page 2 of 2 SUPERFUND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE SURVEY t1AY 06 ?n"j '

Site Name: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Site EPA ID No.: LAD98081~ff9 [f.:Jr~ n:";.~ p~ (" ~. ~ L.. .I.~ ' i 1Ji..\: 't ~ .. ~. j,;';.!-. !< Location: Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana Date: April 15, 2011

Contact Made By:

Name: Michael Hebert Title: Remedial Project Manager Organization: U.S. EPA

Telephone No.: (214) 665-8315 Street Address: 1455 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 E-Mail: [email protected] City, State, Zip: Dallas, Texas 75202

Name: Ted Telisak Title: Project Manager Organization: EA

~ T<>:~- ~ Telephone No.: (972) 459.. 5019 Street Address: 405 S. Highway 121, Building C, Suite 100 E-Mail: [email protected] City, State, Zip: Lewisville, Texas 75067

Individual Contacted: Name: Mr. Moran Title: Property Owner Organization: Terrell Moran Inc. . ~. -:.J.!_".!~'" Telephone No.: (225) ~ifJ6aW (;77",r6Y Street Address: J..1if6 Bwy 74 E-mail Address: [email protected] City, State, Zip: Geismar, LA 70734 Survey Questions

Shouldyou choose to respond, please return your survey form to Ted Telisak at EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. via e-mail or postal service by May 16, 2011.

1. What is your general impression ofthe work conducted at the site since the second Five-Year Review period (since September 2007)? 1)rA6'5 C~t+J~

2. What effect have site operations had on the surrounding community since the second Five-Year Review? /Vl:JtVei

3. In the past five years, are you aware ofany community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? Ifso, please provide details. /J/() If/'-e

Page 1012 SUPERFUND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE SURVEY (continued) Site Name: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Site EPA ID No.: LAD980879449 Location: Dutchtown, Ascension Parish, Louisiana Date: April 15, 2011

Survey Questions (Cont.)

4. Are you aware ofany events, incidents, or activities at the site in the past five years such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? Ifso, please provide details. /IItI/II' -e'

S. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?

6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or operation?

Page 2 012

Attachment 6

Site Inspection Photographs

Photograph No. 1 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: Main entrance gate to site, looking south

Photograph No. 2 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the southwestern portion of the site, looking southwest

Page 1 of 25

Photograph No. 3 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the western portion of the site

Photograph No. 4 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the western portion of the site

Page 2 of 25

Photograph No. 5 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the western portion of the site

Photograph No. 6 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the central portion of the site, with cap beyond, looking north

Page 3 of 25

Photograph No. 7 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the central portion of the site

Photograph No. 8 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the central portion of the site, looking northeast

Page 4 of 25

Photograph No. 9 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the central portion of the site, looking east

Photograph No. 10 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the well house on the southern portion of the site

Page 5 of 25

Photograph No. 11 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View to the site entrance on south side of the site

Photograph No. 12 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the french drain, looking northeast

Page 6 of 25

Photograph No. 13 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View to the french drain

Photograph No. 14 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the fence along west edge of site, with vines and fallen branches

Page 7 of 25

Photograph No. 15 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View to the west side gate, with warning sign

Photograph No. 16 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of monitoring well MW-4A, looking northwest

Page 8 of 25

Photograph No. 17 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of monitoring well MW-4A, looking south

Photograph No. 18 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the western edge of the site, looking south

Page 9 of 25

Photograph No. 19 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of monitoring well MW-6, looking east

Photograph No. 20 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of monitoring well MW-6, looking southeast

Page 10 of 25

Photograph No. 21 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the northern portion of the site, with cap in background, looking south

Photograph No. 22 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the northern portion of the site, looking southwest

Page 11 of 25

Photograph No. 23 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the northwestern portion of the site, looking west

Photograph No. 24 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the northern gate to the site, with warning sign, looking northwest

Page 12 of 25

Photograph No. 25 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of monitoring well MW-3A, looking south

Photograph No. 26 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the northeastern portion of the site, looking south

Page 13 of 25

Photograph No. 25 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the northeastern corner of fence, looking northeast

Photograph No. 26 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View to the northern portion of the site, looking west

Page 14 of 25

Photograph No. 27 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View from the north to the southern portion of the site, at the cap

Photograph No. 28 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the cap, looking south

Page 15 of 25

Photograph No. 29 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of a small crack on the cap, looking down

Photograph No. 30 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of vegetation and thatch on the east side of the cap, looking west

Page 16 of 25

Photograph No. 31 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the damaged barbed wire atop fence at NE part of site, looking SE

Photograph No. 32 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of monitoring well MW-2, looking southwest

Page 17 of 25

Photograph No. 33 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of concrete pad from cap, looking south

Photograph No. 34 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the eastern fence, looking east

Page 18 of 25

Photograph No. 35 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the east-west fenceline at east-central portion of site, looking east

Photograph No. 36 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the eastern fence of the site, looking south

Page 19 of 25

Photograph No. 37 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the stretched fence on the eastern side of the site

Photograph No. 38 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the fence on the eastern side of the site, looking southeast

Page 20 of 25

Photograph No. 39 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the southern portion of the site, looking southwest

Photograph No. 40 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the southeast corner of site, looking south

Page 21 of 25

Photograph No. 41 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the southern portion of the site, looking southwest

Photograph No. 42 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View inside the well house, looking west

Page 22 of 25

Photograph No. 43 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the sign on the front gate

Photograph No. 44 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of a sign on the southern fence, near SE corner, looking north

Page 23 of 25

Photograph No. 45 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of a warning sign on southern fence, near SW corner, looking northwest

Photograph No. 46 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of the southwestern corner of the site, looking northwest

Page 24 of 25

Photograph No. 47 Site: Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site Description: View of site from Highway 74 looking north

Page 25 of 25

Attachment 7

Summary of Reported BTEX Concentrations (August 1997 Through November 2010)

(Source: ARCADIS U.S., Inc. “Thirteenth Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site. Agency Interest No. 5217.” Table 4. March 22, 2011.)

Table 4. Summary of Reported BTEX Concentrations (August 1997 through October 2009), Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site, Dutchtown, Louisiana.

MW-2

Analytical Aug-97 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Nov-98 May-99 Nov-99 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Nov-08 Oct-09 Nov-10 Parameters

Benzene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Ethylbenzene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Toluene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Xylene (mg/L) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.010 <0.01 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001

MW-3

Analytical Aug-97 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Nov-98 May-99 Nov-99 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Nov-08 Oct-09 Nov-10 Parameters

Benzene (mg/L) <0.050 0.031 <0.050 <0.050 0.020 0.035 0.010 <0.001 0.0011 <0.010 0.014 0.026 <0.001 0.0039 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.025 <0.005 <0.001 Ethylbenzene (mg/L) 1.7 0.470 2.1 1.7 0.045 1.0 0.530 0.033 <0.001 0.240 0.480 0.960 <0.001 0.390 0.671 0.188 0.306 0.651 0.370 0.052 Toluene (mg/L) <0.050 <0.010 <0.050 <0.050 <0.001 <0.025 <0.010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.010 <0.010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.025 <0.005 <0.001 Xylene (mg/L) <0.100 <0.020 <0.100 <0.100 <0.002 <0.050 <0.020 <0.002 <0.002 <0.020 <0.020 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.010 <0.01 <0.025 <0.005 <0.001

mg/L Milligrams per liter. < Less than (below laboratory detection limit).

Page: Dutchtown/2713.1/T/19/Summary/jk 1/6 Table 4. Summary of Reported BTEX Concentrations (August 1997 through October 2009), Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site, Dutchtown, Louisiana.

MW-3A

Analytical Aug-97 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Nov-98 May-99 Nov-99 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Nov-08 Oct-09 Nov-10 Parameters

Benzene (mg/L) 0.053 0.042 <0.200 <0.050 <0.050 0.150 0.086 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.050 0.044 <0.001 0.015 <0.001 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.005 <0.001 Ethylbenzene (mg/L) 2.6 1.6 6.6 1.5 2.1 4.2 3.7 0.030 <0.001 0.250 2.2 2.7 0.013 1.80 3.14 0.102 0.724 0.856 0.815 0.120 Toluene (mg/L) <0.050 <0.050 <0.200 <0.050 <0.050 <0.100 <0.025 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.050 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.005 <0.001 Xylene (mg/L) <0.100 <0.100 <0.400 <0.100 <0.100 <0.200 <0.050 <0.002 <0.002 <0.010 <0.100 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.010 <0.05 <0.025 <0.005 <0.001

MW-4A

Analytical Aug-97 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Nov-98 May-99 Nov-99 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Nov-08 Oct-09 Nov-10 Parameters

Benzene (mg/L) <0.0046 2.0 0.007 0.012 0.0021 0.0028 0.150 <0.001 0.0077 0.0012 <0.001 0.0091 0.004 0.028 0.91 <0.005 <0.025 <0.005 0.007 0.024 Ethylbenzene (mg/L) 0.110 3.8 0.270 0.110 0.022 0.087 0.230 0.0074 0.0011 0.0023 0.0034 0.054 0.0058 0.032 2.52 0.0167 0.630 0.0122 0.750 1.500 Toluene (mg/L) <0.0025 <0.100 <0.005 <0.0025 <0.001 <0.0025 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.025 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Xylene (mg/L) <0.005 <0.200 <0.010 <0.005 <0.002 <0.005 <0.010 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.010 <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001

mg/L Milligrams per liter. < Less than (below laboratory detection limit).

Page: Dutchtown/2713.1/T/19/Summary/jk 2/6 Table 4. Summary of Reported BTEX Concentrations (August 1997 through October 2009), Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site, Dutchtown, Louisiana.

MW-6

Analytical Aug-97 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Nov-98 May-99 Nov-99 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Nov-08 Oct-09 Nov-10 Parameters

Benzene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Ethylbenzene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 0.027 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0022 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0096 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Toluene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Xylene (mg/L) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.010 <0.01 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001

MW-7

Analytical Aug-97 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Nov-98 May-99 Nov-99 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Nov-08 Oct-09 Nov-10 Parameters

mg/L Milligrams per liter. < Less than (below laboratory detection limit).

Page: Dutchtown/2713.1/T/19/Summary/jk 3/6 Table 4. Summary of Reported BTEX Concentrations (August 1997 through October 2009), Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site, Dutchtown, Louisiana.

MW-12

Analytical Aug-97 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Nov-98 May-99 Nov-99 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Nov-08 Oct-09 Nov-10 Parameters

Benzene (mg/L) <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 NS NS NS NS NS <0.001 NS NS NS <0.001 <0.001 NS P&A P&A P&A P&A Ethylbenzene (mg/L) <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 NS NS NS NS NS <0.001 NS NS NS <0.001 <0.001 NS P&A P&A P&A P&A Toluene (mg/L) <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 NS NS NS NS NS <0.001 NS NS NS <0.001 <0.001 NS P&A P&A P&A P&A Xylene (mg/L) <0.002 NS <0.002 <0.002 NS NS NS NS NS <0.002 NS NS NS <0.002 <0.002 NS P&A P&A P&A P&A

MW-13

Analytical Aug-97 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Nov-98 May-99 Nov-99 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Nov-08 Oct-09 Nov-10 Parameters

Benzene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Ethylbenzene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 0.0026 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Toluene (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 Xylene (mg/L) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 NS <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.010 <0.01 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001

mg/L Milligrams per liter. NS Not sampled, well was dry. P&A Plugged and abandoned. < Less than (below laboratory detection limit).

Page: Dutchtown/2713.1/T/19/Summary/jk 4/6

Attachment 8

Benzene and Ethylbenzene Concentration Trend Graphs

(Source: ARCADIS U.S. Inc. “Thirteenth Year Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site, Ascension Parish, Louisiana, Agency Interest No. 5217.” March 22, 2011.)

Concentration vs. Time Graphs Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site

MW-3

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Concentration (mg/L) 0.0001 90/92 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-09 Feb-98 Aug-97 Nov-97 Nov-98 Nov-99 Nov-00 Nov-01 Nov-08 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Time

Benzene Ethylbenzene

MW-3A

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Concentration (mg/L) 0.0001 90/92 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-09 Feb-98 Aug-97 Nov-97 Nov-98 Nov-99 Nov-00 Nov-01 Nov-08 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02 June-03 June-04 June-05 Time Benzene Ethylbenzene

Note: Graphs are logarithmic. Less than values are graphed at one half the detection limit.

Dutchtown/2713.1/T/16/Graphs/egp Concentration vs. Time Graphs Dutchtown Oil Treatment Site

MW-4A

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Concentration (mg/L) 0.0001 -98 -99 -00 -01 -02 y y y y y 90/92 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-09 Feb-98 Nov-08 Nov-98 Nov-99 Nov-00 Nov-01 Aug-97 Nov-97 Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma June-03 June-04 June-05 Time Benzene Ethylbenzene

MW-6

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Concentration (mg/L) 0.0001 -98 -99 -00 -01 -02 y y y y y 90/92 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-09 Feb-98 Nov-98 Nov-99 Nov-00 Nov-01 Nov-08 Aug-97 Nov-97 Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma June-03 June-04 June-05 Time Benzene Ethylbenzene

Note: Graphs are logarithmic. Less than values are graphed at one half the detection limit.

Dutchtown/2713.1/T/16/Graphs/egp

Attachment 9

Stage 0 Feasibility Study and Environmental Inventory Interchange at I-10 and LA Highway 74, Ascension Parish October 9, 2009

Stage 0 Feasibility Study and Environmental Inventory Interchange at I-10 and LA Highway 74 Ascension Parish

State Project No. 700-03-0001

~ -;~ - ' ~. ( \ , F I ~u~l i Se-ntem tt

October 9, 2009

VOLKERT Table of Contents

Description Page

Executive Summary ES - I to ES - 9

Preliminary Scope & Budget Checklist ...... 1 to 2

Stage 0 Environmental Checklist and Maps ...... 3 to 7

List of Exhibits

Exhibit I - Vicinity Map

Exhibit 2 - Aerial Map

Exhibit 3 - Interchange Alternatives (Figures I, 2, 3, 4A & 4B)

Exhibit 4 - Typical Sections - Ramps and Frontage Roads

List of Tables

Table I - Preliminary Construction Estimate (Alternative I)

Table 2 - Property Acquisition Costs (Alternative I)

Table 3 - Utility Relocation Costs (Alternative I)

Table 4 - Proposed New Roadway Design Criteria

Appendices

Appendix A - Existing Site Photographs

Appendix B - Traffic Study

Appendix C - Environmental FirstSearch Report

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Louisiana Department ofTransportation and Development (LADOTD), in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), is conducting a Stage 0: Feasibility Study/Environmental Inventory for construction ofa new interchange at the intersection ofI-IO and LA Highway 74. The proposed project is located within Ascension Parish between the existing interchanges at LA Highway 73 (Exit 173) and LA Highway 30 (Exit 177). LA Highway 74 crosses over 1-10 and runs East-West between Airline Highway and the Mississippi River.

The Major Street Plan, which is a component of the Major Thoroughfare Plan of Ascension Parish (1969), identifies LA Highway 74 as part of the system of feeder roads that provides the internal traffic circulation system of Ascension Parish today. The construction of a new interchange at I- lOis listed in the Ascension Parish Transportation Study conducted in March, 2005.

The Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area is a large and diverse area that encompasses the urban portions of East Baton Rouge Parish and Ascension Parish, as well as portions of adjacent parishes and municipalities. An estimated 770,000 people in this area generate over 1.7 million vehicle trips per day. According to the FHW A Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) for [-lOin 2006, there was a 35% increase in DVMT over the past 14 years in Ascension Parish alone.

Ascension Parish, which has always had a strong industrial and manufacturing base, has experienced rapid growth as a residential community over the past decade, especially following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. It is now considered one of the fastest growing parishes in Louisiana and is often thought of as a "bedroom community," or suburb, for the Baton Rouge area. In just a single six-year period (from 2000 to 2006), the parish experienced a population growth of 27%. The estimated 2007 population was 99,056 and an increase to approximately 196,000 is expected by the year 2030. The general commuting pattern tends to be from rural areas into the urbanized areas of Baton Rouge. With population increases, traffic congestion will continue to plague Ascension Parish.

The Ascension Parish Planning and Zoning Map shows most of the unincorporated area north ofLA Highway 30 as "Medium Intensity Residential." Commuter traffic from that area flows in a northwestern direction towards East Baton Rouge Parish in the morning, and returns to Ascension Parish in the evening. All traffic between East Baton Rouge and Ascension Parishes crosses Bayou Manchac at one of four roadways: 1-10, LA Highway 427 (Old Perkins Road), U.S. Highway 61 (Airline Highway), and LA Highway 73 (Jefferson Highway). The locations ofthe existing 1-10 interchanges are generally southwest of the residential area, so most commuters must drive southward (thus "backtracking") for access to 1-10. The commuters' alternatives to 1-10 access are crossing Bayou Manchac at one of the other three roadways.

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES - 1 This report, prepared by Volkert & Associates, Inc., identifies five different interchange configurations for evaluation. I Diamond Interchange 2 Partial Clover Interchange 3 Diamond-Clover Combination Interchange 4A Single Point Urban Interchange with existing LA Highway 74 overpass 4B Single Point Urban Interchange with relocated LA Highway 74 overpass

It should be noted that Volkert concurrently prepared a Stage 0 Feasibility Study to increase the capacity ofl-IO between Siegen Lane and LA Highway 22, a 19-mile segment that includes the LA Highway 74 overpass. The primary alternatives in that study are inside and outside widening. Figures I - 4B in this report do not show any proposed widening, and future detailed design of an LA Highway 74 interchange should address any proposed widening of I-lOin that area.

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

As defined, Levels of Service (LOS) range from LOS A, a condition oflittle or no delay, to LOS F, a condition of capacity breakdown represented by heavy delay and congestion. LA Highway 30 is Exit 177 to Gonzales and St. Gabriel. Improvements to that interchange are already planned in conjunction with Phase 2 ofCabela's, and acceptable operation (LOS D+) is expected with the planned improvements. LA Highway 73 is Exit 173 to Prairieville and Geismar. The intersections of I-I 0 off-ramps currently operate under saturated conditions, with an overall LOS F in the PM peak hour.

The purpose and need of the proposed project is to relieve traffic congestion along LA Highway 73 and LA Highway 30 and their respective 1-10 interchanges, by diverting traffic to LA Highway 74 via a new interchange at 1-10.

The 2008 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume along 1-10, between the intersections of LA Highway 73 and LA Highway 30 was observed to be 64,600 vehicles per day. A comparison of2004 ADT volume to 2008 ADT volume along the project study area showed a 12% increase in volume. The 2008 ADT volumes on the intersecting highways are as follows. • LA Highway 73 23,000 vehicles per day • LA Highway 74 11,600 vehicles per day • LA Highway 30 21,485 vehicles per day

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES - 2 Relieving traffic congestion at the existing interchanges will also improve safety and mobility at both locations. Between January 2003 and December 2007, there were a total of261 recorded traffic crashes on 1-10 between LA Highway 73 and LA Highway 30. The majority ofthose crashes were non-collision incidents, such as vehicles leaving the roadway. In this same time period, there were 297 crashes at the LA Highway 73 interchange and 256 crashes at the LA Highway 30 interchange, most ofwhich were rear end collisions.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

A preliminary environmental review of the project was conducted to identity any and all project-stopping issues or constraints that could potentially influence early determination of the project's feasibility, timing and cost. This preliminary environmental review researched and addressed the environmental checklist items in the enclosed Stage 0 Environmental Checklist.

There are 2 potentially significant trees that will be affected in the northeast quadrant of the I-to/LA Highway 74 intersection. The LADOTD Engineering Directives and Standards Manual includes an established general policy governing the treatment of significant trees within the highway right-of-way zones of construction or operational influence. The recommendations related to this policy should be followed if the project proceeds to a Stage I Evaluation.

The former Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund site, which has been a sensitive community issue for many years, is located in the northwest quadrant of the proposed interchange. The site was operated as an oil refinery and reclamation facility from 1965 - 1982. This 5-acre site has since been deleted from the Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List (NPL) after remediation in 1999 and remains protective ofhuman health and the environment. The proposed limits of acquisition in the northwest quadrant do not include the surface of the former Superfund site. However, further coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (Region VI) and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) will be necessary prior to acquisition of any additional right-of-way in the northwest quadrant of the proposed interchange.

Relocations will be necessary in each quadrant ofthe project site. According to the U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder, 14.3% - 21.4% of individuals in all except the northeast quadrants are considered to be below poverty level. (However, the only property owner affected by construction of either alternative in the southeast quadrant is not included in that category.) The northeast quadrant includes the Lakeside Oaks Apartment complex and Old Dutchtown Subdivision which will be affected by the Diamond interchange configuration. The northwest quadrant includes a commercial building (TMI Services) and 3 mobile homes. The Diamond interchange configuration will require relocation of the commercial property, but the 3 mobile homes will not be affected. The southwest quadrant contains Twin Lakes Mobile Home and RV Park, and

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES - 3 5 relocations will be necessary with the Diamond interchange. The southeast quadrant includes a large parcel with 8 separate residences, but only one property owner. The Diamond interchange will affect only one ofthe 8 residences.

In summary, this Stage 0 Feasibility Study finds no environmental, socioeconomic or cultural resource constraints, or context sensitive issues that would be considered as "show stopping" constraints for the progression of this project. However, the proximity of a former Superfund site in the northwest quadrant, the potentially significant trees in the northeast quadrant, and significant impacts to low income communities in the southwest quadrant are several issues to be considered in the Stage 0 Feasibility Study. A more detailed evaluation ofthese issues should be undertaken if the project proceeds to a Stage I evaluation.

4.0 PROJECT CONCEPT

Currently, LA Highway 74 has lower ADT volumes than either LA Highway 73 or LA Highway 30. This is logical since LA Highway 74 has no interchange at 1-10. The focus ofthis feasibility study is to evaluate relieving the traffic congestion on LA Highway 73 and LA Highway 30 and to improve safety at each interchange.

in addition to studying the roadway corridor, this feasibility study considered the existing property types and land use adjacent to the site. The northwest quadrant includes one business (TMI Services), three mobile homes along Holmes Road, and the former Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund site. The Lakeside Oaks Apartments and Old Dutchtown Subdivision are located in the northeast quadrant, and the Twin Lakes Mobile Home and RV Park is located in the southwest quadrant. The southeast quadrant includes a large, single parcel with 8 separate residences.

Existing Roadway: The existing roadway section of LA Highway 74 in the vicinity of I-I 0 consists of two twelve-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders. Where LA Highway 74 crosses over I 10, the aggregate shoulder surface terminates at the approach slab, and overhead utility lines discontinue. Drainage on LA Highway 74 consists ofswales on each side ofthe roadway. The land use along LA Highway 74 is predominantly low-density residential and farmland; although there are high-density residential developments as well as a commercial site adjacent to the site.

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES - 4 Existing Utilities: The following utilities were identified in the vicinity ofI-IO and LA Highway 74. Utility Description AT&T Fiber Optic Cable Western side ofl-IO Level 3 Fiber Optic Cable Western side ofI-IO Atrnos Gas Distribution Northern side ofLA-74 and side streets Eatel Telephone overhead and underground, all roads Ascension Parish water and sewer Entergy Electric Power overhead Cox Communications TV overhead and underground

Proposed Interchanges: Five different interchange configurations were considered in this study. I Diamond Interchange 2 Partial Clover Interchange 3 Diamond-Clover Interchange 4A Single Point Urban Interchange with existing LA Highway 74 overpass 4B Single Point Urban Interchange with relocated LA Highway 74 overpass

Alternative I - Diamond Interchange Given the somewhat rural nature ofthe site, a diamond interchange was initially selected. Diamond configuration interchanges are ideal for lower capacity rural junctions and take up comparatively little area, making them ideal for lighter traffic without using a more expensive design. Although the traffic study concluded that such an interchange would have an acceptable level of service (LOS C), this is not the most efficient design because ofthe points at which traffic would be loaded onto and offofLA Hwy 74. The diamond configuration has intersections at those points, which is not as efficient as other designs for the higher volumes oftraffic. This interchange was selected for further study and evaluation.

Alternative 2 - Partial Clover Interchange The cloverleaf is generally more suited to the projected volume oftraffic travelling along LA Highway 74. Although it can support a higher volume oftraffic at a higher level of service in comparison to the diamond interchange design, the cloverleaf has some disadvantages. Since traffic enters and exits the interchange in the same lane (called "weaving"), merging can create conflict. A cloverleaf is also more expensive than a diamond since it takes up more area and requires more paving. Figure 2 shows a partial cloverleaf configuration entirely on the southern side ofLA Highway 74, which has several advantages. • Avoids construction near the Superfund site at the northwest quadrant • Avoids all direct impacts to the Lakeside Oaks Apartments • Eliminates the weaving problem at the access point • Requires less total space

[-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES-5 The major disadvantage is elimination of a major portion ofthe Twin Lakes Mobile Home and RV Park, which is an environmental justice issue. Because of this disadvantage, the Partial Clover Interchange was eliminated from further study.

Alternative 3 - Diamond-Clover Interchange This configuration was identified by combining only the favorable elements ofthe Diamond Interchange and the Partial Clover Interchange. The 1-10 Eastbound lanes connect to LA Highway 74 with a diamond configuration, and the 1-10 Westbound lanes connect to LA Highway 74 with a partial clover configuration. Most of the additional property to be acquired in the southwest quadrant has only one owner, yet the entire parcel would have to be acquired for this configuration. The impact to the Twin Lakes Mobile Horne and RV Park is the same as the Diamond Interchange. Due to the increased right-of-way impacts in the southwest quadrant, the Diamond Clover Interchange configuration was eliminated from further study.

Alternative 4A - Single Point Urban Interchange with existing overpass The typical advantages of Single Point Urban interchanges are efficient usage of space and safely accommodating a high volume oftraffic. Additionally, those interchanges have longer radius curves, which provide easier turning for 18-wheelers and other long vehicles. However, the advantage of requiring less right-of-way is partially offset by the need for a wider and longer bridge crossing. Also, the layout leaves a large uncontrolled section ofpavement in the middle of the intersection, which can be confusing to drivers unfamiliar with this type ofinterchange, and can lead to potential conflict. In this particular situation, the skew ofLA Highway 74 minimizes the typical advantages of this type of interchange. Because of this, the Single Point Urban Interchange utilizing the existing overpass was eliminated from further study.

Alternative 4B - Single Point Urban Interchange with relocated overpass This is a variation ofthe Single Point Urban Interchange with complete replacement of the overpass on a perpendicUlar crossing over 1-10. With this variation, acquisition of additional property is different, but the impact on the remaining property is about the same. With a different skew or different adjacent property types and land use, this type ofinterchange might be more favorable. However, the Single Point Urban Interchange utilizing a relocated overpass was eliminated from further study.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Ofthe five configurations, only one was fully evaluated for implementation: the Diamond Interchange. The traffic study states that on the sole basis ofprojected traffic operations, the Partial Cloverleaf Interchange is preferred, and that both the Diamond and Partial Cloverleaf configurations are expected to provide acceptable levels ofservice. The following table summarizes the impacts and cost of the preferred alternate, the Diamond Interchange.

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES - 6 IMPACT TABLE OF PREFERRED ALTERNATE

EVALUATION ITEM DIAMOND Impact to Wetlands minimal Impact to Threatened or none Endangered Species Impact to Cultural Resources none Significant Trees in RIW At least 2 Potential Contamination yes Additional Right-of-Way 7 Acres Commercial Relocations 1 Residential Relocations II Engineering Design Cost & Inspection $2,060,884 Construction Cost $13,739,225 Utility Relocation Cost $1,551,000 Right-of-Way Cost $2,720,000 Environmental Mitigation $60,000 Contingency (20%) $4,026,022 Total Cost $24,157,331

As described in the Purpose and Need Statement, the primary objective of a new interchange is to relieve traffic congestion at the adjacent interchanges for LA Highway 30 and LA Highway 73, as well as to provide an additional access point to 1-10. There are already some planned improvements at LA Highway 30, associated with Cabela's Phase 2 development.

• Additional eastbound through lane between Tanger/Cabela's and 1-10 • Additional left turn lanes at northbound and westbound approaches • Additional northbound through lane at 1-10 eastbound ramps • Additional eastbound left turn lane at 1-10 eastbound ramps

With these planned improvements, the LA Highway 30 intersections on both sides of I-I 0 are expected to operate acceptably (LOS D+ or better) in all design years and scenarios. The 12 scenarios include combinations of"Build" (widen 1-10 to 6 lanes) and "No Build" (1-10 to remain 4 lanes) with and without a new LA Highway 74 interchange. Therefore, a new LA Highway 74 interchange does not accomplish the purpose and need at LA Highway 30.

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES-7 The existing 1-10 off-ramp intersections at LA Highway 73 currently operate under saturated conditions. In the PM peak hour, both intersections operate at overall LOS F. The LOS will continue to decline as traffic volumes increase over time. While improvements to the LA Highway 73 interchange were not analyzed in the traffic study, future improvements to provide dual left tum lanes and dual right tum lanes at the LA Highway 73 eastbound off-ramp are suggested. The recommendations in the traffic study state, " ... improvements to the LA 73 interchange may potentially provide adequate traffic capacity without the new interchange at LA 74." Therefore, it is possible to accomplish the purpose and need at LA Highway 73 without a new LA Highway 74 interchange.

A new interchange in the vicinity of LA Highway 73 will improve the LOS at the LA Highway 73 interchange and provide an additional access point to 1-10. However, a new interchange at LA Highway 74 is not necessarily the best location based on existing geometry. The distance between the centerline intersections of LA Highway 73 and LA Highway 74 along I-lOis approximately 1.1 miles. A new interchange at LA Highway 74 will leave only around 2,000 feet between the ramp transitions at each interchange.

LA Highways 73 and 74 already intersect approximately 0.7 miles west ofl-IO. A new interchange at LA Highway 74 will provide no significant additional benefit to commuters using LA Highway 74 on the western side of I-I O.

The primary disadvantage of a new interchange at LA Highway 74 is the location relative to the flow of commuter traffic between the Medium Intensity Residential Zone and East Baton Rouge Parish. As previously described, all commuter traffic between the two parishes is funneled through 4 major roadways across Bayou Manchac: 1-10, Old Perkins Road (LA Highway 427), U.S. Highway 61 (Airline Highway), and LA Highway 73 (Jefferson Highway). The location ofan interchange at LA Highway 74 is not in a direct route between much of the residential zone and East Baton Rouge Parish. Currently, there are many commuters between the two parishes who do not have relatively easy access to 1-10 via LA Highway 73 or LA Highway 30. Consequently, those commuters probably cross Bayou Manchac via Airline Highway and Jefferson Highway, rather than initially driving southwest for access to I-lOin order to ultimately drive northwest towards Baton Rouge. A new interchange at LA Highway 74 will provide additional access to 1-10, but the location relative to the flow of commuter traffic will not be as beneficial as potential locations northwest ofthe LA Highway 73 interchange.

The scope of this Stage 0 Feasibility Study is limited to evaluation ofa new interchange at LA Highway 74 only, rather than evaluation of a new interchange in a location to accomplish the purpose and need. The recommendation is that this project be allowed to proceed to the next stage ofthe LADOTD delivery process. As a result ofprevious discussions with LADOTD, Volkert & Associates, Inc. was authorized to evaluate alternative locations for a new interchange as part ofthe Stage 0 Feasibility Study to increase capacity of I-I 0 between Siegen Lane and LA Highway 22. After the completion of the Stage 0 Studies, all alternatives that are recommended to proceed to

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES - 8 Stage I will be further evaluated through the National Envirorunental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

6.0 PROJECT COSTS

A cost estimate was prepared for the preferred alternative described in this report. The order of magnitude of this cost estimate is intended for comparison of this alternative to the other interchange locations included in the Stage 0 Feasibility Study to increase capacity of I-I 0 between Siegen Lane and LA Highway 22. It is based only upon major construction items, and does not address small quantities and incidental items in detail. The costs are itemized in the Project Scope and Budget Worksheet and in Tables I and 2.

Diamond Interchange - Total Estimated Cost: $24,157,331

In addition to construction cost, the total estimated cost includes engineering design, right-of-way acquisition, construction inspection, project administration, laboratory testing, and a 20 percent contingency for rising material and labor costs, minor pay items, and final quantity adjustments.

1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Feasibility Study ES - 9 US 61 BridQe ~

LA 427 Bridge

r \ l ake

Legend D Ascension Parish • Cities D Medium Intensity Residential

t/ote: This map Is lOr pruentillion use only 300 n0110 be used rar canstwctkln purpose, . o 3,750 7,500 15,000 V9k~T _-==__-=====tFeel CHECKLIST FOR STAGE 0 Preliminary Scope and Budget Checklist

District __,,6,,1___ Parish ___ -'-A"s"c"'e"n;"si"o"n______Route _--,I:J-1",0!.!/L;£A:LH£!.."wvL..L7::!.4__

Control Section 450-11 (I-10); 264-03 (LA Hwv 74) Total Project Length (miles) ___ :::.21< ___ _

Begin Project (CS Log Mile) ____-"5"'.6'--____ End Project (CS Log Mile) __~5",.8"--___

Project Category (Safety, Capacity, etc.) Adding Interchange Date Prepared: ___...,1O",/",0!!.1/±20",0",9,-_

A. Purpose and need for the project:

The purpose and need of this project is to relieve traffic congestion along LA Highway 73 and LA Highway 30 and the LA Highway 73 and LA Highway 30 interchanges by improving the LOS at the interchanges by diverting traffic to LA Highway 74 via a new interchange with 1-10. Relieving traffic congestion at the existing interchanges will also improve safety and mobility at these locations.

B. Project Concept:

• Description of existing facility (functional class, ADT, number of lanes, etc): According to LADOTD's Baton Rouge Highway Functional Classification Urbanized Area Map, 1-10 is classified as a Principal Arterial Interstate Highway. It is a fully controlled access, four lane divided highway that has a fairly wide grassy median, shoulders and open ditches on both sides of the roadway. LA Highway 74 at 1-10 is classified as a Minor Arterial and is a two lane, four span AASHTO Type IV pre-stressed concrete girder bridge with column bents and pile-supported footings. The 2008 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes along the project study area of 1-10 between the intersections of LA Highway 73 and LA Highway 30, is estimated to be 64,600 vehicles per day. The 2008 ADT on LA Highway 74 over 1-10 is estimated to be I 1.600 vehicles per day. • Major Design Features/Criteria of the proposed facility (attach aerial photo w/concept if applicable): This feasibility study evaluated five different interchange configurations for the possible new interchange. The interchanges evaluated are diamond, clover, diamond-clover, and single-point urban (both with and without relocated LA Highway 74). Refer to Exhibit 3 for aerial photos with each configuration. • Design Exceptions: None anticipated • Technical Analyses (traffic analysis, safety analysis, etc): Urban Systems. Inc. used collected data and the Regional Transportation Model to develop projected traffic volumes for the years 20 I 2 and 2032. and capacity analysis was performed at each intersection, freeway segment, and ramp junction. This report is attached as Appendix B.

LADOTD - PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS Stage 0 Feasibility I ~ 10 and LA Highway 74 New Interchange • Alternatives to Project Concept: This feasibility study evaluated five different interchange configurations for the possible new interchange. The interchanges evaluated are diamond. clover. diamond-clover. and single-point urban (both with and without relocated LA Highway 74). Refer to Exhibit 3 for aerial photos with each confil!llration .. • Future ITS / Traffic Considerations: The selected alternatives in this study will have sufficient right of-way for future ITS solutions and/or traffic considerations if these types of systems are needed in the future.

• Construction Traffic ManagementIProperty Access Considerations: Traffic delays on LA Highway 74 will occur during certain phases of construction. The only access to Lakeside Oak Aparnnents and one access to Old Dutchtown Subdivision will be affected with Alternative I. The only access to Twin Lakes Mobile Home and RV Park will be affected with Alternatives I and 3.

C. Potential environmental impacts: Refer to the Environmental Checklist on pages 3 to 6.

D. Cost Estimate • Construction Cost: Alt. No. I: $13,664,225

• Engineering Design & Construction Inspection: All. No. I: $2,049,634

• Utility Relocations: Alt. No. I: $1,551,000

• Environmental Mitigation: All. No. I: $60,000

• RfW Acquisition: All. No. I: $2,720,000

• Contingency (20%): All. No. I: $4,008,972

TOTAL PROJECT COST Alt. No.1: $24,053,831

E. Expected Funding Source(s} (Highway Priority Program, CMAQ, Urban Systems, Fed/State eannarks, etc.) Unidentified ATTACH ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION Prepared By: Paul H . Griggs, P.E. Refer to all attached Exhibits, Tables, and Appendices

Disposition (circle one): I} Advance to Stage I (2) Hold for Reconsideration (3) Shelve

LDOTD - PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS 2 Stage 0 Feasibility 1-1 0 and LA Hwy 74 New Inlt.TChange Stage 0 Environmental Checklist c. S. ___-'-45""0'----'-'11'--.,------,-__ Pari sh ____..<.A..,s"'c"'e"'n"'s"io"n'-__-:-__ Route 1-10/LA Highway 74 Interchange Begin Log mile 5.6 End Log mile --"5,,,.8,--_

ADJACENT LAND USE: Mixed Land Use: Residential and Commercial

Any property owned by a Native American Tribe? (V or N or Unknown) If so, which Tribe? No, according to US EPA's EnviroMapper and the Environmental FirstSearch Report, there are no tribal lands along the project study area.

Any property enrolled into the Wetland Reserve Program? (V or N or Unknown) If so, give the location No, according to NRCS, there are no Wetland Reserve Program easements along the project study area.

Community Elements: Is the project impacting or adjacent to any: (V or N) Cemeteries "N"'o______(VorN)Churches.'-'N"'o~______(V or N) Schools "N"'o::-:---::-_-=--,.--,-,-----::::-_-,.--,-,,.,--______(V or N) Public Facilities (i.e., fire station, library, etc.) "N"'o~_,,____:_---:-----:-:--:-:==.,.--,=_:_- (V or N) Community water well/supply Yes, please refer to attached map of LADOTD's Water Well Registrv at the end of this checklist.

Section 4(f) issue: Is the project impacting or adjacent to any: (V or N) Public recreation areas '-'N"'o______(V or N) Public parks '-'N"'o....,..,.______(V or N) Wildlife Refuges '-'N"'o______(V or N) Historic Sites "N"'o______

Is the project impacting, or adjacent to, a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places? (V or N) Is the project within a historic district or a national landmark district? (V or N) If the answer is yes to either question, list names and locations below: No to both. According to Louisiana Division of Archeology's Cultural Resources Online Mapper, there are no NRHP sites or Historic District or National Landmark District along the project corridor.

Do you know of any threatened or endangered species in the area? (V or N) If so, which species? Yes. List: Four species appear on the Louisiana Endangered Species Summary for U.S. Fish & Wildlife in Ascension Parish. The Alabama Heelsplitter Mussel and Gulf Sturgeon (both listed as Threatened) are know to occur within the parish, but the project will not impact the Amite River, or Rigolets Pass, Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Borgne, or Mississippi Sound. The Pallid Sturgeon and West-Indian Manatee are listed as Endangered, but since the project will not impact the Mississippi. Atchafalaya, or Red Rivers; or Lakes Pontchartrain or Maurepas, no adverse impact is expected.

Does the project impact a stream protected by the Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act? (V or N) If yes, name the stream . '-'N""o'--______

Are there any Significant Trees as defined by EDSM 1.1.1.21 within proposed ROW?(V or N) If so, where? There are possible significant trees in the north-east guadrant of the project next to Lakeside Oaks Apartments.

What year was the existing bridge built? 1975 (1-10/LA Highway 74 overpass)

Are any waterways impacted by the project considered navigable? (V or N) If unknown, state so, list the waterways: No. according to the USACE New Orleans District.

LADOTD - PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS 3 Stage 0: Feasibility 1- 10 and LA Highway 74 - New Inlcrchange Stage 0 Environmental Checklist

Hazardous Material: Have you checked the following DEQ and EPA databases for potential problems? (Y or N) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Yes. The DEQ database and Environmental FirstSearch report were checked and there are none. (Y or N) CERCLIS Yes. Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site (EPA ID: LAD980879449). is located at the intersection of 1-10 and LA Highway 74 (5 acres) and is adjacent to the project. The site was operated as an oil refinery and reclamation facility from 1965 - 1982. It has since been deleted from the National Priorities List after remediation in 1999 and remains protective of human health and the environment. (Refer to the Environmental Avoidance Map for location.) (Y or N) ERNS There are none according to the Environmental FirstSearch Report. (Y or N) Enforcement and Compliance History Yes. EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Database was checked and none of the listings that were found have had any formal enforcement actions within the last 5 years. There was one Leiter of Violation concerning the Clean Water Act for Twin Lakes Mobile Home Estates in March of 2004.

Underground Storage Tanks (UST): Are there any Gasoline Stations or other facilities that may have UST on or adjacent to the project? (Y or N) No. According to the Environmental FirstSearch Report there are none. If so, give the name and location: '-'N"'/A-'-______

Any chemical plants, refineries or landfills adjacent to the project? (Y or N) Any large manufacturing facilities adjacent to the project? (Y or N) Dry Cleaners? (Y or N) If yes to any, give names and locations: "N",o",t",o...a",l1....t",hr",e",e",.______

Oil/Gas wells: Have you checked DNR database for registered oil and gas wells? (Y or N) List the type and location of wells being impacted by the project. Yes, the DNR database has been checked and there are no registered oil and gas wells within the project study area.

Are there any possible residential or commercial relocations/displacements? (Y or N) How many? Yes. There is a possible commercial relocation of TMI Services which is located in the northwest quadrant at 3736 Highway 74, Geismar, LA. There are possible residential relocations within Twin Lakes Mobile Home Park (southwest guadrant), Old Dutchtown Subdivision (northeast quadrant), and up to 8 separate residences in a single parcel in the southeast quadrant.

Do you know of any sensitive community issues related to the project? (Y or N) If so, explain Yes. The Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site has been a sensitive community issue for many years and it is directly adjacent to 1-10 and LA Highway 74.

Is the project area population minority or low income? (Y or N) Minority - No. According to the US EPA's Environmental Justice Geographic Assessment Tool, there are no minority populations within the project study area. Low Income - Yes. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's American FactFinder, 14.3 - 21.4% of the population in the northwest and southeast and southwest guadrants are considered to be below poverty level and thus are considered a low income population.

What type of detour/closures could be used on the job? Standard LADOTD detours and closures will be used.

LADOTD - PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS 4 Siage 0: Feasibility 1· 10 nnd LA Highway 74 - New Intl"l'change Stage 0 Environmental Checklist

Did you notice anything of concern during your site/windshield survey of the area? If so, explain below. The Dutchtown Treatment Plant Superfund Site was of initial concern. After the interchange alternative is chosen, further coordination will be needed with EPA and LDEQ. There was also a house that was built possibly in the 1830's and was directly next to Lakeside Oaks Apartments that was of initial concern as well. The house has since been moved to another location within the parish.

Kara Knott. Volkert & Associates. Inc. Point of Contact

225.218.9440 Phone Number

April 2009 Date

LADOTD - PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS 5 Slage 0: Feasibility 1- 10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Environmental Checklist

Threatened & Endangered Species Information http://www. wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/threalenedispeciesfaclsheelsi http://www. wlf.louisiana.gov/experiencelthrealenedilhrealenedandendangeredlable/ hup://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experiencelthrealenedi

LA Wildlife Refuge Information http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/wmas/refuees/

Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act (R.S. 56:1840-1856) Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers (R.S. 56:1847) hllp://www.legis.Slale.la.us/lss/lss .asp? doc~ I 04995 Louisiana Hisloric and Scenic Rivers (R.S. 56: 1856) http://www.legis . slale.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc~ I 05004 http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/scenicrivers/

Significant Tree Policy (EDSM 1.1.1.21) EDSMs can be found on DOTD's intranet site: http://ladolnetl (Live Oak, Red Oak, White Oak, Magnolia or Cypress, aesthetically important, 18" or grealer in diameter at breast heighl and has form Ihal separales it from surrounding or that which may be considered historic.)

LA Historic Sites and Districts http://www.crt.state.la.us/hp/nhl/default.htm

Hazardous Waste Site Information http://www.deg.louisiana.gov/portaVtabidi71 /Default.aspx htto:/lwww.epa.gov/superfundlsites!cursites/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/superfundisites/npl/la.htm hltp://www.deg.louisiana.gov/portallPortals/O/permirs/ust facility owner.pdf hltp://www .deg.louisiana.gov/portaVPortalsiO/remediationiform 5222 rO I.xls http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/wdbcgilwdbcgi.exeIWWWUSERIWEBDB.foia guery.show parms http://www.epa.gov/echo/

DNR Oil & Gas Well Information http://souris-www.dnr.state.la.us/www rootlsouris portal I.htm

Environmental Justice (minority & low income) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmentlej2000.htrn

Demographics hup :l/www.Iouisiana. gov/wps/wcmJconnectiLouisiana. gov/ Abollt+ LouisianaiDemographics%3 A+Census + Info/Census+2000+lnformationi hnp://www.census.gov/

Water Wells hllp://www.dold.slate.la.us/inlermodaVwellsihome.asp

FHWA's Environmental Website (Just a good reference for understanding NEPA) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environroentlindex.hlm

Additional Databases Checked EPA EnviroMapper; Ascension Parish GIS Maps;

Other Comments; Please refer 10 the Environmental Avoidance Mapping attached at the end of this checklisl.

LADOTD- PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS 6 Slllge 0: Feasibility I~IO and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Stage 0 Environmental Checklist

General Explanation:

To adequately consider projects in Stage D, some consideration must be given to the human and natural environment which will be impacted by the project. The Environmental Checklist was designed knowing that some environmental issues may surface later in the process. This checklist was designed to obtain basic Information, which is readily accessible by reviewing public databases and by visiting the site. It is recognized that some infomatian may be more accessible than other information. Some items on the checklist may be more important than others depending on the type of project. It is recommended that the individual completing the checklist do their best to answer the questions accurately. Feel free to comment or write any explanatory comments at the end of the checklist.

The Databases:

To assist in gathering public information. the previous sheet includes web addresses for some of the databases that need to be consulted to complete the checklist. As of October 2006. these addresses were accurate.

Note that you will not have access to the location of any threatened or endangered (T&E) species. The web address list only the threatened or endangered species in Louisiana. It will generally describe their habitat and other information. If you know of any species in the project area, please state so, but you will nol be able to confirm it yourself. If you feel this may be an issue, please contact the Environmental Section. We have biologist on staff who can confirm th e presence of a species.

Why is this infonnation important?

Land Use? Indicator of biological issues such as T&E species or wet/ands.

Ownership? Tells us whether coordination with tribal nations wlU be required.

WRP properties? Farmland that is converted back into wetlands. The Federal govemment has a permanent easement which cannot be expropriated by the State. Program is operated through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service).

Community Elements? DOTD would like to limit adverse impacts to communities. Also, public facilities may be costly to relocate.

Section 4(f) issues? USDOT agencies are required by law to avoid certain properties, unless a prudent or feasible altemative is not available.

Historic Properties? Tells us if we have a Section 106 issue on the project. (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) See http://www.achp.gov/work106.htmlfor more details.

Scenic Streams? Scenic streams require a permit and may require restricted construction activities.

Significant Trees? Need coordination and can be important to community.

Age of Bridge? Section 106 may apply. Bridges over 50 years old are evaluated to determine if they are eligible for th e National Register of Historic Places.

Navigability? If navigable. will require an assessment of present and future navigation needs and US Coast Guard permit.

Hazardous Material? Don 't want to purchase property if contaminated. Also. a safety issue for construction workers if right-of-way is contaminated. all and Gas Wells? Expensive If project hits a well.

Relocations? Important to community. Real Estate costs can be substantial depending on location of project. Can result in organized opposition to a project.

Sensitive Issues? Identification of sensitive issues early greatly assists project team in designing public involvement plan.

Minority/Low Income Populations? Executive Order requires Federal Agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low income populations. (often referred to as Environmental Justice)

Detours? The detour route may have as many or more impacts. Should be looked at with project. May be unacceptable to the public.

LADOTD- PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS 7 Siage 0: feasibility 1-10 and LA Highway 74 - New Interchange Ascension Parish

ENT PLANT

Legend

~ 100-Year Floodplain ..&. EPA Superfund Site ~ Wetlands o 125 250 500 _-===-_===~'Feet Environmental Avoidance 1 inch = 250 feet 1-10 I LA Hwy 74 Legend

Wate ~ wen ~js try

...... -.. L~I St~e(g

~ SI~&~~JS

t j ~ *

NaIl: Thbl ""P Is for preunlll1lI'In o...~3=,1=25~6.,2~5=0======1~2,500.Feet 1 inch = 6,250 feet Vicinity Map EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL MAP •, .

o 100200 400 .-..:::i-_=:::::l, Feel 1 inch = 400 feel Aerial Map EXHIBIT 3 INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES ,i OLD DUTCHTOWN SUBDIVISION

. , '.'. • .a <....: ~AKES: . 1 IDE . O 'A~ .' I~": . AptS ; ~ . - L "

_ . - ~ - .=. - .

ROIl ---1-1-1-- WETLANOS LANOF ILL REO 'O ROIl

- -.~. - - . '-:=====~ ,

I I :1 I • OLD rnUfCHirOWN ~ ~ SUBDI V,I g 1OtiJ il l ~ <

~ .,. .;' ,,/ " ... / • •/ ___ -,.~, l • _ ._- .• -:p- -o-'

- -.-~

.....;- ..- -- .

I i \ i '- .~ J!t ), , ~, S.r", I tfl , : CH I '::, (, -C) : ll j ', f). i Uu -0 3 OOCI ; - ~ --==-

I :1 i~ ~i OLD DUTCHTOWN iii SUBDIVISION

'L/AKES.IOE - 1/ i' Q . ~ - ,.: .1' l APTS.• ./ ;.:.. - ( , ,I ,, / /

, .... ,.. ~ .

- - - - - ~~~~~-~~~~=~~~ ~

. ,

=~ I D I.\T·L /1 HVI' Y r4~ '';';::::I'JE~\\:';, ~11 '~J T~ER~,rb. I '~I A·=H =C:,E=.d l-· ;,;,c~. r fl ! ,II! 'I I ' I ,,, l:. ~ !, " I t , ';" " . ~ (, r. : 1 ," I 1 1 • 11 , L OLD DtJJ'iFC,HTOWN • S'IJBD.IVISI.QN

, ,

, - ~' . ,' t .. , ,

' /1 . ' " l'/ ' "''''

• -. i • • • • • 'I , ' 1' 10 t.\,T L A H\'/ ', 74 1,1[\" IfHERCHf\HGE , ' " II" :', E r"'li'\ LI rE ' " " ITt ", L ,I 'J t I _ ___ ~[ ~;;;;;;;:;;::;::::':71;. -: ~-:: - -..., - .." _ = ::::0. . ____ -0_ - - . -,-' ------=.. :: . 1· 111 ,. 7. I, I C' f · ("_1(1 7 C 7( · ' · O ~, · C!l )O l

OLD DWTCHTOWN

.. .. 'J SUBD 'JV! S I QN

( AI(E S f lilt QAK J>S, • ,:1 I ;::- ~-~~~~~~~~~-===~-. --.-1 - ,... ~ ~ .:;'--~ . ' . -- -- .... _- 5 ------.-. -_ :-.::::--~- . ------ -,;=. --~ - --.;;;;;::.;.-.... __....._-_--_-_ ___ _;;_ lH I '''''';::==-=::''~ ~._...... ; -_ -_ -_-_ .""_- _~ _-_._~~_~- - _-:_-~- ;;- .- ;;- ;;;;_ - _-_ -_ ;;;;~ ~:======_:_ =;;~~~~~~-- - '..~-u---- ~-~~~~~~ ----~~~ ------=--=- ~ - - __- I ~& . ~ ~i{4~~~_:__~-~ -----~- . - . - I~~~~-;;;-::-,:,, -~ = ; . _--- - . ~--~- - _ "'" · ------!... - c..IE;, _ ---__ -- - ~f~;7i - - - - ~ - ' rl?r~ E:S / ~ "} ~f.S !. EXHIBIT 4 TYPICAL SECTIONS RAMPS AND FRONTAGE ROADS S_P_ NO_700-96-0007 a 700-03-000 I

8' 4' 2' 15' 10' 4' 8' ~------~----~--r------~------+------'~--~~~------~ MIN. I SHLDR. MIN. I I I'

- b • ~ %- ~-,-j---:0-=. .=20=%~. ~~-,- . d· .

2 2

TYPICAL FINISHED SECTION ON RAMP N.T . S.

8' 4' 2' 12' 12' I 0' 4' 8' MIN. SHLDR. MIN.

2% 2% .. .. • ~ . b . P ". Do .' • C> l.>. .

2 2

TYPICAL FINISHED SECTION ON DUAL-LANE RAMP N.T.S.

LEGEND

CD SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE WEARING COURSE - 2" THICI<. CD SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE BINDER COURSE - 4" THICI<. 0) CLASS I I BASE COURSE - 10" THICI<. (CRUSHED STONE OR RECYCLED PCCP ONLY) GRAPHIC SC"'lE 1.2~ 0 1.2S 2.5 · lIN FEET I ; 8) PORTLAND CEMENT CO NCRETE PAVEMENT - 9" THICI<. 1- 10 AT LA HWY 74 - NEW INTERCHANGE TYPICAL SECTIONS: RAMPS S.P. NO.700-96-0007 e. 700-03-000 I

! ;

I II

VAR IE S 2' 6' 4' 2' 12' 12 ' 2' 4' 6' 2' VAR IE S MIN. MIN. I'i ii' ... 5% T .. 5% 3: / ~ '. \ - 3: / y\

FRONT AGE ROAD TYP ICAL FI NISHED SECT ION N.T.S.

LE GEND

CD SUPERPAV E ASP HALTI C CONCRETE WEARING COURSE - 2" THI CK o SUPER PAVE ASPHALT I C CONCRETE BINDER COURSE - 4" THICK G) CL ASS II BASE COURSE - 10" THI CK (CRUS HE D STONE OR RECYC LE D PCCP ON L YJ 8) AGGREGA TE SHOU LDER

1- 10 AT LA HW Y 74 - NEW INTERCHANGE TYPICAL SECTION S: FR ONT AGE ROADS TABLES 1 Preliminary Construction Estimates 2 Property Acquisition Costs 3 Utility Relocation Costs 4 Roadway Design Criteria TABLEl CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

DIAMOND INTERCHANGE Clearing & Grubbing $100,000 Borrow $1,669,500 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement $759,000 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement $1,040,000 Aggregate Base Course $964,375 Excavation $150,000 Muck Excavation $134,400 Drainage Excavation $135,000 Retaining Walls $288,000 Removal of Surfacing and Base $98,500 Drainage $2,495,450 Cofferdan1fBulkhead System $780,000 Erosion Control $180,000 Maintenance of Traffic $2,800,000 Mobilization $1,800,000 Construction Layout $270,000

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE $13,664,225 TABLE 2 PROPERTY ACQUISITION COST ESTIMATE

AL TERNA TIVE 1 - DIAMOND INTERCHANGE Northwest Quadrant Actual R/W Acquisition - 1.5 Acre Commercial @ $200,0001Acre = $300,000 Additional Property Acquisition - Commercial Building = $500,000 Total Property Acquisition - $800,000

Southwest Quadrant Actual R/W Acquisition - 2.0 Acres Residential @ $150,000/Acre = $300,000 Mobile Home Relocations - 7 @ $40,000 = $280,000 Total Acquisition and Relocations - $580,000

Northeast Quadrant Actual R/W Acquisition - 2.5 Acres Residential @ $150,000/Acre = $375,000 Additional Property Acquisition - 5 lots @ $125,000 = $625,000 Total Property Acquisition - $1 ,000,000

Southeast Quadrant Actual R/W Acquisition - 1.2 Acres Residential @ $75,000/Acre = $90,000 Additional Property Acquisition - 1 residence @ $250,000 Total Property Acquisition - $340,000

• Alternative 1 Total Estimated Property Cost - $2,720,000 CALI & LAPLACE E NGI N EERS L~'I!~~_~'::"

TABLE 3 Estimate of Probable Cost to relcoate all utilties at the 1-10 - LA 74 interchange:

Utilities and footages for the 1-10 LA-74 interchange:

Alternative 1 - Diamond Interchanl!e Item Length Total Cost AT&T Fiber Optic Cable 4,000 $ 80,000.00 Level 3 Fiber Optic Cable 4,000 $ 80,000.00 Atmos Gas Distribution 2,000 $ 100,000.00 Atmos Gas Distribution 3,500 $ 175,000.00 Eatel Telephone UG 3,000 $ 72,000.00

Eatel Telephone OH 3,000 $ 72,000.00 Ascension Parish Water 3,500 $ 210,000.00 Ascension Parish 5ewer 2,000 $ 240,000.00 Entergy Electric Power (OH) 5,000 $ 450,000.00 Cox Communications OH IV 3,500 $ 56,000.00 Cox Communications UG IV 800 $ 16,000.00

$ 1,551,000.00 TABLE 4 Proposed New Roadway Design Criteria

State Project No. 700-03-0001 Stage 0 Feasibility Study and Environmental Inventory Route 1-10 at LA Highway 74 New Interchange Ascension Parish

Functional Classification: Urban Interstate Note control section 450-10 (from LM 9.21 to LM 12.59) and control section 450-11 (from LM 0.00 to LM 16.25)

Design Speed • Mainline As-Built infomlation for State Project No. 450-11-02 Dutchtown - Gonzales shows 80 mph Design Speed for the existing Mainline 1-10. However, the Stage 0 Feasibility Study to Increase Capacity ofI-IO from Siegen Lane to LA Highway 22 indicates 70 mph Design Speed for proposed widening ofl-I O. Therefore, the design speed for Mainline I-l0 in this project will be 70 mph.

• Diagonal Ramps (Exhibit 10-56 AASHTO - Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) Design Speed Varies - 50 mph at entrance/exits

• Loop Ramps (pg 825 AASHTO - Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) Design speed 25 mph for minimum radii, compound curvature to be utili zed to affect speed change at entrance/exits. Proposed design speed may be increased based upon area available.

Ramp Exit Terminals and Entrance Tenninals will be designed in accordance with Standard Plan SC-OI, except for shoulder widths, which shall match the latest instructions from the Chief Engineer.

• Frontage Roads Design speed 30-45 mph based upon classification, speed, and traffic. (See State Design Standards)

Level of Service - To be detemlined based on Traffic Study

Page 1 of3 S.P.700-03-0001 Design Criteria Number of Lanes • Mainline The existing Mainline J-I0 has 4 lanes (2 in each direction). The proposed widening will increase the Mainline I-I0 to 6 lanes (3 in each direction). Both inside and outside widening are evaluated in the Stage 0 Feasibility Study. The drawings for the five different interchange configurations evaluated in this shldy do not show widening.

• Exit Ramps - as needed to eliminate traffic backing up onto 1-10 based on anticipated traffic queue

Lane Width • Mainline - 12 feet • Ramps on Tangent, Single Lane - 15 feet • Ramps on Tangent, Dual Lane - 12 feet each • Ramps on Horizontal Curves - Determined in accordance with Exhibit 10-67 (AASHTO - Geometric Design of Highways and Streets), Traffic Condition C, Case II, as modified if required by Exhibit 3-54 (AASHTO - Geometric Design of Highways and Streets). • Frontage Roads - 11 feet/12 feet Based upon classification, speed, and traffic. (See State Design Standards)

Shoulder Width • Mainline - 12 feet paved (DDHV greater than 250) • Ramps - 2 feet left, paved; 10 feet right, paved, according to instructions from the Chief Engineer • Frontage Roads - Varies, based upon classification, speed, and traffic. (See State Design Standards)

FOI-e Slope • Ramps - I V:4H • Frontage Roads - IV:4H

Back Slope • Ramps - lV:4H • Frontage Roads - I V:4H

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) • Diagonal Ramps 425 feet based on 50 mph Design Speed at 1-10 exit noses. At the striped exi t nose, Case b decision sight distance (based on ramp exit speed) will be provided to the back of the anticipated design year ramp queue.

Page 2 of3 S.P. 700-03-000 1 Design Criteria • Loop Ramps Varies based on Design Speed

Proposed Design Speed and Stopping Sight Distance may be increased based upon area available. Ramp Exit and Entrance Temlinals wi ll be designed in accordance with Standard Plan SC-Ol. A 200-foot platfonn area wi ll be provided where exi t and entrance ramps tie into 1-10.

Maximum Superelevation ('10) • Ramps - Superelevation on proposed ramps wi ll be finali zed after preliminary ramp layouts are completed. E-max = 0.08 ftlft, with a maximum algebraic difference of 0.05 ftl ft between adjacent lanes and ramps.

Maximum Grade (%) • Ramps - Downgrade 6% (5% for high truck volumes), Upgrade 4% (5% with few trucks)

New Interchange Design EDSM 1.4.3.2 with an effective date of 3/6/2006 will be referenced. Design standards for any new intersecting routes will be those for the intersecting route. Control of access requirements for new interchanges will be detemlined by LDOTD.

Minimum Vertical Clearance If the LA Highway 74 bridge is raised, a vertical clearance of 17 feet will be used as a guideline, with a minimum clearance of 16.5 feet to reserve vertical space for future overlays over Mainline 1-1 0.

Bridge Design If the LA Highway 74 bridge is raised or widened, LRFD will be implemented per FHW A requirements. For all designs an HST-18 vehicle shall be included as one of the li ve load vehicles.

Minimum Width of Bridges (face to fac e of bridge rail at gutter line shall be the full roadway width plus shoulders. in areas with median barriers, faces of barriers on roadway, approach slabs, and bridges shall be located the same di stance fi·Oln the roadway centerline.

Sources • 2002 LDOTD Roadway Design Procedures and Details • 2004 AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets • EDSM 11.3.1.2

Page30f3 S.P.700-03-0001 Design Criteria APPENDIX A EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 1-10/ LA Highway 74 Overpass

• 0' ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ...... o 0 o

View of Overpass View of Overpass

.JL' •• ' -'--' , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• It,: ...... o 0

View from Overpass View from Overpass (Looking Westbound) (Looking Eastbound) .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .• •••••• ,..... •••• , •• ~I"'" ILl ••••••••• ~ , ..., ••••• I I I I I I I I I I •••• ' ,.1 · )

North-East Quadrant View from Overpass North-West Quadrant View from Overpass

.••••••••••• I • ...... , ~ ____• 1. 1. ILlLt I • I I . _, ~ ' ...... ILl ••• IL••• , , . .... • • • • .., •••••• , .... ,--' •••• I ' J • 'J~ •• , • , ••~ •• I •• I I .. ·

North-East Approach of Overpass Comer of LA Hwy 74 and Dutchtown Point Ave. (Looking at north-east approach ofoverpass) ...... •...... •...... •...•.•...•...... ·......

~.y••~•••~,•••••••••••••••••••• : View ofOverpass Traveling Eastbound View of Overpass Traveling Eastbound

...... •...... •...... •...... ••....•.•. · .

View from Overpass View (Looking toward North-West Quadrant) (Looking toward North-West Quadrant) APPENDIXB TRAFFIC STUDY Stage 0 Feasibility Study

S.P. No. 700-96-0007

Increase Capacity of 1-10 (Siegen Lane to LA Hwy 22)

And

S.P. No. 700-03-0001

1-10 and LA 74 - New Interchange

Appendix B: Traffic Study (Increase Capacity of 1-10) INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the methodology and findings of a traffic study to assess the feasibility and need for two proposed projects. These include increasing the capacity of Interstate 10 (I-I0) between Siegen Lane and Louisiana Highway 22 (LA 22) and a new interchange at Louisiana Highway 74 (LA 74). The proposed method to increase the capacity of Interstate 10 was to widen from four lanes to six lanes.

Methodology

The purpose of the traffic study was to determine the expected impact that the widening of 1-10 and/or a new interchange at LA 74 would have on traffic conditions. The study area was defmed as the interstate mainline between Siegen Lane and LA 22, the interstate ramps at the six existing interchanges and the intersections of the ramps at the surface streets. Three analysis periods were chosen: a base year of 2008, an implementation year of 2012, and the design year of 2032. The years 2012 and 2032 were determined based on the Capital Regional Planning Commission (CRPC) TransCAD travel demand model horizon years.

For the purpose of this study, the "No Build".condition was defined as the existing four lanes on 1-10 and the "Build" condition was defined as six lanes on 1-10 throughout the study area. The introduction of an interchange at LA 74 interchange was examined under both the "No Build" and "Build" conditions. The analysis of LA 74 was based on two alternatives: a diamond interchange and a partial cloverleaf interchange. Both alternatives were analyzed for each intersection (LA 74 at 1-10 eastbound and westbound ramps). The planned interchange at Pecue Lane was also included as a condition in this study, however determining the need and feasibility of this interchange was previously established and is not included in this study.

The following twelve scenarios were studied:

Implementation Year (2012) - Project "No Build" (I-I0 to remain four lanes) • No new interchanges • With Pecue interchange ,without LA 74 interchange • Without Pecue interchange, with LA 74 interchange

Implementation Year (2012) - Project "Build" (I-I0 widened to six lanes) • No new interchanges • With Pecue interchange, without LA 74 interchange • Without Pecue interchange, with LA 74 interchange

Design Year (2032) - Project "No Build" (I-I0 to remain four lanes) • No new interchanges • With Pecue interchange, without LA 74 interchange • Without Pecue interchange, with LA 74 interchange

US! Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 1 Design Year (2032) - Project "Build" (I-10 widened to lanes) • No new interchanges • With Pecue interchange, without LA 74 interchange • Without Pecue interchange, with LA 74 interchange

Traffic volume data was collected to determine the base year traffic conditions. The TRANSCAD model was utilized to develop projected daily traffic volumes throughout the study area both with and without the proposed projects under 2012 and 2032 conditions. Peak hour traffic volumes were developed for both the AM and PM peak periods for the study area utilizing the existing traffic volume data, TRANSCAD output, known projects and professional judgment. Level of Service / Capacity Analysis was performed based on the projected peak hour volumes. Capacity analyses were performed for interstate freeway segments, ramp merge junctions, ramp diverge junctions, and intersection locations within the project study area. The analyses were conducted for each of the project scenarios.

Capacity analysis for the signalized intersections in the 2008 base conditions were conducted based on existing traffic signal phasing and timing as presented in the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's Traffic Signal Inventories. Adjustments to the cycle lengths and timing splits were included in the 2012 and 2032 analyses to accommodate the additional traffic volumes. However the same phasing and timing parameters were assumed for all 2012 and 2032 analyses.

The resulting LOS and delays expected for each scenario were compared to determine the impact of each project on traffic conditions for use in determining their feasibility.

Study Area

The following existing interchanges were included in the study area:

• 1-10 at Siegen Lane • 1-10 at Highland Road • 1-10 at LA Hwy 73 • 1-10 at LA Hwy 30 • 1-10 at LA Hwy 44 • 1-10 at LA Hwy 22

Figure 1 presents a vicinity map of the project and indicates the subject portion of 1-10. As shown, the major alternative routes to 1-10 that provide access between the area south of Donaldsonville and the Baton Rouge metropolitan area including the 1-10 bridge crossing of the Mississippi River are US 61 (Airline Highway) on the east and LA 30 on the west. Additionally LA 42 (Burbank) provides access between 1-10 and downtown Baton Rouge/Louisiana State University. LA 42 is accessible from both Highland Road and Siegen Lane.

US! Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 2 I<,.;?.,.~- WEST BATON -!-'-'§i---;;,~,;'b·~P:;;tJ~:~~~:e .• ::::~ '. ~<:" R 0 U G E

. i n~- .,' • .:' no :~~.,J!,:. -&,' . r..;ol\f.:g~.T ~ ~ \.~.:...... :.!', ., L~'.'\la((l ,"'. ,.~~j.' I V I N G :;:. TON ..../~tilh 'de~,:~~~ri~'~ p",~/ to:~-~l' " ·-J.Tig'J:~~~.~.:

(~f ...... :: ...... :, To U I ~ I A N A : French "Settlement Pl~c:!~mlrie~;

Sunstrirlet· I B E R V:( L L E ®

.: ,!~., GOnZ8IeS-1'\,@

(.j4) ys CE

MiMIs,W (!~~.

':' .>:~, Sorrento '~1:!~.

140:5'· 'jj . ,\'Ihl~c.stle

~, I,,~~ l.. ·,"-@ '12

Figure 1 Vicinity Map 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. PLANNERS & ENGINEERS Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N. PETERS STREET P.O. BOX 2250 r_ NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70176 NOT TO SCALE -IF_ (504)523-5511 FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY Project # 08-002 Descriptions of the individual roadways included in the study area are presented below. Figure 2 presents an illustration of the existing roadway geometry and lane configuration at the interchange entrance/exit ramps.

Interstate 10

Interstate 10 in the study area is a fully controlled access, four lane divided highway that has a general northeast-southwest orientation throughout the study area. It is the major east-west interstate through the southern portion of the United States and is utilized by both local and out-of-state traffic. It services a large portion of commercial and freight vehicles and the collected data indicates that heavy vehicle traffic in the study area ranges from approximately 11 % to 16%. For the purpose of this study, 13% heavy vehicles was used during peak period analyses. 1-10 is mainly at grade throughout the study area, has a fairly wide grassy median, shoulders and open ditches on both sides of the roadway.

Siegen Lane

Siegen Lane in the vicinity of 1-10 is a seven-lane undivided corridor oriented in a general north-south direction. The interchange is surrounded by heavy commercial and retail developments in three of the four quadrants. Both intersections with the 1-10 on/off ramps are signalized.

Highland Road

Highland Road is a four-lane divided roadway in the vicinity of I-I 0 that runs in a general north-south direction. The interchange is surrounded by retail and commercial developments, including a Home Depot and Blue Bayou Water Park. Towards the west the predominant land use on Highland Road is residential. To the east, commercial and industrial land uses are more prevalent until it intersects US 61 (Airline Highway). Both intersections with the 1-10 on/off ramps are signalized. Highland Road reduces to a two lane undivided roadway on both sides of the interchange.

LA 73

LA 73 in the vicinity of 1-10 is a four-lane divided roadway that is oriented in a north south direction. It narrows to an undivided two-lane roadway within a quarter mile from the interstate. The general land use on LA 73 is a mix of low density residential and commercial development. However adjacent to the interstate is commercial development that caters to 1-10 travelers with gas and other convenience goods and services. Both intersections with the 1-10 on/off ramps are signalized.

US] Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 4 N~ W S

<•

ttti"

~ :J: U !:i ~;r---~~----~----+-----~------~----~----~------'----~----~---J~----

Figure 2 Existing Lane Configuration

URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 PLANNERS & ENGINEERS • Signalized Intersection Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N. PETERS STREET P.O. BOX 2250 NOT TO SCALE ,_ NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70176 o nalized Intersection -,F_ (504) 523·5511 FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY

Project # 08-002 LA30

LA 30 in the vicinity ofI-10 is oriented in an east-west direction. East ofI-10 it is a six lane undivided roadway and west of 1-10 it is a three lane undivided roadway. Within one mile of the interstate, the land use on LA 30 is highly commercial and retail including the Tanger Outlet Mall, Cabela's, Home Depot and assorted restaurant and services businesses. LA 30 provides alternate access to Baton Rouge from Gonzales. Both intersections with the I-I 0 on/off ramps are signalized.

LA 44

LA 44 north of 1-10 is a four-lane undivided roadway, south of 1-10 it narrows to two lanes. In the vicinity of 1-10 LA 44 is oriented in a north-south 'direction. The predominant land use is low density residential and agricultural land. Both intersections with the 1-10 on/offramps are currently unsignalized.

LA 22

LA 22 in the vicinity ofI-10 is a four-lane undivided roadway that is oriented in a north south direction. South of the interstate the roadways narrows to two lanes and north of the interstate it widens to a four lane divided roadway. The predominant land use is low density residential and agricultural land. Adjacent to the interstate is commercial development that caters to 1-10 travelers with gas and other convenience goods and services. Both intersections with the 1-10 on/off ramps are signalized.

South of 1-10, LA 22 intersects with LA 70 which provides one of only two crossings over the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and the greater New Orleans area. LA 22 provides access to significant industrial facilities which results in earlier traffic peaks than in Baton Rouge.

Planned Projects

LA 73 at Iuterstate 10

Since this study began, geometric and signal modifications at LA 73 at the I-lOon/off ramps have been implemented. The LA 73 southbound approach at 1-10 westbound on/off ramps was modified from two through lanes and an exclusive right tum lane to one through lane, a shared through-right lane and an exclusive right turn lane. The 1-10 Eastbound off-ramp at LA 73 was modified from a shared left-through lane and an exclusive right turn lane to one left turn lane, a shared left-through lane and an exclusive right turn lane.

The modifications were completed and operational when this study was completed and the improvements were considered in 2012 and 2032 analyses of this interchange.

US] Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 6 Interchange at Pecue at I-10, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

A new interchange is planned for Pecue at 1-10. According to the "I-I0/Pecue Interchange Justification Study" performed by ABMB in October 2007, the interchange has a planned implementation year of 2011. The report indicates that the proposed configuration of this interchange is a diamond with multi-lane approaches and signalization at the on/off ramps. The interchange is expected to provide more direct access to areas of Baton Rouge and also relieve some surface street congestion in the area between Siegen Lane and Highland Road. Specifically, this interchange will provide access via Pecue to LA 427 (Perkins Road) and US 61 (Airline Highway).

Edenborne, Gonzales, Louisiana

Edenborne is ~ mixed-use development planned to be located in the southwest quadrant of the LA 44 at 1-10 interchange. The development is planned to include 800 single- and multi-family dwellings and over two million square feet of business and retail space. The construction is planned to be phased over the next ten to fifteen years. Traffic volumes developed for the Edenbome site (study prepared by Urban Systems in August 2007) were considered in developing the projected traffic volumes for this study. A new roadway is also being considered that will connect LA 30 and LA 44 via St. Landry Road and West Edenborne Parkway. The impact of this roadway on traffic volumes was considered in the development of the 2032 volumes. It was also determined that an additional eastbound through lane on LA 30 between Tanger/Cabela's and 1-10 will be required. The projected traffic volumes from the Edenbome traffic impact study and a conceptual layout of the improvements at LA 44 are included in the Appendix.

Improvements to the LA 44 interchange are planned in conjunction with this development. Improvements to the intersection of LA 44 at the 1-10 westbound ramps include an additional left turn lane at the northbound approach (resulting in dual lefts) and the addition of dual right tum lanes at the westbound approach. Improvements to the intersection of LA 44 at the 1-10 eastbound ramps include an eastbound right tum bypass for motorists destined for the Edenbome development. Two additional northbound through lanes (resulting in four through lanes) and a southbound right tum lane are also planned. These improvements were included in the 2012 and 2032 analyses ofthe LA 44 interchange.

Associated with the Edenborne development is consideration for a new roadway connection that would provide an alternative to 1-10 for access between LA 30 and LA 44. The new roadway would connect West Edenborne parkway to S. St. Landry Avenue. The alignment of the roadway has not yet been determined. For the purposes of this study, the connection was considered to be in place for the year 2032 Build and No Build scenarlOS.

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 7 Cabela's - Phase 2, Gonzales, Louisiana

Improvements to the LA 30 interchange are planned in conjunction with phase 2 of the Cabela's based development. Improvements to the intersection of LA 30 at the 1-10 westbound ramps include additional left tum lanes at the northbound and westbound approaches (resulting in dual lefts at each approach). Improvements to intersection of LA 30 at the 1-10 eastbound ramps include an additional northbound through lane (resulting in three through lanes) and an additional eastbound left tum lane (resulting in dual lefts). These improvements were included in the 2012 and 2032 analyses of the LA 30 interchange. The plans for these improvements are included in the Appendix.

DATA COLLECTION

Average Daily Traffic Volumes

Existing traffic volume data was collected within the project study area during March and April of 2008. Twenty-four hour traffic counts were collected on 1-10 to determine average daily traffic volumes (ADT's). The presented Year 2004 mainline volumes are output data from the Regional Transportation Model. Table 1 provides a summary of this information.

Table 1 2008 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Interstate 10

"" .. , ;.. " ... :'.",: .. West of Siegen 45,900 55,100* 47,500 57,000* 93,400 112,100* Lane Between Siegen 38,500 45,850 39,750 45,550 78,250 91,400 and Between Highland 33,650 38,250 33,950 36,250 67,600 74,500 and LA 73 Between LA 73 28,850 32,050 28,950 32,550 57,800 64,600 and LA 30 Between LA 30 26,200 27,650 26,450 27,800 52,650 55,450 and LA 44 Between LA 44 23,350 26,300 23,600 26,750 46,950 53,050 and LA 22

A review of Table 1 indicates that travel demand on Interstate 10 has increased significantly between 2004 and 2008, which may be the result of redistributed population after Hurricane Katrina. As expected, the heaviest traffic volumes occur in the urbanized areas of Baton Rouge. This table indicates that the segment of 1-10 between LA 30 and

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 8 LA 44 experienced minimal growth between 2004 and 2008 which is not consistent and may be a result of TRANS CAD overestimating this 2004 volume.

Intersection Turning Movement Counts

Intersection turning movement counts were collected during the AM (7-9 am) and PM (4 6 pm) peak periods. The specific AM and PM peak hours of demand were different for the various interchange locations along 1-10 given the nearby population densities, surrounding land uses and employment centers, and expected commute times. Peak period turning movement counts were collected at the following intersections:

• Siegen Lane at 1-10 Westbound Ramps • Siegen Lane at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps • Highland Road at 1-10 Westbound Ramps • Highland Road at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps • LA 73 at 1-10 Westbound Ramps • LA 73 at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps • LA 30 at 1-10 Westbound Ramps • LA 30 at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps • LA 44 at 1-10 Westbound Ramps • LA 44 at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps • LA 22 at 1-10 Westbound Ramps • LA 22 at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps

Figure 3 presents the peak hour intersection turning movement counts collected at the above intersections during March and April, 2008. It also presents ADT data.

TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND FORECASTING

Traffic volume projections for years 2012 and 2032 within the project study area were developed with the assistance of the Capitol Regional Planning Commission (CRPC) regional travel demand model. The model was developed for CRPC using TransCAD computer software. TransCAD utilizes geographic information, population figures, socio-economic data, and vehicular origin / destination areas within the roadway network to project future traffic volumes. It should be noted that the 2012 and 2032 street and highway network, developed in the CRPC travel demand model, includes all roadway improvement projects in the current financially constrained transportation plan. Roadway improvement projects are added into the model over the horizon time frame in chronological order based on each project's priority for implementation.

Using the TransCAD output as a basis for implementation / design year traffic assignment and forecasting, future ADT volumes were developed for all 1-10 segments, all interstate entrance and exit ramps, and all interchange cross streets. The ADT volumes, combined with existing peak hour turning movement counts, were used to develop future AM and PM peak hour volumes on the mainline 1-10 and ramp junctions as well as turning movement projections at the subject intersections.

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 9 While TransCAD is a highly sophisticated computer program that utilizes a variety of data input, professional judgment was also utilized in the development of future traffic projections. Where TRANSCAD projections were estimated to be higher or lower than expected, the resulting hourly volume projections were adjusted based on expected growth in the area and engineering judgment. The 2012 and 2032 "No New Interchanges" projections were based largely on collected traffic data and TransCAD projections. The peak hour for each interchange varied throughout the study area. In the "Build" scenarios and additional interchange scenarios, volume projections were developed based on a single peak hour scenario, resulting in consistent volumes between intersections within an interchange.

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 10 ~oo 0">0"> 1"-<0 co to' M~ o~ ...... 0">0 ~- !£.~ -0 COl" "''''-<0 ~I"- ~o ~~ ...If)o N1=tE O">~ ~~ Olf) ~ CO W' ~ ~ s

o~ (4083) 2685 ~ (2181)2511 ~ '''If) ~ (3117) 2757~ MOO r::-~ s:::!.. ~'" 0"> ... !£.£! If)lf) COM 45,850~ 38,250 ~ 32,050 ~

'.9 r; r.; :.>. 1(9 <{od' ~-' ~"'a I(i> i:9

~ <01" ~ O">lf) ~ tl" 1"- ~~ G"M' I"-~ MO">~'" 00 M l()O 00'" M

~tO cnLnOlf) 000 ~;:::: :::!..:::t. <0 ... se COM If) 0"> ... MCO ~lf) '''If) ;:::-;jIi "'M ~ ... '" -f'" V' .9.9 "i5-1?~ ~""~0

+- 32,550 ",,,, +-27,800 ~26,750 COM +- 20,700 00 !£.~ +- 2075 (2291) ~ 147(173) +- 1818 (2256) +- 1273 (1868)

2181)2511--+ (2582) 2187 ~ (402) 182~ (2442) 2108 ~ (1837) 1712 ~ ~ ~ ...-I"- O">~ ... 32,050 ~ 27,650 --» 26,300~ ... co 20,300 ~

0> ~~ 0~-, ~ :-tv" ~~ ~~ {:> :-tV' -' .9; -J-. :9", ~ t 0 NN Ee !:S E~ Figure 3 x AM Peak Hour 2008 Traffic Volumes (X) PM Peak Hour The peak volumes shown XX Average Daily Traffic 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN sYSTEMS, INC. -,rPLANNERS & ENGINEERS represent the peak hour Signalized Intersection Baton Rouge, Louisiana 4lI0 N. PETERS STREET P.O. BOX 2250 specific to each interchange. Nor TO SCALE • NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70176 •0 U nalized Intersection (504) 523 • 5511 FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY

Project # 08-002 For the new interchange scenarios (Pecue and LA 74), it was assumed that only the interchanges adjacent to the new subject interchange would be affected. Therefore, for the "With Pecue" scenarios, new volumes were only projected from the Siegen Lane interchange to the Highland Road interchange; for the "with LA 74" scenarios, new volumes were projected from the LA 73 interchange to the LA 30 interchange. Projected turning movement counts at the proposed interchanges (Pecue and LA 74) were developed based on TRANSCAD output, historical data and engineering judgment. Current turning movements at the Highland Road interchange were considered when developing distribution of traffic at the new intersections of Pecue and the 1-10 ramps. The distribution of traffic for the interchange at LA 74 were based on the alternate access that the interchange is expected to provide to the southwest of the interchange. The Figures presenting these scenarios only indicate these affected interchanges.

Implementation and design year traffic projections presented in Figures 4 through 11 as follows:

Figure 4 - 2012 Project "No Build" (1-10 to remain four lanes) No new interchanges

Figure 5 - 2012 Project "No Build" with Pecue interchange and with LA 74 interchange

Figure 6 - 2012 Project "Build" (1-10 widened to six lanes) No new interchanges

Figure 7 - 2012 Project "Build" with Pecue interchange and with LA 74 interchange

Figure 8 - 2032 Project "No Build" (1-10 to remain four lanes) No new interchanges

Figure 9 - 2032 Proj~ct "No Build" with Pecue interchange and with LA 74 interchange

Figure 10 - 2032 Proj ect "Build" (1-10 widened to six lanes) No new interchanges

Figure 11 - 2032 Project "Build" with Pecue interchange and with LA 74 interchange

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Capacity analyses were performed for interstate freeway segments, ramp merge junctions, ramp diverge junctions, and intersection locations within the project study area. The analyses were conducted for each of the project scenarios. Due to the assumptions previously stated regarding the new interchange scenarios, analysis for these was only performed for the interchanges on either side of the new interchange.

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 12

~749 (838) +- 5377 (5651) +- 4160 (3028) +- 3448 (2805) +- 2301 (2868) (4901) 3285---+ (4165) 2719 ---+ (2332) 2685 ---+ (3273) 2895---+

o OX> 0'" "'~ ~~

OM~'" NO') ... ~ :::..

~ ::I:o !ci +- 2301 (2868) +- 2590 (2800) ~ 292(460) +-1915 (2376) +- 1325 (1944) ~~~~~~~~~~~------~------(2332) 2685 ---+ ~ ~ ..~------~------~--(3100) 2700 ---+ (1116) 711 ~.. ------~------as ~ ..------~(2596) 2241 ---+ ..--..--~------~~----~~----~~ (1837) 1712 ---+ ffi ~ E.~ &5_ -~ -ro 0 o~ N~ w~ ~_ ~~ ~m

Figure 4 IINo Build l 2012 Traffic Volumes No New Interchanges

Project # 08-002 Np: With Pecue W S

~N o~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ -(!1j~ ~ 5267(3959) "~~""""-4~...... ~.. ~...... 53.9.(.60.3.) ...... ~... 4.21.1.(3.0.4.3) ...... ~...... ~~..~..~...'..'-.4.8.9.(5.4.3.) ....~.... 42.1.0.(3.1.18.) ...... ~.~..~...... ~...... ~iUll••~... 3.4.65.(.28.1.8~).. W'" I, -----'0.... . (4921)3445~ N~ (4123)2837 ~ ~ ~ (4248)2927~ ~' (3547)2564------,- ~~ ~m ~~ S~ ~~ e~ ~8 ~~ ~i ~M ~M ~~

With LA 74

M ri' t- ~ c( ~~ ...J ~ ~ 5068 (3034) "iI ~ ~ 2767 (2440) ~ 3014 (2817) ~ 2324 (2897) ~ 2590 (2800) J 1 (3319) 2936 ~ .v (2455) 2302 ~ 'V (1294) 384 """", ~~ (2892) 2651 ~ (756)230 ~ (2355)2712 ~ ~ 10M "'~ ~£i "'CO ;2;;;; t~

Figure 5 "No Build" 2012 Projected Traffic Volumes wI Pecue & wI LA 74 Interchanges 1.) The peak volumes shown represent the peak hour X AM Peak Hour 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. specific to each interchange. PLANNERS & ENGINEERS (X) PM Peak Hour Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N, PETERS STREET 2.) Only diamond configuration P.O. BOX 2250 • Signalized Intersection NOT TO SCALE r_ NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70176 shown for LA 74 intercha -.F_ (504)523·5511 FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY Project # 08-002 Nl1 w S

"C C ::c1"11 C) X ~936 (1047) +- 5467 (3967) +- 4825 (3512) ~ +- 3200 (2528) ~ 800 (726) +- 4000 (3254) +- 2600 (3240) (5195) 3482--+ (4540) 2964 --+ (3764) 3329--+ (2612) 3007--+

NO ~ ~ ffi~ cfP S OM :t: o~ (1..<0'" () ~~ co .....~::. '" N~ !c( +- 2600 (3240) +- 2771 (2996) =..=- '- 292 (460) +-2030 (2518) ~ +- 1228 (1830) +- 1365 (2002) :::lE (2612) 3007--+ (3317) 2889--+ (1227) 782~ o~ (2751) 2375--+ (1873) 1746 --+ ""~CO .....

=-=00> co~ ..... ~

tV ~c9.'0 o "'0 I?~-0.'7 U>-a, G> J. 'V 6' t A"'? ?J. 0>0 t ~'" N", CO", Figure 6 "'~ ~~ ;:-~ :'S 0>'" 0>0> ",'" ON ))Build' =-~ ~~ 2012 Traffic Volumes No New Interchanges

The peak volumes shown X AM Peak Hour 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. PLANNERS & ENGINEERS represent the peak hour (X) PM Peak Hour Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N. PETERS STREET P.O. BOX 2250 specific to each interchange. • Signalized Intersection NOT TO SCALE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70176 -IF.. (504) 523 • 5511 FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY Project # 08-002 ~r:: 00 ..... lON .... ~ & 17't9 ~~ ~:;;

0 .... 00

I'd> 17\ o Old' ~~ ,., "6': :;; 6'"" "...V ~17. ~6'~ u>~ '{o~

eo'" ....

~m eo ~ 00 ..... ~;::- N~ 00'" ~o S:!.

~ 5149 (3471) ~ 250 (738) ~ 3229 (3499) ~150(443) ~ 2623 (3256) ~ 2771 (2996) (3820) 3379----+ (3326) 2897----+ (2821) 3248----+ (949)289 ~ (2625) 3022 ----+

.....N '"..... Figure 7 "'~ 01<0 ~ ~ "Build" ~~"'''' 2012 Projected Traffic Volumes wi Pecue & wi LA 74 Interchanges 1.) The peak volumes shown represent the peak hour X AM Peak Hour 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. specific to each interchange. PLANNERS & ENGINEERS (X) PM Peak Hour Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N. PETERS STREET 2.) Only diamond configuration P.O. BOX 2250 • Signalized Intersection NOT TO SCALE ,_ NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70176 shown for LA 74 interc e. -IF_ (504) 523·5511 FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY Project # 08·002 N~ "'00 ;::-$ No> ~OO t:'o;- ~~ ~~ 000 0 .... ~e ....NN '" NOO O~ ~;;1i "'0 N11E ~~ ~~ W S ~ ~ -.f""6,,,' -.f"v. ~O oS" "'0 6'0 r". ~{p0~ t;j> U'". 0;/ U'~V ~ "C ::J: c (.) 000 ell <0", 000 00<0 _N"'''' ::c !:i CJ Co "'''' ;:i; <00 OO~ t:'O "' :E N ~t::I...... "' ....~ 0 .... 00 .... 0 .... 00 ....

I? 0-0 r;;; Q ~oS ~ ~0", ".". ~ t&1s! ::;U' "',p V, 0 ~ ,pO' ":/", .~ " -..j.. "",? -..j.. t t 'SO 'U'-..j.. 0<0 00", t t?" 0 0>00 0>", O~ "' _N U;-~ 0'" 0000 O~ 0'" ON "'~ ~~ "'~ ~ ~

~ mo '" MO 00 N t:'~'" "'s~ .... ~~ !£.

~ ::J: (.) !:i ~ 2800 (3490) 2796 (3095) ~ 3450 (3708) ~420 (620) ~ 2538 (3149) ~ 1788 (2624) ~~(2~8~4~1)~3~2~71~~~~~1tl~~~~"""""·m...._ t-~...... ~~ ..~ ...... (4·1·00·)~3~63~0"~~""""(·14~7~5·)9~5~5·~-4,~"""·~·_""~~~~"~·~""""""(·3·44·1·)·29·7·0·-+ ...... ~~~~~...... -t~~..~~..t-~~""~~·(~26~2~4·)2~4·46~~~ c.D1O ~ <.O"¢ M ~~ SOO ~~ U;;- ~~ ~;;; NN <.O~

Figure 8 IINo Build ll 2032 Traffic Volumes No New Interchanges

X AM Peak Hour 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. The peak volumes shown PLANNERS &ENGINEERS represent the peak hour (X) PM Peak Hour Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N. PETERS STREET P.O. BOX 2250 specific to each interchange. • Signalized Intersection NOT TO SCALE ,_ NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70176 7F_ (504)523·5511 FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY Project # 08-002 LOLO r::-r::- CDOl CD CO ~~ t::.e co I() ~ '" With Pecue NP: ;!~ w S ~ ~ ~ Y'?~ 'f"~ "'l1'0.9 f'. ';>9! 00.9 /6) '?s>r.r. "Ol1' 0.9~ I?~ r.:>~ r.:>. <96' 6'-j::l VI~::;I ;Pet- ::I

.... Ol OlCO Ol'

I'?o ~ r: 16J'f9 I'? t!'.;> t::;. "'.... 1:):;,::;1.... '3> ::I", ::; VI "'....'./ 0l? ';>0.9 '%>-J-. ~U>-J-. liQ~ CPt iP -J-. o~ tl' Ol I() t t N~ o ~ CDO N ~ I()N ~CD NO (0<0 Olco '"~ g~ :s ~ ~

Oleo ~r::- COo .... co ~e. ~~ With LA 74 I() co coco CDO "'CD o~ CD CD ~~ ~ ~ Y'l1''''~ Y'l1' {y.;> .... t::;. u> ~ ~~{y6' r:-6' ?l1' r~ <96' ~ r:-oQ ?'Y ~::I ru>.... ~ ~

C') ~ CD .... r-. r-. CDN NN ",N '

ICP. ~ ~ ~6'~ ~~ ~~ 6'0.9 J.;> '=''b ? ~ ::;II.? :;.> '"'~ 6'-J-. ~6'-J-. ~~-J-. CO' I()~'" co I() 0 .... ~ ~~ ~~ ~ '"~ "No Build" 2032 Projected Traffic Volumes wi Pecue & wi LA 74 Interchanges 1.) The peak volumes shown represent the peak hour X AM Peak Hour 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. specific to each interchange. -rF PLANNERS & ENGINEERS (X) PM Peak Hour Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N. PETERS STREET 2.) Only diamond configuration P.O. BOX 2250 Signalized Intersection • NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70176 shown for LA 74 interc NOT TO SCALE (504) 523 • 5511 • FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY Project # 08-002 -;¢ _0 "'CD OCD ~O ms o~ ...... "''''~~ ~:s ~ ~e ... LO ~ "'0 ~'" ~'" ...... '" N11E o,~ "''''LO~ ~~ W· s ~ ~ Y"".,O'"., f'-v.~ 0'"., ""/::i 196' rv ~O'.... 0.~ 6'0':/ i5'0 :'i

0 t3' (9"., '''''v ~ v>~ 0: t7v> ~ 'Y~ ,%/' "'"., :'i", 6'"., o "'v> ~~ ~6'~ 'f9.~ (9 'J-

t "'0 t LO~ t 11"~ "'LO ...... '" CD", 0 ..... "''''~- r::'N" ~'" -'"OCD 0", ;;-0;- co ...... ~ ..... ~ £~ ",,,, ~

cor:: co CD (j5"N' !£.!£. CD '" co co :s~ ~O ...... '" ~ "''''",LO '"v~v> ~r:r:'-& u'", 0 0

CDLO ~ co~'" ... :J: -N' (J COLO ooM' co~"'''' gco ~~ !;( +-- 3146 (3920) ~ 556 (520) +-- 3491 (3775) ~ 371 (584) +--2578 (3198) -£ +--1788 (2622) ;iE, (3160) 3638---+ 0>CD _ (4179) 3640---+ (1546) 985~ 0>_ (3494) 3016---+ (2453) 2287 ---+ "'0 CD coco ... ~ ~'" s~ "'-CD ..... ~'" CD ... co"'~ ... "''''"'~ CD ~

r.:~ t7 ''''' r.9.f3', "0::;t"do f9",~ <9".,~ C/& ~ 'Y~ "., ~'-'~ DO' ~ 'f9u'.9~

t co ..... t t trr Figure 10 "'LO "' ... "'~ -cry ~~ ~~ ~- "'co'" ..... "'0-'" "Build" "' ...... ~ CD", ~!£. ~ ..... ~ ~ 2032 Traffic Volumes No New Interchanges

The peak volumes shown X AM Peak Hour 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. 7F PLANNERS &ENGINEERS represent the peak hour (X) PM Peak Hour Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N. PETERS STREET P.o. BOX 2250 specific to each interchange. Signalized Intersection NOT TO SCALE ~ NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70176 (504) 523 - 5511 • FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY Project # 08-002 With Pecue

~ 5966 (4329) ~862 (966) +-5190 (3779) ~ 506 (458) +- 5216 (3797) +-4819 (3920) (4516) 3995 ---+ (5575) 3736---+ (4858) 3171---+ (4958) 3236---+

With LA 74

~ 6075 (4096) +--3875 (4199) '-187 (554) +- 3279 (4070) ~3602 (3895)

(3385) 3895 ---+ (4324) 3766---+ (4508) 3987---+ (1138)347~ (3281) 3946---+

Figure 11 IIBuild ll 2032 Projected Traffic Volumes wi Pecue & wi LA 74 Interchanges 1.) The peak volumes shown represent the peak hour X AM Peak Hour 1-10 Widening From Siegen Ln. to LA 22 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. specific to each interchange. PLANNERS & ENGINEERS (X) PM Peak Hour Baton Rouge, Louisiana 400 N. PETERS STREET 2.) Only diamond configuration P.O. BOX 2250 • Sig nalized Intersection NOT TO SCALE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70176 shown for LA 74 interchange. -,F'II (504) 523 • 5511 FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY Project # 08-002 Levels of Service (LOS) represent a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the traffic operation of a given freeway segment, ramp junction and/or intersection using procedures developed by the Transportation Research Board and contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures have been adapted to computer based analysis packages, which include modules for each roadway condition.

Levels of Service range from LOS A, a condition of little or no delay to LOS F, a condition of capacity breakdown represented by heavy delay and congestion. Level of Service B is characterized as stable flow. Level of Service C is considered to have a stable traffic flow, but is becoming susceptible to congestion with general levels of comfort and convenience declining noticeably. Level of Service D approaches unstable flow as speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted and LOS E represents unstable flow at or near capacity levels with poor levels of comfort and convenience.

The various types of analysis performed for this study include basic freeway segment, ramp merge junction, ramp diverge junction, un-signalized intersection and signalized intersection. Each analysis was performed using Highway Capacity Software Version 5.2 (HCS+) for the freeway segments, ramp junctions, and unsignalized intersections. TEAPAC's Signal 2000 was utilized to analyze the signalized intersection. The level of service for both basic freeway segments and ramp junctions are based on density which is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/milln). Intersection level of service, for both un-signalized and signalized, is based on control delay in seconds per vehicle. The Level of Service criteria for freeway segments and for ramp junctions are presented in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.

Table 2 Level of Service Criteria for a Basic Freeway Segment

Level of Service Density Range (pc/mifln) A ::;11 B >11 and::;18 C >18 and,96 D >26 and <35 E >35 and <45 F >45

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 21 Table 3 Level of Service Criteria for a Merge and Diverge Areas (Ramp Junction)

Level of Service Density (pc/milln) A go B >10 and go C >20 and g8 D >28 and~35 E >35 F Demand exceeds capacity

Table 4 presents the Level of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections and Table 5 presents the criteria for signalized intersections.

Table 4 Level of Service Criteria for Un-signalized Intersections

Level of Service Contro 1 Delay Per Vehicle (Sec) A ~10 B >10 and~15 C >15 and g5 D >25 and <35 E >35 and <50 F >50

Table 5 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections

Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (Sec) A go B >10 and go C >20 and~35 D >35 and~55 E >55 and~80 F >80

The analysis methods above are considered appropriate for this type of study and is the widely accepted practice of evaluating impacts on traffic operations.

Freeway Segments and Ramp Junctions

Tables 6 through 9 present a summary of the capacity analysis results for the 1-10 freeway segments and ramp junctions under each scenario discussed in the Methodology section. Analysis documentation is provided in the Appendix.

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 22 Table 6 Freeway Segments and Ramp Junctions - Level of Service and Capacity Analysis Results Eastbound, AM Peak

2008 2012 No Build 2012 Build 2032 No Build i 2032 Build Type of Location W/O Pecue • W/O WI Pecue • W/O LA W/O Pecue • WI LA W/O Pecue~W/O' W/Pecue ·W/O LA W/O Pecue • WI LA W/O Pecue • W/O WI Pecue • W/O LA W/O Pecue • WI LA WI Pecue ~ W/O LA Analysis l'fiIO PeclJe ~ W/OLA W/O F>ecLle • WrLA Base Conditions LA 74 74 74 LAN 74 74 LA 74 74 74 i 74 74 74. LOS Density LOS Density LOS DensIty LOS Density LOS DensitY LOS Density lOS . DensitY LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density '. LOS Density LOS Densitv LOs DensltV. West of Sieaen Freeway D 28.3 D 28.4 D 30.8 . 18.4 18.4 E 36.6 E 37.5 , 19.6 i..'" " " e e e e 19.8 .' ..... ,.., .. c . . c' i • • .., : ~.'..~ Siegen EB off Ramp DiverQe D 31.3 ". D 31.4 D 33.0 ~ e 23.3 e 23.2 F 36.1 F 36.5 ..... e 24.6 e 24.7 .',' Siegen EB on Ramp Merge e 22.2 e 22.5 e 23.7 B 17.5 e 24.5 , e 21.6 e 26.3 . .•.. B 18.6 B 18.5 : . i . " . ... ' .. .' . .. ',,,., . ' ,.' . 'i , . "."." ICc BIt Sieaen and Pecue Freeway e 21.4 e 21.9 e 23.1 I'" B 15.6 B 15.6 e 24.8 D 26.3 B 16.5 B 16.7 .. '. ". ". .' .... . ' ...... ' . . . ' .' . ' 1 " . ... F .... .' . .... > . . .' Pecue EB off Ramp DiverQe 26.8 . ... :. . , ,.... , ...... I e " B 18.6 D 29.7 i· B 19.8 ' .... " ." ...... ' . Pecue EB on Ramp MerQe e 24.6 'i' B 15.9 :. :.' e 27.2 ; .,' .··i···.· . '. B 17.1 " " . '.' . " ' : '. . .. I····.· .. ,,' . ". ' . I··' " > ., BIt Pecue and HiQhland Freeway e 21.4 e 21.9 e 24.0 B 15.6 e 16.1 I .. ··· e 24.8 D 27.5 .' B 16.5 B 17.0 . .' .' . '. ":i-. c· '" ..: '. Hiahland EB off Ramp Diverge e 25.1 e 25.6 e 27.7 .. ' B 19.9 e 20.2 . D 28.4 D 30.7 e 21.0 e 21.4 ~ . " . Hiahland EB on Ramp Merge B 19.4 B 20.0 e 21.7 ,. B 14.1 B 13.9 . '. e 22.6 e 24.0 " B 15.0 B 15.2 '.' . ". I ." '7 . . '. I> -' , " BIt HiQhland and LA 73 Freeway e 22.3 e 23.7 e 20.5 e 24.1 B 17.5 B 17.5 B 17.8 D 30.5 e 23.4 D 32.1 e 20.6 e 21.4 e 21.3 . '., "...... " . ; '. .. I.· .' '" . I I I .... '. LA 73 EB off Ramp DiverQe e 26.0 e 27.4 e 27.8 e 21.5 i' e 21.4 D 32.8 .' '. D 33.8 e 24.6 .' ...... e 24.9 LA 73 EB on Ramp MerQe e 23.2 e 24.5 e 25.5 B 18.3 , .: ' ..: B 18.7 D 29.3 . ' " D 31.0 e 21.5 I, . :. e 22.5 .... F " .•.... .i· . .... '. I: '. . .' . I· .... '. ... ' .': .... I" .C ..i:.·.: ~ .~ s BIt LA 73 and LA 74 Freeway e 20.0 e 21.6 . " ...... : e 21.3 B 15.8 i, .' B 17.1 D 28.2 D 27.0 e 19.3 e 20.8 ...... i ...... •~> I·i .... .' ' .. " ...... " -' :: .' .'.-c G . .' .. .•... ' .'. . .'., i • .' , ...... F,...•.OC; :- --; LA 74 EB off Ramp Diveme I'i" " e 24.9 I'" .< ...... e 20.4 .,' '. D 30.3 e 24.0

" ...... '.' :. . " . >;~:, LA 74 EB on Ramp MerQe .' .' :il .' .. '" .' e 22.7 , B 17.1 .. .. e 27.6 ... ".: ..•.. ii: .'," e 21.0 . .. ' . ' ...... I· i. .. ,c . . 'i. 1.'.< :.' ", .,. . I " ·i .' I ...., BIt LA 74 and LA 30 Freeway e 20.0 e 21.6 ...... e 21.9 B 15.8 B 15.9 D 28.2 D 30.0 e 19.3 . .:., I.··.·...\ e 21.1 , .. : '.' .,i .• !'C ....•: ". .. ..:. .', i . .F .. .' LA 30 EB off Ramp Diverge e 23.5 e 25.3 e " 25.5 e 20.0 . i·, ...... e 20.1 D 31.2 'i " D 32.5 C 23.9 ','. ,i C 25.6 i'·· ..•.. ' . -.:= .: .,' . LA 30 EB on Ramp Merae B 17.4 B 18.9 B 19.0 B 12.3 B 12.3 e 23.4 C 24.0 B 15.3 ..... I·':' , B 16.9 . .' , " "'...... '.' : .. , .Ic:i....-:=; .. ' ...... '.' .' :' . ' .. ",: ;.' , .' .. -C'. .7":-.. " .. --'- .... . •.. ,i·· •.• - ... BIt LA 30 and LA 44 Freeway B 17.3 C 21.7 : ...• : e 18.2 B 15.2 :.. ;. . I B 15.2 D 34.1 'i e 24.8 e 19.3 . -:-'i: .. e 20.0 .' '. . " ' . . " '. .',>:. .:. :.i· '.' " . , .i .. .' .. I·, " ' i .... " .. ..,. I····... .: .:' , k, .... ,'... I. >,.,'.. 'i .,; .... : , ",.' .... ";. " ' . LA 44 EB off Ramp DiverQe C 20.2 C 25.4 . B 19.4 .-; . D 34.9 ."i'·,' i..' .. e 24.0 ';':',0; . : ".' . LA 44 EB on Ramp- i , " . . . ' " ' .... MerQe B 17.5 B 18.5 ". -: ." 'c ·i··" B 12.1 ,...... C 25.3 ... , " B 15.8 ·.i .. , ' .. ." ...... '. i'. . .. ' " ';, I,',':' '. .. ':,'.' ...... F.:.· . .' '.. ." i,,·' . ",':: .'. .' '.' " ,'. .:. " ."C ' ··.·i BIt LA 44 and LA 22 Freeway B 16.6 B 17.7 '" ...... , B 12.5 r::' : .. 24.5 i' " . .. , B 15.9 I:i:" ;-;: ~ ·F.:. " '"i: ::.--,"" e "? , .. ' . . ... -.. . i; ...•. .. ":', .::i .·,:"F ",.J: i.:,.:' " .. ' .. F~ 'i-:: , .. . .:. >'. ." -'" I:' " . . .': .. , 7 ... ' ,. !':.' ..•... .. '; ;; ,' . . LA 22 EB off Ramp DiverQe B 19.4 20.8 , '. '.' :c,: .' ...... ,i ..... ~';<:'. ',.'" .. ' .. ; :'" •.i·' C '''. .. .',' B 16.1 ,. D 28.2 '." e 20.4 . LA 22 EB on Ramp MerQe B 14.1 <'i.:' ;. :.'. ...., :. , .... i ... ·• :'i '.. : B 13.9 .'.' .•. A 8.5 ";,...... B 19.8 .' ;. B 11.4 '.' .'> .'...... 'i .", ... ,,; ' 'i .i •., , ,. i.:' .'. :. " .. I·· •• ..' 'i .. , ...... c . '. . .' .. ". .... ", ", '.:< ',' .i· '" I ,...... East of LA 22 Freeway B 13.5 B 13.5 .... :'.,. :. A 9.2 .' e 19.4 . ······.··•. ·'·i. I . B 12.0 ',: ,.' '. 1-10 Eastbound AM Peak

A review of Table 6 illustrates analysis results during the AM peak for eastbound freeway segments and ramp junctions. The following summarizes the results of the analyses:

2008 Base Year, AM Peak - Analysis indicated LOS D or better operating conditions at each location. Results are consistent with the general 1-10 commuting pattern in Baton Rouge. During the AM peak most of the traffic on 1-10 is headed westbound into Baton Rouge.

2012 "No Build, " AM Peak - Delays are expected to increase slightly with no major impacts to LOS. The introduction of an interchange at Pecue Lane is expected to reduce ramp volumes at Siegen Road and at Highland Road. Similarly, the introduction of an interchange at LA 74 is expected to reduce ramp volumes at LA 73 and at LA 30. However, based on the analysis results, the reduction in volumes at adjacent interchanges does not produce significant changes to LOS and delay.

2032 "No Build," AM Peak - LOS and delays are expected to deteriorate for the "no build" scenario by the year 2032. While the eastern end of the eastbound 1-10 corridor is expected to maintain acceptable operating conditions (LOS D or better), I-lOwest of Siegen Lane and the Siegen eastbound exit ramp are expected to experience LOS E and LOS F conditions. This is expected considering 20 years of traffic growth in an already congested area. These LOS conditions are expected with or without the proposed Pecue Lane interchange. The introduction of an interchange at LA 74 is expected to have a nominal impact on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

2012 "Build," AMPeak - All freeway and ramp segments are expected to operate at LOS C or better conditions. The introduction of interchanges at Pecue Lane and at LA 74 is expected to have a nominal impact on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

2032 "Build," AMPeak - AU freeway and ramp segments are expected to operate at LOS C or better conditions. The introduction of interchanges at Pecue Lane and at LA 74 is expected to have nominal impacts on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

US] Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 24 Table 7 Freeway Segments and Ramp Junctions - Level of Service and Capacity Analysis Results Eastbound, PM Peak

2008 2012 No Build 2012 Build 2032 No Build 2032 Build Type of Location W/O Pecue - W/O WI Pecue - W/O LA W/O Pecue - WI LA W/O Pecue -W/O WI Pecue - W/O LA W/O Pecue - WI LA W/O Pecue - W/O WI Pecue - W/O LA W/O Pecue - WI LA W/O Pecue -W/OLA WI Pecue - W/O LA W/O Pecue -WI LA Analysis Base Conditions LA 74 74 74 LA 74 74 74 LA74 74 74 74 74 74 LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density_ • LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density West of SieQen Freeway F - F - F - D 31.1 D 31.3 ',:' F - F - .D 34.9 E 35.9

- ". "

.. ' Siegen EB off Ramp Diverge F 46.9 F 47.8 F 48.0 D 32.7 D 32.6 .- F 40.4 F 53.0 D 34.2 D 34.3 - • Siegen EB on Ramp Merge F 34.9 F 35.6 F 35.2 C 27.8 C 20.0 '. . D 28.3 F 39.0 -c.. • D 29.6 D 29.4 , i - . ,. Bit Si~~ten and Pecue Freeway F - F - F - .' C 25.2 C 25.2 '.- F - F - . D 27.4 D 27.8 " - ' ( ~'.' - .. .i.' I: " Pecue EB off Ramp DiverQe F 39.9 '. C 27.4 F 44.1 j D 29.0 I Pecue EB on Ramp MerQe F 37.1 . ": C 25.5 '. F 41.0 I C 27.4 " , , , . ." i --'- '. Bit Pecue and Highland Freeway F - F - F - " C 25.2 D 26.2 F - F - D 27.4 D 28.7 '.'

Highland EB off Ramp Diverge F 39.5 F 40.3 F 41.2 D 30.1 D 30.4 F 44.6 F 45.5 D 31.6 D 31.9 , Highland EB on Ramp Merge D 28.6 D 29.6 D 30.0 C 21.6 C 21.2 F 33.5 D 33.2 C 23.0 C 23.3 '. _.." BIt HiQhland and LA 73 FreewClY. D 26.2 D 28.3 D 32.6 D 28.9 C 20.0 C 20.0 C 20.3 E 39.4 E 40.4 E 42.7 C 23.9 C 25.0 C 24.9 , . i -' '0 .' .,:, .' 1 ..' LA 73 EB off Ramp DiverQe D 29.7 D 31.3 D 31.7 F 27.8 - ' C 26.2 F 37.3 F 38.5 F 31.8 ....'.,: D 30.3 . LA 73 EB on Ramp Merge B 15.4 B 15.9 B 19.7 B 11.4 B 14.3 B 18.6 '. '. C 24.0 B 13.5 B 17.3 . ,.,.', - --' '. , " -,,-" Bit LA 73 and LA 74 Freeway B 17.2 C 18.5 C 23.7 B 13.7 B 14.8 C 23.1 ,..:..:., D 31.2 B 16.6 .' , B 17.8 , ., '. ,:'" -c. , , . .' ..' , ; , LA 74 EB off Ramp DiverQe ,.' .. C 27.4 I,. '..... B 19.4 .: D 33.3 ". C 23.0 ... . LA 74 EB on Ramp MerQe .. ' B 19.5 '.' .i : i.':. .- B 10.3 C 23.8 ,'. I' ,., B 12.9 ., , '.,; .' :" ~ . ' I" .. I ": , " .....• BIt LA 74 and LA 30 Freeway B 17.2 C 18.5 '. C 18.6 B 13.7 B 13.8 C 23.1 C 24.2 B 16.6 B 17.3

.' '.' '. - . -' ...... '.' LA 30 EB off Ramp Diverge C 20.1 C 21.7 C 21.9 B 17.6 . ' B 17.7 C 26.9 C 27.9 C 21.2 C 21.9 . . LA 30 EB on RamQ Merge B 18.7 C 20.1 . .". . B 19.9 B 14.1 B 14.0 C 25.0 ' . C 25.4 B 17.4 I ..' B 18.3 .... .' 0' _, , .'.. . ', , .... ' . , .< - " J " ,'. . , .... ,. ':.'. . '. BIt LA 30 and LA 44 FreewClY. C 20.6 D 26.0 C 19.5 B 17.5 '".''':' ,.". B 17.5 F - D 27.2 C 22.6 C 23.6 " .. " -' ...... '. l '~: ---'- '0 :' - ': , LA 44 EB off Ramp Diverge 24.2 D '.' .... :.:.-:, .. .,.,' o .... I.. ' D 28.2 -. C 29.5 --"- C 22.9 F 39.7 I~ -, ': :. ". :.. I , , , LA 44 EB on Ramp Merge B 19.4 C 20.0 ...::.. B 13.6 .: C 27.3 B 17.6 .' , ' . - '.' ,.. " . - , ;. - : " , " " .. Bit LA 44 and LA 22 Freeway C 19.4 C 20.8 :' B 14.5 , .:""':. ,--', D 30.8 '.. - : C 18.4

'. , ." "..'. , " .' ':' " : .\. .' .: ,. , :. " '0 . .... LA 22 EB off Ramp Diverge C 22.8 C 24.4 B 19.6 • -cO ;: -: ;...... ' D 33.0 C 24.7 ; .... " :', LA 22 EB on Ramp MerQe B 14.5 B 13.5 : A 8.2 I'.,,'" .0 .: B 19.7 B 11.1 .' ' ", I. '. . : • .c -/. " '. ," .' , : " ,. ..', :,.,' East of LA 22 Freeway B 14.5 B 14.5 .-: . A 9.9 . 0 .... C 21.0 ,".' B 12.9 1-10 Eastbound PM Peak

A review of Table 7 illustrates analysis results during the PM peak for eastbound freeway segments and ramp junctions. The following summarizes the results of the analyses:

2008 Base Year, PM Peak - Analysis indicates LOS F conditions at all locations west of Highland Road, including the Highland Road eastbound off-ramp. All other locations east of Highland operate at LOS D or better. Results are consistent with the general 1-10 commuting pattern in Baton Rouge. During the PM peak most of the traffic on 1-10 is headed eastbound and traffic volumes are significant west of Highland Road resulting in congestion during typical PM peak traffic conditions.

2012 "No Build," PM Peak - Delays are expected to increase slightly with minimal impacts to LOS. The introduction of interchanges at Pecue Lane and at LA 74 is expected to have nominal impacts on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

2032 "No Build," PM Peak - LOS and delays are expected to deteriorate by the year 2032. As more growth is expected on the eastern end of the study area, traffic volumes and subsequent delays are expected to increase in those areas, particularly near LA 44. The introduction of an interchange at Pecue Lane is expected to have a nominal impact on adjacent interchanges. However, with the introduction of an interchange at LA 74, a significant improvement (LOS F to LOS D) is expected to occur on the 1-10 eastbound segment between LA 30 and LA 44.

2012 "Build, " PM Peak - LOS F conditions in the vicinity of Siegen Lane and Highland Road under the "no build" scenario are expected to improve to LOS C and LOS D. LOS improvements are also expected on the eastern end of the 1-10 corridor. The introduction of interchanges at Pecue Lane and LA 74 is expected to have nominal impacts on adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

2032 "Build," PM Peak - LOS F conditions in the vicinity of Siegen Lane and Highland Road under the "no build" scenario are expected tB improve to LOS D. The freeway segment west of Siegen improves to LOS D and LOS E. LOS improvements are also expected on the eastern end of the 1-10 corridor. LOS F conditions on 1-10 west of LA 44 and at the LA 44 off-ramp are expected to improve to LOS C and LOS D.

US1 Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 26 Table 8 Freeway Segments and Ramp Junctions - Level of Service and Capacity Analysis Results Westbound, AM Peak

2008 2012 No Build . 2012 Build 2032 No Build 2032. Build Type of Location W/O Pecue - W/O WI Pecue - WIO LA W/O Pecue - WI LA W/OPecue - W/O WI Pecue -W/OLA W/OPecue~ WILA WIO Pecue - WIO WI Pecue - WIO LA WIO Pecue - WI LA W/O Peelle- W/O LA WI Pecue - WIOLA W/OPecu~- WILA Analysis Base ConditiQns LA 74 74 74 LA 74 74 74 LA 74 74 74 74 74 '74 LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS .Density LOS Density LOS DensJ!y LOS Densitv LOS Densitv . LOS Densitv LOS Density l('oS ... Density

..' ",-'. .'. East of LA 22 Freeway A 10.0 A 10.5 f· .' ';"" " A 7.2 ">. ' ..'. B 14.1 A 9.4 . ::; :: . '.:''',' " .\,': ' ... , ",. .. , . ;: , .. : '" ,'. . :. "' .' .,' . ."'" : :..c' ':'. . ". .' .' .' , ., ..... ' ...... "',:: LA 22 WB off Ramp Diverge B 10.9 B 11.4 I·, .;. A 8.3 ..',. .... I> B 16.1 B 11.2 .' . . . : '.".' '.' .•.. ·c LA 22 WB on Ramp Merge B 14.7 B 15.4 " : B 12.1 I ..:,: ..... C 21.4 '. B 16.3 .",':...... '.. . ' ' , '. , .:c.. '. ' ...'. ": .' '''. ' .. ' ..... ::" , . ". . Bft LA 22 and LA 44 Freeway B 14.3 B 15.1 . " A 10.7 .. C 20.2 ... B 13.6 -: .., . .' :. ; ".' '. ' :'., J . :: 'r:··:·· ';'. " '. " . , ' ...... :: ..,.'...... •.... . ": .:',.:, .. LA 44 WB off Ramp Diverge B 16.5 B 17.4 B 13.0 C 23.8 I;·;· B 16.6 .' ~ . "' , ~ ' '.;', .. " LA 44 WB on Ramp Merge B 15.9 B 17.1 ... , B 13.8 .' C, 24.4 .' . : B 18.3 ......

". .: '.'," ' , 1 .... ' .. .. .' . . .'. . '. ~ ;~ ". ..', .-'-. :".' Bft LA 44 and LA 30 Freeway B 16.4 C 20.7 ,,",.': C 20.7 B 14.6• B 14.6 D 30.9 D 29.6 C 18.4 ::. C 19.1 ,., ";.' '" . :. . ,." , ,,: : . : ;: .:' I . . ." .. . ;. .... LA 30 WB off Ramp Diverqe B 19.1 C 24.3 ':'. C 24.3 B 17.9 .. B 17.9 D 33.1 .' D 32.2 C 22.3 . . C 22.8 '...... ; LA 30 WB on Ramp Merqe B 17.4 C 22.2 C 22.4 B 17.1 .' B 16.9 D 30.2 D 29.8 C 22.0 .. '.' C 22.3 ". ' ...... '...' ., . . . ; '. ';. . I. , . " , Bft LA 30 and LA 74 Freeway B 17.2 C 18.2 ", C 18.4 B 13.7 .; B 13.8 C 22.7 . . C 23.8 B 16.6 .... ."; B 17.3 .",' '. , , ; ,. : " '. ; ... .' .. f ,.' '. - '.' . '.'. , . 27.5 .. LA 74 WB off Ramp Diverge C 21.6 B 16.4 .~ C :..:.:. C 20.4 , -"- .';'.' -"' " . .. I LA 74 WB on Ramp Merge .L I·,·'···· .: '" : C 24.9 . ..' . B 19.6 D 31.4 .. ',' I' '. :'1; C 24.9 '. •• , .... : '...... •..:: . " '. , . ,: ,...... '.; ..:' " .. : I· .'. ... .' .. .' . ': "'. I· . .. ., ,': ". : .; " ...... '.;. Bft LA 74 and LA 73 Freeway B 17.2 C 18.2 I'.' .: '.,.\ C 25.0 B 13.7 " . '" B 17.0 C 22.7 D 33.9 B 16.6 c 20.6 " ,.' .' . ' '. ' ...... '. :,','...... '.'.," ; .' .;" ':...... • . .. .;' . ..,.{ ".:.:. : ..... : '.,.' '.' :.' > I .,,'•...... <, LA 73 WB off Ramp Diverge C 20.2 C 25.3 h' >",' D 28.6 B 16.6 ".' .. ' C 20.2 C 26.4 .; ,:'" D 34.8 B 19.9 c:. ,,(.'"":'. .j.,' '." C 23.9 LA 73 WB on Ramp Merge D 29.7 D 30.4 :"." :.'. F 35.0 C 27.6 ',c"} C 27.3 F 35.5 -'.' F 42.4 F 33.0 ',' ,.,., ." .. ;y,"., D 32.9 '. . . , ., '. ' " .. . '. , .' .. ' ...... '.', ". .. . ~ . '. 1 " .. Bft LA 73 and Hiqhland Freeway D 26.9 D 30.9 21.4 21.5 E 38.0 F - D 26.0 D 27.5 E 44.8 D 31.2 F - C C D 30.6 F - . " . . : :."". . 1 '. ' . '. : : .. '. ': .. ', . ." Highland WB off Ramp Diverge D 30.3 D 33.0 D 33.2 ' .. C 25.5 C 25.3 :.' .' .. ' F 42.1 F 36.7 D 29.0 D 29.5 ," , .. ' .'. ",'" .. .. ' .. ,., Highland WB on Ramp Merge D 31.4 F 35.1 F 35.4 .. ,.' . "",;; ,.: D 29.5 D 29.8 F 42.3 F 39.1 F 34.6 F 34.3 . .' . .. , "" ,...... , , .. ' . ' < ..."•.... ;.' .' .'::.': ... : " . . .',. .:; ; Bft Highland and Pecue Freeway E .': I .,'..... '.:"":' D 30.3 D 31.4 .. 38.4 F - F - '. D 27.5 D 28.4 '.. F - F - '-- .,."" ' ,: ....~ ' ' .", '.' ...... ' ''.-:. , : ;., '.'...... j,'" ...... I. , , " , ,~~ .... .';. ':;": '.' ;;1.-. ::-, .. '. ..•...... ' " , ...... F' I, .. " .. . .' ," . Pecue WB off Ramp Diverge F 40.8 ':':" D 29.4 F 45.1 - 2:..·. D 30.8 ~ ." ..~ "> " . ;. ,'. ·c.; ,.. ... '.' Pecue WB on Ramp Merge '.' ,.',.' ... F 36.3 C 27.2 .. :. , .'. F 40.2 .. :: .. I:,.:';.' D 28.9 :: . , , . :. ' ..•.. .' . ' .... ': 1<;;'.' 1"<'<' "', ',',.'.' I; ... . '. I' ',",' . ,,: '. .: . , ,:." ".: .. : '.' '. ". ,.,.. . ' Bft Pecue and Siegen Freeway E 38.4 F F I·;'·· :,.' .• :> D 27.5 D 28.2 ::.. :':",..."'; F - F - ':.. " . : D 30.3 D 31.1 .. .. - - . ' ., • ." . .. .' ,; ',-:,":.. . ';. :; ", ...•. . '.::' >',':'::' \ . ,'.>.' " .-' ' .. -,-X .' ; ...";: ,',' .' '. .., Siegen WB off Ramp Diverge F 36.9 F 40.3 F 40.8 I:" .. : D 29.8 D 29.9 I F 44.6 F 45.1 ":"'" : ...• D 31.2 D 31.3 "::.:", .' .'::' " , Siegen WB on Ramp Merge F 40.7 F 45.9 F 45.0 '.". .:l' .. D 32.9 D 32.9 ,. F 48.1 F 49.7 :;'c.' ': F 35.0 F 35.2 '-,~ ,c' '. .... > . :. '.' , .: •.... ;.::', .' : .. :.'" " . ' . ' :'" .'. 'c. . "'c;; :', I' '. ~ 's "',,' . ". West of Siegen .. ,; ' " '.~ E 42.5 Freeway F - F - F - ." ':' ..... D 34.4 E 35.9 '. ' F - F - . 39.3 E " -"--, 1-10 Westbound AM Peak

A review of Table 8 illustrates analysis results during the AM peak for westbound freeway segments and ramp junctions. The following summarizes the results of the analyses:

2008 Base Year, AM Peak - Analysis results indicate LOS D or better operating conditions at each location east of Highland Road. Locations west of Highland Road indicate LOS E and LOS F conditions. Results are consistent with the general 1-10 commuting pattern in Baton Rouge. During the AM peak most of the traffic on 1-10 is headed westbound and traffic volumes are significant west of Highland Road. Congestion currently occurs in this area during the morning peak.

2012 "No J3uild, " AM Peak - Delays are expected to increase with no major impacts to LOS except for the Highland Road westbound on-ramp which is expected to deteriorate from LOSD to LOS F. The introduction of interchange at Pecue Lane is expected to have nominal impacts on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

2032 "No Build, " AM Peak - LOS F c-onditions are expected to spread eastward past Highland Road to include the LA 73 on-ramp. LOS conditions are expected to. deteriorate on the eastern side of the 1-10 corridor but are projected to be LOS D or better.

2012 "Build," AM Peak - All locations are expected to operate at LOS D or better. The introduction of interchanges at Pecue Lane and at LA 74 is expected to have a nominal impact on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

2032 "Build," AM Peak - Conditions in the vicinity of Siegen Lane and Highland Road are generally expected to improve to LOS D and LOS E compared to LOS F in the "no build" scenario. The Siegen Lane westbound on-ramp, the LA 73 westbound on-ramp and the Highland Road westbound on-ramp are still projected to operate at LOS F however with reduced delays compared to the "no build" scenario. The introduction of interchanges at Pecue Lane and at LA 74 is expected to have a nominal impact on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges. The interchange of LA 74 is expected to cause the deterioration of the freeway segment between LA 73 and Highland from LOS Dto LOS E.

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 28 Table 9 Freeway Segments and Ramp Junctions - Level of Service and Capacity Analysis Results Westbound, PM Peak

Segment Type 2008 2012 No Build 2012 Build 2032 No Build 2032 Build W/O Pecue - W/O WI Pecue - W/O LA W/O Pecue - WI LA W/O Pecue-W/O WI Pecue - W/O LA W/O Peclie - WI LA W/O Pecue - W/O WI Pecue - W/O LA W/O Pecue - WI LA W/O Pecue - W/O LA WI Pecue " W/O.LA W/O Peeue -WILA Base Conditions LA 74 74 74 LA 74 74 74 LA 74 74 74 74 74 74 LOS Density LOS Density LOS DensiW. LOS Density LOS Densi~ LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Densit}t LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density ..... i. ,/ Ii I; .' .' East of LA 22 Freeway B 14.7 B 15.3 '~, A 10.5 C 21.0 , '. .--,,- B 13.8 .. ' , '...... •.. .'.J ...... ' ". ",' .'. . .<:.'. '. .' I· : .' , .; » ... ~. " ...... , ' .... , " .... ",.' ' ...,.". ,. . ' . .. . < .. LA 22 WB off Ramp Diverge B 17.0 B 17.7 . B 12.5 . ' C 24.7 B 16.5 'i ,', ...... "',. ; ... " LA 22 WB on Ramp Merge B 19.8 C 20.4 B 15.0 0 28.9 ,', :.'> '" C 20.6 '<'" , " , ".'" . ." .... '. " . , .. '. ',"', ,. . i J. '< I " . ""', 1"- " .•.. , , .. ' " ..... '." BIt LA 22 and LA 44 Freew8Y. B 17.8 C 18.8 I· ,'.' , B 13.2 '" .,: . . 0 26.6 ...... : B 16.8 .' .' '. : . . , :.' : .... " I" . " 1:·, "'::" ' ..,'. '. .", , . , LA 44 WB off Ramp Diverge C 20.9 C '. .... :' " " 22.1 . ,.' ..... B 16.4 .'," : . 0 30.0 1 '." C 20.7 ...:. ., LA 44 WB on Ramp Merge B 19.4 C 25.3 ': C 20.1 ". 32.6 ',,'" " ' .... C 26.1 :" I'·;····· ·L O. -'- ':C~ .,' ". '.;" : .' ' '. ' . .' . ,', . ',' . ' .. . ,'.>: ',' .. · . , , . .. .: I ., Bit LA 44 and LA 30 Freeway C 18.1 C 22.7 '. .... " C 22.7 B 15.8 ,.', B 15.8 E 35.7 .. 0 34.3 C 20.0 ..' C 20.8 . . " . .' ; ." ". . " LA 30 WB off Ramp Diverge C 21.3 C 26.4 C 26.4 B 19.2 . '," '. , B 19.1 E 35.7 0 35.0 C 23.7 ,:' ..:, C 24.3 . ,: LA 30 WB on Ramp Merg_e C 22.9 C 27.8 / : " 0 28.1 C 22.8 C 22.4 F 37.6 F 37.2 0 29.3 1< :.... 0 29.2 ' . " .'. . .. .' , .:. ' ,,'.' ," .... -'-" .. " '. · . .,: '.' .. " . " BIt LA 30 and LA 74 Freeway C 21.9 C 23.4 "'.' . C 23.7 B 17.1 B 17.1 D 31.6 '.,. D 33.9 C 20.9 .<' " C 21.9 . '. ,.' , , ",J. .'. .'. .. " ,-,-', " I,. ',': I . " <: . '. '" LA 74 WB off Ramp Diverge , . '. . ,: :',,:' .. .'. ".:c . ; .: C 27.4 --' C 20.7 D 34.8 I' C 25.3 , . '. . .J LA 74 WB on Ramp Merge , ...... 23.6 .' . 17.5 0 30.1 :: .... 22.2 " C B '- .' '. :.' c .,...... ;: ' .. . ".' . '., ; , .' .. '.. ..''';: "::. " '. . ,'. . , ,.' ,' Bit LA 74 and LA 73 Freeway C 21.9 C 23.4 ,. C 22.9 B 17.1 : , 18.5 D 31.6 . D 29.8 C 20.9 "',,:,' ..•..... C 22.7 ,. C .'. '.' ...... ,: ,.' / ·,""., i' ..' ... " , . --,,c, <", ,:'" .. , > ." \: . LA 73 WB off Ramp Diverge C 25.6 C 21.7 " >"-:"i C 26.6 C 21.6 '. , "., C 22.7 D 33.5 ,'; I".,·:: D 32.4 C 25.6 " ','; " :. ',',.'.' C 26.7 " :;.;.. . , LA 73 WB on Ramp Merge C 22.1 C 23.4 ,c. .', ,. , "":>, 27.0 23.2 23.5 , C 25.4 B 19.1 B 19.4 C 28.0 C C I' """'. C '. . " '.' '.' '. ." . :,,' ..... ",:>, ~, . '. .'" . ". . BIt LA 73 and Highland Freeway C 20.6 C 22.8 C 22.9 C 25.2 B 17.1 B 17.2 C 18.3 D 32.2 0 26.0 D 34.3 C 20.0 C 20.9 C 22.0

'. . .c' '0< ',' " "':" : " .. " ,.' .. /. 0 '. ,.. J --'" ' , .,'., " " , Highland WB off Ramp Diverge C 24.2 C 26.5 C 26.6 C 21.3 C 21.1 . D 33.8 D 29.5 ,'. " C 24.4 C 24.9 " .' Highland WB on Ramp :",.>. ,: " Merge C 22.7 C 25.4 C 25.8 C 20.9 C 21.3 .... D 30.8 0 28.6 '," ~ '., ,': C 24.6 C 24.8 '. ,.' " ,. ' . " ."., .. " . .:" ..,'. ... y,. :~ "". :. I. .:: '.' . ,." I. '.:. I': '.' ". .'. . '.' .: .,'.. .;: .:.' .. •• ; •... -j' .. BIt Highland and Pecue Freeway , ..' ' .... '. .'.;' C 22.6 C 25.2 0 26.2 ,.. :" ' .', . C 18.5 C 18.9 D 29.1 D 30.6 C 19.8 C 20.2 """..i:: ....,. . •'...> . . ,; > '". ', :.." " .:,; ,. .' " ..... , , 1 . ,.:< ',' . .: " . I·, . " .. .'. ':~ '.,' -" .>, ... . ,. " ", .- , " .. ' '. " ..,'" " Pecue WB off Ramp Diverge .' .: : ... ',' "., 0 29.7 I •... '.,. " (., C 22.5 I""", .' 0 32.9 ~:l .. 1<'· ___ C 23.7 .", . .~", ':'., .'; Pecue WB on Ramp Merge .' .., .' C 25.6 .",.; '. :.;'., c 21.2 .', . .... 0 29.5 ',' '" .' . .>, " ','...... '.' ',', , , " " , :,:,,: Siegen WB off Ramp Diverge C 26.3 D 28.8 0 28.9 .,'. .. '.<., c 23.5 C 23.4 0 31.9 0 32.0 "' .. .,'. C 24.8 C 24.7 ":, ...... , ' Siegen WB on Ramp Merge 0 29.3 F , ' .. ','>: .. 48.5 0 33.0 . ". C 24.2 C 24.3 F 35.0 F 36.5 ",'... C 25.8 C 26.0 ~'. , ',' ":" '," . ' " . ' ...... ,. , :.' . ".': ...,', .I ..... I',. ,;"",___ .' :",:." :'.' £ ,",' .. .', "'. .' "'.' ' . " 12.··.· I' . "". ; .. ,'. West of Siegen Freeway 0 32.9 F E 41.9 :' .. C 21.2 C 21.7 . E 39.2 F " '.' C 22.8 C 23.6 - - :'",'. -' --' " 1-10 Westbound PM Peak

A review of Table 9 illustrates analysis results during the PM· peak for westbound freeway segments and ramp junctions. The following summarizes the results of the analyses:

2008 Base Year, PM Peak - Analysis indicates LOS D or better operating conditions at all locations. Results are consistent with the general 1-10 commuting pattern in Baton Rouge. During the PM peak most of the traffic on 1-10 is headed eastbound.

2012 "No Build, " PM Peak - Delays are expected to increase with no major impacts to LOS except for the Siegen Lane on-ramp (LOS D to LOS F) and the 1-10 freeway segment west of Siegen lane (LOS D to LOS F). The introduction of the interchange at LA 74 is expected to have nominal irrwacts on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments, and the introduction of the interchange at Pecue Lane is expected to improve the Siegen Road westbound on-ramp to LOS D and the 1-10 segment west of Siegen to LOS E.

2032 "No Build, " PM Peak - LOS conditions are expected to deteriorate in this scenario. However, all locations are projected to operate at LOS D or better- except for the following: 1-10 westbound between LA 44 and LA 30 (LOS E); LA 30 westbound off ramp (LOS E); LA 30 westbound on-ramp (LOS F); 1-10 westbound west of Siegen Lane (LOS E); Siegen lane on-ramp (LOS F). The introduction of an interchange at Pecue Lane is expected to deteriorate LO S conditions for the 1-10 segment west of Siegen Lane from LOS E to LOS F. The introduction of an interchange at LA 74 is expected to have nominal impacts on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

2012 "Build," PM Peak- In this scenario, all locations are expected to operate at LOS C or better. The introduction of interchanges at Pecue Lane and at LA 74 is expected to have nominal impacts on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges and freeway segments.

2032 "Build, " PM Peak - All locations are expected to operate at LOS D or better in this scenario. The introduction of interchanges at Pecue Lane and at LA 74 is expected to have nominal impacts on operating conditions at adjacent interchanges.

Signal Warrant Analyses

All of the 1-10 on/off ramp intersections with cross streets currently operate under signalized control, except for the ramp intersections at LA 44 which operate under tv"o way stop control. Traffic signal warrant analysis was performed under 2032 projected conditions for the following intersections:

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 30 • LA 44 at 1-10 eastbound ramps • LA 44 at 1-10 westbound ramps • Pecue Lane at 1-10 eastbound ramps • Pecue Lane at 1-10 westbound ramps • LA 74 at 1-10 eastbound ramps • LA 74 at 1-10 westbound ramps

The MUTCD, Section 4C.Ol gives the following standards for justifying traffic control signals: An engineering study oftraffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation ofa traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.

The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants and other factors related 0 existing operation and safety at the study location:

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume. Warrant 3, Peak Hour. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume. Warrant 5, School Crossing. Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System. Warrant 7, Crash Experience. Warrant 8, Roadway Network.

The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation ofa traffic signal"

For the purposes of this study only Warrants 1, 2, and 3 (vehicular volume warrants) were considered. Crash experience and physical characteristics of the intersections were not included in this study.

EDSM VI.3.1.6 - "Installation of New Traffic Signals" issued by the LADOTD concerning traffic signals states that all new signals shall meet Warrant la or Warrant 7 (crash experience), must be spaced at least Y2 mile from an adjacent signal and service a public road on the minor approach.

Projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry and speed data were input into PC-Warrants software. Projected volumes were distributed throughout the day based historical data in the area and engineering judgment. The resulting volumes are presented in the Appendix.

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 31 At the intersections of LA 44 at the 1-10 eastbound and westbound ramps, volumes developed for the Edenbome development study were utilized for the warrant analysis. The results of the traffic signal warrant analyses for LA 44 at the 1-10 ramps under 2032 projected volume demand are presented in Tables 10 and 11.

Table 10 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results LA 44 at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps - 2032 No Build Conditions

Warrant Existing Conditions Warrant 1 Satisfied lA Satisfied IB Satisfied lA+B Satisfied Warrant 2 Satisfied Warrant 3 Satisfied 3A Not Satisfied 3B Satisfied Warrant 4 Not Satisfied Warrant 5 Not Satisfied Warrant 6 Not Satisfied Warrant 7 Not Satisfied Warrant 8 Not Satisfied

Table 11 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results LA 44 at 1-10 Westbound Ramps - 2032 No Build Conditions

The results of the signal warrant analyses performed indicate that the projected hourly volumes meet traffic signal warrants lA, IB, 2, 3 and 3B at LA 44 at both the 1-10 eastbound ramps and at the 1-10 westbound ramps. Therefore these intersections were analyzed as signalized for all projected conditions analyses. Further details of the analyses are included in the Appendix.

US] Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 32 The results of the traffic signal warrant analyses for Pecue Lane at the 1-10 ramps under projected volume demand are presented in Tables 12 and 13.

Table 12 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results Pecue Lane at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps - 2032 No Build Conditions

Warrant Existing Conditions Warrant 1 Satisfied lA Not Satisfied IB Not Satisfied lA+B Satisfied Warrant 2 Satisfied Warrant 3 Satisfied 3A Not Satisfied 3B Satisfied Warrant 4 Not Satisfied Warrant 5 Not Satisfied Warrant 6 Not Satisfied Warrant 7 Not Satisfied Warrant 8 Not Satisfied

Table 13 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results Pecue Lane at 1-10 Westbound Ramps - 2032 No Build Conditions

Warrant Existing Conditions Warrant 1 Not Satisfied lA Not Satisfied 1B Not Satisfied lA+B Not Satisfied Warrant 2 Satisfied Warrant 3 Not Satisfied 3A Not Satisfied 3B Not Satisfied Warrant 4 Not Satisfied Warrant 5 Not Satisfied Warrant 6 Not Satisfied Warrant 7 Not Satisfied Warrant 8 Not Satisfied

The results of the signal warrant analyses performed indicate that the projected hourly volumes at Pecue at 1-10 eastbound meet traffic signal warrants 1, 1 A+B, 2 and 3. Projected hourly volumes at Pecue at 1-10 westbound meet traffic signal warrant 2. The projected volumes did not meet necessary criteria for installation of a new traffic signal per the DOTD EDSM (Warrant lA). However the Pecue Interchange Justification Study indicated signalized control at both intersections with the 1-10 ramps, therefore for this

US! Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 33 study the intersections were analyzed as signalized intersections. Further details of the analyses are included in the Appendix.

The results of the traffic signal warrant analyses for LA 74 at the 1-10 ramps under projected volume demand are presented in Tables 14 and 15.

Table 14 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results LA 74 at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps - 2032 No Build Conditions

Table 15 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results LA 74 at 1-10 Westbound Ramps - 2032 No Build Conditions

The results of the signal warrant analyses performed indicate that the projected hourly volumes at LA 74 at 1-10 eastbound meet traffic signal warrants 1, lA, IB, 1 A+B, 2, 3 and 3B. Projected hourly volumes at LA 74 at 1-10 westbound meet traffic signal warrants 1, 1 A+B, 2,3, and 3B. Projected volumes at LA 74 at the westbound ramps did

US! Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 34 not meet necessary criteria for installation of a new traffic signal per the DOTD EDSM (Warrant lA). However due to the warrants met at the adjacent intersection of the eastbound ramps, the intersection was analyzed as a signalized intersection for all scenarios. Further details ofthe analyses are included in the Appendix.

1-10 Ramp Intersections

For the 2008 base conditions, signalized intersection analysis was based on current timing and phasing information obtained from the TSI and engineering judgment. However due to changes in traffic demand, the current signal operations were not appropriate for projected conditions analysis. Therefore, new cycle lengths and signal timings were based on the 2032 ''No Build" traffic volumes and the projected conditions geometry. These timings were used in all projected conditions scenario analyses.

Tables 16 and 17 present a summary of the capacity analysis results for each of the 1-10 on/off ramp intersections.

1-10 at Siegen Lane

Analysis indicates that the intersections of Siegen Lane at the 1-10 eastbound and westbound ramps currently operate under saturated conditions (LOS E and F) in both peak hours. While changes in signal timing initially indicate improved levels of service, the addition of traffic volume over time causes delay at the intersections to increase. In each design year/scenario, the addition of the interchange at Pecue Lane provides significant improvements in level of service and delay at the Siegen Lane intersections. In the 2032 scenarios, the addition of the Pecue Lane interchange can reduce overall delay at Siegen at the westbound ramps by over 40 seconds/vehicle.

1-10 at Peeue Lane

The analysis indicates that intersections of Pecue Lane at the 1-10 eastbound and westbound ramps are expected to operate acceptably (LOS C+ or better) under signalized traffic control in both peak hours in all projected design years/scenarios.

USI Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 35 Table 16 Intersections - level of Service and Capacity Analysis Results AM Peak

Segment Type 2008 2012 No Build 2012 Build 2032 No Build 2032 BUild

WID Pecue . WID LA 74 WI Pecua - WID LA 74 WI LA 74 - Diamond WI LA 74 _Cloverleaf W10 Pecue - W1Q LA 74 WI Pecue - W10 LA 74 WI LA 74 - Diamond WI LA 74 - Cloverleaf WID Pecue - WID LA 74 WI Pecue - WID LA 74 WI LA 74 - Diamond WI LA 74 - Cloverleaf W/O Pecue - WId LA 74 WI Pecue - W/O LA 74 WI LA 74 - Diamond WI LA 74 - Cloverleaf 1-10 Ramps at Base Conditions LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delav LOS Dela LOS Del.. LOS Oel{lv LOS Delay LOS Delav LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS . Delay LOS Dela. LOS Dela. LOS Dela.

--;::c ' Overall E+ 61.3 E+ 64.9 E+ 55.2 F 82.8 E 71.6 .. F 90.3 E 75.6 F 95.2 F 81.0 1·10 Eastbound at Southbound E 69.7 E 73.5 D+ 42.3 F 142.6 F 107.7 F 98.6 D 51.3 F 158.8 F 126.2 c- Siegen Lane Northbound E+ 60.2 E+ 62.1 E+ 62.7 D 53.2 E+ 55.3 F 93.0 F 94.4 E+ 66.2 E+ 61.6 'c' Eastbound D 50.0 E+ 58.5 E+ 55.5 D 55.0 D 52.9 -=:- E 69.4 E+ 62.4 E+ 58.4 E+ 55.8 Overall F 111.0 E 70.8 D+ 42.6 F 103.2 F 80.0 .... F 84.9 D+ 44.2 F 88.0 .: . ':c c:' - 112.2 F 1-10 Westbound al ...... Southbound D+ 41.6 C 34.5 C 32.6 C 32.9 C 34.7 " :. D+ 39.8 D+ 35.5 C 34.8 C 32.5 .. Siegen Lane Northbound B+ 14.6 C+ 27.3 C+ 24.1 .. C+ 24.0 C+ 21.8 C 34.2 C 28.0 C+ 25.9 C+ 23.3 , .. ~ Westbound F 736.2 F 360.9 F 187.7 F 521.3 F 415.8 '. -:-:: .,;; F 424.5 F 181.1 ." F 568.9 F 458.1 ':'C .' ~ . Overall .' B+ 14.1 B+ 13.0 - . B+ 14.3 B+ 13.0 =-::; 1-10 Eastbound al Southbound B+ 12.2 . ' . B+ 10.3 c'. . B+ 12.3 B+ 10.2 Pecue Lane '. . C'. Northbound B+ 13.5 . B 15.2 -::= = B+ 13.5 .. B 15.7 .' Eastbound B 19.3 B 18.6 '. " B 19.5 B 18.7 Overall B+ 14.2 B+ 14.5 , B+ 13.1 B+ 14.6 . 1·10 Westbound al Southbound '. ". B+ 12.6 B+ 12.2 B+ 12.9 , B+ 12.9 . Pecue Lane Northbound - B+ 12.2 B+ 13.7 :-7 --:·c B+ 10.3 B+ 13.2 . , , .:. ~ '.' Westbound B 18.8 B 18.7 B 19.0 B 18.8 ' . Overall C+ 21.4 C+ 21.6 C+ 24.2 .. '. C+ 22.9 C+ 22.4 . C+ 23.3 C 29.2 I C+ 24.4 C+ 24.6 .. 1·10 Eastbound at Southbound B+ 10.8 B+ 13.5 B+ 13.3 c. B+ B+ . . --::: = 14.0 14.7 B 15.7 B+ 14.6 B 16.4 B 19.0 Highland Road Northbound B+ 10.8 B+ 11.7 B+ 12.2 B+ 12.3 B+ 12.5 B+ 12.3 B+ 12.7 B+ 12.4 B+ 12.9 , Eastbound E+ 55.1 D 51.0 E+ 59.5 D 53.7 D 51.4 c· D 54.2 E 75.4 E+ 56.2 D 53.1 -. Overall C 33.1 D+ 38.2 C 33.1 D+ 40.8 D 48.2 :. D 54.9 D 46.0 E 73.9 E+ 59.9 = : 1·10 Westbound at Southbound D+ 35.4 D+ 43.1 D+ 35.2 D 46.9 D 52.1 E 70.1 E+ 55.5 F 98.0 E 77.8 Highland Road Northbound C+ 22.8 C+ 23.4 C+ 22.9 C+ 24.1 C+ 23.7 -::-:: C+ 24.7 C+ 23.9 C+ 26.4 C+ 24.7 -=: .'. Westbound D+ 41.0 D+ 43.8 D+ 40.3 D 45.4 E 70.5 :. .. D 48.1 D+ 42.8 . ' E+ 56.6 D 47.1 Overall E 72.0 C 29.3 C 28.1 C 28.1 C 32.1 '" . C 29.6 C 29.6 D+ 36.( D+ 41.6 D+ 41.6 0+ 44.1 D+ 43.7 0+ 43.7 1·10 Eastbound at Southbound A 7.0 B 19.0 B 17.0 B 17.0 B 19.9 .' B 17.3 B 17.3 C+ 25.4 I B 19.6 B 19.6 B 19.2 C+ 20.8 C+ 20.8 LA 73 Northbound B+ 13.8 D+ 38.0 D+ 38.1 D+ 38.1 D+ 41.4 D+ 41.8 D+ 41.8 D 48.1 E+ 66.0 E+ 66.0 E 68.5 E 69.9 E 69.9 Eastbound F 339.1 C 32.4 C 30.0 C 30.0 D+ 36.0 C 30.8 C 30.8 D+ 36.4 C 31.1 C 31.1 D+ 43.0 C 32.7 C 32.7 Overall C+ 26.7 E 70.2 D+ 44.7 D+ 44.7 F 105.8 E+ 63.6 E+ 63.6 F 113.0 F 84.5 F 84.5 F 176.6 F 100.3 F 100.3 1·10 Westbound at Southbound C+ 20.1 F 96.8 E+ 55.8 E+ 55.8 F 148.6 .... F 86.4 F 86.4 F 151.5 F 114.6 F 114.6 F 244.2 F 136.3 F 136.3 LA 73 Northbound B 15.2 B 18.0 B 16.1 B 16.1 C 32.0 B 18.6 B 18.6 C+ 21.9 C+ 23.7 C+ 23.7 E+ 58.3 C 31.4 C 31.4 Westbound F 152.3 F 96.4 ... F 103.6 F 103.6 F 111.1 F 107.2 F 107.2 F 188.1 F 157.7 F 157.7 F 171.4 :7 F 164.3 F 164.3 .: Overall c" B+ 14.1 B+ 12.9 .'. B 15.1 B+ 13.6 . - B 16.0 B+ 14.7 ... B 17.2 B 15.4 ..' .- 1·10 Eastbound at Soulhbound . A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.8 A 7.8 A 8.9 A 8.9 :. = A 9.2 A 9.2 LA 74 .. ' . '. Northbound B 16.5 B 16.5 B 17.0 B+ 17.0 B 19.1 B 19.1 ',' , B 19.1 B 19.1 Eastbound C+ 26.4 B 19.7 .. ', C+ 28.4 C+ 20.9 C 27.9 C+ 20.6 C 30.9 C+ 22.3 Overall B 16.9 B" 12.2 ~ C+ 23.6 B+ 10.4 C+ 27.2 B+ 12.1 -' C 33.4 B 16.0 . 1·10 Westbound at Southbound B 18.6 B+ 10.6 C+ 24.1 A 9.4 :. C 29.0 B+ 11.7 .' C 33.7 B 17.9 LA 74 .. Northbound A 9.8 B+ 14.3 ' .. B 19.1 B+ l1A B 19.9 B+ 12.2 C 30.6 B+ 12.2 . . Westbound I·· C 34.7 B+ 14.4 c D+ 35.1 B+ 14.5 : c. D+ 38.8 B+ 14.7 D+ 40.7 B+ 14.8 Overall B+ 13.8 B+ 14.3 B+ 14.4 B+ 14.4 B 16.1 r:;;.; B 16.2 B 16.2 B 17.6 '" B 15.8 B 15.8 C+ 20.6 C+ 22.1 C+ 22.1 ----; 1·10 Eastbound al Southbound A 5.9 B+ 10.5 " B+ 10.5 B+ 10.5 B+ 10.4 B+ 10.3 B+ 10.3 B+ 12.2 B+ 12.5 B+ 12.5 B+ 12.0 B+ 11.9 B+ 11.9 LA 30 Northbound A 9.8 B+ 12.9 B+ 13.1 B+ 13.1 B+ 13.1 ..... B+ 13.2 B+ 13.2 B+ 12.9 B+ 12.9 B+ 12.9 B+ 13.3 B+ 13.2 B+ 13.2 . = -cc EastbOUnd D+ 36.4 C+ 22.1 C+ 22.1 C+ 22.1 C+ 25.9 C+ 25.9 C+ 25.9 C+ 3D.4 C+ 24.4 C+ 24.4 D+ 37.5 D+ 41.6 D+ 41.6 Overall D+ 38.5 B+ 14.0 .... B+ 13.9 B+ 13.9 B+ 13.6 B+ 13.5 B+ 13.5 B 15.8 B 15.6 B 15.6 B 15.1 B+ 14.8 B+ 14.8 1·10 Westbound at Southbound A 9.9 B+ 11.7 B+ 11.7 B+ 11.7 B+ 11.3 B+ 11.4 B+ 11.4 B+ 12.3 ". B+ 13.3 B+ 13.3 B+ 13.0 ~" B+ 12.9 B+ 12.9 LA 30 Northbound A 5.4 B+ 10.9 I. c B+ 11.0 B+ 11.0 B+ 11.6 B+ 11.4 B+ 11.4 B+ 11.9 .. B+ 11.8 B+ 11.8 B+ 12.4 B+ 12.0 B+ 12.0 Westbound F 144.1 C+ 23.7 . C+ 23.4 C+ 23.4 C+ 23.1 C+ 22.9 C+ 22.9 C+ 27.4 '-' ." C+ 26.0 C+ 26.0 C+ 24.9 .: c'.' . C+ 24.6 C+ 24.6

= : '. Overall C+ 23.7 > C+ 24.0 -=: --:-:: .: .' C+ 27.2 .:,,' , C 28.6 . 1·10 Eastbound al Southbound A 9.0 B 19.7 B 19.9 -=:-. C+ 22.4 C+ 24.8 = LA 44 .: - Northbound C+ 23.9 .c,. C+ 24.2 ',c '. '-:;- C+ 25.3 .:c ... 1'- C+ 26.1 C' . -=:: :.....• Eastbound B 10.7 C+ 32.2 ... C 32.8 02:· ." I, D+ 44.6 ," '..'...... D+ 44.8 . ~:' ...... ' :=;: Overall C+ 23.3 .' C+ 24.8 I'. I:.;·.' C 28.8 D+ 35.2 ". . ... " . ' - . , 1·10 Westbound at Southbound C+ 24.1 '; :;. C+ 24.1 . -'... ../. 1-' •...... ',: C+ ,:'. .' . . " '. c. ,,'. C 32.9 . 27.1 LA 44 y '. . Northbound A 8.8 C+ 20.4 ...... C+ 23.1 . ~:: .' C+ 22.6 c '.' D+ 39.0 ' ,.: .: . , ...... ' . . Westbound B 12.1 D+ 42.1 D+ 42.1 ." .:.: . ' D 45.9 D+ 42.9 c. . "- I .c: ..'-' .. Overall C+ 24.6 C+ 27.4 c··.·,· . ': : C 30.0 '.. = ~. ~ ec: .:.' 0+ 38.0 : I·:·:':· D 52.8 . , ...• - 1·10 Eastbound at Southbound B+ 13.0 B 17.2 B 17.1 B 18.3 ...... , B 18.4 LA 22 -c'< ." Northbound C+ 21.0 C 29.6 '. c.> .' C 30.3 '" '. . c. D+ 41.0 :;: . . c'·'' .' D 49.6 --:=- T -' :::; '. Eastbound D+ 42.7 C 33.8 :. D+ 41.2 D 52.1 ". .: F 90.6 '. , =---:::7 :;-: . =-:;: ...... = Overa1i B 15.2 B 17.9 .... B 19.1 " ';";. "'c ; 1::' e: C 33.4 .. : :." D 45.3 ---c ..' -=:- . :. .:. 1·10 Westbound at "- Southbound B+ 12.0 B 18.5 ': ." B 18.7 '. " '.: B 19.3 '.' B 19.7 ,'. = .: , LA 22 '. : Northbound B+ 14.0 B+ 13.5 B 16.0 .... c .. D+ 41.2 . E+ 60.9 = . .. . Westbound D+ 37.0 D+ 41.4 '. D+ 41.4 .-:: ~ D+ 42.7 .. D+ 44.3 .... " Table 17 Intersections - Level of Service and Capacity Analysis Results PM Peak

Segment Type 2008 2012 No Build 2012 Build 2032 No Build 2032 Build

W/O Pecue - WID LA 74 WI Pecue . W/O LA 74 WI LA 74 - Diamond WI LA 74 - Cloverleaf W}O &'ewe - W'O LA 74 WI Pecue - W/O LA 74 WI LA 74 _ Diamond WI LA 74 - Cloverleaf WID Pecue - W/O LA 74 WI Pecue - W/O LA 74 WI LA 74 - Diamond WI LA 74 - Cloverleaf WID Foecue - W/Q LA 74 WI Peeue .. W/O LA 74 WI LA 74 - Diamond W, LA 74 - Cloverleaf 1-10 Ramps at Base Conditions LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delav LOS Delav ' LOS Delay LOS Delay_ LOS Delay LOS Delay_ LOS Delay_ LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delav LOS Delay LOS -Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Overall F 85.1 F 87.8 E 72.1 F 103.4 F 88.8 F 120.7 F 99.7 . F 121.7 F 104.1 - 1-10 Eastbound at Southbound E+ 58.8 E 68.6 0+ 39.8 F 130_7 F 100.2 F 87.0 0 49.0 F 145.3 F 117.4 Siegen Lane Northbound F 90.3 F 82.5 F 84.3 E 72.3 E 76.2 F 120.5 F 123.2 F 91.4 F 85.5 Eastbound F 125.1 F 135.9 F 113.6 F 109.6 F 91.8 F 187.1 F 156.8 F 134.1 F 116.1 Overall E+ 65.2 E 69.4 0+ 41.6 F 100.6 E 78.7 " F 83.3 0+ 44.1 F 109.7 F 86.7 .'. .. 1-10 Westbound at Southbound C+ 24.8 C 28.7 C+ 27.2 C+ 27.5 C+ 25.8 0+ 35.7 C 31.0 C 30.1 C+ 27.0 Siegen Lane Northbound B 19.9 C+ 27.2 C+ 23.6 C+ 23.3 C+ 20.9 .' C 33.8 C 28.4 C+ 25.7 C+ 22.6 ,c:c. . Westbound F 421.6 F 3B6.9 F 210.3 F 550.2 F 445.1 F 453.5 F 204.0 F 599.2 F 4B9.3 . . ' . Overall B+ 14.9 .. " B 15.1 B 15.1 B 15.5 '. 1-10 Eastbound at Southbound B+ 13.2 B+ 12.2 B+ 13.4 B+ 11.9 Pecue Lane Northbound B+ 13.6 .' B+ 14.8 B+ 13.9 B 15.9 ". Eastbound B .19.3 B 19.3 B 19.6 B 19.5 . Overall B+ 13.4 .' B+ 13.6 ." B 15.7 B+ 13.4 1-10 Westbound at Southbound B+ 12.6 .' B+ 12.2 .... .' B 15.9 . B+ 12.7 Pecue Lane Northbound A 9.9 B+ 11.2 B+ 10.9 .' .' . B+ 10.7 - Westbound C+ 21.7 C+ 20.5 ... - -- C+ 22.5 . C+ 20.7 Overall E+ 57.8 E 72.6 E 68.0 .i... F 91.5 E 74.4 F 117.5 F 107.0 F 106.6 F 84.5 1·10 Eastbound at Southbound C 34.5 0+ 37.7 C 2B.l '.' '. 0+ 42.1 C+ 27.3 .. .' E+ 57.9 C 30.6 D 45.6 C 32.4 Highland Road Northbound 0 46.5 D 4B.2 D 50.2 0 54.8 0 52.B F 113.0 E 73.1 E 6B.5 E+ 55.5 Eastbound F B9.6 F 129.1 F 111.4 F 169.5 F 135.2 F 176.6 F 185.3 F 199.7 F 162.2 ,". Overall C 29.4 0+ 37.1 C+ 26.8 - 0+ 39.0 C 28.4 E+ 63.5 0+ 37.0 0 54.7 0+ 43.6 '. , . 1-10 Westbound at Southbound A 9.2 B+ 13.6 B+ 13.7 B+ 13.7 B+ 13.6 B+ 14.4 B+ 14.4 B 15.1 B 15.3 Highland Road Northbound C+ 21.5 0+ 36.2 C+ 23.6 0+ 37.1 C 27.9 .' E 76.9 0+ 39.2 0 51.9 0+ 35.7 Westbound F 109.9 F 96.8 E 74.9 F 106.B E 71.8 F 124.8 F 87.7 F 159.6 F 142.2 Overall F 104.1 E 73.3 E+ 56.9 E+ 56.9 F 104.5 E+ 65.4 E+ 65.4 F 149.0 F 100.8 F 100.8 F 160.7 F 103.5 F 103.5 1-10 Eastbound at Southbound C 27.8 C+ 24.9 . C+ 23.B C+ 23.B C+ 26.3 C+ 24.0 C+ 24.0 C 2B.4 C+ 25.7 C+ 25.7 C 29.5 C+ 26.0 C+ 26.0 LA 73 Northbound F 150.2 F 9Ll F 92.0 F 92.0 F 95.0 F 96.2 F 96.2 F 221.2 F 174.5 F 174.5 F 160.4 F 162.3 F 162.3 Eastbound F 111.2 F 87.3 0+ 41.5 D+ 41.5 F 150.B E+ 62.2 E+ 62,2 F 158.4 E 72.B E 72.8 F 230.1 F 9B.3 F 9B.3 Overall F 149.3 E+ 62.9 E+ 64.9 E+ 64.9 E 70.4 ' .. E+ 65.5 E+ 65.5 F 109.6 F 88.6 F 88.6 F 104.8 F 91.2 F 91.2 1-10 Westbound at Southbound B 17.9 C 31.9 C 33.0 C 33.0 C 32.4 ~ C 3M C 33.6 0+ 38.4 D+ 37.1 0+ 37.1 0+ 3B.7 0+ 40.2 D+ 40.2 LA 73 Northbound A 7.1 B 17.9 B 15.6 B 15.6 C+ 23.7 B 17.2 B 17.2 0+ 35.2 C+ 20.5 C+ 20.5 D+ 42.4 C+ 22.6 C+ 22.6 Westbound F 740.9 F 236.5 F 261.1 F 261.1 F 269.7 F 26B.2 F 26B.2 F 40B.3 F 370.2 F 370.2 F 3B2.5 ;. .' F 382.0 F 3B2.0 Overall C 34.5 C 28.8 E+ 55.5 0+ 37.7 E+ 60.5 0 46.3 F 97.9 E 68.1 .. : .' 1-10 Eastbound at Southbound B 16.3 B+ 13.9 '.' B 16.8 B+ 14.2 C+ 24.3 B lB.9 C+ 25.6 B 19.6 '.' ' . LA 74 Northbound C 30.B C 30.2 . C 31.7 C 31.0 E+ 61.2 E+ 60.0 .' 0 54.3 D 53.2 Eastbound D 51.5 D+ 37.6 F 98.9 E+ 56.8 F B5.7 0 50.6 F 17B.O F 10B.9 - 'c Overall C+ 25.0 C+ 22.2 ... C 28.8 C 28.9 0 46.4 0 46.4 .. E+ 55.1 0 54.6 1-10 Westbound at Southbound B 19.B B+ 10.6 ". B 19.1 B 17.8 I C+ 21.2 B 15.5 C+ 20.9 C+ 23.9 LA 74 , Northbound C+ 20.9 C+ 22.0 C 28.2 C 30.8 0 52.9 E+ 61.3 E+ 65.B E 71.5 , Westbound 0+ 41.5 0+ 40,5 0+ 42.1 0+ 40.B E+ 55.6 0 46.7 ". .' E+ 64.8 0 50.1 Overall B 18.3 C+ 21.0 C+ 21.0 C+ 21.0 C+ 22.3 .' C+ 22.3 C+ 22.3 C 31.7 C 31.5 C 31.5 C 32.0 C 32.2 C 32.2 HO Eastbound at Southbound B 15.9 B 15.4 B+ 14.7 B+ 14.7 B+ 14.5 B+ 14.4 B+ 14.4 C+ 20.1 B 19.8 B 19.8 B 17.4 B lB.5 B 18.5 LA 30 NorthbOUnd B 15.3 C+ 21.8 C+ 22.1 C+ 22.1 C+ 23.4 C+ 23.5 C+ 23.5 0+ 37.3 0+ 37.4 0+ 37.4 D+ 38.5 0+ 3B.l 0+ 38.1 Eastbound 0+ 37.8 C+ 26.B C+ 26.8 C+ 26.B C 2B.l .. C 28.1 C 28.1 C 28.0 C 27.6 C 27.6 C 30.3 C 30.9 C 30.9 Overall C+ 22.2 C+ 22.2 C+ 22.2 C+ 22.2 C+ 23.8 C+ 23.2 C+ 23.2 C+ 26.7 .' C+ 27.3 C+ 27.3 C 34.8 C 31.1 C 31.1 1-10 Westbound at Southbound C+ 25.7 C+ 25.4 C+ 25.4 C+ 25.4 C+ 25.1 " C+ 25.1 C+ 25,1 C 27.6 .' C 30.1 C 30.1 C 29.B C 29.4 C 29.4 LA 30 '. Northbound B+ 13.9 B lB.6 B 18.8 B 18.8 C+ 21.9 00" C+ 21.0 C+ 21.0 C+ 24.9 C+ 24.8 C+ 24.B 0+ 37.8 C 31.8 C 31.B Westbound 0 49.0 C 31.0 -- C+ 30.8 C+ 30.8 C 30.6 C 30.4 C 30.4 C 32.7 C 32.1 C 32.1 C 31.6 . '. C 31.5 C 31.5 Overall 0+ 43.7 F 124.7 0 48.1 ~ F Bl.7 .. ..::.. ~o ". 1·10 Eastbound at Southbound A 9.3 C 31.4 C 32.1 <' ," .. 1 0 46.6 ." 0 47.2 LA 44 ., .' Northbound 0+ 44.2 0 50.1 .. '." ., E 7LB F 140.0 ; Eastbound C 15.4 E+ 68,1 E 74.0 F 174.B '. '. F 221.8 .. .' .'. '.' .... ". ' Overall 0+ 39.2 '." -.c:. 0 53.3 . ; ~ F 89.2 F 113.4 .. H 0 Westbound al ,. '. Southbound 0+ 42.3 0" 42.4 • F 110.6 F 92.0 • J . , LA 44 '. ' .'. Northbound A 9.8 C 34.6 ,. . E+ 56.9 "...... E 72.4 F 125.4 Westbound ...... '... .. B 12.5 E+ 63.9 E+ 63.9 . F 123.3 F 94.9 " Overall 0+ 37.7 E 68.3 : ,., .'. . ' E 75.6 ...... - 150.0 " .... '.' F 160.2 .'. - .. F 1-10 Eastbound al Southbound B+ 14.6 C+ 20.5 . C+ 20.3 ; C+ 21.6 . " . C+ 21.6 LA 22 Northbound C 34.2 F 9B.0 F 99.9 .::. F 225.2 F 221.0 Eastbound E+ 56.7 D 46.9 " E+ 67.1 '., 'c F 90.9 F 140.5 , '" Overall B+ 13.6 B 15.9 B 16.9 C 30.2 .. 0+ 39.9 I 1'-' . t·10 Westbound at . Southbound B+ 13.0 C+ 23.7 C+ 24.0 C+ 24.9 C+ 25.1 " '.' LA 22 Northbound B+ 11.9 B+ 10.7 B+ 12.6 C 30.4 0+ 43.4 Westbound 0+ 35.7 0 47.B 0 47.B 0 49.1 D 50.3 I 1-10 at Highland Road

Analysis indicates that the intersections of the 1-10 ramps at Highland Road currently operate at acceptable levels of service for an urban area in the AM peak hour, however field observations indicate that these intersections currently experience congestion in the AM peak hour. The analysis indicates this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable conditions in the 2012 No Build and 2012 Build and 2032 No build scenarios. However, in the 2032 Build scenario, the additional traffic accessing 1-10 is expected to cause the intersection to experience LOS F at its southbound approach. The introduction of an interchange at Pecue is expected to result in significant increases in delay at the westbound off-ramp approach in the 2032 Build scenario which is potentially caused by the increase in interstate usage due to the convenience ofthe new access point at Pecue.

In the PM Peak hour, analysis indicates that both the eastbound and westbound 1-10 off ramp approaches at Highland Road currently operate at LOS F. This is consistent with field observations. In the 2012 No Build and Build scenarios, overall LOS conditions are expected to degrade slightly; the addition of the interchange at Pecue is expected to provide significantly improved levels of delay at both intersections. In the 2032 No Build and Build scenarios, the overall LOS of Highland at the 1-10 eastbound ramps is expected to be LOS F. The introduction of the interchange at Pecue is expected to provide significantly improved levels of delay in both 2032 scenarios, however the intersection is still expected to operate at overall LOS F.

1-10 at LA 73

The intersections of 1-10 off-ramps at LA 73 currently operate under saturated -conditions. In the PM peak hour, both intersections operate at overall LOS F. While geometric and timing improvements result in improved levels of service in 2012. This trend continues as traffic volumes increase over time. By 2032 in the Build (No New Interchanges) Scenario, it is expected that the overall delay at the eastbound off-ramp in the PM peak hour will reach 230 seconds/vehicle; at the westbound off-ramp approach, delay is expected to reach 382 sec/veh in the same scenario. The addition of the LA 74 interchange is expected to substantially improve delay at both the eastbound and westbound off-ramps intersections in each design year/scenario.

While improvements were not analyzed in this study, based on projected volumes further improvements to the 1- 10 off-ramps at LA 73 should be implemented by 2032 in either the build or no-build scenario.

1-10 at LA 74

In the AM peak hour, analysis indicates that the intersection of LA 74 at the 1-10 eastbound off-ramp is expected to operate acceptably (LOS C or better) in all scenarios. The intersection of the 1-10 westbound ramps at LA 74 is also expected to operate acceptably in all scenarios, although in the diamond interchange scenario, the westbound

US] Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 38 off-ramp approach is expected to operate at LOS D+ in the 2012 Build, 2032 No Build and 2032 Build scenarios.

In the PM peak hour, analysis indicates that the intersection ofthe eastbound ramps at LA 74 is expected to operate acceptably in the 2012 No Build scenario; however levels of service degrade to LOS E and LOS F by the 2032 Build scenario. The westbound off ramp is expected to experience heavy levels of delay in the 2032 Build scenario. The intersection of the westbound ramps at LA 74 is expected to operate at overall LOS C and LOS C+ in the 2012 No Build and Build scenarios, respectively. In the 2032 scenarios, the intersections are expected to operate at overall LOS D and E+.

In each scenario the cloverleaf configuration provided considerably improved levels of service in comparison to the diamond interchange configuration. Although not analyzed in this study, based on projected volumes LA 74 should be widened at the intersections to provide two through lanes by 2032 in either the build or no-build scenario.

1-10 at LA 30

With the planned impr<;>vements associated with the Phase 2 of Cabela's and the additional eastbound through lane both intersections are expected to operate acceptably (LOS D+ or better) in all design years and scenarios.

1-10 at LA 44

Both intersections of LA 44 with the 1-10 off-ramps are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service in the AM peak hour in all scenarios, and in the PM peak hour in all 2012 scenarios. However the extremely high growth rates projected in the area are expected to cause both intersections to reach saturated conditions in the PM Peak hour in both 2.032 No Build and Build scenarios.

1-10 at LA 22

Analysis indicates that the intersection of LA 22 at the 1-10 westbound ramp currently operates at acceptable levels of service and is expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through all design years and scenarios. The intersection of LA 22 at the 1-10 eastbound ramp is expected to experience LOS F at the northbound approach in both 2012 No Build and Build Scenarios. By 2032, this intersection is expected to operate at overall LOS F in both No Build and Build scenarios.

US] Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 39 CONCLUSIONS

This report summarized the methodology and findings of a traffic study to assess the feasibility and need for the following two potential projects:

• The widening ofl-10 from Siegen Lane to LA 22 from four lanes to six lanes. • The construction of a new interchange at LA 74.

Collected data and the Regional Transportation Model was utilized to develop projected traffic volumes for the years 2012 and 2032, and capacity analysis was performed at each intersection, freeway segment, and ramp junction. Analysis results indicate that without improvements, the existing roadway system is expected to experience failing levels of service at the ramps, freeway segments and interchange intersections from Siegen Lane to LA 73 by the year 2032.

The addition of the interchange at LA 74 is expected to alleviate congestion at the intersections of 1-10 ramps at LA 73 and provide a convenient point for motorists to access the interstate. This new interchange is not expected to result in significant . changes in level of service at the adjacent freeway segments or at the ramp junctions at LA 30 and LA 73. The analysis indicated that the partial cloverleaf configuration would provide better level of service and delay conditions than the diamond at both intersections of the LA 74 on/off ramps, however both configurations are expected to provide acceptable levels of service.

Even with the planned improvements considered in this study, the interchange intersections at Siegen Lane, Highland Road, LA 73, LA 22 and LA 44 are expected to reach failing conditions by 2032. The freeway segment between LA 30 and LA 44 and the ramp junctions at LA 30 are also expected to experience LOS F by 2032, however this condition could possibly be relieved by the construction of the St. Landry's connection and/or the potential service road along the east side of 1-10 that is being considered by Ascension Parish.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based solely on projected traffic conditions, it is recommended that 1-10 be widened to six lanes from Siegen Lane to LA 73. Without this improvement, the freeway segments and ramp junctions in this area are expected to experience failing conditions by 2032. While the widening is not expected to eliminate all LOS F conditions, it is expected to significantly relieve congestion throughout the study area.

Based on the projected failing levels of service at the LA 73 interchange and the additional access point created, the installation of a new interchange at LA 74 is recommended. However improvements to the LA 73 interchange may potentially provide adequate capacity without the new interchange at LA 74. Based solely on projected traffic operations, the partial cloverleaf configuration IS preferred. If the

US! Project No. 08-002 October 2009 Page 40 interchange is constructed it is recommended that LA 74 be widened through the interchange to provide two through lanes in each direction.

The widening of 1-10 from four to six lanes is expected to attract more motorists to 1-10 which will result in higher levels of congestion at the on/off ramp intersections. While improvements were not analyzed as part of this study, the intersections at the interchanges at Siegen Lane, Highland Road, LA 73 may require improvements as part of the widening project. Should the widening to six lanes of 1-10 extend to LA 22, improvements may also be required at LA 44 and LA 22.

Analysis indicated LOS F conditions· at the eastbound off ramp approach at LA 73 through all scenarios. While improvements were not analyzed in this study projected volumes indicate that widening the ramp to provide dual left tum and dual right tum lanes should be considered.

US! Project No. ()8-002 October 2009 Page 41 URBAN SYSTEMS, INC. PLANNERS &: eGNIBS 400 N. PEI'ERS SI1IEET r_ NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 -IF- (504) 523 - 5511 APPENDIXC ENVIRONMENTAL FIRSTSEARCH REPORT FirstSearch Technology Corporation

Environmental FirstSearch ™ Report

Target Property: LA 74 INTERCHANGE

IIOFWY

BATON ROUGE LA 70820

Job Number: 864701.12

PREPARED FOR:

Volkert & Associates 3809 Moffett Rd Mobile, AI. 36695

01-20-09

Tel: (407) 265-8900 Fax: (4.07) 265-8904

Target Site:' no FWY BATON ROUGE LA 70820 F"Irstseareh S ummary Database Sel Updated Radius Site 118 114 112 112> ZIP TOTAL.

NPL Y 10-08-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NPL Delisted Y 10-08-08 1.25 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 CERCLIS Y 10-08-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 NFRAP Y 10-08-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 RCRACORACT Y 09-08-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 RCRA TSD Y 09-08-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 RCRAGEN Y 09-08-08 1.25 0 1 3 3 1 4 12 RCRANLR Y 09-08-08 1.25 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 Federal IC / EC Y 12-02-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERNS Y 11-17-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 1 23 24 Tribal Lands Y 12-01-05 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 State/Tribal Sites Y 06-06-99 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 State Spills 90 Y NA 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State/Tribal SWL Y 08-23-07 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State/Tribal LUST Y 02-02-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 State/Tribal UST/AST Y 12-30-08 1.25 1 7 2 3 13 5 31 State/Tribal EC Y NA 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State/Tribal IC Y 12-14-07 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State/Tribal VCP Y 12-14-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State/Tribal Brownfields Y NA 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Wells Y NA 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Wells Y 02-29-08 1.25 0 2 2 11 13 0 28 FINDS Y 07-10-07 1.25 0 3 5 12. 7 76 103 TRlS Y 09-23-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HJvlIRS Y 10-08-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 PADS Y 01-01-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Releases Y 11-17-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 Federal Other Y 01-12-08 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oil & Gas Wells Y 01-08-01 1.25 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Notice of Disclaimer

Due to the limitations, constraints, inaccuracies and incompleteness of government information and computer mapping data currently available to F rstSearch Technology Corp., certain conventions have been utilized in preparing the locations of all federal, state and local agency sites residing in FirstSearch Te hnology Corp.'s databases. All EPA NPL and state landfill sites are depicted by a rectangle approximating their location and size. The boundaries ofthe rectangles represent the eastern and western most longitudes; the northern and southern most latitudes. As such, the mapped areas may exceed the actual areas and do not re resent the actual boundaries ofthese properties. All other sites are depicted by a point representing their approximate address location and make no attempt to rep esent the actual areas ofthe associated property. Actual boundaries and locations ofindividual properties can be found in the files residing at the agency responsible for such information.

Waiver of Liability

Although FirstSearch Technology Corp. uses its best efforts to research the actual location of each site, FirstSearch Technology Corp. does not and can nc warrant the accuracy of these sites with regard to exact location and size. All authorized users of FirstSearch Technology Corp.'s services proceeding are sign fying an understanding ofFirstSearch Technology Corp. 's searching and mapping conventions, and agree to waive any and all liability claims associated with s arch and map results showing incomplete and or inaccurate site locations.

- Continued on nextpage Environmental FirstSearch Search Summary Report

Target Site: no FWY BATON ROUGE LA 70820 FirstSearch Summary Database Sel Updated Radius Site 118 114 112 112> ZIP TOTAL~ -TOTALS 1 15 12 29 39 146 242 Notice of Disclaimer

Due to the limitations, constraints, inaccuracies and incompleteness of government information and computer mapping data currently available to F rstSearch Technology Corp., certain conventions have been utilized in preparing the locations ofall federal, state and local agency sites residing in FirstSearch Te hnology Corp.'s databases. All EPA NPL and state landftll sites are depicted by a rectangle approximating their location and size. The boundaries ofthe rectangles represent the eastern and western most longitudes; the northern and southern most latitudes. As such, the mapped areas may exceed the actual areas and do not reI resent the actual boundaries ofthese properties. All other sites are depicted by a point representing their approximate address location and make no attempt to rep esent the actual areas ofthe associated property. Actual boundaries and locations ofindividual properties can be found in the ftles residing at the agency responsible for such information. .

Waiver of Liability

Although FirstSearch Technology Corp. uses its best efforts to research the actual location ofeach site, FirstSearch Technology Corp. does not and can ne warrant the accuracy ofthese sites with regard to exact location and size. All authorized users of FirstSearch Technology Corp.'s services proceeding are sign fying an understanding ofFirstSearch Technology Corp.'s searching and mapping conventions, and agree to waive any and all liability claims associated with s arch and map results showing incomplete and or inaccurate site locations. . Environmental FirstSearch Site Information Report

Request Date: 01-20-09 Search Type: LINEAR Requestor Name: Jerald Overstreet 2.99 mile(s) Standard: LINEAR Job Number: 864701.12 Filtered Report

Target Site: no FWY BATON ROUGE LA 70820

Demographics

Sites: 242 N on-Geocoded: 146 Population: NA Radon: 0.2 - 1.4 PCIIL

Site Location

Degrees (Decimal) Degrees (Min/Sec) UTMs Longitude: -90.979292 -90:58:45 Easting: 694405.075 Latitude: 30.260724 30:15:39 Northing: 3349223.21 Elevation: N/A Zone: 15

Comment Comment:

Additional Requests/Services

Adjacent ZIP Codes: 0.25 Mile( s) Services:

ZIP Code CitvName ST DistlDir Se Requested? Date

70734 GEISMAR LA 0.00 -- y Fire Insurance Maps No 70737 GONZALES LA 0.00 -- y Aerial Photographs No 70769 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 0.00 -- y Historical Topos No City Directories No Title SearchlEnv Liens No Municipal Reports No Online Topos No Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma~ID DBT~~e Site N ame/ID/Status Address DistlDir ElevDiff Page No.

UST MOBIL ON THE RUN HIGHWAY 73 and 1-10 0.00 -- N/A 03-013115 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70737

2 FINDS ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP and SVCS 37316 HIGHWAY 74 0.02 NE N/A 4 110006023560IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

2 RCRAGN ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP and SVCS 37316 HIGHWAY 74 0.02 NE N/A 6 LAD982555526ITRANSPORTER GEISMAR LA 70734

3 DELNPL DUTCHTOVVNTREATMENTPLANT IlOandHWY74 0.03 SW N/A 7 LAD980879449IDELISTED ASCENSION PARI LA 70734

4 UST DUTCHTOVVN TIGER MART 13475 HIGHWAY 73 0.04SW N/A 9 30-16328 GEISMAR LA 70734

5 UST DandM RT4 BOX 769 0.05 NE N/A 12 03-007857 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

6 FINDS COMMERCIAL TIRE and CAR CARE 13841 OLD JEFFERSON 0.07SW N/A 16 LAD981607609 BATON ROUGE LA 70817

6 FINDS COMMERCIAL TIRE and CAR CARE 13841 OLD JEFFERSON 0.07SW N/A 17 110003300160IFRS BATON ROUGE LA 70817

6 RCRANLR COMMERCIAL TIRE and CAR CARE 13841 OLD JEFFERSON 0.07SW N/A 19 LAD981607609INLR BATON ROUGE LA 70817

7 UST PRAIRIEVILLE SUPER STOP 14022 HIGHWAY 73 LANE 0.08NE N/A 21 03-007869 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

8 UST SIPCO SERVICES 13544 EADS ROAD 0.09NE N/A 25 03-008545 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

9 UST SIPCO SERVICES 13544 EADS ROAD 0.10NE N/A 27 30-08545 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

10 FEDWELLS AN-426 UNKNOVVN 0.11 NE N/A 29 FW-LA-17253/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70737

11 FEDWELLS AN-463 UNKNOVVN 0.12NE N/A 30 FW-LA-17259/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70769

12 UST EATEL DUTCHTOVVN EXCHANGE 14067 HIGHWAY 73 0.12NE. N/A 31 03-012766 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

13 UST PRAIRIEVILLE SUPER STOP 14022 HIGHWAY 73 0.12NE N/A 33 30-07869 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

14 UST EATEL DUTCHTOWN EXCHANGE 14067 HIGHWAY 73 0.13 NE N/A 36 30-12766 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

15 FEDWELLS AN- 54 UNKNOVVN 0.13 SW N/A 37 FW-LA-17242/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70769

16 RCRAGN SUPREME VALVB INC 13582 EADS ROAD 0.14 NE N/A 38 LAROOOO 12799IVGN PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

16 FINDS SUPREME VAL VB INC 13582 EADS ROAD 0.14NE N/A 40 11 0003353335IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

17 RCRAGN SERVICE PAINTING CO 37009 LIROCCHI PARK ROAD 0.16NE N/A 42 LAROOOOO1743IVGN PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma~ID DB Type Site Name/ID/Status Address DistlDir ElevDiff Page No.

17 FINDS SERVICE PAINTING CO 37009 LIROCCHI PARK ROAD 0.16NE N/A 44 110003346816IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

18 FEDWELLS AN- 374 UNKNOWN 0.20 SE N/A 46 FW-LA-17173/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70737

19 FINDS THE QUARTERS DUTCHTOWN 14155 HIGHWAY 73 0.20NE N/A 47 110029520329IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

20 FINDS LARCO ENV SVCS BATON ROUGE 37091 LIROCCHI PARK ROAD 0.21 NE N/A 49 110003350855IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

20 FINDS LARCO ENV SVCS BATON ROUGE 37091 LIROCCHI PARK ROAD 0.21 NE N/A 51 LAOO02159176 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

20 RCRAGN LARCO ENV SVCS BATON ROUGE 37091 LIROCCHI PARK. ROAD 0.21 NE N/A 52 LAROOOO08250ITRANSPORTER PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

21 UST DUTCHTOWN TIGER MART 13475 HIGHWAY 73 HWY 0.22SW N/A 53 03-016328 GEISMER LA 70734

22 FINDS DUTCHTOWN BAPTIST CHURCH 36495 C. BRAUD ROAD 0.26SW N/A 56 110023138683IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

23 FINDS LEBOUEFS AUTO 37049 ROUSSEL ROAD 0.26 SW N/A 58 1l0003354799IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

23 RCRAGN LEBOUEFS AUTO 37049 ROUSSEL ROAD 0.26SW N/A 60 LAROOOO15222NGN GEISMAR LA 70734

24 FEDWELLS AN- 391 UNKNOWN 0.30NE N/A 62 FW-LA-I7261/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70769

25 FEDWELLS AN- 51 UNKNOWN 0.31 NE N/A 63 FW-LA-I7263/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70769

26 FEDWELLS AN-452 UNKNOWN 0.33 NE N/A 64 FW-LA-I7249/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70737

27 UST H. M. BUCKLEY and SONS INC. 13169 HIGHWAY 73 HWY 0.34 SW N/A 65 03-015173 GEISMAR LA 71734

28 FEDWELLS AN- 53 UNKNOWN 0.34 SW N/A 68 FW-LA-I7243/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70734

29 UST LONEOAKGRO 13142 HIGHWAY 73 HWY 0.35 SW N/A 69 03-009087 GEISMAR LA 70734

30 FINDS 316 INC 13347 L LANDRY ROAD 0.37NE N/A 72 1l0010588952IFRS GONZALES LA 70737

30 FINDS 316 INC 13347 L LANDRY ROAD 0.37NE N/A 74 LAOOO 1722677 GONZALES LA 70737

31 FINDS ENVIRONMENTAL ABATEMENT sVCs INC 14340 HIGHWAY 73 0.37NE N/A 74 LAOO02159234 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

31 FINDS ENVIRONMENTAL ABATEMENT SVCS INC 14340 HIGHWAY 73 0.37NE N/A 75 110006029966IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: no FWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma.Q ID DB TY.Qe Site N amelID/Status Address DistlDir ElevDiff Page No.

31 RCRAGN ENVIRONMENTAL ABATEMENT SVCS INC 14340 HIGHWAY 73 0.37NE N/A 77 LAROOO022608/TRANSPORTER PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

32 FINDS HM BUCKLEY and SONS INC 13169 HIGHWAY 73 0.41 SW N/A 79 LAOOO 1584556 GEISMAR LA 70734

33 FEDWELLS AN-460 UNKNOWN 0.41 SE N/A 80 FW-LA-17162/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70734

34 FINDS DUTCHTOWN HIGH SCHOOL 13165 HIGHWAY 73 0.42 SW N/A 81 1l0021539815IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

35 UST LONEOAKGRO 13142 HIGHWAY 73 0.43 SW N/A 83 30-09087 GEISMAR LA 70734

36 RCRAGN PAUL JOHNSON BODY SHOP 37438 HIGHWAY 621 0.43NE N/A 86 LAD985228758NGN PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

36 FINDS PAUL JOHNSON BODY SHOP 37438 HIGHWAY 621 0.43 NE N/A 88 110006028173IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

37 FEDWELLS AN- 429 UNKNOWN 0.45 SW N/A 90 FW-LA-17223/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70734

37 FEDWELLS AN-403 UNKNOWN 0.45 SW N/A 91 FW-LA-17222/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70734

38 FEDWELLS AN- 357 UNKNOWN 0.46 SW N/A 92 FW-LA-17224/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70734

39 FEDWELLS AN- 179 UNKNOWN 0.47 SW N/A 93 FW-LA-17215/USGS GROUNDWATER tNv LA 70734

39 FEDWELLS AN-182 UNKNOWN 0.47 SW N/A 94 FW~LA-17216/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70734

40 FINDS DUTCHTOWN MIDDLE SCHOOL 13078 HIGHWAY 73 0.47 SW N/A 95 1l0021534099IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

41 FINDS GULF COAST EVENT SERVICES 36508 EVENT ROAD 0.50 SW N/A 97 110024567057IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

42 FEDWELLS AN-427 UNKNOWN 0.50 SW N/A 99 FW-LA-l7213/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70734

43 FINDS DUTCHTOWN PRIMARY SCHOOL 13046 HIGHWAY 73 0.50 SW N/A 100 110022260239IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

44 UST RAINBOW MARKET 3 12442 OLD JEFFERSON HWY 0.51 SW N/A 102 17-009163 BATON ROUGE LA 70817

45 UST THE VILLAGE MARKET and DELI CORP 14448 HIGHWAY 73 0.52 NE N/A 105 30-03343 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

46 UST VILLAGE MARKET - 100554 14448 HIGHWAY 73 SOUTHWOO 0.54 NE N/A 108 03-003343 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

47 UST DUTCHTOWN CHEVRON LLC 13012 HIGHWAY 73 0.58 SW N/A 111 03-018677 GEISMAR LA 70734 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma.Q ill DB TY.Qe Site N amelID/Status Address DistlDir ElevDiff Page No.

48 FEDWELLS AN- 358 UNKNOWN 0.59 SW N/A 113 FW-LA-I7225/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70734

49 UST WASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES INC 37454 CORNERVIEW ROAD 0.62SW N/A 114 39159 GEISMAR LA 70734

49 UST WASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES INC 37454 CORNERVIEW ROAD 0.62SW N/A 115 03-013295 GEISMAR LA 70734

49 UST WASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES INC 37454 CORNERVIEW 0.62SW N/A 117 03-009971 GEISMAR LA 70734

50 FEDWELLS AN- 377 UNKNOWN 0.62NE N/A 122 FW-LA-I7207/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70737

51 FEDWELLS AN-448 UNKNOWN 0.65 SW N/A 123 FW-LA-I7200/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70734

52 FEDWELLS AN- 214 UNKNOWN 0.65 SE N/A 124 FW-LA-17155/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70734

53 FEDWELLS AN- 77 UNKNOWN 0.69 SW N/A 125 FW-LA-17198/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70734

54 UST QUALITY BEARING and MACHINE WORKS 37318 CORNERVIEW ROAD 0.74SW N/A 126 13984 GEISMAR LA 70734

55 UST QUALITY BEARING and MACHINE WORKS 37318 CORNERVIEW ROAD 0.74SW N/A 127 03-013293 GEISMAR LA 70734

55 FINDS QUALITY BEARING and MACHINE WORKS 37318 CORNERVIEW ROAD 0.74SW N/A 129 1100033413 85IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

56 OILGASWELLS O.77SW N/A 131 170052005400 LA

57 UST B and J GROCERY 38032 HIGHWAY 621 0.79NE N/A 132 03-007062 GONZALES LA 70737

58 UST DANNY S GROCERY 11309 HIGHWAY 73 0.80 SW N/A 137 03-013441 GEISMAR LA 70734

59 FED WELLS AN- 331 UNKNOWN 0.80NE N/A 139 FW-LA-I7268!USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70769

60 UST Z S FAMILY FOOD MART 38150 HIGHWAY 74 0.83 NE N/A 140 03-012698 GONZALES LA 70737

61 LUST Z F AMILY FOOD MART 38150 HIGHWAY 74 0.83 NE N/A 143 91-2-0033 GONZALES LA 70737

62 FEDWELLS AN-445 UNKNOWN 0.84 NE N/A 145 FW-LA-I7288/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70769

63 FINDS MIRES TRAILER PARK WATER SYS 13042 CARRIE LANE 0.85 SW N/A 146 11 00 10660695/FRS GEISMAR LA 70734

63 FINDS POOR BOY WATER WELL WATER SYS 13042 CARRIE LANE 0.85 SW N/A 148 11 00 10747905IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma~ID DBTy~e Site N amelID/Status Address Distmir ElevDiff Page No.

64 FEDWELLS AN-414 UNKNOWN 0.95 SW· N/A 150 FW-LA-17178/uSGSGROUNDWATERINV' LA 70734

65 FINDS GROQUIP 37056 CORNERVIEW ROAD 0.96SW N/A 151 110008381508IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

66 FEDWELLS GRAND GOUDINE AT BABIN RD NEAR DUP UNKNOWN 0.98NE N/A 153 FW-LA-16805/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70737

67 FEDWELLS AN- 382 UNKNOWN 1.02NE N/A 154 FW-LA-17287/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70769

68 OILGASWELLS 1.02 SW N/A 155 170052018100 LA

69 FINDS wmTE ROAD MOBILE HOME PARK ·37113 WHITE ROAD 1.03 NE N/A 156 110013810643IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

70 ERNS 37166 ANDERSON ROAD 1.10 SW N/A 158 251676IFIXED FACILITY GEISMAR LA 70734

71 FEDWELLS AN- 458 UNKNOWN 1.13 SW N/A 159 FW-LA-17191/USGS GROUNDWATERINV LA 70734

72 FINDS IMTCINC 11305 HIGHWAY 73 1.17 SW N/A 160 1100060307761FRS GEISMAR LA 70734

72 RCRANLR IMTCINC 11305 HIGHWAY 73 1.17 SW N/A 162 LAROOO033860INLR GEISMAR LA 70734

73 RCRAGN WIMBERL YS PAINT and BODY 38040 DUPLESSIS 1.17NE N/A 164 LAD985225150NGN PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

73 FINDS WIMBERL YS PAINT and BODY 38040 DUPLESSIS 1.17NE N/A 166 110003342794IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

74 FEDWELLS AN- 407 UNKNOWN 1.21NE N/A 168 FW-LA-17266/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70769

75 FEDWELLS AN- 523 UNKNOWN 1.22 NE N/A 169 FW-LA-17194/USGS GROUNDWATER INV LA 70737

76 UST TAILLON S STOP and SHOP 39168 CORNERVIEW ROAD 1.22 SE N/A 170 03-009093 GONZALES LA 70737 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma.Q ID DB Type Site N ame/ID/Status Address Dist/Dir ElevDiff Page No.

NFRAP PETE DENHAM SITE 2 EAST MI OF HIGHWAY 44-BA NONGC N/A N/A LAD9810604111NFRAP-N GONZALES LA 70737

NFRAP PERCY BRAUD DUMP SITE PALMER ROAD NONGC N/A N/A LAD980867261/NFRAP-N GONZALES LA 70737

RCRANLR ALLWASTE SVCS INC 207 RAYMOND ST NONGC N/A N/A LADOO0777094INLR GONZALES LA 70737

NFRAP PRAIRIEVILLE SCHOOL BUS TURNAROUND TIGER HEIGHTS ROAD NONGC N/A N/A LAD9810525821NFRAP-N PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

RCRATSD BASF CORPORATION RIVER (HWY 75) ROAD NONGC N/A N/A LAD040776809ITSD GEISMAR LA 70734

RCRACOR BASF CORPORATION RIVER (HWY 75) ROAD NONGC N/A N/A LAD040776809/CA GEISMAR LA 70734

NFRAP UNIROYAL CHEMICAL INC HIGHWAY 73 and 30 NONGC N/A N/A LAD0081940601NFRAP-N GEISMAR LA 70734

NFRAP Sand H DISPOSAL SITE 1-10 and DUTCHTOWN EXIT NONGC N/A N/A LAD98050 1720INFRAP-N DUTCHTOWN LA 70734

RCRAGN QUALITY BEARING and MACHINE WORKS CORNERVIEW ROAD NONGC N/A N/A LAD985223221NGN GEISMAR LA 70734

NFRAP MONOCHEM LANDFILL 1 1 SOUTH 14 MI HIGHWAY 73 an NONGC N/A N/A LAD9807498991NFRAP-N GEISMAR LA 70734

NFRAP MCKESSON CHEMICAL CO MCKESSON LANE NONGC N/A N/A LADOO0709451/NFRAP-N GEISMAR LA 70734

NFRAP COLONIAL LANDFILL(ASCENSION LANDFI 1 SOUTH MI HIGHWAY 70 NONGC N/A N/A LAD9807499561NFRAP-N SORRENTO LA 70737

CERCLIS DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT no and HIGHWAY 74 NONGC N/A N/A LAD980879449/DELETED DUTCHTOWN LA 70734

RCRAGN ROUXDIESEL HIGHWAY 74 AT 1-10 NONGC N/A N/A LAD981604622/LGN GEISMAR LA 70734

RCRAGN RETECHCORP BABIN ROAD NONGC N/A N/A LAD980698864/TRANSPORTER PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

RCRANLR EMPROCORP 69 SOUTHLAND PARK DR NONGC' N/A N/A LAD981156920INLR GONZALES LA 70737

NFRAP BASF WY ANDOTT CORPORATION GEISMAR EAST RIVER RD LA30 NONGC N/A N/A LAD0407768091NFRAP-N GEISMAR LA 70734

RCRACOR WILLIAMS OLEFINS L.L.C. 5205 HIGHWAY 3115 NONGC N/A N/A LAD981149750lCA GEISMAR LA 70734

RCRAGN ENTERPRISE GAS - TEBONE FRACTIONAT HIGHWAY751 MNWGEISMAR NONGC N/A N/A LAD980746895NGN GEISMAR LA 70734

ERNS CHEMICAL FACILITY 4999 SCENIC HIGH CHEMICAL FACILITY 4999 SCEN NONGC N/A N/A NRC-859179/FIXED BATON ROUGE LA Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Mal! ID DB T;Yl!e Site NamelID/Status Address DistlDir ElevDiff Page No.

ERNS CHEMICAL PLANT 4999 SCENIC HIGHWAY CHEMICAL PLANT 4999 SCENIC NONGC N/A N/A NRC-8706911FIXED BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS CHEMICAL PLANT, FLARE STACKS: 10, CHEMICAL PLANT, FLARE STACK NONGC N/A N/A NRC-888292IFIXED BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO. 4999 SCEN EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO. 49 NONGC N/A N/A NRC-8780431FIXED BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO. 4999 SCEN EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO. 49 NONGC N/A N/A NRC-8850701FIXED BATON ROUGE LA

CERCLIS GONZALES HM and BAILEY PROPERTY EAST HIGHWAY 429, 2.2 MILE NONGC N/A N/A LAD980749147INOT PROPOSED GONZALES LA 70734

RELEASES AS HAVTOR SHIPPING CO. DOW CHEMICAL DOCK MISSOURI NONGC N/A N/A 3510671MARINE- RELEASED FRO BATON ROUGE LA

RCRACOR LION COPOLYMER GEISMAR LLC HIGHWAY 30 and HIGHWAY NONGC N/A N/A LAD008194060lCA GEISMAR LA 70734

FINDS OAKS ON THE BLUFF EAST ON THE SIDE OF BLUFF NONGC N/A N/A 110029520230IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS OAKLEIGH SUBDIVISION DUPLESSIS ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 110022284124IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS OAK PLAZA SHOPPING CTR HIGHWAY73 THEI-I0 NONGC N/A N/A 1100205572351FRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS OAK GROVE VILLAGE and PROFESSIONAL PARK. NONGC N/A N/A 110027986874IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS MANGEMENT ENTERPRISES - GEISMAR FA 3 SOUTH MI OF GEISMAR NONGC N/A N/A 110007367697IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS MANCHAC PLACE SUBDIVISION BLUFF HIGHWAY 928 ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 110012658070IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS MANCHAC PLACE SOUTH SIDE OF BLUFF NONGC N/A N/A 110020559055IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES - GEISMAR F 3 SOUTH MI OF GEISMAR NONGC N/A N/A 110029512114IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES 3 SOUTH M OF GEISMAR NONGC N/A N/A LAD982301483 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS LPV,LLC 36557 MISSION ST NONGC N/A N/A 11 00 157205581FRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS LAUREL PROPERTIES, LTD OLD DUTCHTOWN SUBDIVISION NONGC N/A N/A 110024585885IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS RandC CONSTRUCTION SVCS INC BLUFF HERITAGE NONGC N/A N/A 110024565488IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

RELEASES ASHLAND OIL CARGO.CARRIERS FLEET NONGC N/A N/A 2312391MARlNE- RELEASED FRO BATON ROUGE LA Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma~ID DB T;y~e Site NamelID/Status Address DistIDir ElevDiff Page No.

FINDS RETECHCORP BABIN ROAD NONGC N/A N/A LAD980698864 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

UST ROADRUNNER TRUCK STOP 1-10 HIGHWAY 30 NONGC N/A N/A 30-03428 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

STATE RONALD A. COCO INC. UNKNOWN NONGC N/A N/A 1688IPOTENTIAL SITE BATON ROUGE LA

STATE BATON ROUGE GAS WORKS UNKNOWN NONGC N/A N/A 98IPOTENTIAL SITE BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS D and J FILL, INC. BLUFF ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 110009695026IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS CHEMTEX INDS INC 1-10 HIGHWAY 73 NONGC N/A N/A LAD092680446 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS BLUFF OAKS PLANTATION HIGHWAY 928 - BLUFF ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 1100134038421FRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS BLUFF OAKS EAST THE SIDE OF BLUFF NONGC N/A N/A 110020559028IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS BLUFF MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BLUFF ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 110020557306IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS AUDUBON PLACE NORTH SIDE OF STRINGER BRID NONGC N/A N/A 1100244020381FRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS ACHORDSBLUFFROAD TRAILER PARK NONGC N/A N/A 110022836546IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES HIDDEN POINT SUBDIVISION NONGC N/A N/A 1100136782521FRS GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES MEADOW RIDGE SID NONGC N/A N/A 110009018972IFRS GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT ON HIGHWAY 73 PRAIRIEVILLE NONGC N/A N/A LAOO02245348 GONZALES LA 70737

RELEASES ATCHAFALAYA RIVER MM 58 AND 68 INTERSECTION OF RIVER AND I NONGC N/A N/A NRC-5746291VESSEL BATON ROUGE LA

LUST BATON ROUGE BARGE TERMINAL RT 5 BOX 45 NONGC N/A N/A 90-2-0131 BATON ROUGE LA .

HMIRS MATERIAL DELIVERY SERVICE EAST I-io NONGC N/A N/A 408875IHIGHWAY (FOR HIRE) BATON ROUGE LA

TRIBALLAND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS CONTACT I UNKNOWN NONGC N/A N/A BIA-70769 LA 70769

TRIBALLAND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS CONTACT I UNKNOWN NONGC N/A N/A BIA-70737 LA 70737

TRIBALLAND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS CONTACT I UNKNOWN NONGC N/A N/A BIA-70734 LA 70734 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma~ID DBT~~e Site Name/lD/Status Address DistlDir ElevDiff Page No.

TRIBALLAND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS CONTACT I UNKNOWN NONGC N/A N/A BIA-70820 LA 70820

HMIRS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC 1-10/12 SPLIT NONGC N/A N/A 1995040801IHIGHWAY (FOR HIRE) BATON ROUGE LA

HMIRS PENN C M and SONS INC EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS PLA NON GC N/A N/A 1993050577IIDGHWAY (FOR HIRE) BATON ROUGE LA

RELEASES 1-10 NONGC N/A N/A 232031/UNKNOWN (NRC) BATON ROUGE LA

RELEASES DOW CHEMICAL NONGC N/A N/A 182331/UNKNOWN (NRC) BATON ROUGE LA

RELEASES UNKNOWN SHEEN INCIDENT MILE 169 BELOW THE SUNSHINE NONGC N/A N/A NRC-586718/UNKNOWN SHEEN BATON ROUGE LA

RELEASES UNKNOWN CHEMICAL INCIDENT 1-10 AND CHIPAWAW NONGC N/A N/A NRC-585744IUNKNOWN SHEEN BATON ROUGE LA

"RELEASES UNKNOWN VALLEY PARK. SCHOOL NONGC N/A N/A 232041IUNKNOWN (NRC) BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS PHYLWAY CONSTRUCTION LLC PARKER BIW HWY LANE NONGC N/A N/A 110024403439IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

RELEASES EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO. 4999 SCEN EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO. 49 NONGC N/A N/A NRC-8780431FIXED BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS PARISH OF ASCENSION WWTP 2 M SE OF PRAIRIEVILLE, OFF NONGC N/A N/A 110010657538IFRS GONZALES LA 70737

UST E-Z SERVE 2 1-10 and HIGHWAY 30 NONGC N/A N/A 03-003428 PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

UST GONZALES CITY OF - WOODWASTE SITE 1023 EAST CORNERVIEW ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 28347 GONZALES LA 70737

UST DUTCHS CLEANERS WEST HWY 44 and NEW RIVER NONGC N/A N/A 20527 GONZALES LA 70737

UST DUTCH S CLEANERS WEST 44 and NEW RIVER LANE NONGC N/A N/A 03-003706 GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS WW TREATMENT UTILITIES, INC. MEADOW RIDGE SUBDIVISION NONGC N/A N/A 11 00099263 211FRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS W ASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES COBBLESTONE PARC NONGC N/A N/A 1100136782251FRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES OLD KINGS SUBDIVISION PLC NONGC N/A N/A 110013669832IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES THE BLUFFS NONGC N/A N/A 110013403851IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS W ASTEW ATER TREATMENT UTILITIES" CYPRESS GOLD SUBDIVISION NONGC N/A N/A 1l00133995351FRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma~ID DBT~~e Site NamelID/Status Address DistlDir ElevDiff Page No.

FINDS W ASTEW ATER TREATMENT UTILITIES LONGWOOD SUBDIVISION NONGC N/A N/A 110009007635IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS THE BLUFFS EAST THE SIDE OF BLUFF NONGC N/A N/A 1l00205572801FRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS ROUXDIESEL illGHWAY 74 AT 1-10 NONGC N/A N/A LAD981604622 DUTCHTOWN LA 70769

FINDS RETECHCORP BABIN ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 110008385130IFRS PRAIRIEVILLE LA 70769

RELEASES MG TRANSPORTATION .5MI FROM 1-10 BRIDGE MILE NONGC N/A N/A 2890 15/MARINE- RELEASED FRO BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS VULCAN CHEMICALS V ASF CORP. PO 457 CALLER HA NONGC N/A N/A 639354IFIXED FACILITY GEISMAR LA 70734 .

FINDS HADDAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WOODRIDGE SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110024567477IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS GAMMILL CONST. OF LOUISIANA SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 1l0027988587IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS FONT BUILDERS INC. SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988578IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS E. JACOB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988550IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS DISTINCTIVE HOMES BY WATSON SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC. N/A N/A 110027988532IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS CRYSTAL PROPERTIES LLC SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988523IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS ALPAN DEVELOPMENTS LLC SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988514IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS RUST SPECIALITIES EAST illGHWA Y 30 3-5 MI OF NONGC N/A N/A 481354IHIGHWAY RELATED GEISNER LA 70737

ERNS COMMUNITY AUTO SALES LAKE PARK SUBDIVISION NONGC N/A N/A 647686IFIXED FACILITY GONZALES LA 70737

ERNS VULCAN CHEMICALS VULCAN CHEMICAL ASHLAND ROA NONGC N/A N/A 159648IPIPELINE RELATED GEISMAR LA 70734

ERNS VULCAN CHEMICALS VULCAN CHEMICALS ASHLAND RONON GC N/A N/A 173 189IFIXED FACILITY GEISMAR LA 70734

ERNS VULCAN CHEMICALS VULCAN CHEMICALS FACILITY A NONGC N/A N/A 179628IFIXED FACILITY GEISMAR LA 70734

FINDS V ANCO INVESTMENTS 38406 CORNERVIEW ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 110011171105IFRS GONZALES LA 70737

ERNS VULCAN CHEMICALS VULCAN, GEISMAR PLANT, ASHL NONGC N/A N/A 529943IFIXED FACILITY GEISMAR LA 70734 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: I10FWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Mal! ID DB T;Yl!e Site N amellD/Status Address DistIDir ElevDiff Page No.

FINDS JMS CONSTRUCTION LLC SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988621IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS RALPH KELLEHER HOMES SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988667IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS PENN CONSTRUCTION SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988658IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS MIKE NICOLE S CUSTOM HOME WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION NONGC N/A N/A 110024879620IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. PO BOX 397 UNIROYAL CHEMICA NONGC N/A N/A 617549IFIXED FACILITY GEISMAR LA 70734

ERNS SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY SHELL CHEMICAL CO 7594 HIGH NONGC N/A N/A 4736431FIXED FACILITY GEISMAR LA 70734

ERNS EASTERN PART OF POINTE COUP NONGC N/A N/A 519802IPIPELINE RELATED BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS WHITE CASTLE FIELD NONGC N/A N/A NRC-557114IPIPELINE BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS TRANS. GAS PIPELINE CORP. WEST POINTE COUPEEI FELICI NONGC N/A N/A 20 1244IPIPELINE RELATED BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS OXYUSA SOUTH OF 1-10 BAYOU DES GLA NONGC N/A N/A 189984IPIPELINE RELATED BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS H. and S. CONSTRUCTION GOODWOOD and BRAEBURN BLVD NON GC N/A N/A 331405IPIPELINE RELATED BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS GULF STATES UTILITIES 19411 RIDGECROFT AVB NONGC N/A N/A 262029IFIXED FACILITY BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS FORMOSA PLASTICS GULF STATES NO PHYSICAL NUM NONGC N/A N/A 607167IFIXED FACILITY BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS EXXONIMOBIL CHEMICAL 4045 PHOENIX EXXONIMOBIL CHEMICAL 4045 P NONGC N/A N/A NRC-8706821FIXED BATON ROUGE LA

ERNS VULCAN CHEMICALS VULCAN CHEMICALS SHIPPING A NONGC N/A N/A 236562JRAILROAD GEISMAR LA 70734

FINDS CYPRESS RIDGE SUBDIVISION ON CORNERVIEW DRIVE NONGC N/A N/A 110022909147IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

HMIRS DUFOUR PETROLEUM INC 1-10 MM 179 NONGC N/A N/A 404961IHIGHWAY (FOR HIRE) GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS LASALLE POINT ON BLUFF ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 11 00282711351FRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS LAKE TRION SUBDIVISION TIGGY DUPLESSIS ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 110025340744IFRS PRARIEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS KM-RON BUILDERS, LLC WOODRIDGE SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110024579589/FRS PRAlRIEVILLE LA 70769 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma~ID DBTy~e Site N amelID/Status Address DistIDir ElevDiff Page No.

FINDS JAMESTOWN COURT NORTH SIDE OF PARKER NONGC N/A N/A 1100272425251FRS PRARlEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS GEORGE ROBINSON REAL ESTATE BLUFF OAKS PLANTATION SID NONGC N/A N/A 1100134035751FRS PRAIRlEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS FOUNTAIN HILL SUBDIVISION EAST SIDE OF BLUFF (HWY RO NONGC N/A N/A 110020558984IFRS PRARlEVILLE LA 70769

FINDS EMPROCORP 69 SOUTHLAND PARK DR NONGC N/A N/A 1l0003289478IFRS GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS EMPROCORP 69 SOUTHLAND PARK DR NONGC N/A N/A LAD981156920 GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS ALLWASTE SVCS INC 207 RAYMOND ST NONGC N/A N/A 110003266420IFRS GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS ALLWASTE SVCS INC 207 RAYMOND ST NONGC N/A N/A LADOO0777094 GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS W ASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITIES PARKS AT DUTCHTOWN NONGC N/A N/A 110017359455IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

FINDS BOUDREAUX RD IMPROVEMENTS BOUDREAUX ROAD NONGC N/A N/A 110017698348IFRS GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS HONEYSUCKLE HOMES, INC. SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988596IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS AMCO CONSTRUCTION HIGHWAY 30 and 1-10 NONGC N/A N/A LAD982301434 GEISMAR LA 70734

FINDS PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS, INC. MANOR TRAILER PARK WAY NONGC N/A N/A 1100244023321FRS GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS K and D CONSTRUCTION INC. SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988630IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS PELICAN HOMES, INC. SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988649IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS ROBERT LEE MARTIN JR., LLC WOODRlDGE SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 1100245672991FRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS RONNIE HOWARD CONSTRUCTION WOODRIDGE SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 1100245672351FRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS BIGELO LIPTAK INC 1-10 EXIT and DUTCHTOWN NONGC N/A N/A LAD980304315 GONZALES LA 70737

FINDS WARDS CREEK INVESTMENTS, LLC END OF ESSEN PARK AVE NONGC N/A N/A 1l0024567191IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS DUTCHTOWNPHARMACY,LLC DUTCHTOWN PHARMACY NONGC N/A N/A 110024821861IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734

FINDS HIDDEN POINT SUBDIVISION LAKEVIEW DR NONGC N/A N/A 110020158513IFRS GEISMAR LA 70734 Environmental FirstSearch Sites Summary Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

TOTAL: 242 GEOCODED: 96 NON GEOCODED: 146 SELECTED: 0

Ma~ID DBT~~e Site N amellD/Status Address Dist/Dir ElevDiff Page No.

FINDS Sand H DISPOSAL SITE I 10 and DUTCHTOWN EXIT NONGC N/A N/A LAD980501720 DUTCH TOWN LA 70734

FINDS TALBOT and TALBOT, INC. SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 1l0027988710IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS AIR LIQUIDE LARGE IND., U.S.LP GEISMAR HPU UNIT NONGC N/A N/A 1100111385711FRS GEISMAR LA 70734

FINDS BROWN and ROOT MDI PROJECT CONTRAC WEST HIGHWAY 30 2.5 1-10 NONGC N/A N/A LAT230012791 GEISMAR LA 70734

FINDS JAMCO CONSTRUCTION INC SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988603IFRS BATON ROUGE LA

FINDS SOUTHERN QUALITY CONSTRUCTION SHADOW LAKES SUBD NONGC N/A N/A 110027988685IFRS BATON ROUGE LA Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

FINDS

SEARCHID: 22 DISTIDIR: 0.02 NE ELEVATION: 12 MAPID: 2

NAME: ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP and SVCS REV: 7110/07 ADDRESS: 37316 HIGHWAY 74 IDl: 110006023560 GEISMAR LA 70734 ID2: LAD982555526 ASCENSION STATUS: FRS CONTACT: PHONE: SOURCE:

FACILITYREGISTRATION INFORMATION:

PROGRAM: FRS PROGRAMID: 11 0006023 560 PROVIDED BY: FEDERAL AGENCY AGENCY INTERESTED: AGENCY INT QUAL: INTEREST ENDED: INT END QUAL: SOURCE OF DATA: FRS LAST REPORTED: LAST EXTRACTED: ENFORCEMENT ACT: REG PROGRAM: FACILITY -

PROGRAL'1: RCRAINFO PROGRAMID: LAD982555526 PROVIDED BY: FEDERAL AGENCY AGENCY INTERESTED: AGENCY INT QUAL: INTEREST ENDED: INT END QUAL: SOURCE OF DATA: NOTIFICATION (RCRA) LAST REPORTED: 6/12/2001 LAST EXTRACTED: ENFORCEMENT ACT: REG PROGRAM: TRANSPORTER - HAZARDOUS WASTE HANDLERS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE.

SITE TYPE: STATIONARY INTEREST STATUS: ACTIVE DATA QUALITY: V LOCATION DESC: ADDRESS TYPE: REGULAR URBAN, HWY LAST REPORTED: POSTED TO DATABASE: 3/1/2000 DATA UPDATED: 1/6/2006 12:28:06 AM ENTERED PERSON/METHOD: . REFRESH PARENTREGID: CONFIDENCE IN ADDR: MEDIUM ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE: N REQ MANUAL REVIEW: REASON MAN REVIEW: SMALL BUS POLICY: ENFORCEMENT ACTION: DATA PUB ACCESS: YES INTERNAL SYS ID:

FEDERAL FACILITY: NO FEDERAL AGENCY: TRIBAL LAND: NO TRIBAL LAND NA.ME: CONGRESSIONAL DIST: LEGISLATIVE DIST: CA - Continued on nextpage -

Site Details Page - 4 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

FINDS

SEARCHID: 22 DISTIDIR: 0.02 NE ELEVATION: 12 MAPID: 2

NAME: ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP and SVCS REV: 7/10/07 ADDRESS: 37316 HIGHWAY 74 ID1: 110006023560 GEISMAR LA 70734 ID2: LAD982555526 ASCENSION STATUS: FRS CONTACT: PHONE: SOURCE: HYDROLOGICAL UNTIS: EPA REGION: 06 AIRSHED: CENSUS BLOCK:

Site Details Page - 5 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

RCRAGN

SEARCHID: 2 DISTfDIR: 0.02 NE ELEVATION: 12 MAPID: 2

NAME: ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP and SVCS REV: 9/8/08 ADDRESS: 37316 lllGHWAY 74 IDl: LAD982555526 GEISMAR LA 70734 ID2: STATUS: TRANSPORTER CONTACT: RAYMOND GAUDE PHONE: 2256739035 SOURCE: EPA

SITE INFORMATION

CONTACT INFORMATION: RAYMOND GAUDE 37316 HWY74 GEISMAR LA 70734

PHONE: 2256739035

UNIVERSE INFORMATION:

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT (GPRA)

GPRA PERMIT: N-NO GPRA POST CLOSURE: N-NO GPRA CA: N-NO GPRA COMPLIANCE MONITORING and ENFORCEMENT: N-NO

SUBJECT TO CORRECTIVE ACTION (SUBJCA)

SUBJCA: N-NO SUBJCA TSD 3004: N-NO SUBJCA NON TSD: N-NO

SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE(SNC): N-NO BEGINNING OF THE YEAR SNC: N-NO PERMIT WORKLOAD: CLOSURE WORKLOAD: POST CLOSURE WORKLOAD: PERMITTING /CLOSUREJPOST-CLOSURE PROGRESS: CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKLOAD: N-NO GENERATOR STATUS: N

NAIC INFORMATION

811111 - GENERAL AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR 23599 - ALL OTHER SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS

ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION:

VIOLATION INFORMATION:

Site Details Page - 6 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

DELNPL

SEARCH ID: 94 DISTIDIR: 0.03 SW ELEVATION: MAPID: 3

NAME: DUTCHTOVVNTREATMENTPLANT REV: 10/8/08 ADDRESS: no and HWY 74 ID1: LAD980879449 ASCENSION PARISH LA 70734 ID2: 0600633 ASCENSION STATUS: DELISTED CONTACT: STEPHEN TZHONE PHONE: 2146658409 SOURCE: EPA

SITE INFORMATION

EVENT TYPE SITE DISCOVERY BY: EPA DISCOVERY DATE: 10-01-84 SITE PROPOSED BY: EPA PROPOSED DATE: 01-22-87 FINAL LIST BY: EPA FINAL LIST DATE: 07-22-87

ACTIVITIES:

CONTAMINANTS: SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION:

CONTAMINATED: THREATENED:

SITE DESCRIPTION

Conditions at proposal (January 22, 1987): The Dutchtown Treatment Plant Site covers 21.5 acres near Dutchtown in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. The owner reclaimed oil on the site from 1965 to January 1984. In 1979, the State contacted the owner, now deceased, concerning compliance ofthe site with the State s hazardous waste requirements. He submitted a site closure plan in June 1982, but the plan was not acceptable to the State. In January 1983, the State ordered the owner to stop unauthorized removal of hazardous waste and in January 1984 declared the site abandoned.

A large holding pond on the site contains 300,000 gallons of oily wastes and 1,700 cubic yards of sludge waste; 372 cubic yards ofcontaminated soil are also on the site. The wastes contain benzene, ethylbenzene, carbon tetrachloride, toluene, and 1,1-dichloroethane, according to the Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality. In 1984, the State took two emergency actions to prevent overtopping of the holding pond.

Analyses conducted by the State in 1984 revealed that shallow ground water (30 feet) under the site is contaminated with chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1-dichloroethane. About 1,500 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles ofthis site. The wells are drilled to depths of200-280 feet.

The site is 1 mile from coastal wetlands and 0.25 mile from fresh water wetlands in the Mississippi River watershed.

In June 1986, EPA detected benzene, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, and vinyl chloride in the air near the holding pond, posing the threat offIre and explosion. About 130 people live within 0.25 mile of the site. Although the site is fenced, it is unguarded. Thus, people and animals can come into direct contact with hazardous substances.

Status (July 22,1987): In March 1987, under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, EPA removed oil spilled from tanks, presumably by vandalism.

EPA is planning for a remedial investigation/feasibility study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action.

CONSTRUCTION COlVIPLETED DATE: 01112/1998 DELETION DATE: 11116/1999 - Continued on next page -

Site Details Page - 7 Environmental FirstSearch Site Detail Report

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

DELNPL

SEARCHID: 94 DISTIDIR: 0.03 SW ELEVATION: MAPID: 3

NAME: DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT REV: 10/8/08 ADDRESS: 110 and HWY 74 ID1: LAD980879449 ASCENSION PARISH LA 70734 ID2: 0600633 ASCENSION STATUS: DELISTED CONTACT: STEPHEN TZHONE PHONE: 2146658409 SOURCE: EPA

Site Details Page - 8 Environmental FirstSearch Descriptions

NPL: EPA NATIONAL PRIORITY LIST - The National Priorities List is a list of the worst hazardous waste sites that have been identified by Superfund. Sites are only put on the list after they have been scored using the Hazard Ranking System (RRS), and have been subjected to public comment. Any site on the NPL is eligible for cleanup using Superfund Trust money. A Superfund site is any land in the United States that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health andlor the environment.'· FINAL - Currently on the Final NPL PRO}>OSED - Proposed for NPL

NPL DELISTED: EPA NATIONAL PRIORITY LIST Subset - Database of delisted NPL sites. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the. criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. DELISTED - Deleted from the Final NPL

CERCLIS: EPA COJv1PREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COJv1PENSATION AND LIABILITY INFORMATION SYSTEM (CERCLIS)- CERCLIS is a database of potential and confrrmed hazardous waste sites at which the EPA Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. PART OF NPL- Site is part ofNPL site DELETED - Deleted from the Final NPL FINAL - Currently on the Final NPL NOT PROPOSED - Not on the NPL NOT VALID - Not Valid Site or Incident PROPOSED - Proposed for NPL REMOVED - Removed from Proposed NPL SCAN PLAN - Pre-proposal Site WITHDRAWN - Withdrawn

NFRAP: EPA COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COJv1PENSATION AND LIABILITY INFORMATION SYSTEM ARCHIVED SITES - database of Archive designated CERCLA sites that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment has been completed and has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. NFRAP - No Further Remedial Action Plan P - Site is part ofNPL site D - Deleted from the Final NPL F - Currently on the Final NPL N - Not on the NPL 0- Not Valid Site or Incident P - Proposed for NPL R - Removed from Proposed NPL S - Pre-proposal Site W - Withdrawn

RCRA COR ACT: EPA RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY INFORMATION SYSTEM SITES - Database of hazardous waste information contained in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), a national program management and inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. In general, all generators, transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required .to provide information about their activities to state environmental agencies. These agencies, in tum pass on the information to regional and national EP A offices. This regulation is governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. RCRAInfo facilities that have reported violations and subject to corrective actions.

RCRA TSD: EPA RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY INFORMATION SYSTEM TREATMENT, STORAGE, and DISPOSAL FACILITIES. - Database of hazardous waste information contained in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), a national program management and inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. In general, all generators, transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information about their activities to state environmental agencies. These agencies, in tum pass on the information to regional and national EPA offices. This regulation is governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. Facilities that treat, store, dispose, or incinerate hazardous waste.

RCRA GEN: EPA/MA DEPICT DEP RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY INFORMATION SYSTEM GENERATORS - Database of hazardous waste information contained in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), a national progratp.. management and inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. In general, all generators, transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information about their activities to state environmental agencies. These agencies, in tum pass on the information to regional and national EPA offices. This regulation is governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. Facilities that generate or transport hazardous waste or meet other RCRA requirements. LGN - Large Quantity Generators SGN - Small Quantity Generators VGN - Conditionally Exempt Generator. Included are RAATS (RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System) and CMEL (Compliance Monitoring & Enforcement List) facilities. CONNECTICUT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST - Database of all shipments of hazardous waste within, into or from Connecticut. The data includes date of shipment, transporter and TSD info, and material shipped and quantity. This data is appended to the details of existing generator records. MASSACHUSETTES HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR - database of generators that are regulated under the MA DEP. VQN-MA = generates less than 220 pounds or 27 gallons per month of hazardous waste or waste oil. SQN-MA = generates 220 to 2,200 pounds or 27 to 270 gallons per month of waste oil. LQG-MA = generates greater than 2,200 lbs of hazardous waste or waste oil per month.

RCRA NLR: EPA RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY INFORMATION SYSTEM SITES - Database of hazardous waste information contained in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), a national program management and inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. In general, all generators, transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information about their activities to state environmental agencies. These agencies, in tum pass on the information to regional and national EPA offices. This regulation is governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. Facilities not currently classified by the EPA but are still included in the RCRAInfo database. Reasons for non classification: Failure to report in a timely matter. No longer in business. No longer in business at the listed address. No longer generating hazardous waste materials in quantities which require reporting.

Federal IC / EC: EPA BROWNFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (BMS) - database designed to assist EPA in collecting, tracking, and updating information, as well as reporting on the major activities and accomplishments of the various Brownfield grant Programs. FEDERAL ENGINEERING AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS- Superfund sites that have either an engineering or an institUtional control. The data includes the control and the media contaminated.

ERNS:· EPAlNRC EMERGENCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM (ERNS) - Database of incidents reported to the National Response Center. These incidents include chemical spills, accidents involving chemicals (such as fITes or explosions), oil spills, transportation accidents that involve oil or chemicals, releases of radioactive materials, sightings of oil sheens on bodies of water, terrorist incidents involving chemicals, incidents where illegally dumped chemicals have been found, and drills intended to prepare responders to handle these kinds of incidents. Data since January 2001 has been received from the National Response System database as the EPA no longer maintains this data.

Tribal Lands: DOIIBIA INDIAN LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES - Database of areas with boundaries established by treaty, statute, and (or) executive or court order, recognized by the Federal Government as territory in which American Indian tribes have primary governmental authority. The Indian Lands of the United States map layer shows areas of 640 acres or more, administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Included are Federally-administered lands within a reservation which mayor may not be considered part of the reservation. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFIARS CONTACT - Regional contact information for the Bureau of Indian Affairs offices.

State/Tribal Sites: LADEQ listing of Inactive or Abandoned sites. These are sites that are either potential, conftrmed or NFA state cleanup sites.

State/Tribal SWL: LADEQ listing of various solid waste facilities including open, closed, & permitted landfills, dumps, pesticide sites, and transfer stations

State/Tribal LUST: LADEQ Listing of all known leaking underground storage tanks

State/Tribal UST/AST: LADEQ Listing of all known underground storage tanks

State/Tribal EC: LADEQ See Institutional Controls database

State/TribaIIC: LADEQ Listing of all sites in the Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) that are noted as having institutional controls placed on them.

State/Tribal VCP: LADEQ Listing of all sites in the Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP). Some VRP sites are noted as having institutional controls placed on them.

State/Tribal Brownfields: LADEQ BROWNFIELDS - Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) Services are offered by The Louisiana Department Environment Quality (LADEQ) Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP). According to Roger Gingles of the LADEQ, LADEQ does not keep a list' at the state level of Brownfield sites. For more information contact Mr. Gingles with the LADEQ at (225) 219-3236.

Federal Wells: USGS UNITED STATES GROUND-WATER SITES INVENTORY - Database of more than 850,000 records of wells, springs, test holes, tunnels, drains, and excavations in the United States.

FINDS: EPA FACILITY INDEX SYSTEM(FINDS)IFACILITY REGISTRY SYSTEM(FRS) - The index of identification numbers associated with a property or facility which the EPA has investigated or has been made aware of in conjunction with various regulatory programs. Each record indicates the EPA office that may have files on the site or facility. A Facility Registry System site has an FRS in the status field.

TRlS: EPA TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY SYSTEM (TRIS)- Database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as federal facilities. This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA.) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

HMJRS: US DOT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT RESPONSE SYSTEM - Database of information regarding materials, packaging, and a description of events for tracked incidents.

PADS: EPA DATABASE OF PCB HANDLERS - Database of PolyChlorinatedBiPhenol generators, transporters, storers andlor disposers that are required to register with the EPA. This database indicates the type ofhandler and registration number. Also included is the PCB Transformer Registration Database.

RADON: NTIS NATIONAL RADON DATABASE - EPA radon data from 1990-1991 national radon project collected for a variety of zip codes across the United States.

Federal Other: EPA SECTION SEVEN TRACKING SYSTEM (SSTS) - database of registration and production data for facilities which manufacture pesticides. VAPOR INTRUSION DATABASE - database that records the migration of volatile chemicals from the subsurface into overlying buildings. Volatile chemicals in contaminated soil or groundwater can emit vapors that may migrate through soil and into indoor air spaces.

OIL & GAS WELLS: DNR Listing of completions, pluggings and permits. Data is obtained only from digital data provided by the Louisiana Dept. ofNatural Resources Environmental FirstSearch Database Sources

NPL: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Updated quarterly

NPL DELISTED: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Updated quarterly

CERCLIS: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Updated quarterly

NFRAP: EPA Environmental Protection Agency.

Updated quarterly

RCRA COR ACT: EPA Environmental Protection Agency.

Updated quarterly

RCRA TSD: EPA Environmental Protection Agency.

Updated quarterly

RCRA GEN: EPAIMA DEPICT DEP Environmental Protection Agency, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection

Updated quarterly

RCRA NLR: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Updated quarterly

Federal IC / EC: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Updated quarterly

ERNS: EPAlNRC Environmental Protection Agency

Updated annually

Tribal Lands: DOllBIA United States Department ofthe Interior Updated annually

State/Tribal Sites: LADEQ Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality

Updated annually

StatelTribal SWL: LADEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Updated annually

State/Tribal LUST: LADEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Updated quarterly

State/Tribal UST/AST: LADEQ Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality

Updated quarterly

State/Tribal EC: LADEQ Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality

Updated quarterly

State/TribaIIC: LADEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Updated quarterly

State/Tribal VCP: LADEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Updated quarterly

State/Tribal Brownfields: LADEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Updated nla

Federal Wells: . USGS United States Geographical Survey.

Updated annually

FINDS: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Updated annually

TRIS: EPA· Environmental Protection Agency.

Updated quarterly

HMIRS: US DOT US Department of Transportation Updated quarterly

PADS: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Updated quarterly

RADON: NTIS Environmental Protection Agency, National Technical Information Services

Updated periodically

Federal Other: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Updated quarterly

OIL & GAS WELLS: DNR Louisiana Dept. ofNatural Resources

Updated semi-annually Environmental FirstSearch Street Name Report for Streets within .25 Mile(s) ofTarget Property

Target Property: IlOFWY JOB: 864701.12 BATON ROUGE LA 70820

Street Name DistlDir Street Name Dist/Dir

Alex Kling Rd 0.17 SW Bantam Tracks Rd 0.04 NE C BraudRd 0.12 SW Cato St 0.19 NE Chester Diez Rd 0.14 NE Cobblestone Ave 0.06 SW Comerview Rd 0.00 - Dutch St 0.12 SW E Lakeshore Ave 0.19NE Eads Rd O.08NE Easley Melancon Rd 0.14 NE Elisar Rd 0.17 SW FaucheuxRd 0.20NE 1-10 0.00 - J ABraudRd 0.24 SW John St 0.03 SW Kevin WayLn 0.14 NE KlingRd 0.04 SW Lakeshore Ave 0.08 NE Lato St 0.19 NE Lirocchi Park Rd 0.16 NE Mildred Drwy 0.09NE Mission St 0.15 SW New River Canal Rd 0.09 SE Pookey 0.09 SW PookeyLn 0.10 SW Roussel Rd 0.16 SW Rue Lamonte 0.19NW State Route 621 0.10 NE State Route 73 0.00 - State Route 74 0.00 - Sue St 0.04 SW VestaLn 0.19 SW W Comerview St 0.06 SE W Lakeshore Ave 0.05 NE Environmental FirstSearch 1 Mile Radius from Line ASTM Map: NPL, RCRACOR, STATE Sites

110 FWY, BATON ROUGE LA 70820

Source: 2005 U.s. Census TIGER Files

Linear Search Line ...... ~ . I"" Identified Site, Multiple Sites, Receptor ...... II ill ill NPL, DELNPL, Brownfield, Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Hazardous Waste @'<:! Triballand ...... ~ ...... fX391 Railroads ...... _ Environmental FirstSearch .5 Mile Radius from Line ASTM Map: CERCLlS, RCRATSD, LUST, SWL

110 FWY, BATON ROUGE LA 70820

Source: 2005 U.S. Census TIGER Files

Linear Search Line ...... ~r Identified Site, Multiple Sites, Receptor ...... II 111 II NPL, DELNPL, Brownfield, Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Hazardous Waste RX2I Triballand ...... f:8'-.8;1 Railroads ...... _ Envi ronmental Fi rstSearch .25 Mile Radius from Line ASTM Map: RCRAGEN, ERNS, UST

110 FWY, BATON ROUGE LA 70820

A ieOr g; 00) ;-. Cal Road

Source: 2005 U.S. Census TIGER Files Linear Search Line ...... '" ...... , ...... -.- r- Identified Site, Multiple Sites, Receptor ...... II iii 11 NPL, DELNPL, Brownfield, Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Hazardous Waste f

110 FWY, BATON ROUGE LA 70820

r \~ \ \ V \

Source: 2005 U.S. Census TIGER Files

Linear Search Line ...... !""'"""" Identified Site, Multiple Sites, Receptor ...... II • , NPL, DELNPL, Brownfield, Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Hazardous Waste r$~ Triballand ...... , ...... fX)81 National Historic Sites and Landmark Sites ...... , ...... III fEBl Railroads ...... _ VOLKERT