-~ IF.ml. ~ US Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District --· ------~---Lafayette Parish, Louisiana Flood Control

Reconnaissance Report

June 1995 SYLLABUS

This report presents the findings· of a reconnaissance-level investigation of rainfall flooding associated with storm water runoff and high river stages along the Vermilion River in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. The study was conducted as an interim study under the Mermentau, Vermilion, and Calcasieu Rivers and Bayou Teche, Louisiana study authority. The parent study was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944; the River and Harbor Act of 1945; and four separate resolutions of the Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representatives adopted in 1964, 1966, 1968, and 1970.

The study area is located in southern Louisiana and encompasses all of \ '., >, . LcLiayette Parish. The urban flood control study efforts concentrated on problem areas identified by the study team using input from Parish officials, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) repetitive damage data, and historical flooding information.

The reconnaissance study investigated potential solutions to prevent flooding in Lafayette Parish caused by heavy rainfall and high stages on the Vermilion River. Impacts on adjacent parishes, as a result of proposed solutions, were considered. Alternative measures that were evaluated during this study include: diversion of flood waters; retention/ detention basins; channel modifications; removal of channel obstructions; levees and pump stations; flood control structures; and other non-structural alternatives. Existing computer models developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), previous hydraulic computer output, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance studies and prior flood studies of the study area, and historical flood records were utilized to establish existing conditions.

Two structural alternatives and non-structural measures (floodproffing) were determ~·,1ed economically and environmentally feasible to reduce the magnitude of flood damages in Lafayette Parish. The identification of feasible plans warrant proceeding to the feasibility phase of the study. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

INTRODUCTION

STlJDY AUTiiORITY ...... 1 STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 4 THE REPORT AND STUDY PROCESS ...... 5 PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS AND EXISTING PROJECTS ...... 6

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NATIONAL OBJECTIVES ...... 12 EXIS'I'JN"G CONDffiONS _ ...... 12 STU'DY AREA . • . . . • ...... • ...... 12 EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ...... 13 CLIMATOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ...... 15 CLIM.ATE ...... 15 TEMPERATURE ...... 15 PRECIPITATION ...... 15

WThJ'D .•....•...... •...... 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 17 STREAM GAGING ...... · 17 FLOODS AND STORMS OF RECORD ...... 18 TIDES . • . • • • ...... • ...... 19 GENERAL GEOLOGY ...... 19 ECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 21 GEOGRAPIDCAL INFORMATION ...... 21 POPULATION ...... 21 :IN'CO~ ...... 22 EMPLOYMEN'T ...... 22 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ...... 24 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ...... 24 WETL..AN'DS " ..•••••.••••..•..••.•.•••.•..•...... '° • • • • • • 24 WILDLIFE ...... 25 AQUATIC RESOURCES ...... 26 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

ITEM PAGE

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION (cont.)

CULTURAL RESOlJRCES ...... 29 RECREATIONAL RESOlJRCES ...... 30 EXISTING WATER QUALITY ...... 31 WATER QUALITY STATIONS ...... 31 WATER USE DESIGNATION ...... 31 FUTURE CONDffiONS WITHOUT PROJECT ...... 33 FLOOD CON'I'ROL ...... 33 WATER QUALITY ...... 33 ECONOMICS RESOlJRCES ...... 33 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOlJRCES ...... 34 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ...... 34 PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... ,, . . 36 FLOOD DAMAGES ...... 36

PLAN FORMULATION

PLANNING OBJECTIVES ...... 38 PLANNING CONS'I'RAINTS ...... 38 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE CONSIDERATIONS ...... 39 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT ...... 43 PLAN FORMULATION RATIONALE ...... 43 ALTERNATIVE PLAN SCREENING AND EVALUATION ...... 45 ALTERNATIVE 1: MODIFY THE VERMILION RIVER ...... 46 ALTERNATIVE 2A: RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO THE BA YOU TORTUE SWAMP ...... 47 ALTERNATIVE 2B: MODIFY THE VERMILION RIVER WITH RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP ...... 49 ALTERNATIVE 3: COMBINED GRAVITY AND PUMPED RETENTION STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP 50 ALTERNATIVE 4: DETENTION STORAGE JN THE UPPER TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

ITEM PAGE

PLAN FORMULATION (CONTINUED)

VERMIUON RIVER BASIN WITH POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO BAYOU CARENCRO AND RUTH CANAL ...... 52 ALTERNATIVE SA: CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE (CONCRETE LINING AND EARTHEN EXCAVATION) ...... 53 ALTERNATIVE SB: CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE (100% CONCRETE LINING) ...... 54 ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTER THE OPERATION OF THE TECHE­ VERMILION, COURTABLEAU, EASTERN RAPIDES SOUTH­ CENTRAL AVOYELLES SYSTEM TO ACIDEVE LOWERINGS IN LAFAYETIE PARISH ...... 54 ALTERNATIVE 7: NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES ...... 56 INVESTIGATIVE METHODOLOGY ...... S6 AREA NUMBER 1 ...... 56 AREA NUMBER 2 ...... S7 AREA NUMBER 3 ...... 58 AREA NUMBER 4 ...... 58 PRESENTATION OF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE PLANS ...... 60 ALTERNATIVE 2A, ENGINEERING DESIGN ANALYSIS ...... 60 DESIGN FEATURES ...... 60 COULEE CROW GRAVITY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE . . . . . 61 BAYOU TORTUE GRAVITY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE . . . . . 61 BAYOU TORTUE PUMP STATION ...... 61 ADDffiONAL FEATURES ...... 62 CONSTRUCTION COSTS ...... 62 RELOCATIONS ...... 62 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 62 REAL ESTATE ...... 62 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...... 63 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 64 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ...... 64 'WEUANDS ...... ,,, . . . . 65 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 66 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 66 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ...... 66 ~GATION ...... ,,, . 66 COMPLIANCE WI'1H REGULATIONS ...... 67 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ...... 67 ALTERNATIVE SA, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ANALYSIS ...... 68 DESIGN FEATURES ...... 68 CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE . 68 RELOCATIONS ...... 69 CONSTRUCTION COSTS ...... 69 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 69 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

ITEM PAGE

PLAN FORMULATION (CONTINUED)

REAL ESTATE ...... 69 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...... 70 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 70 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ...... 70 DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ...... 71 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 71 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 71 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ...... 71 MITIGATION ...... 71 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS ...... 72 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ...... 72 ALTERNATIVE 7, NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES ...... 73 INVESTIGATIVE METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ...... 73 DESIGN FEATURES AND COSTS ...... 74 FLOOD CONTROL SUMMARY ...... 76

STUDY MANAGEMENT

STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION ...... 78 COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS ...... 78 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 79 POTENTIAL SPONSORS ...... 79 PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ...... 80 INTENT TO P ARTICIPA1'E ...... 80 CONCLUSIONS ...... 80 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 81

EXHIBITS

LEITER OF IN'TENT ...... 82 LIST OF TABLES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1 MEAN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL TEMPERATURE ...... 16 2 TEN.1PERATUREEXTR1Th1ES ...... 16 3 MONTHLY PRECIPITATION ...... 16 4 MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION TOTAL ...... 17 5 STREAM GAGING DATA ...... 18 6 DISCHARGE DATA ...... 18 7 POPULATION TREND ...... 21 8 PER CAPITA PERSONAL IN"COME ...... 22 9 EMPLOYMEN"T TRENDS ...... 23 10 NUMBER & PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY 23 11 ATTRIBUTES OF SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ...... 27 12 RECOGNITION OF SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ...... 28 13 POPULATION, PERSONAL INCOME, AND EARNINGS, 1973-1988, AND PROJECTED, 1995-2040 ...... 35 14 EMPLOYMEN"T BY PLACE OF WORK, BY INDUSTRY, 1973-1988, AND PROJECTED, 1995-2040 ...... 35 15 REPETITIVE LOSSES BY COMMUNITY ...... 36 16 FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE DATA ...... 37 17 LOCATIONS OF INACTIVE AND ABANDONED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES IN LAFAYETTE PARISH ...... 41 18 LOCATIONS OF INACTIVE AND ABANDONED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES IN" ST. MARTIN PARISH ...... 42 19 ALTERNATIVE 2A, STAGE LOWERJNGS ...... 48 20 ALTERNATIVE 3, STAGE LOWERINGS ...... 51 21 ALTERNATIVE SA, STAGE LOWERJNGS ...... 53 22 LAFAYETTE PARISH FLOOD CONTROL PLANS PERTINENT DESIGN DATA ...... 75 23 LAFAYETTE PARISH FLOOD CONTROL PLANS COST INFORMATION ...... , ...... , . . 75 24 JUSTIFIED FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ...... 77 LIST OF PLATES

NUMBER NAME

1 STUDY AREA 2 EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3 BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP 4 CLIMATOLOGICAL/STREAM GAGING STATIONS 5 ALTERNATIVE 1: MODIFY THE VERMILION RIVER 6 ALTERNATIVE 2A: RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SW AMP 7 ALTERNATIVE 2B: RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE VERMILION RIVER 8 ALTERNATIVE 3: COMBINED GRAVITY AND PUMPED RETENTION STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP 9 PROPOSED RUTH CANAL PUMPING STATION 10 ALTERNATIVE 4: DETENTION STORAGE IN THE UPPER VERMILION RIVER BASIN WITH POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO BAYOU CARENCRO AND RUTH CANAL 11 ALTERNATIVE SA: CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE (CONCRETE LINING AND EARTHEN EXCAVATION) 12 ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTER THE OPERATION OF THE TECHE­ VERMILION, COURTABLEAU, EASTERN RAPIDES SOUTH­ CENTRAL AVOYELLES SYSTEM TO ACIDEVE LOWERINGS IN LAFAYETTE PARISH 13 ALTERNATIVE 7: NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

A HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS B INITIAL REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATES C ECONOMIC ANALYSIS D U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PLANNING AND LETTER E COORDINATION MEETING ATTENDEES INTRODUCTION

Major flooding has been reported in Lafayette Parish due to storm events and high river stages along the Vermilion River since 1907, and as recently as 1993. Approximately 300 homes experienced water damage as a result of the 1993 flood. Local interests have made improvements to the flood control system, however damages continue to occur. As a result of recurring floods and a limited availability of local funds, Lafayette officials requested the Federal Government investigate the feasibility of reducing flood damages in Lafayette Parish. Thus, this reconnaissance study investigated solutions to alleviate flooding in Lafayette Parish.

STUDY AUTHORITY

This report is being conducted as an interim study under the Mermentau, Vermilion, and Calcasieu Rivers and Bayou Teche, Louisiana study authority. The parent study was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944; the River and Harbor Act of 1945; and four separate resolutions of the Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representatives adopted in 1964, 1966, 1968, and 1970. The authorizing resolutions and acts are quoted below.

The original resolution was adopted on June 23, 1964 by the House Committee on Public Works at the request of the late Congressman T. A. Thompson and reads as follows:

"Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, United States, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is hereby requested to review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on the Mermentau River published in Senate Document Numbered 231, Seventy-ninth Congress, Second Session; on the Vermilion River and Bayou Teche, Louisiana, published in Senate Document Numbered 93, Seventy-seventh Congress, First Session; and the unpublished report of the Chief of Engineers on Calcasieu River submitted to Congress August 25, 1949; and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining the advisability of improvements or modifications to existing improvements in the interest of flood control, major drainage, navigation, water supply, water quality control, saltwater intrusion, recreation, fish and wildlife, and other related water and land resources, such studies to be coordinated with the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture, the Louisiana state Department of Public Works and all other Federal and non-Federal interests as considered appropriate by the Board.''

PAGE 1 The resolution adopted October 5, 1966 by the House Committee on Public Works at the request of former Congressman Edwin W. Edwards states:

"Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, Unites States, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is hereby requested to review the reports on Lake Charles Deep Water Channel, Louisiana, published as House Document No. 172, 72nd Congress, 1st Session, and other pertinent reports with a view to determining the advisability of modifying the existing project in a way at this time with particular reference to enlargement of existing ship channel from the Calcasieu River to the Brannon Ditch Cut-Off Drainage Ditch and the construction of a new ship channel northward in Brannon Ditch for a distance of about 2.25 miles to an existing highway."

The House Committee on PublicWorks at the request of former Congressman Edwin W. Edwards adopted the following resolution on October 3, 1968.

"Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, United States, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and · Harbors is hereby requested to review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, published as House Documept No. 436, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, and other pertinent reports with a view to determining the advisability of modifying the recommendations contained therein with particular reference to the old channel of the Calcasieu River in the vicinity of Cameron, Louisiana."

The following resolution was adopted December 2, 1970 by the House Committee on Public Works at the request of former Congressman Patrick T. Caffery.

"Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, United States, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is hereby requested to review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on Bayou Teche, Louisiana, published as House Document Numbered 1329, Sixty-second Congress, and other pertinent reports with a view to determining whether it is advisability to modify the recommendations therein in any way at this time including enlarging the Keystone Lock."

The Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944 (Public Law 534, 78th Congress) increased the study scope to include all streams and bayous west of the West Atchafalaya Basin protection levee and south of Boyce, Louisiana, and all streams and bayous in Louisiana lying between the East Atchafalaya Basin protection and the Mississippi. Below are excerpts from the act.

"Section 11. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to

PAGE 2 cause preliminary examinations and surveys for flood control and allied purposes ... to be made ... in drainage areas of the United States .... , which include the following named localities ... :

For flood control, rice irrigation, navigation, pollution, saltwater intrusion, and drainage on all streams and bayous in southwest Louisiana, west of · West Atchafalaya Basin protection levee, and south of the latitude of Boyce II

The River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945 (Public Law 14, 79th Congress) increased the scope of the study to include the Mermentau River from Grand Chenier to the Gulf of Mexico.

"Section 6. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys to be made at the following name localities ... :

For flood control, irrigation, navigation, and drainage, and for prevention of stream pollution and saltwater intrusion, on all streams and bayous in southwestern Louisiana, west of the West Atchafalaya Basin protection levee, and south of the latitude of Boyce ... "

The 1994 Energy and Water Appropriations Act included $400,000 to initiate a General Investigations reconnaissance study specifically for Lafayette Parish. The study was initiated in April 1994 .

. PAGE 3 STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of the study is to investigate the feasibility of measures to alleviate flooding in Lafayette Parish, LA. As a result of the January 1993 storm event, major flooding caused significant damages in the study area. Similar damages occurred as a result of Hurricane Andrew on August 27, 1992. Each event prompted the Governor of Louisiana to declare a state of emergency for Lafayette Parish.

The reconnaissance study investigated potential solutions to prevent flooding in Lafayette Parish caused by heavy rainfall and high stages on the Vermilion River. Impacts on adjacent parishes, as a result of proposed solutions, were considered. Alternative measures that were evaluated during this study include: diversion of flood waters; retention/ detention basins; channel modifications; removal of channel obstructions; levees and pump stations; flood control structures; and other non-structural alternatives. Environmental acceptability pf the potential solutions was also addressed. Solutions investigated to address flood problems were limited to those that do not worsen existing flood problems elsewhere.

Several alternative solutions were developed for locations identified as having high levels of structural flooding damages. Economists inventoried residential, commercial, and industrial structures located in critical areas. Stage-frequency curves, reconnaissance-scope engineering designs, real estate appraisals, environmental assessments and cost estimates, were prepared for the potential solutions by the interdisciplinary planning team.

Existing computer models developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), previous hydraulic computer output, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance studies and prior flood studies of the study area, and historical flood records were utilized to establish existing conditions.

PAGE 4 THE REPORT AND STUDY PROCESS

The reconnaissance study is the first phase of the two-phased process implemented in Corps of Engineers feasibility studies of water resource projects. The Corps conducts a reconnaissance study to determine if a feasibility study is appropriate. Both types of studies follow the guidelines given in the March 1983 Water Resources Council's Economics and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related land Implementation Studies.

During the reconnaissance phase (100% Federally funded), existing data is utilized where possible. The water resource problems, needs and opportunities are defined, and potential solutions are identified. Estimates of the benefits and costs of the various alternatives are made, and Federal and potential local sponsor interests are assessed. If interest exists and the benefit­ to-cost ratio is greater than unity (or l-to-1) for any one plan, a study cost estimate and scope of work, Project Study Plan, (PSP) for the feasibility phase is developed. A recommendation is made to continue to the feasibility phase.

The feasibility phase further describes the problems and opportunities and evaluates the alternatives which meet Federal, environmental and economic criteria. During the feasibility phase, studies are conducted at a level to determine the maximum net economic development benefits and assesses the environmental and social effects of the selected plan. TheJ~ct.S~b!!ity stuciy ~ jnve~to:ry,i'?r~cast, and analyze conditions}!l th.e study area that. are relevanf _to fu~jggn.tifjed problems and Ql?J~OI'.~PE!~: Alternative plans that resolve the problems and opportunities, while meeting Federal, environmental and economic criteria, will be formulated and finalized. The end product of the feasibility phase is a feasibility report that recommends the National Economic Development (NED) plan, if any, from the investigated alternatives. The feasibility report will serve as the basis to support a project and consequently the Congressional authorization for project construction. Feasibility studies take approximately three to five years to complete. The feasibility phase is cost shared with the local sponsor on a 50 / 50 basis.

PAGE 5 PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS AND EXISTING PROJECTS

A number of studies and reports on water resources development in the study area have been prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); other Federal, state, and local agencies; research institutes; and individuals. Available information was used to identify historical trends, define existing conditions in the study area, predict future conditions, and assist in identifying problems. The more relevant studies, reports, and projects are summarized in the following paragraphs:

• Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act (PL 86-646), as amended by the 1960 and 1970 Flood Control acts, the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 and Executive Order 11296, August 10, 1966, authorizes the Corps of Engineers to establish and carry out a Floodplain Management Service program. The objective of the program is comprehensive flood damage prevention planning that encourages wise use of the flood plain at all levels of government. Under the program, the Corps prepared two floodplain information reports. They are:

NAME OF STREAM DATE PREPARED Vermilion River and Tributaries September 1973 Coulee Ile Des Cannes and Tributaries September 1974

• The Corps of Engineers prepares flood insurance studies to map eligible communities by risk zones and to determine insurance rates. The studies are made under the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The program is administered by the Federal Insurance Administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As of February 1995, the Corps has prepared seven flood insurance studies for cities and unincorporated areas in the Vermilion River Basin. They include:

URBAN PLACE Parish DATE PREPARED Town of Duson Lafayette March 1981 Unincorporated Areas, Vermifion Parish Vermilion November 1984 Town of Scott Lafayette December 1984 Town of Carencro Lafayette December 1984 Town of Broussard Lafayette March 1988 City of Lafayette Lafayette June 1988 Unincorporated Areas, Lafayette Parish Lafayette June 1988

PAGE 6 • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared a flood hazard evaluation report in September 1988. The study investigates the existence and severity of flood hazards for varying rainfall frequencies in five areas as requested by local Lafayette Parish officials. The areas cire:__

1) Coulee Ile des Cannes - Laterals 2 and 3 1 2) Vermilion River - Lateral 2 (Acadi.·.ana Coulee) 3) Isaac Verot Coulee 4) Coulee Ile des Cannes - Lateral 5 5) Coulee Mine - Lateral _. _ \ \- ,,...... ,, Information from this study aided the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The results of this study were forwarded to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide detailed flood elevations ~aSJ?!'.~Yi9J.!8-1Y not studied or where the flo()d_poten#a!. was ~~wn.

• Professional Engineering and Surveying Company, Incorporated, prepared a report entitled "Drainage Study of Milton (Edith) Coulee," Volumes I and II, for Lafayette Parish Government, July 1986. Edith Coulee drains a watershed of approximately 1,457 acres consisting primarily of pasture and cultivated land, with a small portion consisting of residential area near the downstream end of Edith Coulee. The report addressed channel and culvert improvements along Edith Coulee for the 10-year storm event. The project was not initiated due to lack of funding and Right-of-Way problems.

• Domingue, Szabo & Associated, Incorporated, completed a report for the Lafayette Parish Police Jury, "Application for Projecf;Fl.l!!~&}:hrough the Louisiana Statewide Flood Control Program," in\,Qctober 19f43. / The application addressed flood control improvements of Coulee Ile des Canes from the Vermilion River to its upper limits near the Ossun Community, a distance of approximately 15.7 miles .. foulee lle des C::anes is one of the major drajl\~g~ , Q._i· ,channels iJ1 ~afayett~ l~arish. As documented in the application, tJle ~al.:!!!~~ ~ 1>~~-:w~}:n~g~qt;1~t~Je>r !h~.:31,§QQ~qe~l'.Y:!!~!'ShEtg during the 10-year storm event. The channel iµlprovements recommended in this application ~ 1 1 1 construged. v tl1 • ,

• Domingue, Szabo & Associated, Incorporated, completed a report for the Lafayette Parish Police Jury, "A Report on Drainage Improvements," in July 1981. A preliminary design was completed for 43 drainage channels in Lafayette Parish for the 10-year storm frequency. The report presents a description of the work required to achieve the needed flood control . improvements, estimated project costs, recommended method of financing, and a channel maintenance program.

PAGE 7 • Domingue, Szabo & Associated, Incorporated, completed a report for The City of Lafayette, Louisiana "Application to Statewide Control Program Coulee Mine Improvements," in October, 1991. The application addressed flood control improvements along Coulee Mine from a point approximately 3,000 feet south of U.S. Highway 90 extending north to La. Hwy. 723 north of Interstate 10, a distance of approximately 4.4 miles. Coulee Mine is one of the major drainage channels in Lafayette Parish with a watershed of 9.630 acres. Channel improveme~ts consist of channel excavation and concrete lining.

• Professional Engineering and Surveying Company, Incorporated, completed a report for the City of Carencro, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana "Application for Project Funding submitted to the Louisiana Statewide Flood Control Program for Beau Bassin Coulee," in 1:'Joy~f!!Q~J:'1 19901 The purpose of the study was to evaluate the flooding problems within the City of Carencro and surrounding area that drains into Coulee Beau Bassin. Extreme overgrowth of trees and brush within the channel from the I-49 crossings to the Beau Bassin Road crossing severely reduces the conveyance capacity of the Coulee resulting in the backwater flooding. The proposed project primarily consists of improving the downstream portion of the Coulee from the I-49 Service road (West) crossing to the Beau Bassin Road crossing, thereby providing relief to the area residents upstream of that location. Currently, the project is in the right-of-way sJ~ge. acquisition------.. • CADO, Incorporated, completed a report entitled for Lafayette Parish Government entitled "Drainage Study of ~~ul~eg]~nct~L~J~!~~Nq. 1/' in Q~~~IJ:l.ber, 19~~. The channels evaluated in the study included Coulee Bend and Lateral Number 1 for a combined total reach of 5.4 miles. The purpose of the study was to determine the improvements required along Coulee Bend and Lateral Number 1 to adequately drain the 2,700 acre watershed. Recommended flood control improvements included channel excavation, fl.ow diversions, channel clearing, and culvert improvements. The improvements recommended in this study ~er~ colllpleted.

• Sellers, Dubroc and Associates, Incorporated, completed a report and plans for improvements along Coulee LaSalle in January, 1986. The report suggested improvements along Coulee La Sille~toadequately provide for the 10-year frequency storm event. Suggested improvements consist of channel excavation, bridge removals or replacements that allow the full cross section to convey flow, and culvert improvements. The suggestions on channel excavation from this report were completed by ~ayette.

PAGE 8 • Engineering Corporation of Louisiana completed a report entitled, ''.Frfil!~Q!s Cgl.ll~ Drainage Study," in .May,1986: Francois Coulee is located in the northern portion of Lafayette Parish, extending three miles south from the Evangeline Downs Race Track, and drains a watershed of approximately 502 acres. The purpose of the study was to recommend improvements along Francois Coulee to make the channel capable of conveying 10-year peak runoffs for the next twenty years. Suggested improvements consist of channel excavation, culvert improvements, and bridge improvements. The suggestions on channel excavation from this report wer~s:QmpletE!P. ,by Lafayette. X • Sellers, Dubroc and Associates, Incorporated, completed a report entitled, 1 "Drainage Study of pan Depaj!lQD-,C:::9!!lgg,J~r@cf?t~ C:::,oulee, and Oak Coulee," for the City of Lafayette, Louisiana in February, 1992.. These.colllees are located in the northeast section of the City of Lafayette and drain into the west side of the Vermilion River. During severe storm events, flooding in lower reaches of Oak Coulle and Dan Debaillon Coulee were reported. The flooding is primarily due to backwater from the Vermilion River and inadequate channel and structure sizes. The report suggests improvements for all channels and structures for the 10-year storm event. Cost estimates were prepared for the suggested improvements.

• Sellers, Dubroc and Associates, Incorporated, completed a report entitled, "Application to Statewide Flood Control Program for ,Q~ak C:::2!!!~/ for the City of Lafayette, Louisiana in October, 1992. Oak Coulee is located in the northeast section of the City of Lafayette, Lafayette Parish. The coulee drains into the Vermilion River 2,000 feet upstream of I-10 and extends northwest for approximately 3.2 miles, ending above Thoroughbred Road. The purpose of the report was to recommend improvements to reduce the flooding within the City of Lafayette and surrounding area that drains into Oak Coulee for the 25- year storm event. The suggested flood control project consists of 2 miles of channel improvements (earthen excavation and concrete lined) and replacement of 3 bridges.

• Sellers, Dubroc and Associates, Incorporated, completed a report entitled, "Application to Statewide Flood Control Program for pan Debaillon Coulee," for the City of Lafayette, Louisiana in October, 1992. "nan Debaillon Coulee is located in the northeast section of the City of Lafayette, Lafayette Parish. The coulee drains into the Vermilion River 5,500 feet downstream of I-10 and extends northwest for approximately 7.0 miles, ending above Hector Connoly Road. The purpose of the report was to recommend improvements to reduce the flooding within the City of Lafayette and surrounding area that drains into Dan Debaillon Coulee for the 25-year storm event. Recommended improvements consisted of 3.3 miles of channel excavation and replacement of 3 bridges.

PAGE 9 • A report published as Senate Document Number 93, Seventy-seventh Congress, titled "Bayou Teche, Teche-Vermilion Water-Way, and Vermilion River, La." recommended a 8- by 80-foot channel from Vermilion Bay to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; a navigable 9- by 100-foot channel from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the head of navigation at Lafayette for navigation and flood control improvement of the non-navigable channels of Vermilion River and Bayou Fusilier from Lafayette, LA to Bayou Teche; channel enlargement in Bayou Teche from 2 miles below Arnaudville to Port Barre, LA; an increase in pool elevation above Keystone Dam; and construction of a suitable control works in Ruth Canal by local interest. All work was completed. The project was reclassified as an "Operation and Maintenance General" project under the "Navigation" category in 1956 . . • A report published as House Document 583, Eighty-seventh Congress, second session, titled "Bayous Terrebonne, Petit Caillou, DuLarge, and Connecting Channels, Louisiana, and the Atchafalaya River, Morgan City to the Gulf of Mexico," contained an evaluation of a 9- by 80-foot channel in Bayou Grand Caillou from the Houma Navigation Canal to the Gulf of Mexico. The study was unfavorable and no improvements were recommended for Bayou Grand Caillou or other streams under study. Federal maintenance of the Houma Navigation Canal, as constructed by the Terrebonne Parish Police Jury, was recommended in the report and was authorized by Congress in the River and Harbor Act of 1962.

• The USACE prepared a feasibility report and Environmental Impact Study (EIS), "Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana," in 1982. The report recommended a plan to satisfy the flood control needs of southern Louisiana and optimize the environmental protection of the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway. In February 1983, the Chief of Engineers recommended further study of the Atchafalaya Bay-Terrebonne marsh complex. This study analyzed backwater flooding problems east of the floodway. The study results are presented in a reevaluation report. In addition, a delta management study analyzed techniques for managing the developing delta in Atchafalaya Bay, that are consistent with USACE navigation and flood control responsibilities. Study results were included in a feasibility report entitled "Atchafalaya Basin Land and Water Resources, Louisiana." The New Orleans Army Engineer District is currently reevaluating the Lower Atchafalaya Basin to determine if improvements to the system are warranted. Reevaluation studies are conducted to insure that the basin can safely pass its share of the MR&T project flood flows. Continued deltaic development in the basin has resulted in increased river and backwater stages throughout the Atchafalaya system greatly in creased the economic burdened borne by the local population. The study will explore additional alternatives which will maintain the system and lessen the burden of the local population increasing the national economic

PAGE 10 development while maintain the environmental viability of the ecosystem.

• Gulf South Research Development Corporation prepared a report, "East Atchafalaya Flood Damage Inventory" for the USACE, New Orleans District in July 1984. The study reported on continued development of the delta in the Atchafalaya Bay area, and backwater flooding resulting from high water stages in the lower Atchafalaya River. Various alternative structural flood control measures were proposed. One primary alternative included a time-phased extension of the Avoca Island levee system along the east bank of the Atchafalaya River south of Morgan City. Another major alternative consisted of a system of ring levees to protect existing industrial and other development.

• A report of the Chief of Engineers on the Mermentau River and Tributaries and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, which was published as Senate Document Number 231 Seventy-ninth Congress, recommended improvement or modifications to existing improvements in the coastal area of Louisiana. The report recommended the construction of a saltwater guard lock (Calcasieu Lock) in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; channel enlargement of the Mermentau River below Grand Lake and the construction of a sector gate control structure in the Mermentau River at Catfish Point; channel enlargement and realignment of the Inland Waterway from Vermilion Bay to Grand Lake; construction of a sector gated control structure in the enlarged channel near Schooner Bayou; enlargement of the North prong of Schooner Bayou and Schooner Bayou Cut-Off. All work was completed as of 1952.

PAGE 11 J

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

The objective of Federal and Federally-assisted water and related land resources planning is to contribute to the National Economic Development (NED), consistent with protecting the nation's environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Contribution to the NED objectives are accomplished by increasing the value of the national output of goods and services. A positive contribution to the NED objective requires that the benefits attributable to a project exceed the cost, benefit-cost ratio must be greater than unity.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

STUDY AREA

The study area is located in south central Louisiana, approximately 50 miles west of Baton Rouge, and includes all 270 square miles of Lafayette Parish. The study area also includes the Bayou Tortue Swamp which is located in both Lafayette and St. Martin Parishes. See Plate 1. The major features of the study area include the City of Lafayette, the Vermilion River, Bayou Fusilier, Ruth Canal, and the Bayou Tortue Swamp. The major drainage artery in the study area is the Vermilion River that collects runoff from many intersecting drainage channels referred to as coulees. During favorable tidal conditions and river stages, the Vermilion River captures the coulee runoff and transports it to Vermilion Bay, ultimately flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Generally, the southern portion of the study area varies between +5.0 and +7.5 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) and increases to approximately \\), +55.0 NGVD near the northern portion of the study area and in the City of \'' Lafayette. Currently, the 10-YR stages along the Vermilion River range from ,,,' '),' +11.4 MSL (Mean Seal Level) at Milton, south Lafayette Parish, to +12.5 MSL at Surrey Street, near the Lafayette Regional Airport. Currently, there are no major flood protection projects in the study area.

Significant floods have been reported in Lafayette Parish as early as 1907. Major floods caused by storm events and high water stages in the Vermilion River occurred in 1922, 1927, 1940, 1946, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1964, 1966, 1969, 1971, 1980, 1991, and most recently in 1993. Nearly 495 claims totaling about $5.3 million in covered losses to structures and contents were filed with FEMA as a result the flooding that occurred in 1993. Not included in this assessment of damages are other significant private and public losses. These

PAGE 12 include vehicle flooding, uninsured property losses, reduction in property value due to repeated structural and street flooding, disruption of business activity, costs of evacuation and other emergency operations borne by the communities, cost of Federal disaster assistance, Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) administrative costs for processing claims, and losses to public infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

Local interests have made improvements to the flood control system but have not been able to keep pace with the increasing severity of the problem. The frequency and wide-spread impact of damaging floods warrant Federal investigation.

EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

The drainage system for Lafayette Parish consists of 33 watersheds, or sub­ basins, that discharge runoff into an earthen and/ or concrete lined channel referred to as a coulee. Currently, Lafayette Parish has over 800 miles of lateral and main line coulees. See Plate 2. In the study area, 24 of the 33 watersheds discharge into the Vermilion River via 25 bayous and/or coulees. The authorized navigation dimensions of the Vermilion river vary for two reaches in the study area. The lower reach extends from the Lafayette and Vermilion Parish southern boundary to the Pinhook Bridge. The project dimensions for this reach are 9 x 100-ft. The upper reach extends from the Pinhook Bridge to the northern limits of the Vermilion River. Along tll~ reach above Lafayette, the river is not maintained for navigation. In~ruary 19Y3;) a reconnaissance survey indicated that the controlling depth was - ---- · · approximately 5 feet for the lower reach, except for two location~ QQ~~!!'~am QLth«;tPinhook Bridg~I~Ltbj:L~Qp.tr..Qlling..depth_l:Y~~1Joot:. The survey along the upper reach was terminated at a point upstream of Bayou St. Clair due to debris that made the channel impassible. The controlling depth for the upper reach was located at the location of debris, approximately 1 foot. The controlling depth is defined as the_Jiepth of wa.t~r inth_e center ()f the channel~ ,,,_,,~-- ->=--·-~··,.~=c,-A, ·~~ __ ,. • - The head of the Vermilion River is located in the northern portion of Lafayette Parish where it captures the flow from Bayou Fusilier that carries flow from Bayou Teche near Arnaudville. From its head, the Vermilion River flows south through the City of Lafayette, the head of navigation, bypassing the Ruth (Evangeline) Canal and the Bayou Tortue Swamp extending to the Lafayette/Vermilion parish boundary. At the Lafayette/Vermilion parish boundary, the Vermilion drains approximately 400 square miles. The river then flows south through the towns of Abbeville, Perry, Henry, and Intracoastal City towards Vermilion Bay. At its confluence with Vermilion Bay, the river drains approximately 560 square miles.

PAGE 13 The Bayou Tortue Swamp is located directly east of the City of Lafayette in St. Martin and Lafayette Parishes and consists of approximately 8700 acres of marsh divided by Lake Martin Road. The southern area consists of approximately 7200 acres and is bound to the north by Lake Martin Road and the Vermilion River, to the south and west by the developed areas in Lafayette Parish, and to the east by Bayou Capucin. The northern portion of the swamp consists of approximately 1500 acres and is bound to the south by Lake Martin Road, to the north by Ruth Canal, to the east by the west levee of Lake Martin, and to the west by the Vermilion River. See Plate 3. Currently,the SWfil1!p functions as a ponding area by accepting flow from the Vermilion River ·through Bayou Tortue and Coulee C:row .. Consequently, some flood relief is proVided to the residents of Lafayette Parish, based upon the given storm intensity.

(,,~)JJJrIDg.non::-ia~mr~!?lgJ:ii:l~ conf!i!i()~,Jligh.river stages, .ancl.in!~nse stol'1!1~~··· \ ~Y.~nts, an unusual event occurs along one particular reach of the Verifiill.on ) River~~ As a result of an intense storm event, overland flow is carried to the / lateral coulees that discharge into the Vermilion River in 24 hours or less. Based upon the small travel time, the river quickly reaches capacity near the Pinhook Bridge. Once the channel capacity is exceeded, the flow direction reverses to the north, towards the Bayou Tortue Swamp. During high frequency storm events, the flow reversal is limited to the river reach between Pinhook Bridge and Long Bridge. The reach of flow revers9l.be.<;9mes 101}ger in ~he downstream dire,~on f()!JP~~rftegue,n.cy:··stonn.ev~nts. DWingthe January20,·r993· storm evenf;·fhe flow reversarextendecr£rom Long Bridge to Ambassador Cafree Parkway. During high frequency storm events, the reversal is limited to the reach of the Vermilion River between Pinhook Bridge and Long Bridge. As river stages approach an elevation of +10.00 NGVD, flow begins to overtop the spoil bank along the Vermilion River bordering the Bayou Tortue Swamp. At this and higher stages, flow enters the swamp through Bayou Tortue, Coulee Crow, and over the +10.00 NGVD spoil bank. As the swamp draws water from the river, the flow on the Vermilion River to the north exceeds the reverse flow rate, and the flow in the river reverses back to the normal direction. Under these conditions, there are two peaks in the river near the Bayou Tortue Swamp, one from the flow reversal, and one approximately 4 to 7 days later as a result of the 220 square miles of runoff.

The Ruth Canal is located north of the Bayou Tortue Swamp and serves as a connection between the Vermilion River and Bayou Teche. A control structure is located along the canal near Ruth, LA. During typical flood stages, the Ruth Canal carries approximately 200 - 300 cfs (cubic feet per second) of flow from Bayou Teche to the Vermilion River. The flow from Bayou Teche through the Ruth Canal does not significantly affect stages or flooding along the Vermilion River. For the largest percentage of time, the flow in the Ruth Canal is from

PAGE 14 east to west or into the Vermilion River.

CLTh1A TOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

CLIMATE

The climate of south central Louisiana is influenced by the proximity of the Gulf of Mexico, which modifies temperature conditions by decreasing the range between extremes. These effects are increased when southerly winds prevail, imparting the characteristics of a maritime climate. TEMPERATURE

Records of temperature are available from "Climatological Data" for Louisiana, published by the National Climatic Center. The temperature of the study area can be described by using temperature data observed at the following climatological stations: Crowley, LA, Grand Coteau, LA, Lafayette, LA, and New Iberia, LA. The average of the annual normal temperatures of these four stations, during the period from 1961-1990, is 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with monthly mean temperature normals varying from 50.1°F in January to 81.8°F in July. Temperature normals are shown in Table land the extremes from two of the referenced stations since 1961 are shown in Table 2. Plate 4 shows the location of each climatological station.

PRECIPITATION

The average .annual normal precipitation for the study area, based upon National Climatic Center records at the above climatological stations during the period from 1961-1990, is 59.26 inches. Table 3 shows the monthly and annual normal precipitation for the referenced stations. Table 4 shows the maximum precipitation that occurred during any given month and any given day since 1940, for the referenced stations. There have been several months that precipitation was not recorded. The heaviest rainfall usually occurs during July that has an average monthly normal of 6.50 inches. October is the driest month, averaging 4.05 inches. Snow is rare in the study area with the last memorable snow falling in December 1989. Plate 4 shows the location of each precipitation station.

PAGE 15 TABLE 1 MEAN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL TEMPERATURE (oF) 30 Year Normals (1961-1990)

Station JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN.

Crowley 48.8 51.9 59.6 67.8 74.5 80.0 81.5 81.1 77.2 68.3 59.8 52.3 66.9

Grand Coteau 50.5 53.8 61.0 68.3 74.7 79.8 81.8 81.7 77.7 68.7 60.5 53.6 67.7

Lafay. 50.6 53.7 61.2 68.6 75.0 80.4 82.1 81.8 78.0 68.9 60.6 53.9 67.9

New Iberia 50.4 53.5 60.8 68.5 74.8 79.9 81.7 81.3 77.6 68.6 60.7 53.8 67.6

Average 50.1 53.2 60.7 68.3 74.8 80.0 81.8 81.5 77.6 68.6 60.4 53.4 57.5

Source: National Climatic Center

TABLE 2 TEMPERATURE EXTREMES (°F) 1961-1992

MAXIMUM DATE MINIMUM DATE

GRAND COTEAU 104 9 AUG62 8 23 DEC 89 LAFAYETTE 103 8AUG62 9 23 DEC 89

TABLE 3 MONTIILY PRECIPITATION (inches) 30 Year Normals (1961-1990)

Station JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Annual

Crowley 5.24 4.29 4.28 4.18 5.50 5.15 5.79 5.53 5.14 3.94 4.25 5.24 58.53

Grand Coteau 5.29 4.86 4.83 4.65 5.67 5.27 5.78 4.69 4.91 4.48 4.56 5.59 60.58

Lafay. 4.95 4.28 4.13 4.07 5.15 5.13 6.96 5.38 5.36 3.78 3.81 5.36 58.36

New Iberia 4.42 4.19 4.16 3.90 4.70 5.82 7.45 6.48 5.41 3.99 3.84 5.20 59.56

Average 4.98 4.41 4.35 4.20 5.30 5.34 6.50 5.52 5.21 4.05 4.12 5.35 59.26

SOurce: National Cliiriatic Center

PAGE 16 TABLE 4 MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION TOTAL (inches) (1940-1992) MaXiri\um Greatest Station Monthly Date 1 Day Date

Crowley 37.46 Aug40 19.76 9 Aug 40

Grand Coteau 31.63 Aug40 16.07 9 Aug 40

Lafayette 37.99 Aug40 19.63 9 Aug40

New Iberia 21.35* Oct84 11.26* 7 Jun 78 SOurce: National Climatic Center * PERIOD OF RECORD (1948-1992)

WIND

Wind data taken at Baton Rouge and Lake Charles were used to describe wind characteristics prevalent in the study area. The average wind velocity was recorded as 7.9 miles per hour (mph) during the period from 1973-1992. Prevailing wind flow is southerly during most of the year. Winter storms in the area have produced wind gusts of up to 70 mph. The summer is often disturbed by tropical storms and hurricanes which produce the highest winds in the area. The maximum wind speed observed (highest one minute speed) since 1962 was 58 mph at Baton Rouge as a result of Hurricane Betsy in September 1965, and 58 mph at Lake Charles as a result of a winter storm in January 1962.

STREAM GAGING

Records of stage, water surface elevation, are available at seven stations in or adjacent to the study area. Discharge measurements are taken at Ruth Canal near Ruth, LA and the Vermilion River at Surrey Street in Lafayette, LA. Reverse flow conditions occur at both locations. The maximum observed reversed flow rate at Ruth Canal was recorded as 60 cubic feet per second (ds) on January 13, 1993. This was a result of backwater from the Vermilion River. The maximum observed reversed flow rate along the Vermilion River at Surrey Street was recorded as 5,480 ds on July, 14, 1989. Stream gaging data that includes period of record, maximum and minimum stages, are shown on Table 5. Maximum and minimum discharges for the two recording stations are presented in Table 6. Plate 4 shows the location of each stream gaging station.

PAGE 17 TABLE 5 STREAM GAGING DATA

Map Period Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Gage Station of Stage Ft. Stage Stage Ft. Stage No. Record NGVD Date NGVD Date 1 Bayou Teche @Arnaudville 1943-92 24.27 23 May 53 6.78 28 Oct 56 2 Bayou Vermilion @Long Br. 1937-92 19.62 15 Aug 40) -1.82 6 Dec 54 3 Bayou Vermilion @ TonTons Br. 1947-92 20.92 21Apr77 -1.13 7 Dec 54 4 Ruth Canal (West) @Ruth 1946-92 18.50 14 Aug 40 0.00 4 Dec 67 5 Ruth Canal (East) @Ruth 1945-92 18.40 15 Aug40 5.20 27 Oct 56 6 Vermilion River @Lafayette 1961-92 • 12.17 17 May 80 -2.25 3 Nov 66 7 Vermilion River i @ Broussard Br. 1948-92 ·. 15.55 17 May 80 I -2.48 6 Dec 54

TABLE 6 DISCHARGE DATA Maximum Mrmmum Period of Flow Flow Record (cfs) Date (ds) Date

Ruth Canal Near Ruth 1959-93 802 Apr66 0.03 Jun 82

Vennilion River @Lafayette 1967-93 6,280 Jul 89 no flow Jun64 SOurce: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report LA-93=1 U.S. Anny Engineer District, New Orleans

FLOODS AND STORMS OF RECORD

Significant floods have occurred in the study area from many different .sources, including headwater runoff from the north, heavy localized rainfall, backwater from the Vermilion River and hurricanes and tropical storms. Major floods effecting the area occurred in 1940, 1953, 1955, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1989, and 1993.

The most severe flooding to date occurred in August 1940, when precipitation occurred throughout the study area from August 1 through August 10. Total precipitation for this event was recorded as 37.36 inches at Lafayette, 36.60

PAGE 18 inches at Crowley, and 29.91 at Grand Coteau. More than 50 percent of the total rainfall occurred on August 9. This storm produced maximum stages of +18.50 NGVD at Ruth Canal West and +19.62 NGVD at Bayou Vermilion at Long Bridge on August 14 and 15, respectively.

During the July 1989 flood, 10.00 inches of rain was recorded at Grand Coteau and 4.78 inches was recorded at Lafayette. This storm event produced a peak discharge of 6,280 cfs. at Lafayette. f During a flash flood in January 1993, 11.34 inches of rain was recorded at Lafayette during the period from January 19 through January 20. A total of 6 10.10 inches of rain was recorded on January 20. This rainfall produced a stage of -:+-12.95 NGVD ,on the Vermilion River at the Lafayette gage.

Hurricanes affecting the study area include Edith in September 1971, Carmen in August 1974, Danny in August 1985, Juan in October 1985 and Andrew in August 1993. Hurricane Juan (27-30 Oct 85) yielded rainfall totals of 7.09 inches at Lafayette and 9.92 inches at Grand Coteau.

TIDES

There is minimal tidal influence in Lafayette Parish. Tides can be diurnal or \ , semi-diurnal depending on astronomical conditions. The mean tidal range is less than 1.0 foot.

GENERAL GEOLOGY

The study area is located in a region with two major physiographic features. One is the upland terraces of the Pleistocene Prairie Formation which comprise 90% of the Parish. The remaining area is comprised of the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain which lies below a prominent escarpment of the upland terraces. The elevations of the upland terraces range from a maximum of +55.0 NGVD in the northern part of the Parish to a minimum of +5.0 NGVD in the southern portion. The alluvial plain averages +10.0 NGVD to +15.0 NGVD feet in elevation giving the terrace escarpment a maximum relief of 45 feet. The Prairie Formation in this area dips gently to the southeast while the slope of the upland terraces is generally to the southwest.

The largest surface water is the Vermilion River, but it is suitable only for irrigation or industrial use with respect to water supply. Most wells are 200 to 700 feet deep with the Chicot aquifer of Quaternary age being the main source. This water must be treated for high iron content. The primary source of recharge is rainfall.

PAGE 19 Loess blankets most of the Parish and in some eastern parts of the Parish reaches a maximum thickness of 20 feet. The loess thins to the west. Loess is an eolian deposit that is believed to have been deposited during periods of active glaciation. Loess is a well-sorted deposit composed mostly of brown silt with some clay and very little sand. Loess also covers parts of the escarpment. Even high points in the alluvial plain are overlain by loess, and the evidence suggests that loess covers the alluvial plain but is buried under the alluvium where it has not been eroded away.

The terrace uplands are roughly divided in half by the Vermilion River and Louisiana Highway 182. East of this dividing line, Pleistocene fluvial deposits underlie the loess. These deposits have a prominent surface expression on topographic maps because the overlying blanket of loess generally conforms to the topographic features below it rather than filling them in. These deposits consist of the Pleistocene Prairie Formation which have been dissected by abandoned course and abandoned channel deposits. Abandoned courses and abandoned channels consist of interbedded silt, clays, and sand. The Pleistocene Prairie Formation deposits consist of silty sand, sand, and occasional gravel with some silt and clays mainly in the upper portion of these deposits. To the west of the dividing line and underlying the loess are Pleistocene deltaic deposits of the ancestral Red River. These deposits exhibit a minor amount of surface expression. These deltaic deposits consist of Pleistocene Prairie Formation deposits with abandoned course and abandoned channel deposits. The abandoned courses and abandoned channels consist of interbedded silt, clays, and sand. The Pleistocene Prairie Formation deposits consist of silty sand, sand, and occasional gravel with some silt and clays mainly in the upper portion of the deposits. The Prairie Formation deposits average approximately 270 feet in thickness before contacting deeper Pleistocene deposits where borings penetrated this lower boundary.

The Mississippi River Alluvial Plain occupies a narrow strip along the eastern border of Lafayette Parish adjacent to the escarpment of the upland terraces. This is the western border of the Atchafalaya Basin and is the western extent of Holocene meandering of the Mississippi River. Bayou Teche now occupies an abandoned course of the Mississippi River. The deposits in this section consist of Holocene sediments of natural levee, point bar, backswamp, abandoned course, and abandoned channel. Natural levee deposits consist of interbedded clays and silt with occasional layers and lenses of silty sand and sand and average 10 feet in thickness. Point bar deposits consist of interbedded silt, silty sand, and sand with occasional lenses of clays and average 108 feet in thickness. Backswamp deposits consist of interbedded clays with occasional silt and organic material and average 108 feet in thickness. Abandoned course and abandoned channel deposits consist of interbedded clays, silt, silty sand, and sand and vary in thickness. Underlying

PAGE 20 all five deposits mentioned above are substratum sands which consist of massive homogeneous silty sand, sand, and gravel filling the entrenched valley. These deposits average 158 feet in thickness. Underlying the substratum sands are Pleistocene deposits which consist of interbedded clays, silt, sand, and gravel and extend to an unknown depth. The Pleistocene deposits are similar to the terrace deposits with clays and silt of varying thickness in the upper portions of the deposit and sand and gravel at depth.

ECONOMIC RESOURCES

GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Economic data collection was limited to Lafayette parish dwing the reconnaissance study, with inventories conc:entrated in areas experiencing high levels of structural flooding damag~§! Lafayette Parish is one of the smallest parishes in Louisiana, consisting of only 270 square miles. The City of Lafayette is the Parish seat and commercial trade center of the area.

POPULATION

Table 7 summarizes the 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Census Bureau population counts for the City of Lafayette, Lafayette Parish, the State of Louisiana and the United States.

TABLE 7 POPULATION TREND: 1960 - 1990 (000)

Location 1960 1970 1980 1990 % % % Chng Chng Chng 60-70 70-80 80-90

City of 40.0 68.9 82.0 94.4 72.3 18.9 15.2 Lafayette

Parish of 84.7 111.6 150.0 164.8 31.9 34.4 9.8 Lafayette

State of 3,257.0 3,657.0 4,206.0 4,220.0 12.3 15.0 0.3 Louisiana

United 179,323.0 203,302.0 226,546.0 248,710.0 13.4 11.4 9.8 States 'lote: Lows1ana and Urutec ~tates pop1u ation \UUUJ SOURCE:US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

PAGE 21 As shown in Table 7, the population of the study area has grown more rapidly than state or national averages. Much of this growth during the 60's and 70's can be attributed to the expansion of the petro-chemical industry. The City of Lafayette is often referred to as the oil center of south Louisiana. While the area experienced the effects of a declining oil industry during the 80's, population growth equaled the national average and far exceeded the state average.

The number of housing units in Lafayette Parish increased from 53,136 in 1980 to 67,431 in 1990. However, the vacancy rate increased from 5.4 % to 10.2 %. This is attributable to the softening economy in south Louisiana during this period and the restructuring of the petrochemical industry and its supporting activities.

INCOME

Table 8 shows per capita personal income for the study area and the State of Louisiana. Per capita income in the study area has consistently been above the state average but has been increasing at a slower rate than the state. Both the study area and the state fell below the national average per capita income of $19,091 in 1991.

TABLE 8 PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME

1980 1990 1991 % Change % Change 80-90 90-91 Lafayette Parish 10,952 16,695 17,266 4.31 3.42 State of Louisiana 8,456 14,300 15,054 5.39 5.27

According to statistics released by the Commerce Department, Louisiana is one of the few states where per capita income growth exceeded the national average from 1990 to 1991. The state's per capita income of $15,143 was a gain of 4.2 percent, as compared to the national average growth rate of 2.1 percent.

EMPLOYMENT

Total employment in the study area increased by 83% between 1970 and 1980, reflecting the favorable economic conditions that existed in south Louisiana during the 1970's. By 1980 the unemployment rate fell to 3.8 % which was indicative of the boom in the oil and gas industry. Employment continued to increase during the early 1980's, however a now declining oil and gas industry caused a reversal of this trend during the second half of the decade. Thus, the total growth in employment for this period amounted to only 4%, and the

PAGE 22 unemployment rate increased to 7.8 %. Economic conditions have improved during the 1990's, and as a result, employment growth increased and the unemployment rate has fallen.

Employment trends for the study area and the State of Louisiana for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and March 1994 are shown in Table 9. The number of workers in each employment category and the corresponding percentages are shown in Table 10.

TABLE 9 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS 1970, 1980, 1990, AND MARCH 1994

1970 1980 1990 MAR.94 Lafayette Parish Civ. Work Force 39,184 71,508 78,343 83,300 Employment 37,569 68,817 71,422 78,700 % Unemployed 4.1 3.8 7.8 5.5 State of Louisiana Civ. Work Force 1,224,186 1,744,102 1,816,917 1,891,100 Employment 1,158,245 1,639,394 1,645,690 1,737,500 % Unemployed 5.4 6.0 9.6 8.1

TABLE 10 NUMBER & PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY TIIIRD QUARTER, 1993

Lafayette Lafayette State of State of Parish Parish Louisiana Louisiana (Number) (%) (Number) (%) Agriculture 451 0.50 15,431 0.95

Mining 9,909 11.07 46,685 2.89 Construction 5,325 5.95 108,802 6.73 Manufacturing . 5,525 6.18 186,398 11.53 Transportation 7,064 7.89 121,834 7.54 Wholesale Trade 5,872 6.56 86,176 5.33 Retail Trade 19,419 21.70 303,038 18.75

Finance 3,169 3.54 78,118 4.83 Services 30,031 33.56 582,006 36.00 Public Administration 2,731 3.05 88,071 5.45

TOfAL 89,496 100.00 1,616,559 100.00

PAGE 23 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

The City of Lafayette is referred to as the "Hub City of Southwest Louisiana." Since the 1800's, Lafayette has served as a transportation and distribution center for southwestern and south central Louisiana. In the later half of the 1900's, the city became a major regional center for the oil and gas industry. Since the 1970's, the three largest employment sectors, with respect to both total employment and total earnings, included oil and gas, retail trade and services. These employment sectors increased dramatically during the 1970's due to the boom in the oil and gas industry. However, since this decade, the contribution of oil and gas to the economy decreased, while retail trade remained steady, and the service sector increased. Although employment in the agricultural sector is very small (less than 1% ), the market value of farm products sold amounted to around $13.5 million in 1987. There were 674 farms on a total of 89,425 acres or an average of 133 acres per farm. Of the $13.5 million earned, crops yielded $10.7 million and livestock yielded $2.8 million. The primary crops were soybeans, rice and sugar cane.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

WETLANDS

$" Lafayette Parish contains several types of wetland habitat including marshes, bottomland hardwood (BLH), swamp, and open water. Wetlands are not as ~ prevalent in Lafayette Parish as in other parishes in south Louisiana. Mapping N issued in 1994 by the Lafayette Areawide Planning Commission indicates there are less than 2,000 acres of wetland and open water in the parish. There are two distinct geologic areas in the parish that affect wetlands and other biological resources. Upland terrace makes up 90 percent of the parish, while most of the wetlands occur in the Mississippi River alluvial plain. The Mississippi River alluvial plain is a narrow band along the eastern edge of the parish where the Vermilion River is located (Murphy et al. 1977a). There are well developed BLH along the Vermilion River north of Lafayette (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976). Water levels in the Mississippi River alluvial plain can fluctuate widely because of quick runoff characteristics and a relatively small drainage area.

Riparian habitat exists along the Vermilion River in some reaches. This habitat can be particularly important to a variety of species including fish, mammals, and migratory birds. M.u.. ch. of... the rip.. an. ·an. habitat in the sa&y area has been fl}tered to agriculture, JJtb@ development, and channel mo .. ccitiOn. This is " particularly tn.l~-fll911g the Isaac Verot Coulee. ~-~~---,~-~<~'C"/,~'<.="'"''--==-~=~-" ' - -~----~

PAGE 24 A 3,400 acre section of the Bayou Tortue Swamp, located south of Coulee Crow and Bayou Capucin, is located predominantly in St. Martin Parish. The landscape of the 3,400 acres consist primarily of cypress, willow, and water tupelo. Buttonbush, lizard's tail, and smartweed are also present at moderate density in the understory.

There is a pasture and BLH area of about 3,000 acres south of Lake Martin Road, adjacent to the swamp area. The understory in the BLH consists of species including palmetto, poison ivy, blackberry, possumhaw, and dewberry. A selective cut was completed in this area with large oak trees taken. Remaining trees are mostly sugarberry, red maple, and smaller water, cherrybark, and diamond leaf oak. Also, there are about 1,200 acres of BLH north of the Lake Martin Road. The BLH area north of the road contains similar species to those found south of the road. There are variations of wetness throughout the BLH areas (wooded swales occur), but generally the bottomlands become somewhat wetter moving in a southerly direction.

WILDLIFE

According to Murphy et al. (1977a), wildlife populations in Lafayette Parish are medium to low density in 4,500 acres of woodland (2.5 percent of the parish). Woodland acreage increased in the parish to over 10,000 acres according to recent mapping results of the Lafayette Areawide Planning Commission. Proportionally, this is a small percentage of the parish. Like the wetlands, most of the woodland is on the alluvial plain in the eastern part of the parish. Wildlife such as deer, wood duck, wild turkey, swamp rabbit, and raccoon are relatively scarce in the parish because of the small and scattered acreage of woodlands. Species such as bobwhite, dove, meadowlark, and cottontail rabbit are more common in the parish because of the large acreage of openland habitat (Murphy et al. 1977a). Migrating waterfowl use the Vermilion River and its tributaries, flooded agricultural fields, and flooded swamp and BLH.

There is a portion of the Bayou Tortue swamp area in Lafayette Parish, which is probably the best wildlife habitat in the parish. It provides habitat for a variety of species including wood duck, wading birds, songbirds, furbearers, and wading bird nesting colonies in Lake Martin.

The Isaac Verot Coulee has hardwood trees along the top of its banks in some areas. However, the areas with hardwoods are fragmented and limited to the immediate bank area in most places, which limits their wildlife value.

St. Martin Parish has a much larger acreage of woodland (348,000 acres or 72

PAGE 25 percent of the parish) compared to Lafayette Parish. Wildlife populations are also much greater in St. Martin Parish (Murphy et al. 1977b). Of particular importance are deer, squirrel, swamp rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and fox. These species are likely to be common in the Bayou Tortue Swamp, which provides high quality habitat, and surrounding BLH located within the study area.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

The aquatic resources of Lafayette Parish are poor (Murphy et al. 1977a). There are farm ponds, small lakes, and the Vermilion River that contain some minnows, catfish, bluegill, and other bass. The Vermilion River fishery is limited because of variable flow rates (Wax et al. 1977) and high biochemical oxygen demand and low dissolved oxygen during low or no flow conditions. This occurs frequently in late-summer or fall (Demcheck and Leone 1980). Also, the pH of the Vermilion River is acidic, which limits aquatic productivity. Organic-pollution tolerant invertebrates dominate the benthic fauna and algal populations downstream of Lafayette indicating nutrient loading or eutrophic conditions (Demcheck and Leone 1980). There is limited commercial and recreational fishing along the Vermilion River for blue catfish, gar, gizzard shad, and skipjack herring.

The Isaac Verot Coulee and laterals drain the southern area of the City of Lafayette. The coulee has been dredged in the past and receives a mixture of agricultural and urban runoff. Refuse is also present in some areas. Aquatic resources are likely to be very limited.

Lakes and bayous outside of the Atchafalaya floodway in St. Martin Parish have moderately high populations of fish with such species as largemouth bass, crappie, buffalo, catfish, gar and others being prevalent. The Bayou Tortue swamp area is a backwater nursery for juvenile fish that includes Charlo Lake and other ponded areas. North of Coulee Crow and Bayou Capucin in the study area, fishery resources are very limited as they are confined to ditches and a few small ponds.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The only species in the area according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the arctic peregrine falcon~ peregrinus tundrius), a threatened species. It may use the area for resting during migration to and from arctic areas in Central and South America.

PAGE 26 Tables 11 and 12 provide a summary for the significant environmental resources found in Lafayette and St. Martin Parishes.

Table 11 Attributes of Significant Resources in study area.

Resource Ecological Cultural Esthetic Attributes Attributes Attributes

WETLANDS Provide nursery Fisheries support a Sounds, sights, and grounds for larval traditional extractive smells provide a fish. Source of economy in pleasing choice to detritus for the Louisiana farms and towns aquatic food web. WILDLIFE Numerous species Supports typical Viewing and utilize the study area commercial and hearing animals in recreational activities their natural setting is pleasing FISHERIES Fish and shellfish Fish and shellfish Pleasing to view provide a food gathering are a fish swimming in source to wildlife tradition natural habitat THREATENED These species The bald eagle is a Enjoyment comes to AND indicate stress on the national symbol and many while viewing ENDANGERED ecological system others have been a rare species SPECIES (Arctic important Peregrine Falcon) commercial and recreational interests RECREATION The harvest of fish Association with the Recreation and wildlife can be outdoors is part of flourishes in an important the area's heritage outdoor, natural ecological factor settings CULTURAL NIA Indicators of history Many cultural RESOURCES and previous resources have high inhabitants esthetic value

PAGE 27 Table 12 Recognition of Significant Resources in study area.

Resource Institutional Technical Public WETLANDS Clean Water Act, Fish and Habitat for 14 species of special Environmental organizations and many Wildlife Coordination Act, emphasis (USFWS). Louisiana losing individuals support preservation of Executive Order 11988, EO 30 mi2 marsh per year wetlands 11990 WILDLIFE Fish and Wildlife USFWS, NMFS, LDWF, LDNR, and Environmental organizations and many Coordination Act, Clean USACE recognize value of fisheries individuals support preservation of Water Act, LA Water Control wildlife and needed habitat Act FISHERIES Clean Water Act, Fish and USFWS, NMFS, LDWF, and USACE Environmental organizations and many Wildlife Coordination Act, recognize value of fisheries and individuals support water quality and LA Water Control Act, EO necessary water quality fisheries resources 11988, EO 11990 THREATENED AND Endangered Species Act, USFWS, NMFS, LDWF, and USACE Environmental organizations and many ENDANGERED Bald Eagle Act cooperate to protect, Audubon Blue individuals support preservation and SPECIES List recognizes rare species. enhancement of rare species RECREATION Land and Water Many fishing and hunting person-days Public makes high demands on RESOURCES Conservation Fund Act are logged recreation areas CULTURAL National Historic Sites are present in the vicinity of the Preservation groups support protection RESOURCES Preservation Act, proposed action and enhancement of historical resources Archaeological Resource Protection Act

PAGE 28 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological investigations in Lafayette Parish began in the early 1900's. In 1913, C.B. Moore traveled up Bayou Teche in a light steamer looking for aboriginal mounds. In 1941, along the Vermilion River in St Martins Parish, Work Progress Administration (WPA) crews excavated the Lafayette Mounds site (16SM10). Following these excavations, few professionally conducted cultural resource investigations were undertaken in the Lafayette Parish area. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, increased Federal preservation and environmental legislation brought about an increase in cultural resource funding. During this period, numerous cultural resource investigations were conducted in the Lafayette Parish area, many of which were conducted by Jon Gibson of the University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. Gibson conducted survey investigations in association with the sewerage system, highway department and airport construction projects. Other archaeologists and contract firms have worked in the Lafayette Parish region as well, these include: Coastal Environments Inc., Gulf South Research Institute, William Mcintire, Robert Neuman, Frank Sevello and Philip Rivet. Many of their survey investigations ~~re opE_ortunistic i:Ul'1_cui-sory.in nature; thus, most previously surveyed areas should be reinspected.

Cultural resource survey investigations conducted to date have revealed the presence of a complete prehistoric cultural sequence, i.e., Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Poverty Point, Tchefuncte, Marksville, Troyville, Coles Creek and Later Mississippian variants. Historical records indicate that historic Indian villages associated with the Attakapas and Chitimacha were present within the area. However, considerable ethnohistoric research and field surveys will be necessary to identify the exact location of villages associated with these tribes.

Historic records suggest that the earliest Euro-American settlement in the area began in the late 1750's and early 1760's. Petit Manchac was one of the earliest settlements in the region. It was established by British traders and was located in the Lafayette area. French speaking Acadians arrived during this same time period and settled along major watercourses throughout the Parish. Jean Mouton settled in present day Lafayette in 1760 and donated land for the establishment of a permanent church shortly thereafter. A settlement soon developed around the church. By 1836 the settlement was incorporated as the

PAGE 29 town of Vermilionville. The town developed into a transportation and distribution center rather than an industrial community. In 1884 the town name was changed from Vermilionville to Lafayette.

The Louisiana cultural resource site files indicate that 82 prehistoric and historic sites are recorded in the vicinity of Lafayette. Many of these sites are multi-component, containing several prehistoric and historic occupations. Within the Lafayette city limits, four historic standing structures are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Recreational facilities of all types, both indoor and outdoor, exist within the study area of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. Lafayette Parish is located in the heart of Cajun Country or Acadiana which is comprised of 22 south Louisiana Parishes. Lafayette is the hub city, both culturally and economically, of this region that was settled by a people whose joie de vivre has flavored the swamps and bayous with lively music and spicy foods. These Cajuns, as the French-Acadian immigrants are known, have preserved their culture and lifestyle that is celebrated daily. The region, the parish, and the city itself offer a myriad of museums, architecture, plantations, restaurants, natural areas and gardens, and perennial festivals which reflect, enhance, and perpetuate that culture and lifestyle. The City of Lafayette, which is also the capitol of french­ speaking Acadiana, numbers more than 100,000 inhabitants including 15,000 plus students that attend the University of Southwest Louisiana. Lafayette Parish is located within State Planning Region 3 which contains most of the Atchafalaya Basin, a floodway and wilderness area of state and national significance encompassing some 595,000 acres. It abounds in fish and wildlife. It is here in the country's largest overbank swamp that many Acadians sustain their commercial livelihood and Louisiana sportsman thrive to hunt, fish, trap and crawfish. Other local recreation areas in the study area include parish, city and school facilities. They include the bulk of ball fields, playgrounds and swimming pools in the area. Lake M:~J located directly northeast of the City of Lafayette and north of the Bayou Tortue Swamp, !s owned by St. J~!~!!n PC3!!~E and utilized by the public for freshwater fishing, hunting, and nature observation. Access is via a parish provided and maintained boat

PAGE 30 launch on the east side of the Lake. The lake is a relatively small 250 acre lake which generally limits fishing boats to small motorized john boats. The area is aesthetically pleasing and small alligators, long-legged birds, and a large nutria population abound.

EXISTING WATER QUALITY

WATER QUALITY STATIONS

The LDEQ currently monitors the quality of water in the Vermilion River, from its headwaters to the Intracoastal Waterway, at the following four locations:

Sta.# 58010001 - Vermilion River at Perry, La. Sta.# 58010002 - Vermilion River near Breaux Bridge, La. Sta.# 58010045 - Vermilion River (La. Hwy. 3073) near Lafayette, La. Sta.# 58010314 - Vermilion River south of Lafayette, La.

The data for the entire period of record at each of the above four water quality stations are listed in Tables A17, A18, A19 and A20, respectively, in Appendix A, Engineering Analyses.

WATER USE DESIGNATION

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has established seven water use designations for surface waters in the State. The seven designated water uses include primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, drinking water supply, oyster propagation, agriculture, and outstanding natural resource waters. Of the seven designated water uses, LDEQ has designated the Vermilion River, from its headwaters to the Intracoastal Waterway, according to the following four uses:

Primary Contact Recreation Secondary Contact Recreation

PAGE 31 Fish and Wildlife Propagation Agriculture

For the primary and secondary contact recreation designations, a waterbody should be suitable for swimming, water skiing, skin diving, boating, fishing, and limited contact incident to shoreline activities. The fish and wildlife propagation designation means the waterbody should also be suitable for preservation and reproduction of aquatic biota such as indigenous species of fish, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and other wildlife associated with the aquatic environment. The agricultural designation involves the use of water for crop spraying, irrigation, livestock watering, poultry operations, and other farm purposes not related to human consumption.

The overall waterbody use support for the Vermilion River, from its headwaters to the Intracoastal Waterway, is not supportive of uses. The suspected causes of this rating are organic enrichment/low DO (oxygen­ demanding substances), turbidity, suspended solids and pathogen indicators (fecal coliforms). The suspected sources are industrial and municipal point sources, sewer inflow and infiltration, domestic wastewater lagoons, crop production, land development, urban runoff, petroleum activities, removal of riparian vegetation and spills. (LDEQ 1994).

Water quality data is not collected in the Bayou Tortue Swamp or in the Isaac Verot Coulee Basin. However, the water quality in these areas is expected to be slightly poorer than that of the Vermilion River. This is based on the limited amount of flushing that occurs in the swamp and basin when compared to the continual flushing in the Vermilion River. Therefore, it is assumed that the Bayou Tortue Swamp and the Isaac Verot Coulee are not supportive of its uses.

PAGE 32 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT

FLOOD CONTROL

If Federal action is not taken, the study area will continue to experience flooding as a result of storm events and unfavorable river stages along the Vermilion River. Structures built below the 100-year base flood elevation will continue to have flood damage that may increase with future development in and adjacent to the study area. Flood damage to new development will be moderated through the participation in the National Flood Insurance Program that requires new structures be constructed above the 100-year base flood elevation.

(~1'. ~ ~ .Local interests have µ:iade improvements, but have been unable to keep pace with the increasing 'Severity of flooding. This tendency is expected to continue. Because of the limited availability of local funds, Federal assistance is ~requested.

WATER QUALITY

Water quality conditions for the study area are expected to remain similar to current conditions. The determining factor is pollution levels. If pollution levels remain constant or increase, t~l!.~!!!~ ~~LSY~Mll~~llY.~" ..~eclinf. ·Industrial and municipal pointsources,,.sewerinflow and infiltration, domestic wastewater lagoons, crop production, land development, urban ~'""""'--""'•'-~' '"~"'•'°'""""-"--"-"""'~~,,,~,,-·~S5'',Vc""">M<-"'~-~~/~'''* runoff, petroleum activities, removal of riparian vegetation and spills are c:u:;rei\tly the major contributors of pollution to the basin. With recent increased government regulation and legislation (such as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)), these sources should, decrease and water quality should improve.

ECONOMIC RESOURCES

During the 1980's, the decline in the oil and gas industry brought about several

PAGE 33 years of declining population and high unemployment rates. While these trends have leveled off, the economy of the Parish is not expected to return to its pre-recession level. As shown in Table 13, the population in the Parish is expected to grow at a very slow rate, increasing the population by only 13,000 between 1900 and 2040.

As shown in Table 14, employment is expected to have little growth. In past years as well as future years, the service sector is expected to have the largest increase. With very little growth expected in population and a healthy increase expected in personal income, per capita income is projected at over $18,000 by 2040.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

Urban expansion and floodplain modifications are likely to continue in the future in and around the City of Lafayette at rates similar to current development. There would be fish and wildlife habitat and agricultural loss as a result of the expansion. The development would also lead to an increase in frequency and magnitude of flooding along the Vermilion River. Areas such as the Bayou Tortue Swamp would receive more water, more frequently, which could alter vegetative composition and wildlife habitat. Oil and gas development would continue in the north Broussard Field near the Bayou Tortue Swamp resulting in the loss of wildlife habitat in that area. Periodic logging of wooded areas along Lake Martin Road outside the ownership of the Nature Conservancy would continue. North of Lake Martin Road, the Nature Conservancy would likely continue to allow planting of bottomland hardwood trees on cleared areas under Corps of Engineers regulatory program mitigation. The Nature Conservancy may also purchase additional areas with no project.

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Under this scenario, the recreational resources will be similar to existing conditions.

PAGE 34 TABLE 13 Population, Personal Income, and Earnings, 1973-1988, and Projected, 1995-2040

1979 19K'.l 1988 1995 2010

Popuboan u of July I (tbowandJJ ...... 122.3 146.I 169.3 lb4.7 167.6 171.6 lT.l.6 177.9 177.I Per cop1t> pe,..,...J income (19112 dol.b.nJ ...... 1------'------..__8.0~ I t.1736 ______13,()46 ..______11,677 ...______12,69\l.....______14,034_.______14.569_,______15.•9'2_.______Ii, 167_

Mi!liOQ.1 of 191!2 dollan

Tota.I pe,..,..J iD.oome

Priva~ ...... •.•....•...... •...... 756.4 1.552.I 1,896.6 1,503.0 1,690.4 l,836.5 1,954.4 2.051.1 2.164.0 2.419.6 A I ri C\lltural "'rviceo • S"""'1ry , rt1bencia.and at.her ...... 3.2 4.6 5.6 7.9 9.6 10.7 11.0 12.4 13.3 Min.ing ...... 157.8 3112.5 541.7 JS0.9 350.1 359.2 ~.3 369.0 369.5 Coo.1wctioa ...... 13.5 169.5 144.0 74.0 75.6 711.0 79.7 II. I 12.1

Manufacturing ...... •.•.•..•...... 42.6 {f}.$ f7.9 76.8 S6.0 9'2.1 96.6 100.2 104.1 114.4 Nondurable good.I ...... 28.1 31.3 36.7 JB.9 43.3 46.1 47.7 41.7 49.6 53.2 Dunble 1ood.I ...... 14.5 38.2 51.2 37.1 42.7 46.0 41.9 SU 54.5 61.2

T ran.oponatian and pub Uc utiliti-...... 98.8 167.0 181.0 138.8 155.3 168.7 179.4 189.0 200.1 224.2 Whol...,le trade .. , ...... 61.l 155.1 151.7 113.9 119.7 124.4 128. 7 132.1 137.1 1•9 I Ret>il trade ..... , .... , ...... 113.5 180.6 tm.5 169.0 195.5 215.7 231.9 245 I w:l.I m.1 F~ce, Ullur.ance. and real e.arat..e ...... 28.8 53.7 79.4 73.1 84.8 9'.J.5 100.9 107,7 116.1 13) I Serv1c:u ...... 1772 36Q. 8 495. 7 498.7 613.i 694.3 761.1 114 . .t llll0.9 1.(r.!0.3

Gavemm

TABLE 14 Employment by Place of Work, by Industry, 1973-1988, and Projected, 1995-2040 (Thousands of jobs)

1 1m 11179 11113 19'1 1995 :n:x> X05 :xno :mo .:l040

Total employment...... '6.4 19.-' 109.-' 97.2 IOI.I 105.1 100.C) 100.1 102.1 911.l Farm ...... 1.4 1.4 1.2 I.I I. I 1.0 1.0 1.0 .9 .I Nanfarm ...... $4.9 II.I 108.2 96.1 100.7 104.1 10.S.CI 105.1 101.9 9S . .S

Priva1.c ..••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••• 46.-' 79.l 96.I IJ.O 19.6 92.9 94.4 94.1 91.4 IJ.I ~ .. m-.~. r..o.n.., ....s Giber ...... 2 .3 .4 .6 .7 .9 .9 .9 .9 Minin1 ..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6.1 14.2 11.9 13.2 12.7 12.6•• 12.3 12.0 11.2 9.9 cGlllll'UCliOll ...... 4.2 7.3 6.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.1 3.7 3.4 3.1

Manufacturma ...... 2.6 3.6 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.9 Nondurable 1ooda ...... 1.7 I.I 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.0 Durable 1ooc1a ...... 9 I.I 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9

T...... portation 1111d pubUc llliliti• ...... 4 . .S 6.9 7.4 6.4 6.1 7,0 7.2 7.3 7.1 6.7 Wbolealc tndc...... 3.1 7.0 6.9 .S.3 .S.3 5.3 3.3 5.2 5.0 4.6 R....U tnde ...... 9.7 15.0 19.5 11.2 19.4 20.4 20.9 21.1 20.3 19.3 Finance, in.lw-anu, aad ra1 ••t.e ...... 2.4 4.2 6.4 6.2 6.5 6.1 6.9 7.0 6.1 6.• ServiCe4 ...... 12.9 :lll.7 26.6 26.9 29.9 31.7 32.7 33.2 32.4 31.0

Gov•mmeot and gOYemmoot entell'""'4 ... 8.$ 9.0 I 1.5 II.I 11. I 11.2 11.l 11.0 10.5 9.6 Fe4enl, civilian ...... 5 .6 .I .I .8 .i .8 .7 Fe4enl. m.ili

Sec IOO!Do~ at cod of tabla.

Note.- The 1990 Censua county population count ia 164.8 thousand. Population projections have been adjusted to reficc:I this enumeration. Data compiled by U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division

PAGE35 PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES

FLOOD DAMAGES

Storm events, high river stages on the Vermilion River, and the current drainage system yielq a recurring flooding problem throughout the study area. As a result, average annual flood damages exceed $6.0 million in Lafayette Parish. ~~.~fSi§J~nt !!229: c:c:m4!.tion~, the study area is subjected to ., " .,, .,,, . -· repetitive property losses. As of December 31, 1991, the National Flood fu~;;ancei>fogl-~ reported that the study area has experienced a total of 160 repetitive losses since 1978. Table 15 provides a breakdown for repetitive loss properties and repetitive losses for the individual communities.

TABLE 15 REPETITIVE LOSSES BY COMMUNITY

COMMUNITY REPETITIVE LOSS REPETITIVE LOSSES PROPERTIES

Lafayette Parish1 36 86

City of Lafayette 24 62

Village of Scott 4 10

Town of Carencro 1 2

Latay ette Pansh mcludes only those areas that are unmco ~ ratea. umer areas shown m table are inco~rated areas in Lafayette Parish.

Although repetitive losses are occurring at the above magnitudes, repetitive losses are expected to increase as future developments (industry, business, residential, etc.) are completed. This is due to the increase in runoff as a result of a decrease in permeable surfaces. Repetitive losses will continue to occur and possibly increase in magnitude if adequate flood control projects@a floodplain management plan are not implemented.

Information was provided by FEMA for flood insurance policies in Lafayette Parish. Lending institutions typically require flood insurance coverage equal to loan amounts. The following table shows data available from FEMA reports for the area as of June 30, 1994. Since 1978, a total of 1480 claims were paid for

PAGE 36 the communities shown in Table 16 at a cost of $10,318,616.

TABLE 16 FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE DATA LOCATION NUMBER PREMIUM COVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL OF VALUE ($) OF PAID .POLICIES ($) CLAIMS SINCE 1978 ($)

Town of Broussard 69 12,155 2.4 Million 25 53,333 Town of Carencro 107 15,346 3.1 Million 56 385,004

Town of Duson 59 13,357 2.4 Million 9 26,838 Lafayette Parish1 2171 417,376 91.6 Million 697 4,676,714 City of Lafayette 2176 444,540 108.8 Million 612 4,724,291 Village of Scott 414 90,710 15.0 Million 73 409,605

Village of Youngsville 34 5,740 1.5 Million 8 42,831

Latay ette l""ansh includes on1'y tnose areas mat are unmco ~ratea. umer areas shown m table are inco~rated areas of Lafayette Parish.

Lafayette officials requested that the Federal government participate in a flood control project to investigate measures to alleviate flooding throughout the parish. ~~~~eor.all~J2!Q!?k~inJheJ2!Ds~J?y~ -~g. Partial or full flood protection will reduce the financial risk taken by home owners, businesses, and local agencies. Several opportunities are available to address the current flooding problems. Opportunities could include one or a combination of the following: modifications to the Vermilion River, rerouting of flood waters, detention and/ or retention ponds, levee construction, house raising, pumping scenarios, control structures, and coulee improvements.

PAGE 37 PLAN FORMULATION

PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Planning objectives stem from national, state and local water and related land resources management needs specific to the study area. These objectives were developed through problem analysis and intense coordination with the potential local sponsors. The following planning objectives were established to be responsive to the identified problems, needs, and opportunities:

a) Reduce flooding damages in Lafayette Parish and adjacent areas.

b) Minimize adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts associated with the proposed plans of improvement.

c) Minimize to the extent possible the destruction of archaeological and historical resources.

d) Incorporate to the extent possible, recreation facilities in the proposed plans to increase recreational opportunities

e) Mitigate for all unavoidable impacts to significant cultural, and fish and wildlife resources.

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

This study was conducted within the constraints of the "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Implementation Studies". published in March 1983 by the U.S. Water Resources Council, and by applicable Department of the Army regulations and other documents which provide guidance pertaining to the implementation of these principles and guidelines.

This study investigated several measures to alleviate flood damages in Lafayette Parish. ~~-~~-~-~~':~~n areas that experienced structural

PAGE 38 damages as a result of high Vermilion River stages and severe storm events. Street flooding, yard flooding, parking lot flooding, and other types of "minor" flooding were not considered as structural flooding.)

HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE (HTRW) CONSIDERATIONS

Under Engineering Regulation (ER) 1165-2-132 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) assumes responsibility for the identification and evaluation of potential and known HTRW contamination within a given project boundary. A preliminary HTRW screening was completed for the Lafayette Parish flood control reconnaissance study in lieu of a formal Phase 1, Initial Assessment (IA). Based upon the size of the study area, right-of entry concerns, and numerous project alternatives, a Phase 1, IA was deemed both time and cost prohibitive. A formal IA is scheduled for the selected alternative during the preparation of the feasibility report and environmental assessment. The IA will include a more comprehensive literature search and records review to document past and present commercial and industrial land-use within the project area. This comprehensive review of post-1900 land-use history information will be utilized by the COE to assess the potential for HTRW in the project area. The COE will also continue to inspect files and records from a variety of state and Federal agencies to document license/permit actions, HTRW violations, enforcement actions, past/present/pending litigation against property owners, illegal dumping and known contamination sites. After completion of the land-use history and agency file and record review, project locations will be physically inspected in detail.

The preliminary HTRW screening utilized numerous data sources to identify potential and known HTRW problems. The resources used for the study area included: 1) historic maps; 2) aerial photography; 3) industrial atlases and indexes; 4) Soil Conservation Service soil surveys; and assorted 5) HTRW inventory lists, i.e., Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS), National Priorities List (NPL), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCUS), and the Louisiana Site Remediation Information System (LASRIS).

PAGE 39 In general, hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) problems are likely in some project area locations. Since the 1800's, Lafayette has served as a transportation and distribution center for southwestern and south central Louisiana. In the later half of the 1900's the city became a major regional center for the oil and gas industry. More than 600 oil and gas related companies are present within the parish. In and around the Vermilion River watershed, ten large oil and gas fields can be found. Numerous plugged, abandoned and producing wells can be expected in project areas. Sixteen major oil and gas lines directly cross the Vermilion River. Ten pipeline meter stations are located in the vicinity of the project area. Those located within project alternative areas will need to inspected during feasibility studies.

A check of the EPA NPL-Superfund Sites and the CERCLIS showed that there are no Superfund sites in Lafayette Parish or St. Martin Parish. The RCRIS inventory list revealed 813 RCRA notifiers in Lafayette Parish ranging from gas stations to printers to oilfield suppliers. There is also one RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) site in Lafayette Parish (Catalyst Recovery, in the city of Lafayette). The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), LASRIS lists 15 inactive and abandoned sites within Lafayette Parish and 14 within St. Martin Parish (Tables 17 and 18). Currently, no HTRW problems or traces of contamination have been identified at potential project sites. Industrial uses in some areas indicate that further analysis is required.

PAGE 40 Table 17 Locations of Inactive and Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites in Lafayette Parish (from the Louisiana Site Remediation Information System (LASRIS). IState ID No. ISite Name IAddress I City I Legal Descrip I 00109 Benson Property not shown Cankton T8S R3E S23 01160 Carencro Printemps Rd Carencro T8S R4E S118 00264 Cumo Property Drums 4808 Cameron Lafayette T9S R4E S28 00267 Cyrus Vallot Dump not shown Carencro not shown 00285 Disposal Service of Lafayette 11 Wilfred Dr Lafayette not shown 00509 Lafayette Municipal Landfill North Dugas Rd Lafayette T9S R4E 58 00572 Mars Services, Inc LAHWY93 Cankton TBS R3E 525 00848 Southwest Scrap & Salvage 4400 Cameron St Lafayette not shown 01022 Transformers Site not shown Carencro not shown 01057 United Gas-Lafayette Station not shown Lafayette not shown 01152 USA Pipe Cleaners 1840 LA HWY 343,114 Duson T9S R3E S32 01329 Catalyst Recovery of Louisiana not shown Lafayette not shown 01362 Chrome Shop 210-57 W. Pont Des Mouton Lafayette T9S R4E 548 01698 Ody Oil Corp. 206 Industrial Pkwy Lafayette not shown 01699 Timco Electrical, Inc. 220 Industrial Pkwy Lafayette not shown

' '

PAGE 41 Table 18 Locations of Inactive and Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites in St. Martin Parish (from the Louisiana Site Remediation Information System (LASRIS).

State ID No. Site Name Address City Legal Descrip

00045 Amoco Production Co. not shown Cecilia not shown 00067 ANR Pipline- St. Martinville not shown St. Martinville TlOS R6E 01174 Dexter Leonard Residence 113 Edna St. Cameron Stephensville not shown 00438 Iberville Land Co Well #1 Dump not shown Henderson not shown 00439 Iberville Land Co Well #3 not shown Henderson not shown 01()45 Union Texas Products-Breaux Bridge Station not shown Breaux Bridge not shown 01503 Louisiana Resources Co.-Youngsville Station not shown not shown TllS RSW S14 01539 Louisiana Resources Co.-Youngsville Station not shown not shown TllS RSW S14 01558 Gas Gathering Corporation-Guff Energy Plant not shown not shown T9S R8E S20 Dehydration Unit 01560 Gas Gathering Corporation not shown not shown 17S R8E Sll 01562 Gas Gathering Corporation-Bayou Bouillon not shown not shown T9S R8E SlO 01563 Gas Gathering Corporation-Lake Larose not shown not shown T9S R8E S25 01564 Gas Gathering Corporation- Section 28 not shown not shown T9S R8E S20 01565 Gas Gathering Corporation- GuH Energy not shown not shown T9S R8E S29

PAGE 42 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT

PLAN FORMULATION RATIONALE

The primary focus of plan formulation was to identify environmentally acceptable plans_ that provided a reduction in flood dam'!Se· In order to develop such plans, a comprehensive investigation of the existin]~~~~ainage syste~~_was required to analyze and propose measures to alleviate flooding. During the course of this study, the following information was considered: data from parish and city officials, prior reports and studies, FEMA flood insurance data, FEMA repetitive damage data, input from individuals familiar with the drainage basin, and information obtained through field investigations. The investigation focused on measures to reduce flooding in areas of Lafayette Parish with the greatest magnitude of structural damages.

During the initial stages of the study, the study team concluded that flooding in Lafayette Parish is, primarily gye !ng the V ermilj.on River. Existing conditions stages throughout Lafayette Parish for floods of 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, ,25-r 56-~ 100-, 200-, and SOO~year frequencies were estimated using prior studies and reports for areas in Lafayette Parish. The frequency data was limited to the areas affected by the backwater influence of the Vermilion River. ~ _an.aly~is 5>!.f!ggct data inp.icateci. that a two foot lowering for l~ storm events along the Vermilion River would provide flood relief to. the l!lajority ~f'cfamaged structures in the basin.. Jherefore, the primary goal, with respect to hydralllics, was the development of alternatives that would achieve such river lowerings. This decision was supported by the latest flood damage maps that indicated that the majority of damaged structures are located~!!L!!l.':~

-·~· ~· ~,,0,,, ,,,,,.,,, W,•'Y~'•°''""'~~k;µC•µ/,C'·''~~,.,r~.{;!S'«S,0/C•Y<>'//e•• ~ ~~.. ~=~~,~~~~~yerm!!t~mJ~!Y:~t&,~~~~~~ storm event (10-, 25-, 100- year, etc.. ) was not selected as the design frequency for this study. ..'

Six preliminary structural plans and one preliminary non-structural plan were considered during this study. Structural plans considered options such as channel improvements, modification of sump areas, levee improvements, pumping stations, and re-routing of flood waters. These methods were developed to provide flood relief to a large percentage of the Vermilion Basin in Lafayette Parish. The non-structural plan considered techniques such as

PAGE 43 house raisin~ ring levees, I-walls, pumps and flood proofing for four areas. The purpose of this plan was to provide flood relief to areas of high structural dam.ages that were not provided assistance through the structural plans.

Listed below are the seven preliminary alternatives considered:

~ :•Alternati~it• ..l Modify the Vermilion River / ' )

Alternative 2A: Retention gravity storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp

/<::~ 1 Alternative 2l~;) Modify the Vermilion River with retention gravity storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp

· , /' Alternativef3'~ Combined gravity and pumped retention storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp

Alternative 4: Detention storage in the Upper Vermilion River Basin with possible modifications to Bayou Carencro and possible modifications to Ruth Canal

Alternative SA: Channel modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee (earthen excavation and concrete lining)

·· Alternativl~60 Channel modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee (100% concrete lining) ·· ·'

Alternative 6: Alter the operation of the Teche-Vermilion, Courtableau, East Rapides South-Central Avoyelles Systems

Alternative 7: Non-structural measures (floodproofing)

PAGE 44 ALTERNATIVE PLAN SCREENING AND EVALUATION

The Lafayette Parish flood control evaluation process consisted of three levels of screening that determined the potentiality of federal participation in the proceeding study phase, feasibility. Each of the structural alternatives were evaluated and were screened accordingly:

During the initial stages of the study, the "first level" screening process was completed. This screening level utilized the professional judgement and experience of interdisciplinary planning team (IPT) members to determine the performance of each plan. As a result of the first level screening, several plans were eliminated (Alternatives 4 and 6).

As the study progressed into the "second level" of screening, referred to as the design and cost analyses phase, preliminary construction cost estimates were compared to the preliminary economic benefits. The preliminary comparison of benefits to cost yielded a means to focus on plans with the most potential for Federal participation (benefit to cost ratio 1.0 or greater). As a result of the second level screening, several plans were eliminated (Alternatiy~d SB). ~ As the remaining plans were developed to reconnaissance scope detail, the "third level" of screening was initiated. The project cost, inclusive of construction, real estate, mitigation, and operation and maintenance costs, was compared to final economic benefits, inclusive of residential and commercial structures, and automobiles. Plans with a final benefit to cost ratio less than 1.0 were eliminated from further study:\ As a result of the third level screening, Alternative 3 was eliminated. The results from the real estate and economic evaluations for Alternative 3 are included in Appendices B and C, respectively. Plans with a final benefit to cost ratio greater than 1.0 were recommended for further investigation through a feasibility study (Alternatives 2A, 5).

A discussion of each structural alternative and Alternative 7 (non-structural measures) and how it relates to the screening process is described below:

PAGE 45 ALTERNATIVE 1: MODIFY THE VERMILION RNER

At the southern end of Lafayette Parish, the Vermilion River has a watershed of approximately 406 square miles. In the northern portion of the parish, near Ruth Canal and Bayou Fusilier, the river has a watershed of approximately 220 and 130 square miles, respectively. Significant floods have occurred in the basin from sources that include; headwater runoff from the north, heavy localized rainfall, backwater from the Vermilion River, and hurricanes and tropical storms. Major floods affecting Lafayette and vicinity have occurred in 1940, 1953, 1955, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1989, and 1993. These floods produced runoffs which the current Vermilion River cannot handle. Accordingly, channel modifications along the Vermilion River could substantially reduce headwater and backwater flooding problems within the City of Lafayette and surrounding areas.

The proposed alternative consists of deepening and widening approximately 35.0 miles of the Vermilion River from the Hwy. 14 Bypass (river mile 27.0) near Abbeville, LA to river mile 62.0 near 1-10. The trapezoidal excavation has varying bottom widths (120 foot from river mile 62.0 to Hwy. 94, 180 foot from Hwy. 94 to directly south of Pinhook Bridge, and 200 foot directly south of Pinhook Bridge to river mile 27.0), 1 vertical on 3 horizontal side slopes, and some reduction in the current bottom invert. See Plate 5. This excavation would achieve a 2 foot reduction in the 10-year water surface elevation within major damage reaches.

Based upon the performance of Alternative 1, this plan "passed" the first level of screening and was forwarded to the second level of screening. During this screening, an estimated construction cost of $30 million, average annual costs of $2.5 million, and average annual benefits of $600,000 yielded a benefit to cost ratio of 0.24. This alternative was eliminated from further investigation.

PAGE 46 ALTERNATIVE 2A: RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SW AMP

The southern portion of the Bayou Tortue Swamp is located directly east of the City of Lafayette in both Lafayette and St. Martin Parishes. The effected area consists of approximately 6400 acres of low lying swamp. The southern swamp is bounded to.the north by Lake Martin Road and the Vermilion River, to the south by Bayou Tortue and Bayou Capucin, to the west by the developed areas in Lafayette Parish, and to the east by Bayou Capucin. See Plate 6. Currently, the swamp functions as a sump area that allows ingress and egress of river flow via Bayou Tortue and Coulee Crow. Near this area, the Vermilion River experiences flow reversal during extreme storm events. ~~ reversal~ue !£ r~ c!!~J:llioAJ:apidrnoflfm1nJel~I~~L, coulees, Ci!ld dyer g~!!l~~

Alternative 2A seeks to reduce flood stages on the Vermilion River by '~ managing water levels in the southern portion of the Bayou Tortue Swamp. ) The water surface elevation in the southern swamp will be adjusted through the operation of a low lift pump station, and two gravity drainage structures. Both drainage structures will be located along the Vermilion River at Bayou Tortue and Coulee Crow. The low lift pump station will include two - 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) pumps for a total capacity of 100 cfs. The gravity drainage structure at Bayou Tortue consists of four - 8' x 12.5' culverts with sluice gates, and the gravity drainage structure at Coulee Crow consists of two - 5.5' x 10' culverts with sluice gates. Each structure was designed to provide for the same conveyance as present conditions.

The water surface elevation in the southern swamp will be maintained at an elevation of approximately +3.0 NGVD through the operation of the low lift pump station and the closure of the gravity drainage structures. As the Vermilion River stage increases to approximately +8.0 NGVD near the swamp, the Bayou Tortue and Coulee Crow gravity structures will be opened, allowing the Vermilion River to flow into the southern swamp. H the river stage reaches an elevation of +10.0 NGVD, the river will overtop the existing low level spoil levee bordering the swamp to the west. At elevations above +10.0 NGVD, river flow discharges into the swamp in two manners, culvert flow through the gravity structures and weir flow over the west spoil levee.

PAGE 47 After the storm event, the water surface elevation in the river and southern swamp begin to recede and eventually reach equilibrium, i.e. the same elevation. Once equilibrium is achieved or the stage in the southern swamp reaches +3.0 NGVD, the gravity drainage structures will be closed. If the water surface elevation in the southern swamp is above +3.0 NGVD after gate closure, the elevation will be lowered to +3.0 NGVD through the operation of the 100 ds low lift pump station.

A river stage of +8.0 NGVD, about a 15% duration stage, was selected as the sluice gate open elevation since it is below damaging river stages. It appears a water surface elevation of +3.0 NGVD in the southern swamp will provide for the maximum amount of storage without causing deleterious effects to the vegetation and wildlife in the area. Currently, the average water surface elevation in the Bayou Tortue Swamp is +5.0 NGVD.

The additional storage in the southern portion of the Bayou Tortue Swamp will yield lower stages along the Vermilion River in the downstream reaches. This alternative was forwarded for further analysis and was found to be economically feasible. The stage lowerings at Pinhook Bridge produced from Alternative 2A are presented in Table 19.

TABLE 19 ALTERNATIVE 2A, STAGE LOWERINGS (feet)

Frequency (Year) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 Existing Conditions 11.5 11.7 12.0 12.5 13.6 14.5 15.8 17.8 21.8

Alternative 2A (NGVD) 9.0 9.7 10.2 (:12.0' 13.1 14.0 15.3 17.5 21.6

Stage Lowerings (feet) 2.5 2.0 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 1' Based upon the performance of Alternative 2A, this plan "passed" all levels of screening and is being forwarded to the feasibility phase. During the screening process, an estimated gross investment of $3.8 million, average annual costs of $313,500, and average annual benefits of $856,000 yielded a benefit to cost ratio of 2.73. This alternative is discussed in further detail in the section entitled, "Presentation of Economically Feasible Plans".

PAGE 48 ALTERNATIVE 2B: MODIFY THE VERMILION RIVER WITH RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP

As shown in Table 19, Alternative 2A provided approximately a two foot lowering, with respect to existing conditions, for the 1-, 2-, and 5-year storm events. However, stage lowerings along the Vermilion River, with respect to existing conditions, were less than one foot for the 10- through 500-year storm events. In an attempt to reduce river stages for these storm events, Alternative 2B was investigated. Alternative 2B includes the features and operation scheme of Alternative 2A plus 27.5 miles of channel improvements along the Vermilion River from Hwy 14 in Abbeville to Bayou Tortue (River mile 54.5). This alternative was designed to achieve a 2-foot lowering for the 10-year event below Bayou Tortue. See Plate 7.

The trapezoidal excavation proposed along the Vermilion River had bottom widths of 180 feet near the Hwy. 14 Bypass to 160 feet near Bayou Tortue, and side slopes of 1 vertical on 3 horizontal. The design cross section specified for a deeper channel than currently exists with invert elevations that vary from -10.8 NGVD to -15.0 NGVD at the upstream and downstream limits, respectively. Excavation under the existing bridges, and replacement of spans, pile supports or piles will not be required.

Although the 10-year stages along the Vermilion River would be lowered by this alternative, estimated construction costs of $55,000,000 yielded a plan that is not economically justifiable. Therefore, this alternative was not forwarded for additional analysis.

Based upon the performance of Alternative 2B, this plan "passed" the first \ level of screening and was forwarded to the second level of screening. During this screening, an estimated construction cost of $55 million, average annual \, costs of $1.8 million, and average annual benefits of $1.3 million yielded a ), benefit to cost ratio of 0.72. This alternative was eliminated from further '"investigation. <"--"""""""

PAGE 49 ALTERNATIVE 3: COMBINED GRAVITY AND PUMPED RETENTION STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP

The northern portion of the Bayou Tortue Swamp is located directly east of the City of Lafayette in St. Martin Parish and directly north of the southern portion of the Bayou Tortue Swamp. The northern swamp consists of approximately 1500 acres enclosed by an existing system of levees and spoil banks. The northern swamp is bound by Lake Martin Road to the south, the west levee of Lake Martin to the east, the south spoil bank of Ruth Canal to the north, and the low left descending bank of the Vermilion River to the west. See Plate 8. The northern portion of the swamp primarily receives water from precipitation and high river stages (greater than +10.0 NGVD) that overtop the existing reaches of spoil banks and levees with top elevations of approximately +10.0 NGVD. Water that enters this area flows through thirteen culverts beneath Lake Martin Road into the southern 6400 acres of the Bayou Tortue Swamp.

The goal of this alternative is to reduce flood stages on the Vermilion River by taking advantage of the storage capacity of the northern and southern portions of the Bayou Tortue Swamp (total area of approximately 7900 acres). This will be achieved by utilizing the same features and operational scheme for the southern portion of the swamp as presented in Alternative 2A, plus additional features for the northern portion of the swamp. r- \ The water surface elevation in the northern portion of the swamp will be fmanaged through the operation of an 1800 cfs pump station (See Plate 9) at the \confluence of Ruth Canal and the Vermilion River, 13 flap gated culverts \ \beneath Lake Martin Road, and the completion of levee improvements (bordering the northern swamp. The cross section of the levee and spoil banks I , bordering the swamp will be modified to include a crown elevation of +17.0 NGVD.

The management plan for the southern portion of the Bayou Tortue Swamp will be the same as in Alternative 2A, and will use the same features (100 cfs pump station, and two gravity drainage structures). When the Vermilion River stage is approximately +8.0 NGVD, the gravity drainage structures at Coulee Crow and Bayou Tortue will be opened and flow will enter the

PAGE 50 /}~•. \ southern 6400 acre retention area. As the river continues to rise and reache~/ an elevation of +10.0 NGVD, river water will enter the southern portion by ~ · overtopping the spoil bank along the Vermilion River. When the river stage reaches an elevation of +13.0 NGVD, the 1800 cfs pump station will begin to discharge water into the northern 1500 acre retention area. The pump will continue to discharge water into this area until thE?,river.st~0~;.,r,E?CE?'i~:B to an ' elevation of +13.0 NGVD. ; Cd , fV(Lf I After the storm event has passed, the water in the southern 6400 acre retention area will flow into the Vermilion River. As the water surface elevation in this area reaches +5.0 NGVD, flow will be allowed to leave the northern 1500 acre retention area via the 13 gated culverts beneath Lake Martin Road and discharge into the 6400 acre southern retention area. When equilibrium is achieved between the Vermilion River and the southern retention area, or the water surface elevation of the southern area is +3.0 NGVD, the two gravity drainage structures at Coulee Crow and Bayou Tortue will be closed. If the water surface elevation in the southern area is above +3.0 NGVD after equilibrium is achieved, the elevation will be lowered to +3.0 NGVD through the operation of the 100 cfs low lift pump station.

The stage lowerings at Pinhook Bridge produced from Alternative 3 are presented in Table 20.

TABLE 20 ALTERNATIVE 3, STAGE LOWERINGS (feet) ll. Frequency (Year) 1 2 5 / 10 25 \ 50 \ 100 200 500

Existing Conditions 11.5 11.7 12.0 j 12.5 13.6''.. 14.5 15.8 17.8 21.8 ] (NGVD) . < i• Alternative 3 (NGVD) 6.5 7.7 8.8 10.5 11.6 '. 12.5 13.8 16.3 20.8 I' Stage Lowerings (feet) 5 4 3.2 z,; 2 2 1.5 1 · .. ·~ ... Based upon the performance of Alternative 3A, this plan "passed" screening levels one and two and was forwarded to the third level of screening (detailed cost estimate and detailed economic evaluation). During the third screening, an estimated gross investment of $44 million, average annual costs of $3.6 million and average annual benefits of $1.7 million yielded a benefit to cost ratio of

PAGE 51 j~.47. Thifs",alternative was eliminated from furth~r study and will not be hivesligated in the feasibility phase. ··Results from the real estate assessment and economic evaluation are included in this report as Appendices Band C, respectively.

ALTERNATIVE 4: DETENTION STORAGE IN THE UPPER VERMILION RIVER BASIN WITH POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO BAYOU CARENCRO AND RUTH CANAL

Utilization of the Bayou Tortue Swamp for retention storage (i.e., Alternatives 2A, 2B and 3) appear to be viable alternatives. !-c:tf_ayette Parish officials identified two additionaL~ea1tf9r dt;?~ention stor~g~. See Plate 10. One proposed site was near the old Coulee Mine Cutoff channel and the other was Beau Basin Coulee near the Vermilion River. The drainage areas and storage \ · · ··::\capabilities associated with the two additional areas are not adequate for the probable runoff from the Upper Vermilion River Basin, therefore no further analysis was conducted.

Further investigation would be required to determine if modifications to Bayou Carencro would significantly reduce flood stages. There is not enough existing information for the hydrology, hydraulics, and geometry of the Bayou \!' Carencro Basin to make an informed judgement as to its viability.

Modifications to Ruth Canal in order to reduce flood flows to Lafayette Parish does not appear to be a viable option. Ruth Canal carries approximately 200- 300 ds towards the Vermilion River during flood stages. In order for the Ruth Canal to carry a significant amount of Vermilion River flood flows to Bayou Teche, it appears that an extensive amount of channel modifications would be required as well as the installation of a large pump station near the Ruth Canal structure. Concerns exist for diverting flow into Bayou Teche due to the vast developments in the adjacent area that may potentially flood as a result of any change in flow capacity and patterns.

Based upon the anticipated performance of Alternative 4, this plan did not "pass" the first level of screening and was not forwarded for additional analysis. Costs were not developed in the first level of screening.

PAGE 52 ALTERNATIVE SA: CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE (CONCRETE LINING AND EARTHEN EXCAVATION)

Alternative SA considers the Isaac Verot Coulee that drains approximately ~acre§ in the southern part of Lafayette Parish. Recently, the area has experienced urbanization and~us~ chang~_This ..deY~lopmenLle.4Jo .. increased. flooding in the area.,, The major drainage arteries in the Isaac Verot ·~oasm~1nclude-thrre-earthen channels which meander through relatively flat terrain. The three channels include; Isaac Verot Coulee (Main), Isaac Verot Coulee Lateral 2, and Isaac Verot Coulee Lateral 2A.

In order to provide flood relief for this basin, channel improvements were considered for all three coulees. Investigated channel improvements included earthen and concrete lined reaches that were designed to carry the 10-year frequency flood within banks. See Plate 11. In addition to reach improvements, existing culverts along the coulee would require modifications to convey the 10-year flow. The stage lowerings yielded from Alternative SA, at the intersection of lateral 2 and lateral 2A of the Isaac Verot Coulee, are shown in Table 21. At this intersection, a representative location of stage lowerings throughout the basin, the top of bank elevation is approximately +25.0 NGVD. Table 21 indicates_!h~ilO~J'.!le-fiQQQJ~!i~L!Y!!!J~~.J'.~E~during tl'tg 2.a:,~5il:~J!LQ:,(_zjJ1)~,. ax:!.9-. SOO-year storm frequencies, and that flooding will not occur during the 1-, 2-, S~-~~:fl.o:Year frequencies.

TABLE 21 ALTERNATIVE SA, STAGE LOV GS (feet)

Frequency (Year) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500

Existing Conditions 25.7 27.0 28.2 29.1 29.4 29.6 29.8 30.0 30.1 (NGVD)

Alternative SA (NGVD) 21.0 22.5 24.1 24.8 26.2 26.9 27.5 28.0 28.8

Stage Lowerings (feet) 4.7 4.5 4.1 4.3 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.3

The earthen reaches have a design bottom width that varies from 20 to 40 feet with 1.0 vertical on 1.S horizontal side slopes. The concrete lined reaches have a design bottom width of S feet with 1.0 vertical on 2.0 horizontal side slopes.

PAGE 53 Based upon the performance of Alternative SA, this plan "passed" all levels of screening and is being forwarded to ~he feasibility phase. During the screening process, an estimated gross investment of $26.4 million, average annual costs of $2.2 million and average annual benefits of $2.7 million yielded a benefit to cost ratio of 1.23. This alternative is discussed in further detail in the section entitled, "Presentation of Economically Feasible Plans".

ALTERNATIVE SB: CHANNEL MODIF'ICATIONS ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE (100% CONCRETE LINING)

Alternative SB, channel modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee, is similar to Alternative SA, except that the entire reach of Isaac Verot Coulee and its two laterals, 2 and 2A, would be concrete lined. At the request of parish officials, this alternative was investigated to make a cost comparison between Alternatives SA and SB. The concrete channel sections were designed to carry the same storm frequency as in Alternative SA, 10-year frequency flood. The concrete lined reaches have a design bottom width of S feet with 1.0 vertical on 2.0 horizontal side slopes.

Based upon the performance of Alternative SB, this plan "passed" the first level of screening and was forwarded to the second level of screening. During this screening, an estimat~d construction cost of $31.7 million, average annual costs of $2.6 million, and ~verage annual benefits of $2.S million yielded a ~b~nefit to cost ratio of 0.96. This alternative was eliminated from further investigation.

ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTER THE OPERATION OF THE TECHE-VERMILION, COURTABLEAU, EASTERN RAPIDES SOUTH-CENTRAL AVOYELLES SYSTEM TO ACHIEVE LOWERINGS IN LAFAYETTE PARISH

Alternative 6 investigated the possibility of operational deficiencies, new procedures, or design flaws in the present system that would affect flood stages on the Vermilion River in Lafayette Parish. Three alternatives determined the feasibility of modifying the existing flood control system to improve flood conditions along the Vermilion River in Lafayette Parish. See Plate 12. The alternatives follow:

PAGE 54 Alternative 6A specified for the installation of additional culverts at the existing Courtableau Drainage Structure and culverts through the Mansura Hills to Hamburg Levee at Hamburg, LA. In order to alleviate environmental concerns, i.e., opposition to increased flows into the West Atchafalaya Floodway and Henderson Lake area, the combined outlet capacities were limited to approximately 2,000 cfs. This provided moderate relief to St. Landry Parish, but yielded minimal benefits to Lafayette Parish. The reliability for diverting flood flows through these structures is questionable due to the dependency on favorable stages along the protected side. The proposed structures will frequently remain closed due to high stages within the West Atchafalaya Floodway.

Alternative 6B specified for diverting flood flows through Bayou Courtableau to the Atchafalaya River. This alternative would require the installation of culverts through the West Atchafalaya River Levee at the Courtableau crossing, and channel improvements to Bayou Courtableau between the Courtableau drainage area and the Atchafalaya River. Typically, Atchafalaya River stages do not allow gravity drainage to occur at Courtableau Crossing, particularly during the time of the year when flood events on the Courtableau­ Teche-Vermilion systems are most likely to occur.

Alternative 6C specified for increasing the conveyance capacity through the Butte La Rose Ridge. This would lower headwater flooding stages by approximately one foot north of the ridge, given favorable stages south of the ridge. However, any significant stage lowerings just north of the ridge would translate to negligible lowerings at the Courtableau Structure, thus negligible lowerings in Lafayette Parish. This is based upon the distance between the ridge and the Courtableau Drainage Structure.

Alternatives 6A, 6B, and 6C, do not provide adequate, reliable flood relief along the Vermilion River in Lafayette Parish. Based upon the anticipated performance of this alternative, this plan did not "pass" the first level of screening and was not forwarded for additional analysis. Costs were not developed in the first level of screening.

PAGE 55 ALTERNATIVE 7: NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES

INVESTIGATIVE METHODOLOGY

Alternative 7 investigated non-structural measures for four individual areas whose flood damages were not reduced by any one of the structural alternatives forwarded to the feasibility phase, 2A and SA. The four areas consisted of nine residential developments that experience structural damages during the 100-year flood frequency. See Plate 13.

The analysis was completed by two independent methods. The first method was based on field investigation data that indicated construction feasibility, without consideration of economic input. The construction feasibility method considered the implementation of ring levees with small pumps, flood walls, and structure raising. The second method, or economic analysis, was based upon the Urban Flood Damage Program developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District. This method is discussed in further detail in Appendix C. The economic analysis determined the benefit to cost ratio for structure raising, ring levees, and floodproofing for each area. Floodproofing specifies the installation of an impermeable membrane around structures subject to 100-yr flooding. For the areas involved in this analysis, these non-structural methods are considered practical. Methods such as inflatable dams or sandbagging around individual residences are impractical due to sand bag storage problems, time and manpower required to effectively place the sandbags, and proper storage or set-up of inflatable dams.

AREANUMBERl ,',

In analyzing flooded homes for the 100-year event, many of the homes in the Eastdale subdivision extension #1, Demonade Park subdivision, and Demonade Park subdivision extension #1 would be damaged. For the· purpose of this study, 50 homes were assumed impacted as a result of the 100 year event.

To obtain flood relief through a flood wall, approximately 2,500 linear feet of "T-wall" will be required along the Vermilion river bank line. Additionally, 2,000 linear feet of "I-wall" will be required from the river bank "T-wall" and

PAGE 56 tie-in where the natural ground elevation prohibits flooding. Pumps will be required at the lower ground near the river to force the water away from the area. This method would provide flood relief for each residence, and allow access through the subdivision during flood events.

To obtain flood relief through structure raising, fifty homes would be raised two feet. The homes in this area vary in size from approximately 1,800 square feet to 4,000 square feet, with an average size home of approximately 2,500 square feet. Due to time constraints, the cost to raise each individual home was not computed, but a total cost for all fifty homes was computed based upon the average size home of 2,500 square feet. This simplifying assumption provided a reliable cost estimate for structure raising. This method preserves the scenic river setting, and flood proofs the required homes. Access to the homes during a flood event will not be possible.

A ring levee alternative was not considered for this area. Due to the required levee cross section, and the limited availability for right-of-way, levee construction is not feasible.

An economic analysis was completed for floodproofing and structure raising methods. Of the two construction feasible measures mentioned above, an economic analysis indicated that structure raising was feasible for Area Number 1. The economic analysis indicated that floodproofing was not economically justified. The benefit to cost ratios and construction costs were .78 and $816,000 for floodproofing, 1.07 and $1.5 million for structure raising.

AREA NUMBER 2

The preferred non-structural method in the subdivision of Bendel Gardens, with respect to construction, appears to be structure raising. Based upon the limited right-of-way, and scenic view, floodwalls and ring levees do not appear feasible. The structure raising alternative consists of raising eleven homes. Two homes, approximately 3,150 square feet each, would be raised one foot, and the remaining homes, approximately 2,500 square feet each, would be raised two feet.

An economic analysis investigated the feasibility of floodproofing, structure

PAGE 57 raising for Area Number 2. The benefit to cost ratios and construction costs were .22 and $229,000 for floodproofing, and .15 and $337,000 for structure raising. This investigation indicated that were no economically justifiable non­ structural measures for Area Number 2.

AREA NUMBER 3

In Area Number 3 that includes the Bois de Lafayette subdivision,, 21 homi~i were considered in the non-structural evaluation. With respect to construciion, the preferred method for obtaining flood relief is structure raising. Based upon the limited right-of-way, it does not appear feasible to provide flood relief via a floodwall or ring levee. Of the 21 residences considered in this area, seven will be raised one foot, eleven will be raised two feet, and three will be raised three feet. The average size of these homes was approximately 2,500 square feet.

An economic analysis investigated the feasibility of floodproofing, and structure raising for Area Number 3. The benefit to cost ratios and construction costs were .21 and $312,000 for floodproofing, and .15 and $458,000 for structure raising. This investigation indicated that were no economically justifiable floodproofing measures for Area Number 3.

AREA NUMBER 4

Area Number 4 consists of approximately 200 acres and several subdivisions. The subdivisions include Ashland Park, La Vil, Quail Hollow, and Quail Meadow #1. The natural ground elevation over most of this area ranges from approximately +29.0 NGVD to approximately +30.0 NGVD. The Isaac Verot Coulee and its laterals drain the above subdivisions.

The investigation considere,d~lll h~~~s\with an average size of 1,800 square feet. This area has over lll holnes,__with many homes currently under construction and proposed for construction. In addition to improving the Isaac Verot Coulee (Alternative SA), ring levee protection would solve the flooding problems of this area. The availability of adjacent land provides for favorable ring levee construction. Based upon the availability of land and increase in cost over ring levee construction, a flood wall was not considered.

PAGE 58 The proposed ring levee requires approximately 37,750 cubic yards of earth material. Material can be borrowed adjacent to the levee section. The construction would require approximately 30' of permanent right-of-way (approximately 10.5 acres), and approximately 50' of temporary right-of-way (approximately 17.5 acres). In addition to the ring levee, 4,000 feet of sheet pile along the narrow corridor between existing homes and the Isaac Verot Coulee would be required for flood relief.

An economic analysis indicated ring levees were feasible for Area Number 4. The benefit to cost ratio and construction cost was 5.3 and $2.2 million for ring levee construction, respectively.

The above methods that were used to investigate four individual areas in Lafayette Parish ~~!J!Qll-:!iltY~-J~,Lmeasures_can ... effeciiv.ely~be··~· ~~~~d Jo cQmb..aLfload ..dam~g~§~ Therefore, non-structural measures are recommended for further investigation in the feasibility study.

PAGE 59 PRESENTATION OF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE PLANS

As a result of the previously discussed three level screening and evaluation process, Alternative 2A, Modify the Vermilion River with retention gravity storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp, Alternative SA, Channel modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee, and Alternative 7, Non-structural measures were determined to be economically feasible. Each of these alternatives are recommended for further investigation in feasibility phase. During the feasibility phase each alternative and its current features and/or additional features will be addressed in detail to proceed to preconstruction engineering and design (PED).

The following sections describe the engineering design analysis, real estate issues, economic issues, environmental impacts, and water quality considerations for alternative's 2A, and SA. Future investigations of Alternative 7 are also discussed.

Site specific survey, boring and other technical data were not obtained at this time nor was detailed analysis and design of proposed features performed. Structural elements were generally sized using historical records of similar structures within the New Orleans District and quantity takeoffs were prepared on that basis. Historical cost data for similar structures was also used, when available and appropriate, to generate feature cost estimates.

ALTERNATIVE 2A, ENGINEERING DESIGN ANALYSIS

DESIGN FEATURES

Alternative 2A specifies the use of two gravity drainage structures with sluice gates along the Vermilion River at Coulee Crow and Bayou Tortue. The plan also calls for a low lift pump station at the confluence of Bayou Tortue and the Vermilion River.

PAGE 60 COULEE CROW GRAVITY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE

The Coulee Crow gravity drainage structure consists of two, 45 foot long, 10 foot by 5.5 foot concrete box culverts that intersect the Vermilion River. Flow through the culverts will be controlled by vertical lift sluice gates with maximum anticipated heads of 5.0 feet direct and 2.0 feet reverse. The invert elevation will be -0.5 NGVD and both the inflow and outflow channels will be protected from erosion with riprap.

BAYOU TORTUE GRAVITY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE

The Bayou Tortue gravity drainage structure consists of four, 45 foot long, 12.5 foot by 8 foot concrete box culverts that intersect the Vermilion River. Flow through the culverts will be controlled by vertical lift sluice gates with maximum anticipated heads of 5.0 feet direct and 2.0 feet reverse. The invert elevation will be -3.0 NGVD and both the inflow and outflow channels will be protected from erosion with riprap.

BAYOU TORTUE PUMP STATION

The Bayou Tortue Pump Station consists of two vertical axial flow pumps and will be constructed adjacent to the Bayou Tortue gravity drainage structure. Each pump will have a capacity of 50 cfs (22,400 gpm, gallons per minute) with a total head of approximately 15.6 feet, yielding a total station capacity of 100 cfs. The pumps will be constructed with form suction intakes at elevation 0.0 NGVD and two, 24-inch diameter discharge lines that extend over the spoil levee (El. + 10.0 NGVD) and discharge onto a paved or rip-rapped slope of the Vermilion River. The motors will automatically be started at a rising Bayou Tortue water elevation of +3.0 NGVD, and automatically stopped at a receding water elevation of +3.0 NGVD. The form suction intake will minimize the required pump submergence, and reduce the required station excavation depth and the length of the inlet channel as compared to a standard suction bell design.

Additional features of the pump station will include trash racks, fuel storage facilities, sump dewatering and pump removal capabilities, a mobile crane, generator, and lighting.

PAGE 61 ADDIDONAL FEATURES

Alternative 2A would also include a boat launch and access road to provide access to the Bayou Tortue Swamp. This was necessary since the gravity drainage structures prohibit boat access to the swamp via the Vermilion River.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The construction costs for Alternative 2A has an estimated total project cost of $3,021,022. This cost does not include real estate requirements.

RELOCATIONS

Location data was obtained for roads, railroads, and utilities by researching the "1990 Louisiana Parish Pipeline & Industrial Atlas", oil and gas maps, LADOTD as-built drawings, USGS quadrangles, and aerial photographs. Field investigations were not performed for this phase. Preliminary relocation plans were developed without the owners' review. Based upon the above investigation, Alternative 2A does not require any relocations.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and maintenance costs were considered for the features of Alternative 2A. The projected usage of the gravity drainage structures yields a very low cost, and thus considered negligible. The cost for the 100 cfs pump station was based upon operating costs of similar pumps from various Corps projects and was projected to be $13,500 per year.

REAL ESTATE

Alternative 2A will require the acquisition of approximately 8.64 acres of wet woodland for the construction of the two gravity drainage structures and the 100 cfs pump station. Currently, there are 18 ownerships affected by this alternative. The estates to acquire include 0.75 acres in fee, excluding minerals, 7 acres of perpetual road access easement, and 0.89 acres of temporary (one

PAGE 62 year) construction easement. There are no Public Law 91-646 benefits involved since this project will not affect existing improvements. There are 16.5 acres, excluding minerals, of wet woodlands with 5 ownerships to acquire in fee for mitigation purposes.

Refer to Appendix B for the Initial Real Estate Cost Estimate

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION

An economic evaluation was performed for Alternative 2A and its effects upon Lafayette Parish. The evaluation considered economic damages and benefits under existing and with-project conditions, project costs, and benefit-to-cost analysis. The proposed improvements were evaluated by comparing estimated annual benefits with estimated annual project costs. All estimates of costs and benefits are at 1994 price levels and annualized at the current Federal discount rate of 7-3/4 percent.

Structure inventories were compiled for areas with structures within the existing condition 100-yr over flow area. The structural damage categories included: residential, commercial, public, and automobiles. Census data for 1990 were used to estimate the number and value of structures. Ground elevations for structure inventory were determined from 1965 epoch quadrangle maps.

DAMAGE CALCULATION

Stage frequency curves for existing and with-project conditions were developed for 9 storm frequencies (1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 year events). Depth damage curves developed by CH2M Hill, Inc. for the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection were used for the 100-yr overflow area. These curves were used to indicate the percentage of total structure value that would be damaged from flooding at and above first floor elevation.

The Hydrologic Engineering Center - Flood Damage Analysis Package, which

PAGE 63 includes the Structure Inventory for Damage Analysis (SID) and the Expected Annual Flood Damage Computation (EAD) interactive computer programs, was used to calculate property damage. Inputs to these programs include flood plain structure inventory, depth damage relationships, and stage probabilities obtained from stage frequency curves for each hydrologic reach.

The SID computer prqgram was used to generate an elevation-damage curve for existing and with-project conditions. These results were then input into the EAD program in order to weigh the damage corresponding to each magnitude of flooding by the percentage chance of exceedance. From these weighted damages, the program determines the expected annual damage for each year within the period of analysis.

The current dollar damages (damages that occur due to one specific storm event) under existing conditions and plan conditions for the 100-yr storm event are estimated as $41.6 million and $36.8 million, respectively. Current dollar damages are defined as damages that occur due to one specific storm event for the duration of that storm and its effects. Expected annual damages due to existing conditions and plan conditions are estimated as $5.7 million and $4.9 million, respectively. Expected annual benefits from Alternative 2A are estimated as $856,000.

The economic evaluation is presented in further detail and is included as Appendix C of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

An environmental analysis was performed for Alternative 2A. The impacts on wildlife and aquatic resources, wetlands, endangered and threatened species, cultural resources, recreational resources, mitigation, and water quality impacts follow.

WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

The Bayou Tortue swamp will be drier during non-flood periods based upon the proposed operation of the 100 cfs pump to maintain water levels in the

PAGE 64 Bayou Tortue Swamp at +3.0 NGVD. This artificial reduction of water levels in Bayou Tortue and neighboring swamp could adversely impact fish and wildlife. While adverse impacts will not be catastrophic, the impact is unknown based upon the existing information and the lack of survey information in the swamp. Also, the computer model used during this phase provides general indications for resultant hydrology, and not detailed information.

Agricultural use and urban growth have removed most of the fish and wildlife habitat in Lafayette Parish. Continued urban expansion and accompanying floodplain alterations will reduce the value of remaining resources by removing habitat, adding pollutants to receiving waters, and increasing the need for additional flood control projects. These impacts are not as prevalent in St. Martin Parish, but they do occur and may be increasing.

WETLANDS

The hydrologic model discloses that the duration of intermediate flood stages in the swamp (5.0-8.0 ft) would be reduced by about 3-5 percent. This reduction in flood duration may result in subtle community structure shifts over time, especially along the perimeter of the swamp. Within the very flood tolerant cypress-tupelo swamp, less flood tolerant vegetation (e.g. red maple, green ash, and overcup oak) may colonize and become established. Effects on the bottomland hardwoods south of Lake Martin road would be negligible although this area would be slightly drier. A survey of elevations and a refinement of the hydrology model will be required to determine impacts in the swamp area.

About eight acres of riparian/bottomland hardwoods habitat along the Vermilion River, Bayou Tortue, and Coulee Crow would be lost permanently with construction of the box culverts, pump station, road and boat launch. In addition, one acre would be impacted temporarily during construction. Assuming 2:1 compensation for permanent impacts and 0.5:1 compensation for temporary impacts, 16.5 acres of mitigation will be required

PAGE 65 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The only species in the area according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), a threatened species. This species may use the area for resting during migration to and from arctic areas and Central and South America.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The pumping station and gravity drainage structures are located along the Vermilion river in areas that have a high potential for the presence of significant cultural resources. Limited cultural resource survey investigations conducted in the past resulted in the recording of four cultural resources sites in close proximity to these proposed project features. Intensive survey and testing activity is warranted at these locations and will be performed during feasibility.

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Gravity retention storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp would minimally impact recreation resources. The land is privately owned and not heavily used for recreational purposes. The frequency and duration of retention storage as proposed would have minimal impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and therefore minimal impacts to hunting and fishing potential. The release of retained waters from this swamp into the Vermilion River or Bayou Tortue may cause problems of temporary turbidity, settlement and poor water quality. The fishery in this area is poor and not expected to be impacted. More recreational use occurs along the Vermilion River as opposed to the neighboring Bayou Tortue where use is minimal.

MITIGATION

Because of the required construction involved in Alternative 2A, mitigation will be required. Mitigation would include purchasing, planting hardwood trees, and preserving 16.5 acres of cleared land in the Bayou Tortue Swamp /Lake Martin area to offset approximately 8-9 acres of possible impacts. Costs for planting and clearing land are estimated at $2,640 and $111,000, respectively.

PAGE 66 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act must be achieved in feasibility. No problem is foreseen in achieving this goal due to lack of endangered wildlife in this area.

WATER QUALITY IMPACTS

Data from previous investigations, and previously conducted studies was used to obtain information on specific aspects of potential water quality impacts. The effects from Alternative 2A on water quality can be broken down into those due to the construction activities themselves and those occurring due to the permanent hydraulic modifications.

The greatest impacts from this alternative will occur due to the construction activities, but by their nature, these effects are temporary. The effects of construction may include increased turbidity and sedimentation which cause nutrient enrichment, increased temperature, increased oxygen demand, and decreased oxygen, increased pH from wood ashes, and increased contaminants from the leaching of concrete structures.

The greatest contaminant of concern during construction activities is sediment runoff. The suspended sedimentary particles contribute large quantities of dissolved minerals, particularly sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, nitrates, and phosphates to the stream that increase plant growth yielding a greater oxygen demand. Simultaneously, the suspended particles decrease the light penetration and interfere with the photosynthetic production of oxygen. The particles also absorb solar energy that increases the temperature of the stream. · The combination of these three effects is an overall decrease in oxygen levels.

Pollutants from construction equipment operation and maintenance and other construction activities can enter stream segments. These contaminants are generally petroleum based and are not significantly persistent in the environment.

Construction of the gravity drainage structures or concrete components, may have a severe local impact on downstream waters, primarily from silt and concrete washings. The activities that cause these effects may extend over a long period, perhaps a number of years. The activities are reasonably confined and the water quality effects are responsive to demonstrated control measures. Concrete mixing operations and the concrete itself yield mostly carbonates and

PAGE 67 hydroxides of calcium and magnesium. Although the greatest leaching occurs during and immediately after construction, long-term leaching can take place.

Permanent hydrologic changes and their effects include: low flows affecting groundwater levels; changes in flow rates affecting contaminant levels, erosion, and sedimentation; loss of bank cover increasing temperatures, thus decreasing dissolved oxygen levels; maintenance of bank cover contributing herbicides and fertilizers; increased development resulting in increased urban runoff and the contamination associated with it.

Changes in the hydraulics of the channel through gravity storage structures or pumps may upset the natural equilibrium of the system and cause the channel to change its erosion characteristics. However, because these alterations would be intermittent and infrequent, the effects would likely be minimal.

ALTERNATIVE SA, ENGINEERING DESIGN ANALYSIS

DESIGN FEATURES

Alternative SA specifies channel modifications along the Isaac Verot Coulee and its two laterals, 2 and 2A. Improvements consist of earthen excavation reaches and concrete lined reaches.

CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE

The channel modifications along the Isaac Verot Coulee include improvements to the Isaac Verot Main Coulee, Isaac Verot Coulee Lateral 2, and Isaac Verot Coulee Lateral 2A. The proposed improvements include a combination of earthen trapezoidal channel excavation and construction of a reinforced concrete-lined trapezoidal channel. Both trapezoidal channel sections are designed to maintain the 10-year frequency flood within banks. The earthen trapezoidal channel section has varying bottom widths from 20 to 40 feet, and 1v on 1.Sh side slopes. The reinforced concrete-lined trapezoidal channel section has a 5 foot bottom width and 1v on 2h side slopes.

The proposed improvements in the Isaac Verot Coulee watershed begin at the Vermilion River and extend approximately 38,300 feet along Isaac Verot Coulee Main and Lateral 2 to a point near LA Hwy 89. Along Lateral 2A the proposed improvements extend approximately 12,800 feet from the confluence with Lateral 2 to Rue Louis XIV. Approximately 10 miles of channel improvements are proposed that include approximately 5 miles of earthen

PAGE 68 excavation and S miles of concrete lining. See Plate 13.

Approximately S00,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed from the channel. This material will be hauled away from the channel to an undetermined location within a ten mile radius of the project area. Structural improvements to the watershed consist of approximately 24,000 linear feet of reinforced concrete-lined trapezoidal channel.

RELOCATIONS

Location data was obtained for roads, railroads, and utilities by researching the "1990 Louisiana Parish Pipeline & Industrial Atlas", oil and gas maps, LADOTD as-built drawings, USGS quadrangles, and aerial photographs. Field investigations were not performed for this phase. Preliminary relocation plans were developed without the owners' review.

Based upon the above investigation, numerous relocations will be required for Alternative SA. In total, 20 bridges, 6 drainage structures, and 11 pipelines will require relocation at an estimated cost of $3.2 million. The cost for pipeline relocations assumed work would be completed using the trenching method.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The estimated construction costs, including relocation requirements, for Alternative SA is $20.4 million. This cost does not include real estate requirem~nts.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and maintenance costs were considered for the features of Alternative SA. The cost for the earthen and concrete channels was based upon costs of similar works from various Corps projects and was projected as $1S3,000 per year.

REAL ESTATE

Alternative SA will require the acquisition of a perpetual channel easement for 6 acres of agricultural land, 4 acres of residential land, S.9 acres of potential residential and 63.6 acres of channel. Severance damages are estimated at $483,500. A temporary construction easement of 3 years will be required on 12 acres of agricultural land, 8 acres of residential and 10 acres of potential

PAGE 69 residential. The mitigation area consists of 25 acres of wet woodland and 82 acres of potential residential that will be acquired in fee (excluding minerals). There are a total of 138 ownerships affected by this project. One improvement will be affected by this project. There are no Public Law 91-646 benefits involved.

Refer to Appendix B for the Initial Real Estate Cost Estimate

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The economic evaluation (structure inventory, damage calculation) for Alternative SA was completed in the same manner as Alternative 2A (See Economic Analysis for Alternative 2A). The current dollar damages (damages that occur due to one specific storm event) under existing conditions and plan conditions for th~ 100-p:cstorJ.lLeyent are estimated as $20.9 million and $4.8 million, respectively. Current dollar damages are defined as damages that occur due to one specific storm event for the duration of that storm and its effects. Expected annual damages due to existing conditions and plan conditions are estimated as $S.6 million and $3.0 million, respectively. Expected annual benefits from Alternative SA are estimated as $2.7 million.

The economic evaluation is presented in further detail and is included as Appendix C of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

An environmental analysis was performed for Alternative SA. The impacts on wildlife and aquatic resources, wetlands, endangered and threatened species, cultural resources, recreational resources, mitigation, and water quality impacts follow.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

The existing channel has extremely low quality fish and wildlife habitat, therefore any adverse impacts to habitat would be of minimal importance. However, the removal of hardwood trees from the top of the upper banks is a substantive loss. Using 1985 infrared photographs, it appears that up to 16 acres of hardwoods on the sides of the coulee and laterals could be impacted during construction. Another 30 acres of grassy and brushy areas could also be impacted. Also, about 30 acres of hardwood bottomland within a total of 100 acres of disposal area would be converted to upland. The remaining 70

PAGE 70 acres of agricultural land would be converted to upland disposal.

Agricultural use and urban growth has removed most of the fish and wildlife habitat in Lafayette Parish. Continued urban expansion and accompanying floodplain alterations will reduce the value of remaining resources by removing habitat, adding pollutants to receiving waters, and increasing the need for additional flood control projects.

DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL

During this phase, the need for specialized handling and disposal of dredged material from the canals has not been determined. If during feasibility, it is determined that the dredged material is contaminated and unsuitable for normal "fill" operations or other constructive uses, methods addressing proper procedures for handling and disposal will be developed at that time, along with the appropriate environmental documents.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The only species in the area according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), a threatened species. This species may use the area for resting during migration to and from arctic areas and Central and South America.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Alternative SA is located in an area that has potential for the presence of cultural resources. No previous cultural resource investigations have occurred in this area. Thus, intensive cultural resource survey and testing activity is warranted.

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 01

The proposed concrete lining and enlargement of Isaac Verot Coulee will minimally impact recreational resources. The largest portion of the coulee is located in a residential area, and provides minimal value to recreation. The removal of any wildlife habitat along this watercourse, if required, during channel enlargement and improvement, would impact game species sought after by sport hunters.

MITIGATION

PAGE 71 Based upon the proposed construction for Alternative SA, mitigation will be required. It will be necessary to purchase, plant hardwood trees, and preserve approximately 107 acres of forested and/or cleared land east of the Vermilion River. This site is located approximately 0.7S miles south of the Vermilion River /Isaac Verot Coulee confluence. This would keep the mitigation in the parish and offset the impacts to wooded areas along Isaac Verot Coulee. The 107 acres is based upon a 2 to 1 ratio of mitigation land to permanently impacted area. During feasibility, additional effort should be made to deposit material in cleared areas rather than forested areas. The cost for mitigation is estimated at $17,120 for plantings and $1,607,000 for land costs.

COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act must be achieved in feasibility. No problem is foreseen in achieving this goal due to lack of endangered wildlife in this area. Determination for the need for a Section 404(b)(l) evaluation will be required based on disposal and placement of the dredged material.

WATER QUALITY IMPACTS

Data from previous investigations, and previously conducted studies was used to obtain information on specific aspects of potential water quality impacts. Similar to Alternative 2A, the effects from Alternative SA, on water quality, are due to construction activities and to the permanent hydraulic modifications.

Water quality will be affected by similar actions and/or causes as discussed in Alternative 2A, Water Quality Impacts, on pages 64 and 65. However, due to the proposed channel improvements of Alternative SA, additional impacts on water quality will occur.

When channel enlargement is completed, a low-flow channel will develop within the enlarged channel. Groundwater levels are affected when the stage­ discharge relationship is altered or when stream beds are lowered. These effects are most notable in low gradient streams in porous soils. However, the decrease in groundwater levels is usually minimal and very localized.

PAGE 72 Changes in flow rates of the channel, either increasing the flow velocity through channelization or decreasing the flow velocity through storage, alters the stream characteristics. An increase in the flow can cause water quality problems generated within the project area to move further downstream. Decreases in flow can reduce or eliminate the "flushing effect", causing a decrease in water quality. In general, changes in flow rates can affect oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other pollutant levels in the water column, both within the project boundaries and downstream of the project.

The maintenance of the bank cover may have two long-term effects. First, the annual or regular maintenance may prevent the shade cover of the stream from reestablishing, thus increasing water temperatures and decreasing oxygen. Second, herbicides and fertilizers used in maintaining the bank can enter the waterway, contaminating the water column. However, application techniques such as the use of microfoil booms to keep the droplets the same size, which in turn reduces the amount of drift of the herbicide, help in reducing the amount of herbicide needed to defoliate the banks.

Appendix A presents several techniques that can be applied to greatly reduce the long-term adverse effects of channelization with little loss in flood control.

ALTERNATIVE 7: NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES

RESULTS

Alternative 7 investigated non-structural measures for four individual areas (Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4) whose flood damages were not reduced by Alternative's 2A and SA. The four areas consisted of nine residential developments experiencing structural damages during the 100-year flood frequency.

The non-structural analysis was completed by two independent methods, construction feasibility and economic analysis, for the four individual areas discussed in the section entitled, "Alternative Plan Screening and Evaluation". Structure raising, flood walls, ring levees, and floodproofing measures were considered in the non-structural analysis. Structure raising was found feasible

PAGE 73 for Area 1, and ring levees were found feasible for Area 4. Measures were not found feasible for the Areas 2 and 3.

Since non-structural measures were found feasible in the reconnaissance study, they are recommended for further analysis in the feasibility study. Design details, real estate requirements, environmental impacts, cultural resources, recreational resources, mitigation, operation and maintenance, and other possible impacts will be determined in the feasibility phase.

DESIGN FEATURES AND COSTS

Tables 22 and 23 provide pertinent design details and cost information for Alternatives 2A and SA. Alternative 7, non-structural measures, was not included in this section since real estate, relocations, operation and maintenance, and other impacts that may affect costs were not addressed in the reconnaissance phase. These items will be addressed in the feasibility phase. Refer to the section on alternative plan screening and evaluation, Alternative 7 non-structural measures, for estimated construction costs.

PAGE 74 TABLE 22 LAFAYETTE PARISH FLOOD CONTROL PLANS PERTINENT DESIGN DATA

PLAN PUMP DRAINAGE CHANNEL MODIFICAnON RIGHT OF WAY RF.QUIREMEN'IS STA. STRUC. EARnlEN CONCRE'IE PERPB'llJAL FBB PERPETUAL TEMPORARY CHANNEL OIANNEL ROAD (ACRES) OIANNBL CONST. Acc::E$ (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES)

ALT.2A 2-50 1-RCBW/ N/A N/A 7 0.75 N/A 0.89 CFS 4-8' x 12.5' LOW GATPS LIFf 1-RCBW/ PUMPS 2- 5.5' x 10' GATPS

ALT.SA N/A N/A BW=20'-4U BW=S' N/A N/A 795 30 SS·= lV ON 15H 56=1VON2H LENGTII = 5 MILES LENG1H = 5 MILES

TABLE23 LAFAYETIE PARISH FLOOD CONTROL PLANS COST INFORMATION

PLAN CONST. RELOCATION REAL ESTATE PED COOST. PROJECT ANNUAL ($) ($) ($) ($) MANAGEMENT ($) OPERATION& (S) MAINTENANCE ($)

ALT.2A 2,650,000 0 3'1,000 160,000 21'-000 3,365,000 13,500

ALT.SA 15,185,000 2,734,000 4,000,000 1,0Sl,000 1,44.\000 2~,000 106,000

PAGE 75 FLOOD CONTROL SUMMARY

The Lafayette Parish reconnaissance study has provided sufficient analysis to indicate the feasibility of several urban flood control plans to alleviate flooding damages in various areas of Lafayette Parish. In total, seven plans with variations were investigated yielding 3 economically justifiable and environmentally acceptable plans, Alternatives 2A, SA, and 7. During the t. feasibility study, the features of Alternative 2A will be modified and/ or new J • .· features will be investigated that incorporate the northern portion of the Bayou J Tortue Swamp into the current plan. Cost effective features will be developed fi to insure a favorable benefit to cost ratio. This will insure an increase in 1 \\benefits over the current plan. Methods of flood reduction will be similar to Alternative 3, but the features may differ to insure cost effectiveness which will insure a favorable benefit to cost ratio.

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, as the potential local sponsor for the feasibility phase, has requested an investigation of flood damaged areas in St. Martin Parish during feasibility. Due to study time and cost constraints, these areas were not defined during the reconnaissance phase. Q!IJU?."~ jn St. 1'4~ Parish adja~t to. flQQd prone areas of Lafayette Parish will be defined during the early stages of feasibility, and investigated to the necessary detail.

Table 24 lists the flood control alternatives that were identified as feasible projects during the reconnaissance study, and their associated benefit to cost ratios.

PAGE 76

,• TABLE 24 JUSTIFIED FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ALTERNATIVE 1 FIRST AVERAGE AVERAGE B/C NET \~ COSTS2 ANNUAL ANNUAL BENEFITS \\ BENEFITS COSTS

~ 2A 1(i)\ $3,365,000 $856,000 $313,500 2.73 $542,500 ~ SA $24,443,000 $2,707,000 $2,201,000 1.23 $506,000 l \ 7, AREA #1, SR $1,530,000 $130,500 $121,900 1.07 $8,600 i'<-, 7, AREA #4, RL $2,200,000 $940,800 $177,000 5.30 $763,800 ·' i '- 1 SR represents structure raising, and RL represents ring levees. 2 First Costs are defined as construction costs plus real estate costs plus mitigation planting costs (if any).

PAGE 77

l r' STUPY MANAGEMENT

STUDY PARTIOPANTS AND COORDINATION

On February 3, 1994, a notice of Study Initiation for the Lafayette Parish, LA, reconnaissance study, was distributed to Federal, State, and local agencies, and interested persons. The public notice included information pertaining to the study and its process. A questionnaire on information about flooding due to storm events and high Vermilion River stages. was also included as part of the public notice.

Throughout the course of the study, seven coordination meetings were held between Federal, State, and local agencies, and personnel from the private sector. A list of attendees and their associated agencies are provided in Appendix E. Numerous interdisciplinary planning team meetings were held during the course of the study.

Cose coordination was maintained throughout the study with local officials, representatives of adjacent parishes, the potential local sponsors and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A planning aid report was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in January 1995. This document is included as Appendix D of this report.

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTO), Lafayette Parish, and City of Lafayette personnel provided pertinent information required to complete the reconnaissance study. DOTO, the potential local sponsor for the feasibility study, has been actively involved throughout the reconnaissance phase. Coordination meetings were held with St. Martin Parish officials to discuss the impacts of Alternative 2A.

COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS

The feasibility phase is cost shared equally between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor. At least 50 percent of a non-Federal sponsor's share (25 percent of the total feasibility phase cost) will be provided in cash;

PAGE 78 the remaining 50 percent of the sponsor's share (not to exceed 25 percent of the total feasibility phase cost) may be contributed as in-kind products or services.

The estimated study costs for the feasibility phase are presented in the Project Study Plan (PSP) accompanying this report. The cost estimates are supported by an overall scope of study and a detailed discussion of the separable tasks required to produce the feasibility report. A draft Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement. (FCSA) also accompanies the PSP. The final FCSA will define the feasibility cost sharing requirements and assign the tasks and associated dollar values for the non-Federal in-kind services.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

All plans recommended in the feasibility report would require non-Federal cost sharing for implementation. A Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) defines the requirements in detail for the project.

Lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRD) are the responsibility of the local sponsors. The cost of acquiring the required LERRD's is included in the total project cost and is creditable toward the sponsor's share of implementation costs.

The local cost sharing responsibilities for preconstruction engineering and design and the actual construction of a project vary based on the extent of the LERRD's. The minimum local contribution is 25 percent of the total project cost and the maximum is 50 percent. A minimum cash contribution equal to 5 percent of the overall project cost is also required.

POTENTIAL SPONSORS.

Department of Transportation and Development has agreed to be the local sponsor for the Feasibility Phase. Consideration was given to the desire and capabilities of the non-Federal interests. The Department of Transportation and Development was advised of the Corps policies and procedures, and they agree that continuation into the feasibility phase is advisable.

PAGE 79 PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

The local sponsors will be required to cost share in both the feasibility study and in construction of any projects recommended for Federal participation. Several sources of funds are available to the potential local sponsor. These sources include: local ad valorem taxes, interest income, and bond proceeds. _,.,~~~~ Any combination of these or other sources of funds could be used to provide the required share as a local sponsor.

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has already requested that funds be allocated by the legislature of the State of Louisiana for the first year of the feasibility study.

INTENT TO PARTICIPATE

The Department of Transportation and Development has expressed an interest in participating in the next phase of study, and has been actively involved throughout the study process. Letters indicating the intent of the appropriate local agency to cost share the feasibility study and any resulting project construction accompany this report.

CONCLUSIONS

The Lafayette Parish flood control reconnaissance study has provided sufficient analysis to indicate the feasibility of several plans to alleviate flooding. Two structural plans and fl<:><:>~E!'QQfing m~~ures were found t<:>. ~ ~cc>nomically- jilstlfled and environm~ntally ~cceptable. .. · ···-~··~~~

Based on the justified plans identified in the reconnaissance study, the total flood control project first costs would range between $1.5 million for structure raising in area 1 to $31 million for all feasible projects. The expected annual benefits that would be provided by alternatives 2A, SA, and 7 for Lafayette Parish are estimated at $4.6 million.

The Lafayette Parish flood control reconnaissance study indicates that the study should proceed to the feasibility phase.

PAGE 80 RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations contained herein reflect the policies governing formulation of individual projects and the information available at this time. . They do not necessarily reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the local and state programs or the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program. Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to the Congress as proposals for authorization and implementation ·funding. However, the potential sponsor and other interested agencies will be afforded an opportunity to comment further.

Based on the findings presented in this reconnaissance report, I recommend that the Lafayette Parish, Louisiana study proceed into the feasibility phase contingent upon the execution of a feasibility cost-sharing agreement with the local sponsor•.

Kenneth R Clow Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer

··PAGE 81 STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT P. 0. Box 94245 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9245 June 23, 1995 (504) 379-1294 EDWIN W. EDWARDS JUDE W. P. PATIN GOVERNOR SECRETARY

I I, Colonel Kenneth Clow District Engineer New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 60267 New Orleans. Louisiana 70160-0267

Dear·Colonel Clow:

_· ..~ This is to advise you that the Department of Transportation and Development is · planning to be the local sponsor in the feasibility phase of the Lafayette Parish, Louisiana Flood Control Study.

Members of yoUT staff have presented the findings of the reconnaissance study to us, and we plan to participate in the development of the Project Study Plan for the feasibility phase. We are aware of the responsibilities that are incumbent on the local sponsor, such as the required SO-percent cost-sharing of the feasibility phase and the possibility of providing in­ k.ind services. This Department is authorized, by law, to engage in a cooperative agreement with the Federal government, and we intend to enter into a binding agreement at the appropriate time. We look forward to a productive partnership.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. Ward Filgo, (504) 379-1403.

Sincerely, ,J' /) ~~~-== ~ I CURTIS G. PATTERSON, P.E. DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS AND . FLOOD CONTROL

AN EQUAL OPPOATUNITV !MPLOVEA A&E..\H 8A8 : ./ • ------.. Bav.ou ~ .,/ ~ ~s11er I' I' .cq" ~ -, . " v( ( Vermilion ) !N . . River .> I /,,,.. ·n es --, /. ~i ?~ ~ r·' r- Rayne .r~ -10 RUTH CANAL Long CONTROL STRUCTURE Bridge (LOCALLY OWNEDJ BAYOU TORTU£ SWAMP J Ambassador ...... ,...... / \ Caffery N PH. Parkway ) .'tlll"'\. ,,,...... ·~...... / ...... Jt .-._ ~ ,,.... , Vermilion I River . - .I , ~, LEGEND J----\ .-...... lAFAYETTE PARISH, LA . '/ RECONNAISSANCE STUDY . - . '\ STUDY AREA ' I -·- ...... ·i VICINITY MAP 167 15' 92·00' I U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS CORPS Of ENGINEERS PLATE 1

SCALE: I" = 22,000' 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 MILES

Prepared by Planning Division, U.S. Army Engineer Dist-ric-t, New Orleans. Bose - U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 Map Series and 1:24,000 Quadrangles. ) -----iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiif z ~--·

I W-23 / I I I I

WATERSHED AREAS W-1 Darby Coulee W-2 Anselm Coulee W-3 Edith Coulee W-4a Coulee Granges W-4b Coulee Granges W-5 Coulee l 1e des Cannes W-6 Isaac Verot Coulee W-7 Acadiana Coulee W-8 Broadmoor Coulee W-9 Grand Avenue Coulee W-10 Coulee Mine W-11 Webb Coulee W-12 Dan Dabaillon Coulee W-13 Acorn Drive Coulee W-14 Manor Park Coulee W-15 Bayou St. Clair W-16 Beau Basin Coulee W-17 Coulee Lantier W-18 Coulee Pont Brule W-19 Bayou T ortue W-20 Coulee Fortune W-21 Coulee Lasalle (aHcypress) W-22 Coulee Lasalle (b) W-23 Bayou Pare Perdue W-24 Coulee des Poches W-25 Bayou Queue de Tortue LAFAYETTE PARISH, IA W-26 lnaian Bayou · RECONNAISSANCE STUDY { W-27 Arrowheaa Coulee W-28 Lake Martin Road Coulee W-29 D. Man Outfal I EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM W-30 Pierre Coulee W-31 Picard Park Coulee U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORJ.EANS W-32 Bayou Carencro CORPS OF ENGINEERS PlATE 2

------~------·

.· ... /~ / < / ...... -,,,,.C.,--"-'~

Li LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA llm!! RECONNAISSANCE STUDY

BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS CORPS OF ENGINEERS PlATE 3

5

I •

CLIMATE STATIONS LOCATIONS

D I. CROWLEY 2. GRAND COTEAU 3. LAFAYETTE EUNICE l'.\. NEW IBERIA 19~- I I

13

) STREAM GAGES LOCATIONS c

OU TECHE @ ARNAUDVILLE ACADIA PH. OU VERMILION @ LONG BRIDGE . \\\es 3 i~Be~~ 'OU VERMILION @ TONTONS BRIDGE 'H CANAL WEST RAY 'H CANAL EAST Q.~ ~----'tMILION RIVER @ LAFAYETTE '.MILION RIVER @ BROUSSARD

B

Ou~ ve

SYMBOt. DESCRIPTION o•n: APl'flOVEll KAPLAI\- .,_ U.S. llflt EJOIEER DISTRICT, IO CIUAl6 m CORI'S IS ENGllEERS I 1£1 CWll.EANS. LOUISIANA I LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA A RECONNAISSANCE STUDY CLIMATE STATIONS &. STREAM GAGES

PlOT OAn:. OESlc>EO BY• DAT'Ea IPUJT sc.au. G. A. D. 8 IAAY 95 DRAwN BYt G.A.D. _,.., CJ

.../, l - ' f'

Rayne

('> ST. MARTIN PH.

~:------,,-- RUTH CANAL CONTROL STRUCTURE (LOCALLY O#NEDJ

VERMILION RNER-1---:--1

I New @ LIMITS OF CHANNEL IBERIA PH. IMPROVEMENTS I . Avery Island I

Proposed Channel Bottom Width

A to B: 120 Feet From B to C: 180 Feet From C to D: 200 Feet

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA k RECONNAISSANCE STUDY I ALTERNATIVE 1 MODIFY THE VERMILION RIVER B E L' L E U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW OltllANS IS L/E CORPS OF ENGINEERS PLATE 5

SCALE: I" =30,000' 5E5E5E!:e=!E!!!l!!==:==:==:=<::======E!55!======i 0 5 10 15 20 25 MILES

Prepared by Planning Div1sion, U.S. Army Engineer Dist-ric-t, New Orleans. Bose - U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 Mop Serles and 1:24,000 Quadrangles.

. c;~oo....___ FUSIUER / "'-.... _r' - '\ ./ - ( Vermilion ) ( River ).. ,..... I , ._ ·1 / ~ I / \ RAYNE v' r _J ,--' 10

LAFAYETIE

LAFAYETTE PH. SAME FEATURES \AS ALTERNATNE \ 2A

'"I ... _...... --...... , ---- I Saint Martinville -- ...J.

Vermilion River '/ I I \

New

UMlTS OF IBERIA PH. CHANNEL IMPRCNEMENTS LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA RECONNAISSANCE STUDY ALTERNATIVE 28 MODIFY THE VERMILION RIVER WITH RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORI.EANS CORPS OF ENGINEERS PLATE 7

SCALE: I" = 21,000' 5E=E!!!E!:E===0~======5i:===l50======~1e::5===2 50======32 5 Ml LES

Prepared by Plannlng Dlvlslon, U.S. Army Engineer Dlsi"rlc-t, New Orleans. Base - U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 Map Series and 1:24,000 Quadrangles.

---iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiif z ~--.-

Vermilion River _,....·7'...-.• -·-- .-·-·--·-- ·- . - i--J W~18 ·,\·-·-·/ W-15 ·­·- W-2~~_i

I I I W-23

W-12

I 8 I W-10

WATERSHED .A.REAS W-1 Darby Coulee . W-2 Anselm Coulee ' W-3 Edith Coulee W-4a Coulee Granges ' . W-4b Coulee Granges ' . W-5 Coulee l le des Cannes ' l W-6 Isaac Verot Coulee ' W-7 Acadiana Coulee '·---" I W-8 Broadmoor Coulee W-9 Grand Avenue Coulee I W-10 Coulee Mine l. _. - W-25 W-11 Webb Coulee . W-26 W-12 Dan Dabaillon Coulee .I ~/ W-13 Acorn Drive Coulee -·-·- . , W-4(a) / W-14 Manor Park Coulee W-15 Bayou St. Clair W-16 Beau Basin Coulee I W-17 Coulee Lantier W-18 Coulee Pont Brule W-19 Bayou Tortue W-20 Coulee Fortune W-21 Coulee Lasal I e (a)(cypress) W-22 Coulee Lasalle {b) W-23 Bayou Pare Perdue W-24 Coulee des Poches W-25 Bayou Queue de Tortue LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA W-26 lnaian Bayou · RECONNAISSANCE STI.iDY W-27 Arrowheaa Coulee W-28 Lake Martin Road Coulee W-29 D. Man Outfal I EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM W-30 Pierre Coulee W-31 Picard Park Coulee U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS W-32 Bayou Carencro LAFAYETTE PARISH CORPS OF ENGINEERS Pt.ATE 2 .. ~·.

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA RECONNAISSANCE STUDY

SCALE: I" = 3300' BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP 3300' 0 3300' 6600' U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS CORPS OF ENGINEERS PLATE 3 ! 2

I •

6 CLIMATE STATIONS LOCATIONS

D I. CROWLEY PORT 2. GRAND COTEAU 3. LAFAYETTE

EUNICE i 4. NEW IBERIA I 1"1~ I I ------1 I

13 I-----1 \e <0

I. BAYOU TECHE @ ARNAUDVILLE ACADIA PH. . ""\ 0 es 2 . BAYOU VERMILION @ LONG BRIDGE L 3 e ,, 3. BAYOU VERMILION @ TONTONS BRIDGE ? 4. RU-PH CANAL WEST RAYNE ~~l 5. RUTH CANAL EAST -----L-91&------E 6. VERMILION RIVER @ LAFAYETTE LAFAYETTE "'"1- 7. VERMILION RIVER @ BROUSSARD CLOCALL Y OWNED> r '> B I ...... SAINT ...... I 31 Ou~ L.-, ve I .....- ...... , . ' ...... '·'f 15' 1s:J 92•00· I I 45' NEW --1 4----..... I ABBEVILLE.30' O' '( 4. KAPLAN ----..___ 734 8 Q _y 335 0

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA RECONNAISSANCE STUDY CLIMATE STATIONS & STREAM GAGES

DESICtED l!Yt G. A. D. :·:::.y 95 PLOT SCAL& PLOT DATE• _ .. BYt G. A. D. l----'------41-Fll£_NO.__ --f CHEWD llY• R.D.B. _...., PLATE 4 SLmMITI!D ~ SCLICITATION NO.. __ ---aOMiJI- - · DAC1129· riwo.. I OF I 5 J 2 I Culvert Number 1-2' 1-2'

NOTESl ALTERNATIVE 3 Is PROPOSED BAYOU TORTUE GRAVITY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE & PU ... PING STATION SCALE: I" = 3300' 21 PROPOSED COULEE CROW GRAVITY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE COMBINED GRAVlTY AND PUMPED RETENTION 3: PROPOSED 1800 CFS RUTH CANAL PU ... P STATION STORAGE TO THE BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP 330EO::'.' ~"iiE_::=i~o===~3:!:3~0~0'~~~~6~600' 12 U.S. /!JlMY ENGINEER DlsnlCT, NEW ORLEANS 13 CORPS OF ENGINEERS Pl.ATE 8 Proposed Bayou Gravity Drainage Structure 4-8' X 12.5' culverts with sluice gates and 2-50 cf s pumps SCALE: I" = 3300' ALTERNATIVE 2A RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO THE 2: Proposed Coulee Crow Gravity Drainage 3300' 0 3300' 6600' BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP Structure 2-5.5' X 10' culverts with sluice E5i~~====~~~~ gates U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS CORPS OF ENGINEERS PlATE 6

------/

... -··· ~-...... ,·::

;· ..• ~ !-:"·~

j (

·. ··. ~ ._::

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA RECONNAISSANCE STUDY ALTERNATIVE 5A SCALE: I" 2500' CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS AND CONCRETE LINING 2500' 0 2500' 5000' ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS CORPS OF ENGINEERS Pl.ATE 11

30 TON OVERHEAD CRANE

/MOTOR DRIVEN GM< O>O~ RIGHT ANGLE GEAR REDUCER {j 1200 BHP DIESEL ENGINE WITH HEAT EXCHANGER WITH RADIATOR & FAN

EL. 23.0'

SLUICE GATES

LAFAYETTE PARISH, lA 4()'± -I RECONNAISSANCE STUDY

PROPOSED RUTH CANAL PUMP STATION

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS CORPS OF ENGINEERS . PLATE 9 . - .

Rayne ST. MARTIN PH. ~-~~- Rl./TH CANAL CONTROL STRUCTURE - {lfJCALJY ONNEDJ 1"1---RUTH CIWAL

' '=-"\...,..._,_,...... ,,,_.J

VERMILION RNEm----1

I New

IBERIA PH.

Avery Island

I / / / LAFAYmE PARISH, LA RECONNAISSANCE STUDY ALTERNATIVE 4 DmNTION STORAGE IN THE io UPPER VERMILION RIVER BASIN WITH ~Bay POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO BAYOU .l CARENCRO AND RUTH CANAL U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS l CORPS OF ENGINEERS PLATE lO

SCALE: I" = 30,000' 5i;;;;;e.;!J!E3;~0~~~5====~10~======Sl5===:::::::::E2=i=O======s2 5 Ml LES

Prepared by Planning Dlvlslon, U.S. Army Engineer Dlsi-rlc"t, New Orleans. Base - U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 Map Series and 1:24,000 Quadrangles. Notes:

A - Installation of additional culverts 6B

6C -

\

I \

)

)

• - _ J

----,. L.

ALTERNATIVE 6 ALTER THE OPERATION OF THE CURRENT FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORI.EANS CORPS OF ENGINEERS - PlATE 12 ! SCALE: I" = 39,000' 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 MILES E:Es=!E5i3!53E=a===s==a=i::======c:======3

Prepared by Planning Division, U. S. Army Engineer Dis-tric-t, New Orleans. Bose - U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 Mop Serles and 1:24,000 Quadrangles. APPENDIX A

ENGINEERING ANALYSES

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA RECONNAISSANCE STUDY APPENDIX A ENGINEERING ANALYSES

Table of Contents

HYDROLOCY AND CLIMATOLOGY ...... Al Climate ...... Al Temperature ...... Al Precipitation ...... A2 Wind ...... A3 Stream Gaging Data ...... A3 Floods and Storms of Record ...... AS Tides ...... AS

HYDRAULIC DESIGN ...... AS Study Area ...... AS General ...... AS Flooding Problems and Causes ...... A6 Existing Conditions ...... A7 Previous Studies ...... A7 Frequency Analysis ...... A7 Reach and Stage Data ...... A7 100-Year Overflow Maps ...... A7 Development of Preliminary Alternatives ...... A8 Alternative 1: Modify the Vermilion River ...... A9 Project Plan ...... A9 Cross Sections ...... A9 Relocations ...... A9 Alternative 2A: Retention Gravity Storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp ...... AlO Existing Conditions Hydrology ...... AlO Project Man ...... A12 Alternative 2B: Modify the Vermilion River with Retention Gravity Storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp ...... Al4 Project Plan ...... Al4 Cross Sections ...... AlS Alternative 3: Combined Gravity·and Pumped Retention Storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp ...... AlS Project Plan ...... AlS Pertinent Data ...... Al6 Alternative 4: Detention Storage in the Upper Vermilion River Basin With Possible Modifications to Bayou Carencro and Possible Modifications to Ruth Canal A17 Alternative SA: Channel Modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee (Concrete Lined and Earthen Channel) ...... A18 Project Plan ...... A18 Field Trip ...... Al8 Cross Sections ...... Al9 Alternative SB: Channel Modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee (100% Concrete Lined).i\19 Alternative 6. Alter the Operation of the Teche-Vermilion, Courtableau, Eastern Rapides South-Central Avoyelles System to Achieve Lowerings in Lafayette Parish ...... Al9 Stage Lowerings ...... A20 WATER QUALITY ...... A23 Introduction ...... A23 Water Quality Criteria and Standards ...... A23 Introduction ...... A23 Applicable Louisiana State Standards ...... A23 Descriptive Water Quality Standards ...... A23 Aesthetics ...... A23 Color ...... A24 Floating, suspended, and settleable solids ...... A24 Taste and odor ...... A24 Toxic substances ...... A24 Oil and grease ...... A24 Foaming or frothing materials ...... A24 Nutrients ...... A24 Turbidity ...... A2S Flow ...... A2S Radioactive materials ...... A26 Other materials ...... A26 Numerical Water Quality Standards ...... A26 pH ...... A26 Chlorides, sulfates, and dissolved solids ...... A27 Dissolved oxygen ...... A27 Temperature ...... A27 Bacterial standards ...... A28 Toxic substances ...... A30 General Description of Water Quality Parameters ...... A30 Existing Water Quality Data - Designation and Classification ...... A37 Water Use Designation ...... A37 Water Use Support Classification ...... A37 Projected Water Quality ...... A46 Introduction ...... A46 Future Without-Project Conditions ...... A46 Future With-Project Conditions ...... A47 Effects of Construction ...... A47 Effects Due to Permanent Hydraulic Modifications ...... A49 Summary of Overall Effects ...... ASl References ...... ASO

GENERAL GEOLOGY ...... , ...... ASl GEOTECHNICAL ...... AS3

ENGINEERING DESIGN ...... A54 ASSUMPTIONS ...... A54 SPECIFIC FEATURE DISCUSSION ...... A54 ALTERNATIVE 2A ...... A54 Culverts at Coulee Crow ...... A54 Culverts and Pumping Station at Bayou Tortue ...... A54 Detailed Description of Bayou Tortue Pump Station ...... A54 ALTERNATIVE 3 ...... ASS Pumping Station at Ruth Canal ...... ASS Detailed Description of Ruth Canal Pumping Station ...... AS6 Pumped Retention Storage Area Embankments ...... AS7 Lake Martin Road Segment ...... AS7 Lake Martin Levee Segment ...... ASS Vermilion River/Ruth Canal Segment ...... ASS ALTERNATIVE SA ...... ASS Channel Modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee ...... ASS RELOCATIONS ...... AS9 Description of Work ...... AS9 COST ESTIMATES Cost Estimate of Alternative 2A...... A62 Cost Estimate of Alternative 3 ...... A63 Cost Estimate of Alternative SA...... A64 ALTERNATIVE 7 ...... A6S Introduction ...... A6S Purpose ...... A65 Identification of Structures within Areas ...... A66 General Assumptions ...... A67 Floodproofing Recommendations ...... A6S Floodproffing Alternatives by Area ...... A6S Area #1 ...... A6S Area #2 ...... A7S Area #3 ...... AS2 Area #4 ...... A90 List of Tables

TABLE NAME PAGE

Al MEAN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL TEMPERATURE (°F) ...... Al A2 TEMPERATURE EXTREMES (°F) 1961-1992 ...... A2 A3 MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (inches) ...... A2 A4 MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION TOTAL ...... A3 AS STREAM GAGING DATA ...... A4 A6 DISCHARGE DATA ...... A4 A7 BA YOU TORTUE GRAVITY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PERTINENT DATA ...... Al3 AS BAYOU TORTUE LOW LIFT PUMP STATION PERTINENT DATA ...... Al3 A9 COULEE CROW GRAVITY DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PERTINENT DATA ...... Al4 AlO RUTH CANAL PUMP STATION PERTINENT DATA ...... A17 All STAGES AT THE PINHOOK BRIDGE (FT. NGVD) ...... A21 Al2 STAGES AT THE INTERSECTION OF LATERAL 2 AND LATERAL 2A ON ISAAC VEROT COULEE (FT. NGVD) ...... A22 A13 1994 LDEQ NUMERICAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SURFACE WATERS IN THE STUDY AREA ...... A29 Al4 1994 LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR SPECIFIC TOXIC SUBSTANCES ...... A32 AlS CRITERIA FOR PARAMETRIC SUPPORT CLASSIFICATIONS PER DESIGNATED USE ...... A38 Al6 PARAMETERS UTILIZED FOR USE SUPPORT DETERMINATION BY DESIGNATED USES ...... A39 Al7 VERMILION RIVER AT PERRY, LA (Sta. # 58010001) ...... A40 Al8 VERMILION RIVER NEAR BREAUX BRIDGE, LA (Sta. # 58010002) ...... A42 A19 VERiv1ILION RIVER (LA. HWY. 3073) NEAR LAFAYEITE, LA (Sta. # 58010045) ...... A44 A20 VERMILION RIVER SOUTH OF LAFAYEITE, LA (Sta.# 58010314) ...... A45 A21 RELOCATIONS COST ESTIMATES ...... A60 A22 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2A ...... A62 A23 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 3...... A63 A24 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE SA ...... A64 APPENDIX B

INITIAL REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATES

INITIAL REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE

LAFAYETTE PARISH FLOOD CONTROL STUDY

RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO BAYOU TORTUE SW AMP (ALTERNATIVE 2A)

COMBINED GRAVITY AND PUMPED STORAGE TO BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP

(ALTERNATIVE 3)

CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS TO ISAAC VEROT COULEE (ALTERNATIVE SA)

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA March.14, 1995

LAFAYETIE PARISH FLOOD CONTROL STUDY REAL ESTATE APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

PURPOSE OF REPORT ...... B1 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... B1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ...... B1 SPECIAL FEATURES ...... B3 'TMBER ...... B3 ~ERA'LS ...... B3 ™PROVEMENTS ...... B3 ZONIN'G ...... B3 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE ...... B3 ESTATES ...... B3 IDGHEST AND BEST USE ...... B4 BASIS FOR VALUATION ...... B4 REAL ESTATE SECTION ...... B4 ALTERN"ATIVE 2A ...... B4 ALTERN'ATIVE 3 ...... BS ALTERN'ATIVE SA ...... BS ALTERN'ATIVE 2A, REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE (PROJECT) ...... B6 ALTERN'ATIVE 2A, REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE (MITIGATION) ...... B7 ALTERN'ATIVE 3, REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE (PROJECT) ...... BS ALTERN'ATIVE 3, REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE (MITIGATION) ...... B9 ALTERN'ATIVE SA, REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE (PROJECT) ...... B10 ALTERN'ATIVE SA, REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE (MITIGATION) ...... B11 CERTIF'ICATION ...... B12

EXIDBITS

APPRAISAL REVIEW DESCRIPTION OF ESTATES TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ROAD EASEMENT CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT EASEMENT FEE EXCEPTING AND SUBORDINATING SUBSURFACE MINERALS PERPETUAL FLOWAGE EASEMENT PERPETUAL LEVEE AND BORROW EASEMENT CHART OF ACCOUNTS

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report serves as the reconnaissance level input for the proposed project, the Lafayette Parish Flood Control Study and consists of 3 alternatives. These alternatives include; Channel Modifications for Isaac Verot Coulee (Alternative SA), Retention Gravity Storage in Bayou Tortue Swamp (Alternative 2A) and Combined Gravity and Pumped Storage in Bayou Tortue Swamp (Alternative 3). Each alternative will be addressed in this Initial Real Estate Cost Estimate.

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

1. Title to the property is good and merchantable, and the property is free and clear of encumbrances other than easements.

2. The appraiser has made no survey of the property and assumes no responsibility in connection with such matters. Any sketch or identified survey of the property included in this report is only for the purpose of assisting the reader in visualizing the property.

3. This report is based on the current plans for ~tern~~' ~t~I'J:\~!iye ~~and Alternative 2A. Alternative SA consists of Channel Modifications to Isaac Verot Colliee.~~Aitemative 2A and 3 utilize the same general study area (Bayou Tortue Swamp) but include different features. Both alternatives are addressed in this estimate.

4. Inspection of the subject property was performed through both on-site inspection and aerial photography. Most of the property in Alternative SA is accessible via auto. Only a small portion of Alternatives 2A and 3 are accessible via auto.

5. A 25% contingency is used due to the ~filJ~§llni!!eJ~fJh~ ":<::!~ neeci~Jor~ct purposes and the preliminary title information currently available. -~-~~·~~·

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The Isaac Verot Coulee Channel Modifications Alternative is located in Lafayette Parish; ~~)'.:ette,_Ailemative SA consists of two parts; Lateral 2 and the main stem. The main stem and Lateral 2 are studied as one channel. The study area for Lateral 2 and the main stem extends from the intersection of the Isaac Verot Coulee and La Neuville Road westward under Bonin Road, Tolson Road, Failla Road and Vincent Road. The Coulee then continues westward under East Broussard Road to the Vermilion River. Lateral 2A is the second part.

The confluence of Lateral 2A with the main stem is approximately 1,200 feet above La Neuville Road and extends northward crossing Verot School Road and then traversing Beaullieu Park. Lateral 2A continues northward crossing Long

. Bl Plantation Boulevard and ends at Rue Louis XIV Street. The Channel Modifications Plan for the Isaac Verot Coulee affects 109.S acres of agricultural, residential, potential residential and existing channel land types. Alternative SA meanders through several neighborhoods with widely varying land values. Developed residential neighborhood land values vary from $22,000 per acre to $130,000 per acre. The lower end residential land consists of developed areas around mobile home parks and areas with smaller, older residences. The $130,000 per acre developed residential land consists of upscale homes in the $100,000 to $250,000 range with paved streets, curbing, lighting, etc. ¥any .

The flood protection provided by the project will consist of widening and deepening the channel and the installation of concrete lining in designated areas. There are an estimated 137 ownerships in the Alternative SA Study Area. There are an estimated_13 Erivate.bridges or ~ulvert~. affected by Alternative SA. The gross appraisal will analyze severance damages on an individual basis. Due to the preliminary nature of this report, severance damages are estimated on a "worst case scenario" (replacement of bridges). ·Severance damages are estimated at $483,500. Mitigation Plan S has been tentatively selected for Alternative SA. This mitigation site consists of 25 acres of Wet Woodland and 82 acres of Potential Residential. L.,.The entire 107 acres will be acqtiired iii ·"fee":) . . - .

Bayou Tortue Swamp (approximately 7,476 acres of wet woodland) is located between the cities of Lafayette and Breaux Bridge, Louisiana. Bayou Tortue Swamp's 1,200-acre ponding area is surrounded by Lake Martin Road on the south, by Lake Martin Levee to the east and by the Vermilion River spoil bank on the north. The 6,276 acres of wet woodland to the south of Lake Martin Road Levee act as a flowage area from the ponding area. The effect of the project on existing conditions will be nominal in the ponding areas and flowage under Alternative 2A. However, the effect on existing conditions under Alternative 3 will be significant and will require flowage easements on the 1,200-acre ponding area and the 6;2.76- acre flowage area south of Lake Martin Road. There are an estimated 18 ownerships in Alternative 2A and an estimated 33 ownerships in Alternative 3. Mitigation Plan 2 has been tentatively selected for Alternative 2A. This ·mitigation site consists of 16.5 acres of wet wpodland in Bayou Tortue Swamp. ({!i~ e~tir~ ', 16.5 acres will be ,?-cquired in "fee'{. Mitigation Plan 3 has been tentatively select:d for Alternative 3.(Mitigation Plan 3 consists of 6S2 acres of wet woodland which·~) will be acquired in "fee". ·· ··

B2 SPECIAL FEATURES

TIMBER

There is some merchantable timber in the portion of the project affected by Alternative 3. These areas were inspected by the appraiser and the value of the timber is included in the overall estimate of value for the land. The comparable sales had similar merchantable timber.

:MINERALS

Minerals will not be acquired; therefore, they are not evaluated in this report.

IMPROVEMENTS

There are 13 bridges/ culverts located on Alternative SA. These bridges connect individual tracts of private property and are "appurtent acres attired to the land." Therefore, they are real estate.

There is only one other improvement located within the proposed right-of-way in Alternative S. This is a small deck·built on the side of the existing channel. Its value is estimated at $1,000.00. No improvements will be affected by Alternative 2A nor Alternative 3.

ZONING

The zoning in the project area for Alternative SA is residential and commercial. There is no zoning in areas outside the city limits of Lafayette. There is no zoning in areas affected by Alternatives 2A and 3 (Bayou Tortue Swamp). However, the \\ wetlands impacted by the project are regulated by Section 10 of the Rivers and J) Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE

There are no indications of hazardous, toxic or radiological waste located in the proposed right-of-way.

ESTATES

In order to construct the Channel Modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee (Alternative SA), Perpetual Channel Improvement Easements and Temporary Construction Easements will be acquired.

The Bayou Tortue portion of the project affected by Alternative 2A will require the acquisition of Fee, Perpetual Road Access Easement and Temporary Construction Easements. In addition to the easements required for Alternative 2A, Alternative 3 will require Perpetual Levee Easements, Perpetual Borrow Easements, and a Perpetual Flowage Easement. HIGHEST AND BEST USE

The highest and best use is that reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. Much of the land required for the project is classified as wetlands. Due to State and Federal wetland regulations, the owners would have to acquire permits from the State of Louisiana and the Federal Government before any construction activities could take place.

The highest and best uses of the land are as follows: Isaac Verot Coulee - Residential, agricultural, timber production - Bayou Tortue Swamp - recreation activities and speculative mineral development.

BASIS FOR VALUATION

The fair market value of the estates is estimated from the sales of Comparable properties in the area. (Copies of the comparables used are in the project file). Market research for the land types on the Isaac Verot Coulee supports the following fee values: Agricultural: (open land) $1,200 per acre, (woodland) $700 per acre, Residential: $130,000, $65,000 and $22,000 per acre, Potential Residential: , $30,000 and $15,000 per acre, and existing Channel: $1.00 per acre.

Market Research for wet woodland in Alternatives 2A and 3 in the Bayou Tortue Swamp indicates a fee value of $400 per acre.

The fair market value of an easement is the difference between the fair market value of the property before the imposition of the easement and the fair market value of the property after the imposition of the easement. In this appraisal, the "before and after" method is used in theory. Based on the highest and best use analysis, the value attributed to the Perpetual Channel Improvement Easement is 100% of fee value. The value of the Temporary Construction Easement (3 years) is estimated at 30% of fee value. The value of a (1-year) Temporary Construction Easement is estimated at 10% of fee value. The value of a Perpetual Road Access Easement is estimated at 90% of fee value.\ The value of a Perpetual Flowage Easement is estimated at 70% of fee value.

REAL ESTATE SECTION

ALTERNATIVE 2A

This alternative will require the acquisition of approximately 8.64 acres of wet woodland. There are 18 ownerships affected by Alternative 2A. The estates to be acquired include Fee (0.75-acre) (excluding minerals), a Perpetual Road Access Easement (7 acres) and a Temporary (one-year) Construction Easement (0.89-acre). No improvements will be affected by this project; therefore, there are

. B4 no Public Law 91-646 benefits involved. The mitigation area for Alternative 2A consists of 16.5 acres of wet woodlands to be acquired in fee. There are an estimated 5 ownerships in the mitigation area.

ALTERNATIVE 3

This alternative will require the acquisition of approximately 7,836.83 acres of wet woodland and existing levee. There are 33 ownerships affected by Alternative 3. The estates to be acquired include Fee. (1.43 acres), a Perpetual Flowage Easement (7,476 acres), a Perpetual Levee Easement (101 acres), a Perpetual Borrow Easement (250 acres), a Temporary (1-year) Construction Easement (1.4 acres), and a 7-acre Perpetual Road Access Easement. The mitigation area required for Alternative 3 (Mitigation Plan 3) will require the acquisition of 652 acres of wet woodland. There are an estimated 12 ownerships in the mitigation area. No improvements will be affected by this project; no Public Law 91-646 benefits involved.

ALTERNATIVE SA

This alternative will require the acquisition of a Perpetual Channel Easement on 6 acres of agricultural land, 4 acres of residential land, 5.9 acres of potential · residential and 63.6 acres of channel. Severance damages are estimated at $483,500. A Temporary (3-year) Construction Easement will be required on 12 acres of agricultural land, 8 acres of residential and 10 acres of potential residential. The mitigation area (Mitigation Plan 5) is 25 acres of wet woodland ~et~~~~Th!~~;~~o~~~~rfc;~~n;"~ea~tl,~~Js/~~~~~111:! improvement will be affected by this project. There are no Public Law 91-646 benefits involved.

BS REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE RETENTION GRAVITY STORAGE TO BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP ALTERNATIVE 2A

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - March 1995)

Unit Total (a) Lands and Damages Acres Value Value

Fee (Excluding Minerals) Wet Woodland 0. 7 5. $ 400 $ 300

Temporary Construction Easement ( 1 yr) Wet Woodland 0.89 400 x .10 36 Perpetual Road Access Easement Wet Woodland 7 400 x . 9 2,520

Improvements 0

Severance Damages 0

Total (R) $ 3,000

(b) Contingencies 25% (R) 1.000

( c) Total Estimated Lands, Easements, Relocations, $ 4,000 Right-of-Way, and Disposals (LERRD' s)

B6 REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE :MITIGATION PLAN 2

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - February 1995)

Unit Total (a) Lands and Damages Acres Value Value

Fee (Excluding Minerals) Wet Woodland 16.5 $ 400 $ 6,600 Improvements 0 Severance Damages 0

Total (R) $ 7,000

(b) Contingencies 25% (R) 2.000

(c) Total Estimated Lands, Easements, Relocations, $ 9,000 Right-of-Way, and Disposals (LERRD's)

B7 REAL ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATE COMBINED GRAVITY AND PUMPED STORAGE TO BAYOU TORTUE SWAMP ALTERNATIVE 3

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - March 1995) Unit Total (a) Lands & Damages Acres Value Value Fee (Excluding Minerals) Wet Woodland 1. 43 $ 400 $ 572

I I Perpetual Flowage Easement Wet Woodland 7,476 400 x.7 2,093,280 Perpetual Levee Easement Wet Woodland 92.7 400 37,080 Existing Levee 8.3 1 8

Perpetual Borrow Easement Wet Woodland 224.0 400 89,600 Wet Woodland (Existing R.O.W) 26.0 400 10,400 Temporary Construction Easement (1 yr.) Wet Woodland 1.4 400 x.1 56 Perpetual Road Access Easement Wet Woodland 7.0 400 x.9 2,520

Severance Damage 0

Total (R) $2,234,000 (b) Contingencies 25% 559,000

(c) Total Estimated Lands, Easements, Relocations, $2,793,000 Right-of-Way, and Disposals (LERRD's)

. BS REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE MmGATION PLAN 3

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - February 1995)

Unit Total (a) Lands and Damages Acres Value Value

Fee (Excluding Minerals) Wet Woodland 652 $ 400 $260,800

Improvements 0

Severance Damages 0

Total (R) $261,000

(b) Contingencies 25% (R) 65,000

(c) Total Estimated Lands, Easements, Relocations, $326,000 Right-of-Way, and Disposals (LERRD's)

B9 REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS ON THE ISAAC VEROT COULEE ALTERNATIVE SA

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - February 199Sk

Unit Total (a) Lands & Damages Acres Value Value

Perpetual Channel Easement Agricultural (open land) 2 $ 1,200 $ 2,400 Agricultural (woodland) 4 700 2,800 Residential 1 130,000 130,000 Residential 1 65,000 65,000 Residential 2 22,000 44,000 Potential Residential 2 30,000 60,000 Potential Residential 3.9 15,000 58,500 Channel 63.6 1 64

Temporary Construction Easement (3 years) Agricultural (open land) 4 1,200 x .3 1,440 Agricultural (woodland) 8 700 x . 3 1,680 Residential 2 130,000 x .3 78,000 Residential 2 65,000 x . 3 39,000 Residential 4 22,000 x .3 26,400 Potential Residential 4 30,000 x . 3 36,000 Potential Residential 6 15,000 x .3 27,000 Improvements (Deck) 1,000

Severance Damage 483,500

Total (R) $1,057,000

(b) Contingencies 25% (R) 264.000

(c) Total Estimated Real Estate Lands, Easements, $1,321,000 Relocations and Right-of-Way (LERRD's) Disposal areas for this alternative are not addressed in this cost estimate.

BlO )

REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE MffiGATION PLAN 5

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - February 1995)

Unit Total (a) Lands and Damages Acres Value Value

Fee (Excluding Minerals) ~ c ~M~ \(Wet Wo~dland . . . 25 $ 400 $ 10,000 M-~_7!'1~ J._~l _Residential 82 15,000 1,230~000 ... ')

Improvements 0

Severance Damages 0

Total $1,240,000

(b) Contingencies 25% 310,000

(c) Total Estimated Lands, Easements, Relocations, $1,550,000 Right-of-Way, and Disposals (LERRD's)

Bll CERTIFICATION

I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

- the statement of fact contained in this report are true and correct;

- the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions, limiting conditions and legal instructions, and are the personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinion, and conclusions;

- I have no present or prospective interest in the property appraised and no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;

- my compensation is not contingent on the analysis, opinions or conclusions reached or reported;

- I have made a personal inspection of the property appraised, and;

- no one provided significant professional assistance to me except as acknowledged above. @SMITH·/2~ \ 1 Appraiser ) \ 14 March 1995 \

l'l 2 IE X IH1III83II1r

..

APPRAISAL REVIEW

PROJECT: Lafayette Parish Flood Study. LOCATION: Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. APPRAISER: Jimmy F. Smith, Staff Appraiser, NOD. EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL: \i4 March 1995 "'-- -- ESTATES APPRAISED: Fee Excluding Minerals, Temporary Construction Easement, Perpetual Road Easement, Channel Improvement Easement, Perpetual Flowage Easement and Perpetual Levee Easement.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Residential, Agricultural, Timber Production, Recreation, Speculative Mineral Development. -'\LUATION _JMMARY: Lands & Damages Contingency Total Alternative 2A $3,000 $1,000 $4,000 Mitigation 2 $7,000 $2,000 $9,000 Alternative 3 $2,234,000 $559,000 $2,793,000 Mitigation 3 $261,000 $65,000 $326,000

Alternative SA $1,057,000_ - $264 I .. 000 _ Mitigation 5 $1,240,000 $310 ,·ooo SCOPE OF REVIEW: I have made a desk review of the appraisal report. COMMENTS: The Initial Real Estate Cost Estimate is Real Estate's input to the Reconnaissance Report. Normally the estimate includes QDl)l.. J~l:}ose alternat,ives that h.§lV'~.!>eel'l. ch9se.11 t'or .. f.urthe:t study in the Feasibilit.y·Phase:- However, due to time restrain.ts, Real Estate was asked to address three alternatives even though only two alt.ernatives will be recommended to be s€uaied. Fe~sil:>ili.ty. '- .. ··.·· . . . - .•. •.in st of the area affected by construction of the project is unimproved.· However, thirteen foot/vehicular bridges will be

E \ removed as a result of oµr work. This estima~e ~ssumes that the bridges will be replaced,~t Government expense. However, in the feasibility phase, the appraise:i;;:-willartalyze whether it is in the best interest of the Government to pay severance damage or to replace the bridges. The estimated fee values in this report are fully supported by comparable sales which are kept in our office files. The percentage of fee allocated to the perpetual easements is based on the impact that the easements have on the subject's value. The value of the temporary easement is based on a rental for the duration of the easement. This Initial Real Estate Cost Estimate is recommended for approval. REVIEWER'S CERTIFICATION: I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: the facts and data reported in this report and used in the review process are true and correct; the analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; my compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this review report; I did not personally inspect the subject property of the report under review; no one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this review report.

14 March 1995 ~Y.~u~Review Appraise~rez c:J New Orleans District TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

A temporary easement right-of-way in, on, over and across the land described, for a period not to exceed year(s), beginning with date possession of the land is granted to the , for use by the , the ~~~..,,--~~~~-:-~--United States, its representatives, agents, and contractors as a construction or work area, including the right to borrow and/or deposit fill and excavated material thereon; move, store and remove equipment and supplies, and erect and remove temporary structure on the land and to perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction of the Project, together with the right to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits of the right-of-way; reserving, however, to the landowners, their heirs as assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. ROAD EASEMENT

A perpetual and assignable easement and right-of-way in, on, over and across (the land described in Schedule A) (Tract Nos. and ) for the location, construction, operation, maintenance, alteration and replacement of (a) road(s) and appurtenances thereto; together with the right to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions and other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits of the right-of-way; (reserving, however, to the owners, their heirs and assigns, the right to cross over or under the right-of-way as access to their adjoining land at the locations indicated in Schedule B); ~/subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT EASEMENT A perpetual and assignable right and easement to construct, operate, and maintain channel improvement works on, over and across (the land described in Schedule A) (Tract Nos. , and for the purposes as authorized by the Act of Congress approved~~ , including the right to clear, cut, ~~~~~~~~--,,.--,,~~~fell, remove and dispose of any and all timber, trees, underbrush, buildings, improvements and/or other obstructions therefrom; to excavate, dredge, cut away, and remove any or all of said land and to place thereon dredge or spoil material; and for such other purposes as may be required in connection with said work of improvement; reserving, however, to the owners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways; public roads and highways; public utilities, railroads and pipeline.

~ --- FEE EXCEPTING AND SUBORDINATING SUBSURFACE MINERALS

The fee simple title to the land described in Schedule A (Tract Nos. , and ), subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines; excepting and excluding from the taking all (coal) (oil and gas) in and under said land and all appurtenant rights used in connection with the exploration, development, production and removal of said (coal) (oil and gas), including any existing structures and improvements; provided, however, that the said (coal) (oil and gas) and appurtenant rights so excepted and excluded are hereby subordinated to the prior right of the United States to flood and submerge the land as may be necessary in the construction, operation and maintenance of the project; provided further that any exploration or development of said (coal) (oil and gas) in and under said land shall be subject to Federal and State laws with respect to pollution; and provided that the type and location of any structure, improvement and appurtenance thereto to be erected or constructed on said land in connection with the exploration and/or development of said (coal) (oil and gas) shall be subject to the prior written approval of the District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans, or his duly authorized representative. PERPETUAL FLOWAGE EASEMENT The perpetual right, power, privilege and easement permanently to overflow, flood and submerge (the land described in Schedule A) Tract Nos. , , and ) )and to maintain mosquito control) in---con:nection with the operation and maintenance of the project as authorized by the Act of Congress approved , and the continuing right to clear and rem9y:e-an:y__ nrush., debris and natural obstructions whicht" in the dp~g~igu ot_.the representatiye·-cff··t:ne ·uiii}e"C{-~tates.nf-ch~r-g·~ · o.f the iYroj ect, may be detrimental to the project, together with all~~~-­ right, title and int~rest in and to the timber, structures and improvements situate on the land (excepting (here identify those structures not designed for human habitation which the District Engineer determines may remain on the land) ; provided that no structures for human habitation shall be constructed or maintained on the land, that no· other structures shall be constructed or maintained on the land except as may be approved in writing by he representative of the United States in charge of the project, and that no excavation shall be conducted and no landfill placed on the land without such approval as to the location and method of excavation and/or placement of landfill; l\ the above estate is taken subject to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving however, to the landowners, their heirs and assigns; all such rights and privileges as may be used and enjoyed without interfering with the use of the project for the purposes authorized by Congress or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; provided further that nay use of the land shall be subject to Federal and State laws with respect to pollution.

PERPETUAL LEVEE EASEMENT A perpetual and assignable right and easement in (the land described in Schedule A) (Tract Nos. , , and ) to construct, maintain, repair, operate, patrol and replace a flood protection levee (add "and floodwall" were appropriate), including all appurtenances thereto; reserving, however, to the owners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges in the land as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. PERPETUAL BORROW EASEMENT

A perpetual and assignable right and easement to clear, borrow, excavate and remove soil, dirt, and other materials from (the land described in Schedule A) (Tract Nos. , , and ) ; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving, however, to the landowners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges in said land as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired. CIVIL WORKS CHART OF ACCOUNTS LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA. RECON STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2A

14 MARCH 1995

(R)$208,000 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $208,438

OlA PROJECT PLANNING 2400 OlAX CONTINGENCIES 480

OlB ACQUISITIONS 118580 OlBl BY GOVT 11520 01B2, BY LOCAL SPONSOR (LS) 70700 I 01B3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01B4 REVIEW OF LS 12640 OlBX CONTINGENCIES 23720

OlC CONDEMNATIONS 29250 OlCl BY GOVT 0 01C2 -~'f J:,~ (21600 o1ci BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01C4 REVIEW OF LS 1800 OlCX CONTINGENCIES 5850

OlD INLEASING 0 0101 BY GOVT 0 01D2 BY LS 0 ' 01D3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01D4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlDX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlE APPRAISALS 25800. OlEl BY GOVT (IN HOUSE) 0 01E2 BY GOVT (CONTRACT) 0 01E3 BY LS 18000 )

.:: - i>lE4 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlES REVIEW OF LS 2640 OlEX CONTINGENCIES 5160

OlF PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 OlFl BY GOVT 0 01F2 BY LS IQ\ 01F3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01F4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlFX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlG TEMPORARY PERMITS 24000 OlGl BY GOVT 6240 .01G2 BY LS 10800 01G3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01G4 REVIEW OF LS 2160 OlGS OTHER 0 01G6 DAMAGE CLAIMS 0 OlGX CONTINGENCIES 4800 OlH AUDITS 0 01H1 BY GOVT 0 01H2 BY LS 0 01H3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01H4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlHX CONTINGENCIES 0

01J ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0 OlJl BY GOVT 0 01J2 BY LS 0 01J3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01J4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlJX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlK DISPOSALS 0 01K1 BY GOVT 0 01K2 BY LS 0 01K3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01K4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlKX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlL REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY 0 OlLX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlR REAL ESTATE PAYMENTS 4058 01Rl LAND PAYMENTS 3000 OlRlA BY GOVT 0 OlRlB BY LS 3000 OlRlC BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlRlD REVIEW OF LS 0 01R2 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 0 01R2A BY GOVT 0 01R2B BY LS 0 01R2C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R2D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R3 DAMAGE PAYMENTS 0 01R3A BY GOVT 0 01R3B BY LS 0 01R3C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R3D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R9 OTHER 58 01RX CONTINGENCIES 1000

OlS REAL ESTATE RECEIPTS 0 OlSl DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-REIMBURSEMENTS(CR)-LANDS 0 01S2 DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-GENERAL FUND(CR)-LANDS 0

01T ""LERRD CREDITS ·~ 4350 OlTl LAND PAYMENTS 0 01T2 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 3480 01T3 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 Ol.T4 ALL OTHER 0 OlTX CONTINGENCIES 870 (R)$4,000 21 RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES $4,340

21H REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 4340 21V FEASIBILITY COST SHARING AGREEMENT 0

(R)$15,000 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES $15,040

22H REAL ESTATE PLAN 7160 22S REPORT PREPARATION 7400 22Sl REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 1880 22S9 ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES 5520 22U REAL ESTATE DESIGN MEMORANDUM 240 22V REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT 240

24 MISCELLANEOUS 0 24A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 24D ALL OTHER 0

25 COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA 0 25A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 25D ALL OTHER 0

26 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 0 26A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 26B ALL OTHER 0

27 REFORMULATION STUDIES 0 27A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 27D ALL OTHER 0

(R)$1,000 ~-~9BP PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT ( PCA) $960 (R)$0 51 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION $0

51A REAL ESTATE LEASING 0 51Al INLEASING 0 51A2 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 0 51A3 DISPOSAL ASSISTANCE 0 51A4 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS (PL 91-646) 0 SlAS RENTS,INITIAL ALTERATIONS AND RESTORATIONS 0

SlB REAL ESTATE.MANAGEMENT SERVICES 0 SlBl INSPECTIONS 0 SlBlA COMPLIANCE 0 SlBlB UTILIZATION 0 51B2 OUTGRANTS 0 51B2A REGULAR 0 51B2B OIL AND GAS 0 51B3 DISPOSALS 0 51B4 ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0

51C OTHER OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 0

51D REVENUES FROM OUTLEASES RETURNED TO U.S. 0

51E AUDITS 0

51F TIMBER HARVEST 0

51G REPAYMENTS AND COST DISTRIBUTIONS 0

51H MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0 SlHl REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT INCOME 0 51H9 OTHER INCOME 0

52 SURVEYS AND LAYOUTS 0

53 REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 0 CIVIL WORKS CHART OF ACCOUNTS LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA. RECON STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2A - MITIGATION AREA

10 MARCH 1995

(R)$100,000 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $99,828

OlA PROJECT PLANNING 1600 OlAX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlB ACQUISITIONS 55660 OlBl BY GOVT 8960 01B2 BY LOCAL SPONSOR (LS) 29950 01B3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01B4 REVIEW OF LS 5620 OlBX CONTINGENCIES 111.30

OlC CONDEMNATIONS 4130 OlCl BY GOVT 0 01C2 BY LS 3000 01C3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01C4 REVIEW OF LS 300 OlCX CONTINGENCIES 830

OlD INLEASING 0 OlDl BY GOVT 0 01D2 BY LS 0 I 01D3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01D4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlDX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlE APPRAISALS 7380 OlEl BY GOVT (IN HOUSE) 0 01E2 BY GOVT (CONTRACT) 0

01E3c BY LS 5000 01E4 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlES REVIEW OF LS 900 OlEX CONTINGENCIES 1480

OlF PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 OlFl BY GOVT 0 01F2 BY LS Q, 01F3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01F4 REVIEW OF LS 0 01FX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlG TEMPORARY PERMITS 17800 OlGl BY GOVT 4480 01G2 BY LS -- 8000· 01G3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0· 01G4 REVIEW. OF LS 1760 OJ.GS OTHER 0 01G6 DAMAGE CLAIMS 0 OlGX CONTINGENCIES 3560 OlH AUDITS 0 OlHl BY GOVT 0 01H2 BY LS 0 01H3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01H4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlHX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlJ ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0 OlJl BY GOVT 0 01J2 BY LS 0 01J3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01J4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlJX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlK DISPOSALS 0 OlKl BY GOVT 0 01K2 BY LS 0 01K3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01K4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlKX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlL REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY 0 OlLX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlR REAL ESTATE PAYMENTS 9058 OlRl LAND PAYMENTS 7000 OlRlA BY GOVT 0 OlRlB BY LS 7000 OlRlC BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlRlD REVIEW OF LS 0 01R2 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 0 01R2A BY GOVT 0 01R2B BY LS 0 01R2C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R2D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R3 DAMAGE PAYMENTS 0 01R3A BY GOVT 0 01R3B BY LS 0 01R3C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R3D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R9 OTHER 58 OlRX CONTINGENCIES 2000

OlS REAL ESTATE RECEIPTS 0 OlSl DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-REIMBURSEMENTS(CR}-LANDS 0 01S2 DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-GENERAL FUND(CR}-LANDS 0

OlT LERRD CREDITS 4200 OlTl LAND PAYMENTS 0 01T2 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 3360 01T3 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 01T4 ALL OTHER 0 OlTX CONTINGENCIES 840 (R)$3,000 21 RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES $3,120

21H REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 3120 21V FEASIBILITY COST SHARING AGREEMENT 0

(R)$10,000 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES $9,800

22H REAL ESTATE PLAN 4080 22S REPORT PREPARATION 5720 22Sl REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 1880 22S9 ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES 3840 22U REAL ESTATE DESIGN MEMORANDUM 0 22V REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT 0

24 MISCELLANEOUS 0 24A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 24D ALL OTHER 0

25 COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA 0 25A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 25D ALL OTHER 0

26 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 0 26A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 26B ALL OTHER 0

27 REFORMULATION STUDIES 0 27A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 27D ALL OTHER 0

(R)$0 30BP PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT (PCA) $0 (R) $0 51 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION $0

51A REAL ESTATE LEASING 0 51Al INLEASING 0 51A2 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 0 51A3 DISPOSAL ASSISTANCE 0 51A4 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS (PL 91-646) 0 51A5 RENTS, INITIAL ALTERATIONS AND RESTORATIONS 0

51B REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 0 51Bl INSPECTIONS 0 51BlA COMPLIANCE 0 51BlB UTILIZATION 0 51B2 OUTGRANTS 0 51B2A REGULAR 0 51B2B OIL AND GAS 0 51B3 DISPOSALS 0 51B4 ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0

51C OTHER OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 0

51D REVENUES FROM OUTLEASES RETURNED TO U.S. 0

51E AUDITS 0

51F TIMBER HARVEST 0

51G REPAYMENTS AND COST DISTRIBUTIONS 0

51H MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0 51Hl REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT INCOME 0 51H9 OTHER INCOME 0

52 SURVEYS AND LAYOUTS 0

53 REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 0 \ ,, J\

REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 2A LAFAYETTE PARISH FLOOD STUDY LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - February 1995)

Unit Total (a) Lands and Damages Acres Value Value Fee (Excluding Minerals) Wet Woodland 0.75 $ 400 $ 300 Temporary Construction Easement (1 yr) Wet Woodland 0.89 400 x .10 36 Perpetual Road Access Easement Wet Woodland 7 400 x .9 2,520

Improvements 0

Severance Damages 0

Total (R) $ 3,000

(b) Contingencies 25% (R) l, 000

(c) Total Estimated Lands, Easements, Relocations, $ 4,000 Right-of-Way, and Disposals (LERRD's) Q::~ Appraiser .. 24 February 1995

~UT~~~Review Appraiser 24 February 1995

CIVIL WORKS CHART OF ACCOUNTS LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA. RECON STUDY ALTERNATIVE 3

(R)$3,108,000 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $3,108,040

OlA PROJECT PLANNING 2400 OlAX CONTINGENCIES 480

OlB ACQUISITIONS 174190 OlBl BY GOVT 12560 01B2 BY LOCAL SPONSOR (LS) '116950\ 01B3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS ' 0 01B4 REVIEW OF LS 9840 OlBX CONTINGENCIES 34840

OlC CONDEMNATIONS 51750 OlCl BY GOVT 0 01~.2 .. BY LS ( 39600) 01C3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS I 0 01C4 REVIEW OF LS 1800 OlCX CONTINGENCIES 10350

OlD INLEASING 0 OlDl BY GOVT 0 01D2 BY LS 0 01D3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01D4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlDX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlE APPRAISALS 46200 OlEl BY GOVT (IN HOUSE} 0 01E2 BY GOVT (CONTRACT) 0 01E3 BY LS 33000' 01E4 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01E5 REVIEW OF LS 3960 OlEX CONTINGENCIES 9240

OlF PL .91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 OlFl BY GOVT 0 01F2 BY LS ,Q' 01F3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01F4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlFX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlG TEMPORARY PERMITS 28250 OlGl BY GOVT 7040

01G2 BY LS 13200 I . \ 01G3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01G4 REVIEW·OF LS 0 OlGS OTHER 2360 01G6 DAMAGE CLAIMS 0 OlGX CONTINGENCIES 5650 OlH AUDITS 0 OlHl BY GOVT 0 01H2 BY LS 0 01H3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01H4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlHX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlJ ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0 OlJl BY GOVT 0 01J2 BY LS 0 01J3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01J4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlJX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlK DISPOSALS 0 OlKl BY GOVT 0 01K2 BY LS 0 01K3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01K4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlKX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlL REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY 0 OlLX CONTINGENCIES 0

01R REAL ESTATE PAYMENTS 2800900 OlRl LAND PAYMENTS 2234000 OlRlA BY GOVT 0 OlRlB BY LS 2234000 01R1C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01RlD REVIEW OF LS 0 01R2 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 0 01R2A BY GOVT 0 01R2B BY LS 0 01R2C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R2D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R3 DAMAGE PAYMENTS 0 01R3A BY GOVT 0 01R3B BY LS 0 01R3C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R3D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R9 OTHER , 7900 01RX CONTINGENCIES 559000

OlS REAL ESTATE RECEIPTS 0 OlSl DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-REIMBURSEMENTS(CR)-LANDS 0 01S2 DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-GENERAL FUND(CR)-LANDS 0

OlT LERRD CREDITS 4350 OlTl LAND PAYMENTS 0 01T2 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 3480 01T3 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 01T4 ALL OTHER 0 OlT~ CONTINGENCIES 870 (R) $4, 000 21 RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES $4,340

21H REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 4340 21V FEASIBILITY COST SHARING AGREEMENT 0

(R)$21,000 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES $21,040

22H REAL ESTATE PLAN 10160 22S REPORT PREPARATION 10400 22Sl REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 1880 22S9 ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES 8520 22U REAL ESTATE DESIGN MEMORANDUM 240 22V REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT 240

24 MISCELLANEOUS 0 24A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 24D ALL OTHER 0

25 COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA 0 25A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 25D ALL OTHER 0

26 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 0 26A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 26B ALL OTHER 0

27 REFORMULATION STUDIES 0 27A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 27D ALL OTHER 0

(R)$1,000 30BP PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT (PCA) $960 (R) $0 51 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION $0

SlA REAL ESTATE LEASING 0 SlAl INLEASING 0 51A2 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 0 51A3 DISPOSAL ASSISTANCE 0 51A4 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS (PL 91-646) 0 SlAS RENTS,INITIAL ALTERATIONS AND RESTORATIONS 0

SlB REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 0 SlBl INSPECTIONS 0 SlBlA COMPLIANCE 0 SlBlB UTILIZATION 0 51B2 OUTGRANTS 0 51B2A REGULAR 0 51B2B OIL AND GAS 0 51B3 DISPOSALS 0 51B4 ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0

51C OTHER OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 0

51D REVENUES FROM OUTLEASES RETURNED TO U.S. 0

51E AUDITS 0

51F TIMBER HARVEST 0

51.G REPAYMENTS AND COST DISTRIBUTIONS 0

51H MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0 51.Hl. REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT INCOME 0 Sl.H9 OTHER INCOME 0

52 SURVEYS AND LAYOUTS 0

53 REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 0 CIVIL WORKS CHART OF ACCOUNTS LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA. RECON STUDY ALTERNATIVE 3 - MITIGATION AREA

10 MARCH 1995

(R)$467,000 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $466,610

OlA PROJECT PLANNING 1600 OlAX CONTINGENCIES 320

OlB ACQUISITIONS 95450 OlBl BY GOVT 10160 01B2 BY LOCAL SPONSOR (LS) 53000) I - 01B3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01B4 REVIEW OF LS 13200 OlBX CONTINGENCIES 19090

OlC CONDEMNATIONS 0 OlCl BY GOVT 0 01.C2 BY LS 0 01C3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01C4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlCX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlD INLEASING 0 01.Dl BY GOVT 0 01D2 BY LS 0 01D3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01D4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlDX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlE APPRAISALS 16800 OlEl BY GOVT (IN HOUSE) 0 01E2 BY GOVT (CONTRACT) 0 01E3 BY LS 12000 ' 01E4 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01E5 REVIEW OF LS 1440 01.EX CONTINGENCIES 3360

OlF PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 01.Fl BY GOVT 0 01.F2 BY LS 0 01F3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01F4 REVIEW OF LS 0 01.FX CONTINGENCIES 0

01.G TEMPORARY PERMITS 21300 01.Gl BY GOVT 5280 01.G2 BY LS 110000 01G3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01G4 REVIEW.OF LS 1760 OlGS OTHER 0 01G6 DAMAGE CLAIMS 0 01.GX CONTINGENCIES 4260 OlH AUDITS 0 OlHl BY GOVT 0 01H2 BY LS 0 01H3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01H4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlHX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlJ ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0 OlJl BY GOVT 0 01J2 BY LS 0 01J3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01J4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlJX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlK DISPOSALS 0 OlKl BY GOVT 0 01K2 BY LS 0 01K3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01K4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlKX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlL REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY 0 OlLX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlR REAL ESTATE PAYMENTS 327260 OlRl LAND PAYMENTS 261000 OlRlA BY GOVT 0 OlRlB BY LS 261000 .. 'olRlC BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlRlD REVIEW OF LS 0 01R2 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 0 01R2A BY GOVT 0 01R2B BY LS 0 01R2C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R2D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R3 DAMAGE PAYMENTS 0 01R3A BY GOVT 0 01R3B BY LS 0 01R3C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R3D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R9 OTHER 1260 OlRX CONTINGENCIES 65000

OlS REAL ESTATE RECEIPTS 0 OlSl DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-REIMBURSEMENTS(CR)-LANDS 0 01S2 DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-GENERAL FUND(CR)-LANDS 0

OlT LERRD CREDITS 4200 01Tl LAND PAYMENTS 0 01T2 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 3360 01T3 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 01T4 ALL OTHER 0 OlTX CONTINGENCIES 840 (R)$3,000 21 RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES $3,120

21H REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 3120 21V FEASIBILITY COST SHARING AGREEMENT 0

(R) $12, 000 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES $11, 800

22H REAL ESTATE PLAN 5480 22S REPORT PREP,ARATION 6320 22Sl REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 1880 22S9 ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES 4440 22U REAL ESTATE DESIGN MEMORANDUM 0 22V REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT 0

24 MISCELLANEOUS 0 24A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 24D ALL OTHER 0

25 COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA 0 25A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 25D ALL OTHER 0

26 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 0 26A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 26B ALL OTHER 0

27 REFORMULATION STUDIES 0 27A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 27D ALL OTHER 0

(R) $0 30BP PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT (PCA) $0 (R) $0 51 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION $0

51A REAL ESTATE LEASING 0 51Al INLEASING 0 51A2 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 0 51A3 DISPOSAL ASSISTANCE 0 51A4 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS (PL 91-646) 0 51A5 RENTS, INITIAL ALTERATIONS AND RESTORATIONS 0

51B REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 0 51Bl INSPECTIONS 0 51BlA COMPLIANCE 0 51BlB UTILIZATION 0 51B2 OUTGRANTS 0 51B2A REGULAR 0 51B2B OIL AND GAS 0 51B3 DISPOSALS 0 51B4 ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0

51C OTHER OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 0

51D REVENUES FROM OUTLEASES RETURNED TO U.S. 0

51E AUDITS 0

51F TIMBER HARVEST 0

51G REPAYMENTS AND COST DISTRIBUTIONS 0

51H MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0 51Hl REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT INCOME 0 51H9 OTHER INCOME 0

52 SURVEYS AND LAYOUTS 0

53 REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 0 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 50224

REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 3 LAFAYETTE PARISH FLOOD STUDY LAFAYETTE PARISH. LOUISIANA

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - February 1995) Unit Tota·l (a) Lands & Damages Acres Value Value Fee (Excluding Minerals) Wet Woodland 1.43 $ 400 $ 572 Perpetual Flowage Easement Wet Woodland 7,476 400 x.7 2,093,280 Perpetual Levee Easement Wet Woodland 92.7 400 37,080 Existing Levee 8.3 1 8 Perpetual Borrow Easement Wet Woodland 224.0 400 89,600 Wet Woodland (Existing R.O.W) 26.0 400 10,400 Temporary Construction Easement (1 yr.) Wet Woodland 1.4 400 x.1 56 Perpetual Road Access Easement Wet Woodland 7.0 400 x.9 2,520

Severance Damage 0

Total (R) $2,234,000 = -- (b) Contingencies 25% 559,000 (c) Total Estimated Lands, Easements, Relocations, $2,793,000 Right-of-Way, and Disposals (LERRD's)

ppraiser 24 February 1995

~i-Jl£'ITH G IERREZ ~ Review Appraiser 24 February 1995

CIVIL WORKS CHART OF ACCOUNTS LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA. RECON STUDY ALTERNATIVE SA

10 MARCH 1995

(R)$2,353,000 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $2,352,920

OlA PROJECT PLANNING 2400 OlAX CONTINGENCIES 480

OlB ACQUISITIONS 557190 OlBl BY GOVT 14560 01J?2 BY LOCAL SPONSOR (LS) 409550 1 01B3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01B4 REVIEW OF LS 21640 OlBX CONTINGENCIES 111440

OlC CONDEMNATIONS 216750 OlCl BY GOVT 0 01C2 BY LS--- <165600) 01C3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01C4 REVIEW OF LS 7800 OlCX CONTINGENCIES 43350

OlD INLEASING 0 OlDl BY GOVT 0 01D2 BY LS 0 0103 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01D4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlDX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlE APPRAISALS 202080 OlEl BY GOVT (IN HOUSE) 0 01E2 BY GOVT (CONTRACT) 0 01E3 BY LS '137000 01E4 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlES REVIEW OF LS 24660 OlEX CONTINGENCIES 40420 ' OlF PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE "' 0 OlFl BY GOVT 0 01F2 BY LS 0 01F3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01F4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlFX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlG TEMPORARY PERMITS 45550 OlGl BY GOVT 6480 01G2 BY LS 27400 01G3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01G4 REVIEW OF LS 2560 01G5 OTHER 0 01G6 DAMAGE CLAIMS 0 OlGX CONTINGENCIES 9110 OlH AUDITS 0 OlHl BY GOVT 0 01H2 BY LS 0 01H3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01H4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlHX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlJ ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0 OlJl BY GOVT 0 01J2 BY LS 0 01J3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01J4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlJX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlK DISPOSALS 0 OlKl BY GOVT 0 01K2 BY LS 0 01K3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01K4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlKX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlL REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY 0 OlLX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlR REAL ESTATE PAYMENTS 1324600 OlRl LAND PAYMENTS 1057000 OlRlA BY GOVT 0 OlRlB BY LS 1057000 OlRlC BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlRlD REVIEW OF LS 0 01R2 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 0 01R2A BY GOVT 0 01R2B BY LS 0 01R2C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R2D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R3 DAMAGE PAYMENTS 0 01R3A BY GOVT 0 01R3B BY LS 0 01R3C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R3D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R9 OTHER 3600 OlRX CONTINGENCIES 264000

OlS REAL ESTATE RECEIPTS 0 OlSl DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-REIMBURSEMENTS(CR)-LANDS 0 01S2 DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-GENERAL FUND(CR)-LANDS 0

OlT LERRD CREDITS 4350 OlTl LAND PAYMENTS 0 01T2 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 3480 01T3 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 01T4 ALL OTHER 0 OlTX CONTINGENCIES 870 (R)$4,000 21 RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES $4,340

21H REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 4340 21V FEASIBILITY COST SHARING AGREEMENT 0

(R)$31,000 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES $30,960

22H REAL ESTATE PLAN 25480 22S REPORT PREPARATION 5000 22Sl REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 1880 22S9 ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES 3120 22U REAL ESTATE DESIGN MEMORANDUM 240 22V REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT 240

24 MISCELLANEOUS 0 24A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 24D ALL OTHER 0

25 COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA 0 25A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 25D ALL OTHER 0

26 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 0 26A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 26B ALL OTHER 0

27 REFORMULATION STUDIES 0 27A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 27D ALL OTHER 0

(R)$1,000 30BP PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT (PCA) $960

-_ =- (R) $0 51 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION $0

51A REAL ESTATE LEASING 0 51Al INLEASING 0 51A2 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 0 51A3 DISPOSAL ASSISTANCE 0 51A4 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS (PL 91-646) 0 51A5 RENTS, INITIAL ALTERATIONS AND RESTORATIONS 0

51B REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 0 51Bl INSPECTIONS 0 51BlA COMPLIANCE 0 51BlB UTILIZATION 0 51B2 OUTGRANTS 0 51B2A REGULAR 0 51B2B OIL AND GAS 0 51B3 DISPOSALS 0 51B4 ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0

SlC OTHER OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 0

SlD REVENUES FROM OUTLEASES RETURNED TO U.S. 0

51E AUDITS 0

SlF TIMBER HARVEST 0

SlG REPAYMENTS AND COST DISTRIBUTIONS 0

SlH MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0 51Hl REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT INCOME 0 51H9 OTHER INCOME 0

52 SURVEYS AND LAYOUTS 0

53 REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 0 CIVIL WORKS CHART OF ACCOUNTS LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA. RECON STUDY ALTERNATIVE SA - MITIGATION AREA

10 MARCH 1995

(R)$1,594,000 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $1,594,440

OlA PROJECT PLANNING 1600 OlAX CONTINGENCIES 320

OlB ACQUISITIONS 23490 OlBl BY GOVT 3920 01B2 BY LOCAL SPONSOR (LS) 1,12030', 01B3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01B4 REVIEW OF LS 2840 OlBX CONTINGENCIES 4700

OlC CONDEMNATIONS 0 OlCl BY GOVT 0 01C2 BY LS 0 01C3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01C4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlCX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlD INLEASING 0 OlDl BY GOVT 0 01D2 BY LS 0 01D3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01D4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlDX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlE APPRAISALS 2150 OlEl BY GOVT (IN HOUSE) 0 01E2 BY GOVT (CONTRACT) 0 01E3 BY LS 1000 01E4 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlES REVIEW OF LS 720 OlEX CONTINGENCIES 430

OlF PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 OlFl BY GOVT 0 01F2 BY LS 0 01F3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01F4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlFX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlG TEMPORARY PERMITS 8200 OlGl BY GOVT 2020 01G2 ~B~LS t 4000 01G3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01G4 REVIEW OF LS 540 OlGS OTHER 0 01G6 DAMAGE CLAIMS 0 OlGX CONTINGENCIES 1640 OlH AUDITS 0 OlHl BY GOVT 0 01H2 BY LS 0 01H3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01H4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlHX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlJ ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0 OlJl BY GOVT 0 01J2 BY LS 0 01J3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01J4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlJX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlK DISPOSALS 0 OlKl BY GOVT 0 01K2 BY LS 0 01K3 BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01K4 REVIEW OF LS 0 OlKX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlL REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY 0 OlLX CONTINGENCIES 0

OlR REAL ESTATE PAYMENTS 1554800 OlRl LAND PAYMENTS 1240000 OlRlA BY GOVT 0 OlRlB BY LS 1240000 ' OlRlC BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 OlRlD REVIEW OF LS 0 01R2 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 0 01R2A BY GOVT 0 01R2B BY LS 0 01R2C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R2D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R3 DAMAGE PAYMENTS 0 01R3A BY GOVT 0 01R3B BY LS 0 01R3C BY GOVT ON BEHALF OF LS 0 01R3D REVIEW OF LS 0 01R9 OTHER 4800 OlRX CONTINGENCIES 310000

OlS REAL ESTATE RECEIPTS 0 OlSl DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-REIMBURSEMENTS(CR)-LANDS 0 01S2 DISPOSAL RECEIPTS-GENERAL FUND(CR)-LANDS 0

OlT LERRD CREDITS 4200 OlTl LAND PAYMENTS 0 01T2 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 3360 01T3 PL 91-646 ASSISTANCE 0 01T4 ALL OTHER 0 OlTX CONTINGENCIES 840 (R)$3,000 21 RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES $3,120

21H REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 3120 21V FEASIBILITY COST SHARING AGREEMENT 0

(R)$12,000 22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES $11, 520

22H REAL ESTATE PLAN 3280 22S REPORT PREPARATION 8240 22Sl REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 1880 22S9 ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES 6360 22U REAL ESTATE DESIGN MEMORANDUM 0 22V REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT 0

24 MISCELLANEOUS 0 24A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 24D ALL OTHER 0

25 COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA 0 25A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 25D ALL OTHER 0

26 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 0 26A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 26B ALL OTHER 0

27 REFORMULATION STUDIES 0 27A REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 0 27D ALL OTHER 0

(R) $0 30BP PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT (PCA) $0 (R) $0 51 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION $0

51A REAL ESTATE LEASING 0 51Al INLEASING 0 51A2 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 0 51A3 DISPOSAL ASSISTANCE 0 51A4 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS (PL 91-646) 0 51A5 RENTS,INITIAL ALTERATIONS AND RESTORATIONS 0

51B REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 0 51Bl INSPECTIONS 0 51BlA COMPLIANCE 0 51BlB UTILIZATION 0 51B2 OUTGRANTS 0 51B2A REGULAR 0 51B2B OIL AND GAS 0 51B3 DISPOSALS 0 51B4 ENCROACHMENTS AND TRESPASS 0

51C OTHER OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 0

51D REVENUES FROM OUTLEASES RETURNED TO U.S. 0

51E AUDITS 0

51F TIMBER HARVEST 0

51G REPAYMENTS AND COST DISTRIBUTIONS 0

51H MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0 51Hl REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT INCOME 0 51H9 OTHER INCOME 0

52 SURVEYS AND LAYOUTS 0 IDENTIFICATIOJ NUMBER 50224

REAL ESTATE COST ESTIMATE LAFAYETTE PARISH FLOOD STUDY ALTERNATIVE SA LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA

ESTIMATE OF COSTS (Date of Value - February 1995) Unit Total (a) Lands & Damages Acres Value Value Perpetual Channel Easement Agricultural (open land) 2 $ 1·, 200 $ 2,400 Agricultural (woodland) 4 700 2,800 Residential 1 130,000 130,000 Residential 1 65,000 65,000 Residential 2 22,000 44,000 Potential Residential 2 30,000 60,000 Potential Residential 3.9 15,000 58,500 Channel 63.6 1 64

Temporary Construction Easement (3 years) Agricultural (open land) 4 1,200 x .3 1,440 Agricultural (woodland) 8 700 x .3 1,680 Residential 2 130,000 x .3 78,000 Residential 2 65,000 x . 3 39,000 Residential 4 22,000 x . 3 26,400 Potential Residential 4 30,000 x .3 36,000 Potential Residential 6 15,000 x . 3 27,000

Improvements (Deck) 1,000

Severance Damage 483.500

Total (R) $1,057,000

(b) Contingencies 25% (R) 264,000

(c) Total Estimated Real Estate Lands, Easements, $1,321,000 Relocations and Right-of-Way (LERRD's) Disposal areas for this alternative are not addressed in this cost estimate. -

ppraiser I 24 February 1995 ~lillL~ITH G - Review Appra:erE~ 24 February ·1995

APPENDIXC

ECONOMIC APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL ...... Cl NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BENEFIT CATEGORIES CONSIDERED ...... Cl ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... Cl

METHODOLOGY

STRUCTURE INVENTORY METIIODOLOGY ...... C3 GROUND ELEVATIONS ...... C3 AUTOMOBil..ES ...... C3 DAMAGE CALCULATIONS ...... C4

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

INUNDATION REDUCTION BENEFITS ...... C4 OTHER URBAN BENEFITS ...... C20 TOTAL EXPECTED ANNUAL NED BENEFITS ...... C21 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ...... C21 NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES ...... C23 RESlJLTS OF ANALYSIS ...... " . . . C23

UST OF TABLES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... C2 2 STRUCTURE INVENTORY ...... CS 3 NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN FLOOD ZONES WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDmONS ...... CS 4 NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN FLOOD ZONES

PLAN' 2A ...... !' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • Cl 1 5 NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN FLOOD ZONES

PLAN' 3 ...... $ ••• (I • " • C14 6 NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN FLOOD ZONES

PLAN SA ...... o •••• o • • • • • • • • • • • C16 7 DAMAGE FOR VARIOUS FLOOD EVENTS ...... C17 8 EXPECTED ANNUAL DAMAGES AND BENEFITS, PLAN 2A . . . C18 9 EXPECTED ANNUAL DAMAGES AND BENEFITS, PLAN 3 . . . . C19 UST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

10 EXPECTED ANNUAL DAMAGES AND BENEFITS, PLAN SA . . . C20 11 EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS BY NED BENEFIT CATEGORY. C21 12 AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS ...... C22 13 Sllv1MARYOF EXPECTED ANNUAL COSTS AND BENEFITS ... C22 14 NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES, SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ...... C23 LAFAYETIE PARISH, LOUISIANA :RECONNAISSANCE STUDY

ECONOMIC APPENDIX l INITRODUCTION

Ge.zra:JL This appendix presents an economic evaluation of the flood control :im.pmvements being considered in Lafayette Parish. It was prepared in accordance wdb Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, .Planning Guidance. The evaluation consists of a description of the methodology used to determine economic damages and benefits under existing and with-project hydrologic conditions, project costs, and benefit-to-cost analysis. The proposed improvements were evaluated by comparing estimated annual benefits with estimated annual project costs. All estimates of costs and benefits are at 1994 price levels and annualized at the current Federal discount rate-bf7=3tzrpercenl·.··---~~-----~~, The study area is located in south central Louisiana, approximately 50 miles west of Baton Rouge, and includes all 270 square miles of the parish. The major drainage artery is the Vermilion River which collects runoff from many intersecting drainage channels called coulees and transports it ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico.

Significant floods have been reported in Lafayette Parish as early as 1907. Major floods caused by storm events and high water stages in the Vermilion River occurred in 1922, 1927, 1940, 1946, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1964, 1966, 1969, 1971, 1980, 1991, and 1993. Between 1978 and 1994 the Federal Emergency Management Agency Z, (FEMA) has paid out over $10 million to 1,480 claimants for an average claim of $7 thousand. No damages to agriculture were reported.

National Economic Development Benefit Categories Considered. The National Economic Development Procedures Manual for Urban Flood Damage recognizes four primary categories of benefits for urban flood control plans:!!iundation reductiOJk ~.on.J.ocation~ emplo~~nt.~P.C}fi~~ti~_n re

Alternatives Considered. Early in the study it was concluded that flooding in Lafayette p~~~ w~ Primaril)' due t()'~!!i~rliCJ:~tiis~ alQng !!ie.Y~mJjJig~~er~Aii-anaiysis­ of flOOd data indicated that a iWu=footiowering along the river would provide flood relief to the majority of damaged structures in the basin. Therefore, the primary objective of the study was the development of alternatives that would achieve such nva Jmwemrgs.

Cl Six preliminary structural alternatives and one preliminary non-structural alternative (comprised of five different measures) were considered during this study. Structural plans considered options such as channel improvements, modification of sump areas, levee improvements, pumping stations~ and re-routing of flood waters. The non­ stractural plan considered techmques such as house raising, ring levees, I-walls, pumps and flood proofing for four watersheds. The purpose of this plan was to provide flood relief to areas of significant structural damages that were not provided assistance through the structural plans. Details of these alternatives are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1 LAFAYE'ITE PARISH RECONNAISSANCE STUDY ALlERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1: Modify the Vermilion River

Alternative 2A: Retention gravity storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp

Alternative 2B: Modify the Vermilion River with retention gravity storage to

' . the Bayou Tortue Swamp

Alternative 3: Combined gravity and pumped retention storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp

'~ Alternative 4: Detention storage in the Upper Vermilion River Basin with possible modifications to Bayou Carencro and to Ruth Canal

Alternative SA: Channel modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee (earthen excavation and concrete lining)

Alternative SB: Channel modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee (concrete lining)

Alternative 6: Alter the operation of the Teche-Vermilion, Courtableau, East Rapides South-Central Avoyelles Systems

Alternative 7: Non-structural measures (floodproofing)

C2 Il. Methodology,

Structure Inventory Methodology. The damage areas were defined by 100-year overflows that were provided by the Hydraulics and Hydrology (H & H) Branch. Structures at risk were defined as any structure that would flood by the 100-year event. Only those structures within the existing condition 100-year overflow were ~*'1 The structural damage categories included: residential, commercial, public, and aatmn0biies.

Census data for 1990 were used to estimate the number and value of structures in edl Rach. The type, number, total value and average value of these properties are presented by reach in Table 2. A field survey revealed the percentage of one- and two­ story structures and type (slab, pier, or mobile home).

As per ER 1105-2-100 (paragraph 6-180) the value of the contents in residential structures was assumed to be 50% of the structure value. The contents for commercial structures were based .on contents-to-structure value relationships developed by CH2M Hill, Inc. for the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection Project in 1980.

Ground Elevations. In order to ensure consistency throughout the economic and hydrologic analyses, 1965 epoch quad maps were used for the structure inventory ground elevations.

Automobiles. Based on statistics obtained from the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Division and from the 1990 Census, each residence in the State of LOuisiana has an average of just under two automobiles. During a flood event, it is assumed that one vehicle per household will be used for evacuation while the other vehicle(s) will remain parked at the residence. Thus, automobile damages were calculated on on~ vehicle ~_!'.~sickmtiatstructure.\-·The average value of these automobiles was determfnCci to be $8,300, based on the average value of a used car as reported by the National Automobile Dealers Association. It was assumed that each automobile was parked one half foot below the elevation of slab houses and parked at the ground elevation of houses built on piers. No vehicles were assigned to commercial properties •.

C3 Damage Calculations. Stage frequency curves for existing and with-project conditions were provided by the H & H Branch. These curves include stages for 9 frequency storms (1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 year events). Individual curves for each unique hydrologic reach were provided.

Depth damage curves developed by CH2M Hill, Inc. for the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection Project were used for all reaches. These curves were used to indicate the percentage of the total structure value that would be damaged from flooding at and above first floor elevation.

The Hydroiogic Engineering Center - Flood Damage Analysis Package, which includes the Stniame menU)' for Damage Analysis (SID) and the Expected Annual Flood Damage Computation (EAD) interactive computer programs, was used to calculate property damage. Inputs to these programs include flood plain structure inventory, depth damage relationships, and stage probabilities obtained from stage frequency curves for each hydrologic reach.

The SID computer program was used to generate an elevation-damage curve for existing and with-project conditions. These results were then input into the EAD program in order to weigh the damage corresponding to each magnitude of flooding by the percentage chance of exceedance. From these weighted damages, the program determines the expected annual damage for each year within the period of analysis.

ID. Economic Analysis.

Inundation Reduction Benefits. The structure inventory of the reaches that will be benefited by the proposed alternatives can be found in Table 2. The inventory is grouped according to area and structure type. There are three main categories of existing land use in the study area: residential (1 and 2 story), mobile homes, and commercial. The number of automobiles associated with the residential structures is also specified. Finally, the total value of each category of property, and the corresponding averag~ values are provided. It should be noted that the value of the land and the contents of the properties, _have not been included in the table.

C4 'l'ABI.11 2 LAl'AYE'l".rll PARISH UCONNAISSANCZ S'.rODY S'l'ROCTORZ INVENTORY ($1,000)

Raac:ll cat.gory ot Number of Value of Av.rage value of IJ:opez:U.- Propertiea Propertie• Propertiea ($1000) ($1000)

ll li'aaidanti&l (1'2-Story) 82 !5,203 63 ec-.rci&l 0 0 0 Aut..abilea 82 4581 8 'l'otal 1454 5,883

Raaidanti:.al (1'2-Storyf: 83 ,,us !50 C-.rcial. 0 0 0 JllatClllOl:lilu 83 458!1 8 Total lH 4,8!54

Ruidellti&l (1'2-Story) 163 !I, !110 n c-rci&l 0 0 0 Aut..abilu 163 1,3!53 8 'l'otal 3211 11,2'3

SA Raaidanti&l (1'2-Story) 414 30,433 74 Ccmmercial. 0 0 0 Aut..abilu 414 3,436 8 'l'otal 828 33,86!1

SB Raaidanti&l (1'2-Story) 5!5!5 36,!5'4 H Ccmlerci&l 0 0 0 Autcmcbilu !5!5!5 4,607 8 'l'otal 1110 41,1!50

SC Raaidantial (1'2-Story) 31' 18,a2s so ec-erci&l 0 0 0 Autcmcbilu 31' 2,623 8 'l'otal 632 21,447

fill. baidenti&l (1'2-Story) !1,269 211 c--ci&l 0 0 0 Autcmobil•• " 36!5 8 'l'otal "88 !I, 634

68 baidenti&l (1'2-Story) 852 80,!537 !1!5 Coamiarci&l !5 1,514 303 Aut..abilaa 8S2 7,072 8 'l'otal 1,70!1 U,123

fiC Raaidanti&l (1'2-Story) 3!53 30,871 87 C-ci&l 0 0 0 Autcmcbilu 3!53 2,!130 8 Total 706 33,801

60 baidellti&l (1'2-Story) 1,311 9!5,256 73 c-rci&l 3 186 S2 Autcmcbilu 1,34!5 11, 164 8 'l'otal 2, 6!5!1 106,60!5

u Raaidenti&l. (1'2-Story) 380 27,7!52 73 Ccmmerci&l. 12 !5,116 426 .&utcaobilea 380 3,154 8 'l'otal 772 36,022

fii' RiuW.lldant.i&l (lli2-Story) 584 411, 93!5 86 ~ 3,311 !552 AUtcaocilea !584' 4,8'7 8 f 'llbtaJ; 1,174 58,093 I cs ilitl 2 (Cont1 d) I.Af.UUft HRIH UCO!llCUllAllCS ITCDY lftlJC'l't7U DlWlftOllY (fl, 000) a-ch Cat.god of lfumber of Value of .r..... raqa value of Jlropart - lropartiu lroparti•• lroparti•• ('1000) ($1000)

613 ...1du.t1a1 (112-lto:i:y) 153 13,87' 91 c-rcial. 0 0 o. Aut~il- 153 1,2'70 I !otal 30C 15,lU

'.IA Jlaaidu.Ual (112-ltory) 525 '3,151 12 c-rcial. 2 1,UO '720 Aut~ilu 525 ,,351 I !otai 1,052 O,HI

'7B Raaidu.tial (112-ltoryl '52 H,3'6 103 c-rcial. 2 29,U3 1','722 Aut-.bil.. '52 3,'752 I !otal 90C '79,5'1

.... Raa1du.t1al (112-ltory) 1,0H 93, H2 H c-rcial 1' U,'25 2,'7'7'7 Aut~il- 1,0H 1,99'7 I !otal 2,lH 1n,10'

I.SA RaaidaUal (112-ltory) 123 1'7,55'7 20, c-rcial. 9 5,'7H uo Aut~ll.. 1,&1' 13,'13 I !otal 2,UI lH, '73'

9A RaaidalatJ.al (U2-ltory) 501 '70,110 1'1 C-rcial. 0 0 0 Aut~ll.. 501 ,,151 I !otal 1,002 '75,031

H Raaidu.Ual (112-ltory) 3,0'70 211,C!! '9 C-rcial. 9 '7,'7'6 1&1 Aut~ll- 3,232 -21, 82C !otal ,,311 2'6, 02• •

9.SA Raaidu.tial (112-ltoryl 1,521 200,190 131 c-rcial. C2 38, C'79 91, Aut~il.. 2,1'7C 11,0U I !otal 3,'7U 25','713

10A Raaidu.tial (162-ltory) C,93C 5'71,552 11'7 c-rcial 15'7 '7'7,'75'7 05 Aut~ll- 5,921 0,202 I Total 11,021 '705,511

lll Raaidu.Ual (112-ltory) 2,015 1115,051 5& c-rcial 0 0 0 .r.111:-a,u.. 2,085 17,30& I !otal C,1'70 133,35'

12" Raaidatial (U2-ftoryl 2H 21,993 '77 c-rcial. 0 0 0 Aut~il- 2H 2,3'7C I !otal 5'72 2C,3'7

128 ...icknticl (112-ltory) 329 15,'7C5 48 c-i:cui 0 0 0 Aut-aiu.. · 329 2,'731 I !otal 1551 18,C7'

12C Raatdu.tial (112-ltoryl 09 29, 955 60 c-rcial 0 0 0 .llutcm@il.. 592 C,91' I Total 1,091 3C,80

13" RaaideAUal {1£2-lto:yl '32 7C c-rcial. 0 "· 5590 0 Aut~il- '32 !5,20 8 Total l,2H !51,10!5

C6 iflBtl 2 (eon£1 di LUAntft HRill RICOIOllllUllCll l'l'tltll' HRDC'.l'tlR& DIVIJl'10ar ($1,000)

a..dt C&Uqin:y odf. ~rol! Value of l.veraqe 't'alue ol! ·~:1. 1'ropert1H »ropert1H »ropertiaa .. ($1000) ($1000)

1311 laaid.el:lti&ll Cla:2-St.ory) 1'8 11,618 78 c-rcial 0 0 0 l.a!::~u ..., 148 1,221 'lfota.1 UC 12,114' •

151. ..ddallti:Ul (1•2-fi:ory) U'1 2,,5'8 n ~=Ullo 0 0 0 AlltClllOOil:a· 07 3,710 I !Ol:al; 89' 30,271

15.51. lteddelltial (1&2-lt:ory) 57 5,IH 103 c-rcial 0 0 0 ~~..obilu 57 8 'fotal 11' ,,3'5'" lU Raddelltial (1,2-lt:ory) 1' 1,0H 7' c-rcial 0 0 0 l.ut..obil•• 1' 11, 8 'fotal 21 1,lU

16.51. Raddellt1al (1'2-lt:ory) 113 1,152 72 c-rcial 0 0 0 l.ut..obilu 113 1131 I 'fotal 22, 11,0110

UI. Raddelltial (1'2-story) '2 2,8'1 c-rcial 0 0 0 l.ut..obilH '2 30 "8 total H 3,1110

241. bddelltial (1&2-story) 215 21,133 H c-rcial 112 73, 621 IOO l.utcaobilu 215 1,785 I total 522 H,54'

271. bddantial (1&2-lt:ory) tot 3',073 H c-rcial 1 75 75 l.ut..obilH tot 3,353 8 total. 1011 37,501

2111. bddalltial (1'2-St.ory) 83 2,602 31 c-rcial 0 0 0 l.ut.-bilu 13 '811 I !otal lH 3,2111

311. bddantial (1'2-ltory) 212 23,050 12 c-rcta1 0 0 0 l.ut..obilu 282 2,3U 'fotal SH 25,3110 •

3211 bddeatia.1 (1,2-lt:ory) no '2,Hll 111 C-sc:ial 0 0 0 ~d.l•• t70 3,1101 Total HO U,570 •

328 a.ddantial ( 1'2-St.ory) 658 '2,11'3 65 c-rcial 0 0 0 l.utcmobilH 658 5,461 8 total 1,316 U,425

C7 Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 show the properties in each category diivide'd into flood zones based on first floor elevations for without-project conditions and for Plans 2A, 3 and 5A, respectively. Of the six plans considered, P laI}s 2.A,_ .~, aris;L~SA.. we.;r;:~ _:[oµnd to have the highest levels of net benef.its and are thus presented· here:~, '!'he. flood zones were determined from the stage frequency data Jtl1lf-©•vided by H & H Branch.

TABLE 3 LAFAYE'l".rE PARISH RECONNAISSANCJ: STmlT NUMBE!l or Pl\Oli'ER!?IES IN l'LOOD ZONES WJ:TROO'l'-Pl\OJZCT CONDITIONS

PP.Ol'l:MY 0 - 10 Y1l 10 - 25 n 25 - 50 n i 50 - 100 n 100 - 500 Tll R&aCR TYl'E FLOOD zon FLOOD ZONE l'LOOD ZONE l'LOOD ZOU l'I.OOD ZOU

1.1. Raaidmltial. 8 5 10 23 36 0 c.:na.rcial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcaobil.. 8 5 10 23 36 0

5 10 55 5 0 0 0' '0 0 0 5 10 ' ' 55 5 Raaiantial. 0 0 0 2 161 0 C~cial. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcacbil•• 0 0 0 2 161 0

5A Radclmltial. 0 0 0 0 181 233 C~cial 0 0 0 0 0 0 AutomobU.. 0 0 0 0 181 233

58 Raaiclmltial. 0 0 0 0 00 65 Ccmaercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcmobll.. 0 0 0 0 00 65

5C Raaiclmltial 0 0 0 0 280 36 C~cial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aut-obil.. 0 0 0 0 280 36

6A Raaiantial. 0 0 0 0 36 8 CClllllllercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcmobll.. 0 0 0 0 36 8

68 Raaidmltial. 0 25 191 70 542 CClllllllercial 0 0 0 1 Autcmobil•• 0 25 191 70 542' 6C Raaiclmltial. 0 11 0 3 28' Ccamercial. 0 0 0 0 0 AutcaobU.. 0 11 0 3 28'

u 0 27 0 8 1,23, 0 0 0 0 0 3 u 0 27 0 8 1,268

61! Radant:i&l. 0 0 0 0 0 380 CC*aercial. 7 0 0 0 0 5 Autc::aot>il•• 0 0 0 0 0 380

61' ba·i~nU.al. 19' 236 0 0 Cb!lmlecul 0 0 0 0 AutCl!lobil•• 19' 236 0 0

ca TABLE 3 (Cont'd) LAFAYE'l'TZ PARISH RECONNAISSANCE STODY NOMBER or PROPERTIES IN FLOOD ZONES WITBOtr.r-li'ROJECT CONDITIONS

li'ROli'Dn' o - 10 n 10 - 2.5 YR. 2.5 - .50 YR 50 - 100 YR 100 - 500 YR A.BOVE MAX D'Aar !rl'P& n.oco zoo l'LOOD ZONI\ FLOOD ZONJ: FI.OOD ZONE i'LOOD ZONE FI.COD ZONE

6G: Red&lnti&l. 0 0 0 0 0 l.53 COlllll.Uc.ial 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUtcmobU.. 0 0 0 0 0 l.53

1& a..i.dmlt.1.a.l 0 0 0 18 U8 .59 C-..rc.1.4.l. 0 0 0 0 2 0 AlltCliOl:>ll.. 0 0 0 18 us .59 78 RMid.ent.1.al 0 0 0 0 0 4.52 Cbmlllarc1&l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 All.te90bil.. 0 0 0 0 0 4.52 a.a. Redd9nti&l. 0 0 0 0 510 574 c-rcial 0 0 0 0 10 AutC90bU.. 0 0 0 0 510 574'

8.5A Redd9nti&l. 0 0 0 0 225 598 Ccmmarc.t.al 0 0 0 0 2 1 Autcmol::JU.. 0 0 0 0 723 893

9A Redd9nt.t.al 0 0 0 0 181 320 C-a.t.al 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Autc.obU.. 0 0 0 0 181 320

98 Re•idmlti&l. 0 0 0 0 1468 1'02 c-rcial 0 0 0 0 !I 0 All.tc.obil.. 0 0 0 0 1630 1'02

!I.SA Redd9nti&l. 0 0 0 1S 1C UH Cc:amarc.t.al 0 0 0 0 5 37 Autcmobil.. 0 0 0 16 1C 2142 lOA Red

12A Red

12B Redd9ntial 0 0 0 0 0 329 CClllllU"a.t.al 0 0 0 0 0 0 AutcmabU.. 0 0 0 0 0 329 12C Residmlt.t.al 0 0 0 0 15 484 c-raial 0 0 0 0 0 0 AutcmobU.. 0 0 0 0 108 484

13A Residmlt.t.al 0 3 0 0 251 373 ec-.rc.t.al 0 0 0 0 0 0 J.utc.abil.. 0 3 0 0 2.56 373

138 Red

15A Red

15.B ~tJa.l. 0 0 0 16 12 29 C-cia.1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcacb.tlaa 0 0 0 16 12 29

C9 TABLE 3 (Cont'd)

LAJ'AYr.l!'?Z PARISH UCONNAISSANClt STODT NOMBER OF PROPERTIES IN11'LOOD.ZONJ:S \'. WITBOtr.r-PR.OJECT CONDITIONS

PRGPl.lll!rT 0 - 10 Ya 10 - 25 YR 25 - 50 YR 50 - 100 YR 100 - 500 YR ABOVE M1.X lll:ACI' Tntfi. PLOOD ZONll l'LOOD ZONI! l'LOOD zom: l'LOOD ZONJ: n.ooo zom: FLOOD ZONJ:

16A lla•idant.1.al 0 0 0 0 14 0 CClllllllUC.1.al 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcaobile• o 0 0 0 14 0

UI'·. SA RU1dant:1.al. 0 0 0 5 108 0 C<*aU'ei&l 0· 0 0 0 0 0 &ut~±1.. 0 0 0 s 108 0 l!A lla•.idiNl.tu.J. 0 0 0 0 10 32 Ccmmerc.1.al 0 0 0 0 0 0 AutC90bU.. 0 0 0 0 10 32

24A lla•idantial. 0 0 0 0 13 202 Ccaaarc.1.al o 0 0 0 3 89 Aute90b.u... 0 0 0 0 13 202

27A Ra•idantial. 0 0 0 0 163 241 ~eial. o 0 0 0 1 0 Al1te90blle• 0 0 0 0 163 241 29A Ra•idmltial. 0 0 0 5 78 0 Cc:a.ercial. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcacbll.. 0 0 0 5 78 0 31.a Re•idantial. 0 0 0 0 111 171 C-cial. O 0 0 0 0 0 AutC90bU.. 0 0 0 0 111 171 (32A Raddmlt.1.al. 8 32 40 25 37 328 Ccamere.1.al. O 0 0 0 0 0 Aute90b.u... 8 32 40 25 37 328

328 R9•1dmlt1al. 6 0 0 4 41 607 Ccamere.1.al o 0 0 0 0 0 Autamob11.. 6 0 0 4 41 607 ,·~- 'l'G'JK lla•idential. 343 79 380 613 \ 6587\ 16971 ~c.t:a-l: 7 0 2 3 . 67 \ 277 Autcmob.U.. 343 79 442 613 ) 7740 . 18476

Note: Structure elevation• are ba•ed on tir•t floor el4"at1on•, and automobile• are •••!med to be 0.5 below the tirat floor elevationa of •lab houa.. , and at !J%OUDd elevation tor pier hcaea.

ClO TABL&I I: LAl'AYET'l'J: PARISlJ UCO, N'OJGll OF PROPl:l!.TIE PLAN !l

HOl'D'n 0 -· 10 YR: 10 - 25 YR 2.5 - 50 Yll RUClf ':lt'D& noooE1· :aon l'I.OOD ZONZ FLOOD zom

ll b•.idant1&1 0 8 5 C-.rcial. 0 0 0 Autcaolbllea 0 8 5

2A ...1dmlU.&1 5 7 CcmuircU&li. 0 0' 0 AUtOlll.Obilu 5 ' 7 a-.tdilGt.iti 0 0 0 C-.rc:t&l 0 0 0 Alltc:aob.U... 0 0 0

5A baidu.tial. 0 0 0 ec.m.rci.a.l 0 0 0 Alltc:aob.U... 0 0 0

58 ba.tdu.ti.al 0 0 0 C-ci.al 0 0 0 Alltc:mob.U... 0 0 0

5C baidu.ti.al 0 0 0 c:c.a.rcial. 0 0 0 Alltcmobilu 0 0 0

b•.ldu.ti.al 0 0 0 c-rc.l&l. 0 0 0 Alltcmcbilu 0 0 0

,. lt.ea.ldanti.al a 0 16 Ccaaerci.al. 0 0 0 Alltc:mobilu 8 0 16

tiC b•.tdu.ti.al '55 0 0 a-rci.al. 0 0 0 Alltcmcb.ll.u 55 0 0

lt.e•.ldantial. 42 0 27 Ccmmerci.al. 0 0 0 Alltcmobilu 42 0 27

H ....ldanti.al. 0 0 0 Commerci.al. 7 0 0 Alltcmobilu 0 0 0

Iii' b•.ldallt.l&l. 1514 0 236 Ccamuarc.l&l. 0 0 0 Alltcmobilu 1514 0 236

tit; ...~ti.al. 0 0 0 C-cJ.al. 0 0 0 Alltcmcbilu 0 0 0;. ... 7A lt.e•.ldmlti.al 0 0 0 c-rc.l&l. 0 0 0 Alltcmcbilu 0 0 0

78 ~tJl&l 0 0 0 C-c1al. 0 0 0 Alltcmobilu 0 0 0

BA lt.eaidlmt.l&l. 0 0 0 Ccmmerci.al. 0 0 0 Alltcaobil•• 0 0 0

8.5& laa~t.1&1 0 0 0 c~ 0 0 0 Al:ll1tec!rril!e• 0 0 0

I \ Cll ' ~AISSANCE STOOT i IN FLOOD ZONES ~A

SO - 100 YR 100 - 500 YR ABOVE MAX FLOOD ZONE FLOOD ZONE n.ooo zom:

10 59 0 0 0 0 10 .59 0

.5 57 5 0 0 0 .5 .57 5

2 lU 0 0 0 0 2 161 0

0 181 233 0 0 0 0 181 233

0 00 f5 0 0 0 0 00 f5

0 280 3C 0 0 0 0 280 3C

0 36 8 0 0 0 0 36 8

25 2.50 553 0 1 25 2.50 .5.53' 0 11 287 0 0 0 0 11 287 0 8 1,23• 0 0 3 0 8 1,268 0 0 380 0 0 .5 0 0 380 0 0 1.5• 0 0 6 0 0 1.5• 0 0 1.53 0 0 0 0 0 153 0 U6 .59 0 2 0 0 U6 59 0 0 U2 0 0 0 0 0 U2 0 273 811 0 9 7 0 273 811

0 18' 639 0 2 7 0 .5'7 100 TABLZ C (Cont'd) LAl'AYE'l"l'Z PARISH IU!CONNAISSANCl: S'l't:JDY NtlMBll 01' J!'Jl.OP£llil:S '.Df,"l'LOOD ZONES 'v PLAN 2J.) 1

PROPD.T! 0 - 10 Y1I. 10 - 2.5 YR 2.5 - .50 YR 50 - 100 YR 100 - .500 YR ABOVE MAX RllACH 'rYPIE l'LOOtl ZONll J'LOOD ZONll FLOOD zom:: n.ooo zom: FLOOD ZONE i'LOOD ZONE

29A Re•id.ential. 0 0 0 .5 78 0 c~cial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcaobil.. ' 0 0 0 5 78 0

31A Red"-ntial 0 0 0 0 111 171 c-rci.al 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcmob.U.. 0 0 0 0 111 171

32A Re•id.ential. 8 32 co 25 37 328 C~cial. 0 0 0 0 0 0 AutcaobU.. 8 32 co 25 37 328 3211 Redd.ential. 41 0 0 c n 4107 C~cial. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcaobil.. 41 0 0 n 4107

-~--:-:.:-.~' 'lO'?AL 11.ui"-ntial. 31!1 741 358 '30 17C7! C-cial. 7 0 2 (b~, '3 211 AutcaobU.. 319 741 420 ~.) 7304 19171

Note: structure .i... tiona are ba•ed on tir•t floor elevationa, and autcaobil•• are •••-.! to be 0.5 below the tirat floor el.41vationa of alab houa.. , and at ground elevation tor pier h-•·

Cl3 TABLE 5

L.U'Ant~ PARISH RECONNAISSANCI: S'?ODY N!J)f8U or PllOPERTIES IN FLOOD ZONES PLAN 3

PBOHll:fr 0 - 10 '!R 10 - 25 Yll 25 - 50 YR 50 - 100 YR 100 - 500 YR ABOVI! W.X lUlACll ~&; l!LOOI!)"' ZOHll' J!'LOO!l. z.on l'l.OOD ZONE n.ooD zon FLOOD ZONZ FLOOD zon a baidu'IU&l. Oi 0 8 5 68 1 ~. o; 0 0 0 0 1 .lutcmcb.U-. er 0 8 5 68 1 2A ba.1.d'Ant.J.ai.l 0 0 5 10 5!1 g Camerci.al. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autc:aol>ilu 0 0 5 10 5!1 g 3A baidanti.al. 0 0 0 0 163 0 c-rci.al 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcmobilu 0 0 0 0 163 0 5A Reaidmtt:i&l 0 0 0 0 105 30!1 c-rci.al. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcmobllea 0 0 0 0 105 30!1 5B Reaid.enti.al 0 0 0 0 31' 241 c:c..arci.al. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcmobilu 0 0 0 0 31' 241 5C RaaJ.dant.ial. 0 0 0 0 277 3!1 c-rc1.al. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ADte.obilea 0 0 0 0 277 3!1 6A Reaidmlt.ial. 0 0 0 0 32 12 C-ci.al. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ADtcmobllea 0 0 0 0 32 12 6B a.aicfmGtial 0 0 2 6 232 612 ca..rci.al 0 0 0 0 0 5 Auto.obllea 0 0 2 6 232 612 6C RaaJ.danti.al. 1' 0 Cl 0 0 2!18 c-.rc.t.i 0 0 0 0 0 0 Autcmobil- 1' 0 Cl 0 0 2!18 6D 11.eaidmlt.ial. '2 0 27 0 8 123, c-arci.al 0 0 0 0 0 3 Auto.obil- '2 0 27 0 8 1268 61: baidant.ial. 0 0 0 0 0 380 Ccmaerci.al 7 0 0 0 0 5 Alltcaobil•• 0 0 0 0 0 380 61' 11.eaidanti.al 19' 0 236 0 0 15, c-rci.al 0 0 0 0 0 6 Alltm.obllea 1!1' 0 236 0 0 15' 6G; Ruidenti.al 0 0 0 0 0 153 Camerci.al. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ADtm.obilu 0 0 0 0 0 153 7A Raaidenti.al 0 0 0 0 3!12 133 C-ci.al. 0 0 0 0 2 0 Alltcaabilu 0 0 0 0 3!12 133 7B Raaidmlt1.al. 0 0 0 0 0 '52 c-rci.al. 0 0 0 0 0 2 Auto.obilea 0 0 0 0 0 '52 IA Raaidmlt.ial. 0 0 0 0 273 811 ~ 0 0 0 0 g 7 .lllt'<:wcbf1- 0 0 0 0 273 811 8.5A Raaidllllt:J.al 0 0 0 0 18' 63!1 ~ o· 0 0 0 2 7 .lllt:c:moll'J:l-· 0' 0 0 0 5'7 106!1

9'A ...~Jl. Oi 0 0 0 181 320 e-rc:fla\1 o: 0 0 0 0 0 Autcmollil_, 01 0 0 0 181 320 llA•1-il•ll 0) 0 0 0 1257 1813 c-dall. 01 0 0 0 g 0 Aut~.li- Oi 0 0 0 1356 1876

Cl4 IWIAY111l"n: p.AFI lilmGU 01' I

32B Raeidlmti&l. 0 ccam.-.tt&ill. ~)' a Au.&a.cl.Ulllu' O· 'l'O'l!AI. J.erldlantial 265' 37 C~ial 7 0 A~il.. 265 37

Note: Structure el.,,.tion• are baaed on firat flcl th• firat floor elevation• of •lab houae•, an.d at I

LAl'AYE'l"l'J: PQj NOMBER 01' I,.

PROPD!n 0 - 10 Yll 10 - 25 Y1l 251 'l'YP& l'I.OOD ZOii& l'LOOD ZOii& J'Ill

Res.idential 0 0 Ccmmercial 0 0 Autcmobil•• 0 0

68 Rai~tial 2, 0 ~cial 0 0 Antcmobil•• 2, 0

6C Reaidantial 0 0 Ccmmercial 0 0 Autcmabil.. 0 0

Raaidimtia:l 0 ec-..rcUI. 0 0 Autcmobil.. 0 '

Reaidantial 0 '0 C-cial 0 0 Autaaobilea 0 0

61' Raaidantial 0 0 Ccmmercial 0 0 Autcaobil•• 0 0 6G baidantial 0 0 Ccmmercial o__ 0 .am-obU.. 0 0 'l'otal Raaidantial 2, Ccmlercial 0 '0 Alltm.obilu 2, ' Not•: ftruct:are .i.,,.t.ion8 are b8•ecl on firat fllr' th•· firat flOc:llr •JA9at1on•< of a.tab· lt.oua .. , and at :

l ii I TABLE 5 (Cont'd) lISll Q.CONNllSSANCE STUDY ,\ PROPERTIES IN i'LOOD ZONES PLAN 3

0 4 41 607 0 0 0 0 0 4 ~l 607 \ 35!1 398 5559 I 18350 0 2 57 I 291 35!1 455 \ 6510 200'4 '- or elevationa, and autcaol:>ilea are aaauaed to be 0.5 below ;round elevation ror pier baa.a.

TABL& I

CSll llCONNllSSANa STCIDY 'ROPEM'IU IR l'I.000 ZOMU Pr.Alf 5A

- 50 YR 50 - 100 YR 100 - 500 YR ABOVZ ICU ioo zom: FLOOD zon FLOOD zon n.ooo ZOU.

0 0 36 0 0 0 •0 0 0 31 8 25 191 70 542 0 0 1 25 191 70 542' 11 0 3 339 0 0 0 0 11 0 3 339 1 0 37 1,272 0 0 0 3 1 0 37 1,303 0 0 0 380 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 380 0 0 19' 3!10 0 0 0 I 0 0 194 390 0 0 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 ' 37 1iif\ 340 ' 308' 0 8 18 37 <1,91 340 3115

· elevationa, and autcaobilea are aaauaed to be 0.5 below ound elevation ror pier hca.ea. A summary of current dollar damages under existing and with- project conditions is displayed in Table 7 for five different frequency storms. The damages listed in the table include damages to structures, contents, and autos.

TABLE 7 LAFAYETTE PARISH RECONNAISSANCE STUDY DAMAGE FOR VARIOUS FLOOD EVENTS (000,S) /,,-~ 10 YEAR 25 YEAR 50 YEAR //100 YEAR t 500 YEAR

i'l/0 PROJECT $ 10,491 $ 15,715 $ 22,509 /$ 41, 676 I Plan 2A $ 9,643 $ 14,093 $ 19,537 I $ 36,877 I: :::: ::: ! i'l/0 PROJECT $ 10,491 $ 15, 715 $ 22,509 41,676 1$ 406,638

Plan 3 $ 8,287 $ 11,094 $ 15,497 28,331 \ $ 281, 997 li I i'l/0 PROJECT $ 9,650 $ 13,022 $ 15, 923 (: 20, 915 !$ 37, 677 Plan SA $ 693 $ 1,234 $ 2,421 \ $ 4,766) $ 21, 987 \ /

' .

Tables 8, 9 and 10 summarize the expected annual damages by reach for existing conditions and plans 2A, 3 and 5A.~though plan]JfuiWl1~l\~,,°'"'

economically"-M·"·•• justified, Jt.s• results are shown since ·a1iii5

C17 TABLE 8 LAFAYETTE. 1!'1MISH. RECONNAISSANCE STUDY EXF'EC'l'ED ANmJAL DAMAGES AND BENEFITS (000' s} EXPECTED EXPECTED EXPECTED ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL DAMAGES UNDER DAMAGES WITH BENEFITS REACH BASE CONDITION Plan 2A Plan 2A

Ji.A $ 16.'19 $ 46.S9 $ - 29. 67 2A 54.81 34.01 20.79 3A 26.24 24.lS 2.09 SA 12.70 10.9S 1. 7S SB 45.58 40.37 5.22 SC 28.56 26.95 1. 61 6A 10.50, 9.62 0.88 6B 373.30 134.49 238.81 6C 970.70 609.2S 361.44 6D 366.53 366.53 0.00 6E 1,027.0S 1,027.0S 0.00 6F 1,076.31 1,076.31 0.00 6G 0.00 0.00 0.00 7A 102.95 94.01 8.93 7B 0.00 0.00 0.00 SA 49. 91 42.07 7.84 8.SA 80.8S 73.07 7.78 9A 33.29 28.31 4.98 9B 317.42 282.3S 3S.07 9.SA 20.27 16.62 3.66 lOA 440.87 3S3.34 87.S4 llA 103.59 103.S9 0.00 12A 4.61 4.61 0.00 12B O.{}O 0.00 0.00 12C 2.85 2.85 0.00 13A 66.78 66.78 o.oo 13B 31.08 31. 08 0.00 15A 102.63 102.63 0.00 15.5A 15.84 15.84 0.00 16A 3.61 3.61 0.00 16.5A 28.53 28.53 0.00 19A 0.49 0.49 0.00 24A - 3. 42 2.40 1.02 27A 15.84 13.55 2.28 29A 9.30 9.30 0.00 31A 9.77 8.06 1. 71 32A 179.66 179.66 0.00 32:S 76. 0.1 76.01 0.00

Total $ 5,768.12 $ 4,94S.03 $ 823.07

NiO'l'B;:. Structural and aut:mnobiile damages and benefits have been combined' in this table ..

C18 TABLE 9 LAFAYETTE PARISH RECONNAISSANCE STUDY EXPECTED ANNUAL DAMAGES AND BENEFITS (000' s) EXPECTED EXPECTED EXPECTED ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL DAMAGES UNDER DAMAGES WITH BENEFITS REACH' BASE CONDITION Plan 3 Plan 3

].A $ 76.27 $ 25.03 $ 51.24 2A 54. 8:1 17.39 37.41 3A 26.24 17.43 8.82 51'i 12.70 5.17 7.53 SB 4S.S8 23.33 22.2S SC 28.56 21.45 7.10 6A 10.50 6.50 4.00 6B 373.30 33.80 339.50 6C 970.70 324.89 645.81 6D 366.53 366 .·53 0.00 6E 1,027.05 1,027.05 0.00 6F · 1,076.31 1,076.31 0.00 6G 0.00 0.00 0.00 7A 102.95 66.83 36.12 7B 0.00 0.00 0.00 SA 49.91 14.99 34.92 8.5A 80.85 46.55 34.30 9A 33.29 12.37 20.92 9B 317.42 180.89 136.56 9.SA 20.27 11.37 8.91 lOA 440.87 193.33 247.55 llA 103.59 103.59 0.00 12A 4.61 4.61 0.00 12B o.oo 0.00 0.00 12C 2.85 2.85 0.00 13A 66.78 66.78 0.00 13B 31. 08 31. 08 0.00 15A 102.63 102.63 0.00 15.5A 15.84 15.84 0.00 16A 3.61 3.61 0.00 16.5A 28.53 28.53 0.00 19A 0.49 0.49 0.00 24A 3.42 0.96 2.46 27A 15.84 6.66 9.17 29A 9.30 9.30 0.00 31A 9.77 4.29 5.48 32A 179.66 179.66 0.00 32B 76.01 76.01 0.00

To:taJ. $ 5,768.12 $ 4,108.10 $ 1,660.05

lit-OU: Stxuct:ural and automobile damages and benefits have been €·omb·ined in this table .

11 C19 TABLE 10 LAFAYETTE, FA.RISH RECONNAISSANCE STUDY EXPECTED' ANNUAL DAMAGES AND BENEFITS (OOO's) EXPECTED EXPECTED EXPECTED ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUA+, DAMAGES UNJ!),ElR: DAMAGES WITH BENEFITS REACH BASE CONDIT'ION Plan SA Plan sA.

6A 10.50 10.50 0.00 6B 373.30 373.30 0.00 6C 970.70 14.33 956.36 6D .366.53 9.74 356.79 6E 2,783.43 2,560.00 223.43 6F 1,076.31 10.03 1,066.28 6G 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 5,580.77 2,977.90 2,602.86 NOTE: Structural and automobile damages and benefits have been combined in this table.

Other Urban Benefits. In addition to the inundation reduction, benefits, total urban benefits include FIA cost reduction benefits and emergency cost reduction benefits. , Due to time and cost constraints, these benefit categories were expressed as a f,'percentage of inundation reduction benefits. These other benefits were estimated to be •f 4% of the inundation reduction benefits based on previous studies. As a result, total ~ inundation reduction benefits were increased by 4% for these two additional benefit ~ categories. In the feasibility phase of this study, these benefit categories will be calculated on a site specific basis.

C20 Total Expected Annual NED Benefits. The total equivalent annual NED benefits am~ to each plan are displayed in Table 11. In order for the Federal Government to participate in a project, the average annual benefits must be equal to or greater than the average annual cost.

TABLE 11 LAFAYETTE PARISH RECONNAISSANCE STUDY EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS BY NED BENEFIT CATEGORY (000' s)

NED BENEFIT CONSTRUCTION PLAN CATEGORY 2A 3 SA

Inundation Reduction Structural $ 765 $ 1,494 $ 2,488 Automobile 58 166 115 Sub-Total 823 1,660 2,603 Other Urban Benefits 33 66 104

NED Benefits $ 856 $ 1,726 $ 2,707

Comparison of Benefits and Costs.

The economic justification of the proposed alternatives were determined by comparing the annual costs and benefits which are expected to accrue over the life of the project (50 years). These values were discounted at an interest rate of 7 3/4 %.

Table 12 shows the first costs, the _gross investment and expected annual costs for the three alternatives. The yearly construction schedule is also shown. Table 13 shows the first cost, the expected annual costs and benefits, the benefit/cost ratios, and the net benefits derived from the implementation of each alternative.

C21 TABLE 12 LAFAYETTE PARISH RECONNAISSANCE STUDY AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS 7 3/4 % INTEREST RATE (OOO's}

Plan· 2A Plan 3 Plan SA Compound First 'Gross First Gross First Gross Year Factor Costs .Investment Costs · Investment Costs Investment

11.5 2.3593& $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10.5 2 .llt968 $0· $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9.5 2 .03219 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8.5 1.88602 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7.5 1. 75037 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6.5 1.62447 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5.5 1.50763 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.5 1.39919 $0 $0 $9, 562 $13,380 $0 $0 3.5 1.29856 $0 $0 $6,429 $8,348 $0 $0 2.5 1.20516 $1,2.35 $1, 488 $6,428 $7,748 $0 $0 1.5 1.11847 $1,007 $1,126 $6,429 $7 ,190 $12,603 $14, 096 0.5 1.03803 $1,123 $1,166 $7,015 $7,282 $11, 840 $12,291 -0.5 0. 96337 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -1.5 0.89408 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -2.5 0 .82977 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -3.5 o. 77009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 "'-"'/ TOTALS $3,365 $3,780 "'$35,863 $43,947 $24,443 $26,386 Amert. Factor 0.07940 0.07940 0.07940 Int. ' Amert. $300 $3,489 $2,095 Oper. ' Maint. $14 $79 $106 Replacements $0 $0 $0 Total Avg. Annual $314 $3,568 $2,201

TABLE 13 LAFAYETTE PARISH RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ANNUAL COSTS AND BENEFITS (1994 PRICE LEVEL, 7 3/4 % INTEREST RATE) BENEFIT-COST RATIOS

r:mn llXHCDD AIDlmL 1B/C COS'!I llUIUUI cona ,JIHIQ '\, \ \

2.1. f 3,3H,Hl • 15',000 • 313,500 2.'13 f5'2,500 3 f35,H3,25!1 fl,'126,000 f3,568,000 O.H I -f1,H2,000 \ ! I fH,•U,201 f2,'10'1,000 '2,201,000 1.23/ f506,000 \I \

C22 NON,.STRUCTURAL l\.IBASURES

Four residential areas (see Plate 13) that have experienced repetitive flood problems were investigated for non-structural possibilities. Measures analyzed were ring levees, strucmre raising, floodwalls, and floodproofing. The Urban Flood Damage Program, V~g, ~ August, 1994 was used to measure these benefits. Although SID-EAD cml!Ml 1ha:ve been used to estimate benefits for non-structural alternatives, the Urban Flood Damage Program incorporates costs of plan implementation· to compute net bcndia &ecll:y. Results of the analysis indicate that several non-structural measmres; m ee:omomiically feasible in areas 1 and 4. A ring levee and structure raismg we.a: jistriifiim: marea 1 while floodproofing, structure raising and a ring levee were justified in area 4. A complete summary of benefits and costs for these measures is shown in Table 14.

TABLE 14 LAFAYETTE PARISH RECONNAISSANCE STUDY NON-STRUCTURAL l\.IBASURES SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

ALTERNATIVE FIRST COSTS AVERAGE AVERAGE NET ANNUAL ANNUAL VB~ BENEFITS BENEFITS COSTS I \ AREA l, SR $1,530,000 $130,500 $121,900 1.07 \ $ 8,600 I I I AREA l,RL 900,000 130,500 72,900 I 1.80 57,600 \ AREA4, FP 2,650,000 940,800 210,500 I 4.50 / 730,000 AREA4, SR 3,900,000 940,800 309,000 I 3.oo / 631,800 AREA4,RL 2,200,000 940,800 177,000 \. 5.3/ 763,800 ' ·,,-/ SR= Structure Raising RL = Ring Levee FP =Floodproofing

Results of Analysis. Alternative 2A, Modify the Vennilion River with retention gravity storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp and.Alternative SA, Ch~el modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee and five non-structural measures were each determined to be economically feasible. Net benefits for the two structural plans are $542,000 and $506J)00 respectively. Two of the non-structural plans have net benefits of over $700 thousand. Alth~!1gh bQth_.Stnlctu,rnLplan8- enefits over some of the same ~a (Isaac Verof~~~~),. they were analyzeg m~e~ri~e!l~Y~~~- ~a~~ ot!te~. During this Stage; QC die. smdy,, b>enefU.S for a joint plan were not addressed Cfue fc) time and COSt ~~ Both plans will be studied separately as well as in a combined plan in the f~report.

C23

APPENDIX D

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PLANNING AID LETTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION ...... • 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ...... 1

DESCRIPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONDITIONS • 3

Aquatic Habitat • • • ...... 3 Agricultural Land • . • . . . . . • • . . 4 Bottomland Hardwood Forest/Wooded swamp • • • • • 5 Lake Martin Wetlands . • • . • • • • • . . • • 6 Threatened and Endangered Species • • • • . • • • 7 FISH AND WILDLIFE-RELATED PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 7 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION ...... 8 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS • • 14 FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES . . . . 20 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ACTIVITIES IN THE FEASIBILITY PLANNING STAGE • • • • • • 22 Data Needs from Corps of Engineers . . . 22 Fish and Wildlife Service Tasks and Associated Cost Estimates • • • . . . 23 RECOMMENDATIONS • • . . . . . 23

A PLANNING~AID REPORT ON THE ,.... . , LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA Jo .

... FLOOD CONTROL STUDY

u.s .. FISH & WILDLIFE ,, ' ... SERVICE ,,.... ' ~,· '

.·, . '

' ... ,

.. . . . ' .. ' • ~ , · 1 , -t:. I •' , . ' ~ . . ',, . . .(•: '

' : .. '\ . ' -~ -~- :~ ·~\.. : i'.

,. . . ,

...... :> . . ~ !'., '. ' ·. ' . «. ' ..

1~· .. : ·. > u·.s. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ..• .

./;·· ... . ··'.. ECOLOGICAL SERVICES . . ' ·~¥. ~! ' • .. •' ' ...... ?;:':;,;_:·~-" ,:::· LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA ·:·:~·:_...• : ·:-~ r .. ~~ ·~ .... • •• ! . • :: ./r -~ -, ; _:'-:'·.· •. '

.. '. ·~ ...... i :~~i· .. '' . .:•, . ... ·'."... ·:;:i . .. ' ··i.'. : •' ._... •· ·:·:$JANUARY 1995 ...... ( . ·.~· '",.i' . 'lti' ···"; ~"·: ,;\.~· . '·\' ' h· _:.f:

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 825 Kaliste Saloom Road Brandywine Bldg. II, Suite 102 Lafayette, Louisiana 70508 January 27, 1995

Colonel Kenneth Clow District Engineer u.s. Army Corps of Engineers Post Off ice Box 60267 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160-0267 Dear Colonel Clow: Please reference the "Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, Flood Control study". The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared the attached planning-aid report to assist your staff in preparing a Reconnaissance Report for that study. The attached report does not fulfill our responsibilities under Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 stat. 401, as amended; 16 u.s.c. 661 et seq.). We will continue to work closely with your staff in an effort to develop feasible, ecologically sound flood control measures for the study area. Please keep Kevin Roy of this office advised as the study progresses.

Sincerely, t}~rJt-.:7~ David w. Fruge Field Supervisor cc: FWS, Atlanta, GA (AES/HC) EPA, Dallas, TX LA Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA The Nature conservancy, Baton Rouge, LA

PLANNING-AID REPORT

ON

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LOUISIANA,

FLOOD CONTROL STUDY

PREPARED BY

KEVIN J. ROY

FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA

JANUARY 1995

INTRODUCTION The New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), is conducting a reconnaissance phase study for improving flood protection in and around Lafayette, Louisiana. Parent legislation authorizing this study includes the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the River and Harbor Act of 1945. Funding for this report was provided by an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994. This report provides: 1) a description of fish and wildlife resource conditions in the study area; 2) a discussion of fish and wildlife-related problems, opportunities, and planning objectives; 3) a preliminary, qualitative analysis of project impacts on fish and wildlife resources; 4) estimates of data needs and funding required for feasibility-level input by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service); and 5) preliminary conservation recommendations. This report is provided on a planning-aid basis and does not constitute the final report of the Secretary of Interior as required by Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 u.s.c. 661 et seq.). This report has been provided to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; their comments, if any, will be·forwarded under separate cover.

DESCRIPTION OF TBB STUDY AREA The study area is located near Lafayette, Louisiana, in Lafayette Parish. Projects under consideration extend into st. Martin and Vermilion Parishes (Figure 1). Major features of the study area include the city of Lafayette, Vermilion River, Ruth Canal, and Bayou Tortue Swamp. The city of Lafayette is a large metropolitan complex occupying most of east-central Lafayette Parish. The Vermilion River, an old distributary of the Teche­ Mississippi River, originates in southern St. Landry Parish near Arnaudville, where Bayou Fusilier and Bayou Carencro are principal headwater tributaries. The Vermilion River flows southerly through Lafayette and Vermilion Parishes and into Vermilion Bay near Intracoastal city. The Vermilion River has a drainage basin of approximately 406 square miles at the Lafayette/Vermilion Parish boundary, provides drainage for the city of Lafayette and thousands of acres of agricultural land,

1 Figure 1.

Study Area - Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, Flood Control Study Significant Features: 1. Vermilion River 2. Bayou Tortue Swamp 3. Ruth Canal 4. Lake Martin Wetlands

2 and occasionally receives flow from Bayou Teche via the Ruth canal. The Bayou Tortue Swamp comprises approximately 6,700 acres of cypress swamp and bottomland hardwood forest which serves as a natural floodwater storage basin for the Vermilion River. Physiographically, the study area is comprised of the Mississippi River alluvial plain and terrace uplands. Lafayette Parish is comprised mostly of terrace uplands except for a narrow band of Mississippi River alluvium along the eastern edge of the parish. Most of st. Martin Parish also lies in the Mississippi River alluvial plain, except for three small areas of terrace uplands found in the northwestern and southwestern portions of the parish. Western st. Martin Parish contains a large tract of contiguous wooded swamp and bottomland hardwood forest including the Bayou Tortue Swamp and Lake Martin Wetlands. Most of the remaining study area consists of agricultural areas (e.g., rice, soybeans, sugar cane) interspersed with small, isolated stands of forest. Riparian wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest exist along some reaches of the Vermilion River. During high rainfall events, the city of Lafayette and adjacent developed areas experience backwater flooding when runoff to the Vermilion River exceeds the channel's flow capacity. During intense rainfall, runoff from Lafayette flows quickly from lateral coulees to the Vermilion River in less than 24 hours. This surge of runoff causes the Vermilion River to quickly reach capacity. Unable to carry these extreme flows, the river reverses its flow toward the Bayou Tortue swamp. This flow reversal is limited to that section of the river between the Pinhook Bridge and Long Bridge where a low spoil bank and small bayous allow water to flow into the swamp. As the swamp fills, runoff from the Upper Vermilion Basin eventually exceeds the reverse flow and flow returns to the normal direction. This phenomena causes two peaks to occur in the area of the Bayou Tortue Swamp; the first from the initial reverse flow and another approximately four to seven days later from the Upper Vermilion Basin. Flooding in and around the city of Lafayette is exacerbated by continued urban development which has reduced floodplain functions and accelerated runoff to the Vermilion River. DESCRIPTION OP FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONDITIONS Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat in the study area is comprised mainly of the Vermilion River, its tributaries, and the Ruth Canal. These waterways are characterized by turbid water and frequently low oxygen levels; flow is generally sluggish except during high rainfall events.

3 Fish habitat in the Ruth Canal is of relatively low quality mainly due to elevated turbidity, low oxygen levels, and periodic maintenance activities such as dredging. The Ruth Canal is occasionally flushed with water from Bayou Teche which serves to alleviate low oxygen levels. However, water levels and flow are dictated by conditions in the Vermilion River during most of the year. Fish species found in the Ruth Canal are those tolerant of turbid, low oxygen conditions, such as black bullhead, yellow bullhead, carp, bowf in, gars, and smallmouth buffalo. The Vermilion River contains moderate quality habitat for fish. Production of game fishes such as largemouth bass, black crappie, and white crappie is limited mainly due to turbid water, low oxygen levels, and runoff from urban and agricultural areas. Common species of sunfish which inhabit the river include bluegill, redear sunfish, green sunfish, warmouth, and longear sunfish. Other common fishes include carp, smallmouth buffalo, bigmouth buffalo, bowfin, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, gizzard shad, threadfin shad, and skipjack herring. Limited commercial and recreational fishing occurs along the Vermilion River. Blue catfish are harvested commercially and recreationally, especially along the lower reaches of the river. Spotted gar and alligator gar are also taken by commercial fishermen; gizzard shad and skipjack herring are harvested for use as bait in crawfish traps. Tributaries of the Vermilion River contain very low quality habitat for fisheries mainly due to turbidity from agricultural runoff, low oxygen levels, extended dry periods, and previous channel alterations which have severely degraded instream habitat. Agricultural Land As mentioned previously, much of the Vermilion River's drainage basin is under intensive agriculture. The most important crops include sugar cane, rice, soybeans and a limited amount of grain sorghum and wheat. Crawf ish are produced in flooded rice fields after harvest. A recent surge in sugar cane farming has resulted in a rapid conversion of areas traditionally farmed for rice and soybeans. Important wildlife habitat within the agricultural portions of the study area include small forested areas, fallow fields, and wooded fencerows. These areas provide habitat for fox squirrel, eastern cottontail, swamp rabbit, raccoons, opossums, foxes, coyotes, numerous songbirds, and game birds such as American woodcock, mourning dove, and bobwhite. Out-of-bank flooding of natural streams, sloughs, and tributaries of the Vermilion River during winter months provides critically important habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl. Common waterfowl species include mallard, pintail, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, 4 and northern shoveler. Snow geese are also common winter visitors to harvested agricultural fields, especially rice fields. Flooded crawfish fields also provide excellent feeding opportunities for waterfowl and wading birds (e.g., herons, egrets, and ibises). As these fields are drained in preparation for planting, they are used extensively by migrating shorebirds (e.g., snipe, dowitchers, sandpipers). Those species considered federal trust resources which utilize agricultural lands includes all migratory bird species such as waterfowl, wading birds, mourning doves, American woodcock, shorebirds, numerous hawks, and songbirds. Bottomland Hardwood Forest/Wooded swamp A large, contiguous tract of bottomland hardwood/swamp forest is located in western st. Martin Parish between Lake Martin and the Vermilion River. This area is the largest remaining tract of swamp and bottomland hardwood forest in the study area. This habitat type is becoming increasingly scarce across the Mississippi River alluvial plain. A slender band of riparian habitat is found along some reaches of the Vermilion River. These cover types provide important habitat for several federal trust species including migratory waterfowl, songbirds, wading birds, and birds of prey. Most of the bottomland hardwood forest is found north and south of LA Highway 353 (Lake Martin Road), to the west and south of the Lake Martin Wetlands. Predominant tree species include red maple, sugarberry, water oak, American elm, green ash, cherrybark oak, nuttall oak, willow oak, and sweetgum. Understory vegetation includes possumhaw, Japanese honeysuckle, palmetto, poison ivy, dewberry, blackberry, rattan vine, and greenbrier. This area provides important habitat for game mammals such as the white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, swamp rabbit, fox squirrel, and gray squirrel. Raccoons and mink are commercially important as furbearers and are common in bottomland hardwoods and riparian zones. This area also supports a wide variety of migratory songbirds including wrens, ·kinglets, warblers, vireos, and sparrows. Barred owls, screech owls, and great-horned owls are common birds of prey found in the area. Bottomland hardwoods also provide nesting sites for cavity nesters such as the wood duck, pileated woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker, and Carolina chickadee. · Wooded swamp is primarily found north of the Ruth Canal and in the Bayou Tortue Swamp between Coulee Crow and the Vermilion River. Common tree species include bald cypress, black willow, and tupelo gum. Drummond red maple, American elm, and water locust typically occur on sites with slightly higher elevation. Understory vegetation consists of buttonbush, lizard's tail, and smartweed, with duckweed often covering the water surface. These areas are particularly important as habitat for resident wood

5 ducks and migratory waterfowl. Wood ducks utilize wooded swamps for nesting, brood rearing, and feeding, often remaining year­ round in the same area. Mallards, green-winged teal, and ring­ necked ducks are some of the migratory waterfowl which utilize these wetlands. Wading birds, such as the great blue heron, yellow-crowned night heron, and great egret are also common. other common avian species are warblers, vireos, and woodpeckers along with the white ibis, barred owl, and green heron. Common furbearers include the raccoon, nutria, and mink, which are trapped for the commercial value of their hides. Riparian habitat exists along some reaches of the Vermilion River and includes bottomland hardwood and wooded swamp habitat types. These areas are particularly important for fish and wildlife populations. Riparian vegetation provides streambank cover, detrital input, and shade for adjacent streams. Riparian zones serve as migration and travel corridors for wildlife and contain a combination of terrestrial and aquatic habitats which provides the basic requirements for a multitude of species. Unfortunately, much of the riparian habitat in the study area has been severely altered by channel modifications, urban development, and intensive agriculture. In addition to providing important wildlife habitat, bottomland hardwoods and wooded swamp act as floodwater storage areas and filter excessive nutrients, sediments, and pollutants from surface waters. Lake Martin Wetlands The area ref erred to as Lake Martin contains approximately 800 acres of impounded cypress swamp and open-water habitat located in western st. Martin Parish, north of the Lake Martin Road. The Lake Martin Wetlands provide important habitat for several federal trust resources including resident wood ducks, migratory waterfowl, and neotropical migrants; the area also contains a large wading bird rookery. The area supports high quality habitat for recreational fishes including largemouth bass, black crappie, white crappie, and bluegill. The Lake Martin wetlands are extensively used for recreational fishing, waterfowl hunting, wildlife observation, and boating. Texaco, Inc. has recently donated lands within and around the Lake Martin Wetlands to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) for use as a nature preserve. This area includes cypress swamp within the Lake Martin impoundment, bottomland hardwoods between the Lake Martin Road and the Ruth canal, and bottomland hardwoods and cypress swamp north of the Ruth Canal. TNC is currently developing a management plan for this property which will address biological management, timber management/restoration, protection goals, and use of the area for recreation, education, and research.

6 Threatened and Endangered Species Presently, there are no Federally listed threatened or endangered species in the study area.

FISH AND WILDLIFE-RELATED PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES The major fish and wildlife resource concerns in the study area include future loss and degradation of swamp, bottomland hardwoods, riparian zones, and aquatic ecosystems. Urban expansion and subsequent floodplain alterations continue to reduce the functional values associated with these resources. Most of the study area, particularly in and around the city of Lafayette, is undergoing rapid urban expansion. As this development continues, it places increased stress on fish and wildlife resources through habitat loss and floodplain alteration. These impacts, including both direct losses to development as well as cumulative and secondary losses, result from the need to further modify the landscape for flood control/drainage in response to continuing unregulated development. Stream channel modifications often involve mechanized clearing of riparian zones and other streamside habitats, eliminating or diminishing the water quality functions provided by these areas. Urban and agricultural runoff often contains high levels of dissolved nutrients, pesticides, sediments, and other pollutants. These factors contribute significantly to water quality problems in the Vermilion River, which reduce fish production. As agricultural lands are drained faster and more efficiently, urban development may encroach and flooded habitat for wintering waterfowl, migrating shorebirds, and wading birds may be reduced. Protection and restoration of wintering habitat has been identified as a key strategy for restoring continental waterfowl populations. Bottomland hardwoods and wooded swamp are becoming increasingly scarce in the Lower Mississippi Valley and represent a small, but important, percentage of the study area. As previously mentioned, these cover types provide critical habitat for a number of wildlife species as well as providing floodwater storage and groundwater recharge. Every effort should be made to conserve these areas, as they are of regional and national importance. To help ensure that fish and wildlife resources are adequately considered in future feasibility planning, the Service recommends that the following objectives be adopted:

7 1. Prevent or minimize the loss, conversion, and degradation of significant fish and wildlife habitat including bottomland hardwood forests, wooded swamps, riparian zones, seasonally-flooded agricultural lands, and open-water areas. Special emphasis should be given to the Bayou Tortue swamp, bottomland hardwood forests in western st. Martin Parish, and riparian zones along the Vermilion River. 2. Select alternatives which will minimize adverse impacts to water quality in the study area and in downstream aquatic ecosystems. Special emphasis should be given to the Vermilion River and its tributaries. 3. Preserve existing floodplain wetlands for floodwater storage; avoid future floodplain alterations. 4. Design and require local implementation of a floodplain management plan which focuses on protecting existing urban areas and minimizes future floodplain alterations which could adversely impact fish and wildlife resources. 5. Fully compensate for unavoidable losses of fish and wildlife habitat values.

ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION The Corps has identified several alternatives to reduce flooding in the study area, particularly in the city of Lafayette. These alternatives involve channel modifications to the Vermilion River, utilizing existing wetlands as flood storage, channelizing tributaries of the Vermilion River, and modification of upstream flood control projects to reduce flooding in Lafayette Parish. Alternatives under consideration are described below: 1. Modify the Vermilion River - This alternative (Figure 2) involves deepening and widening approximately 35.0 miles of the Vermilion River from approximately Interstate Highway 10 to the LA Highway 14 bypass at Abbeville. A trapezoidal channel would be excavated, with bottom widths varying from 30 to 65 feet. Several channel obstructions such as interior drainage culverts, bridges, pipelines, bulkheads, docks, boat houses, homes, and businesses would have to be relocated, seriously affecting the potential to implement this alternative. Because of those factors, this alternative has been eliminated from further analyses. 2. Retention Gravity Storage to the Bayou Tortue swamp - The Bayou Tortue Swamp serves as a natural flood storage area for the Vermilion River during high rainfall events. This alternative (Figure 3) involves artificially lowering the

8 Figure 2.

Alternative 1. Vermilion River Channol Enlargement - Dan Debaillon Coulee to LA llwy 14 Bypass, Abbeville

"'------··--- ·---··· ·--.. -·-··.

9 ., l\ll:ernat:.ive 2. Ret:.enhon Storage j in Bayou Torb.le swamp

'\'" 1 . Bayou Torl:ue Gravil:.y Uralnage Sl:.rucl:.ure and Pump sl:.al:.ion Coulee Crow Gravity Drainage Sl:.ruct:.ure

10 average daily stage in the Bayou Tortue Swamp by means of two gravity drainage structures and a low-lift pump station. A gravity drainage structure would be placed at the intersection of Coulee Crow and the Vermilion River. The second gravity drainage structure and the low-lift pump station having a capacity of approximately 100 cubic feet per second (CFS) would be placed on Bayou Tortue at its intersection with the Vermilion River. Levels in the swamp would be maintained at about 3.0 feet NGVD in advance of storm events by the low-lift pump to increase storage capacity. The gravity structures would be opened when levels on the Vermilion River exceeded 8.0 feet NGVD. By increasing storage capacity of the swamp, flood damages downstream would be reduced. Engineering analysis determined that extensive modifications to the Vermilion River would not be necessary with this alternative. Minor modifications would be necessary at the Bayou Tortue and Coulee Crow structures. 3. Combined Gravity and Pump Retention Storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp - This alternative {Figure 4) contains the same features as Alternative 2, but includes utilizing the bottomland hardwood forest north of LA Highway 353 {Lake Martin Road) as an additional flood storage area. A large pump station {approximately 1,800 cfs) would be constructed near the intersection of the Ruth Canal and the Vermilion River. This pump would be used to lower flood stages in the Vermilion River and supplement the flood storage capacity of the Bayou Tortue Swamp south of the Lake Martin Road. The retention area is approximately 1,200 acres and is bounded on the south by the Lake Martin Road, on the east by the west levee of Lake Martin, on the north by the Ruth Canal spoil bank, and on the west by the low left descending spoil bank of the Vermilion River. Improvements to the levees and spoil banks surrounding this area, and flood proofing of the Lake Martin Road with riprap or geomat, may be necessary. Also, 13 culverts through the Lake Martin Road will have flap gates installed to facilitate the storage capability of the retention area. As with Alternative 2, extensive channel modifications to the Vermilion River would not be necessary. 4. Modifications to the Ruth Canal - This alternative {Figure 5) has not been thoroughly investigated. However, the Corps' initial analyses of this alternative are not promising. The Corps believes the flood storage capabilities of areas upstream of the Bayou Tortue Swamp are not adequate for the probable runoff from the Upper Vermilion Basin. As for modifications to Bayou Carencro, additional information is needed on the hydrology, geometry, and response of the Bayou Carencro Basin to determine its viability. In order to pass flows from the Vermilion River to Bayou Teche via the Ruth Canal, extensive channel modifications and installation of a large pump station at the Ruth Canal Structure on Bayou Teche 11 Alternative 3. Retention Storage in Bayou Tortue Swamp and Additional Storage l\.r:ea

Ruth Canal Pump Station

Levee/Spoil Bank Improvements

Flap Gated Culverts ~hrough Lake Martin Road

Bayou Tortue Gravity Drainage Structure and Pump Station

Coulee Crow Gravity Drainage Structure

12 Upper Ven11lU on Modlflcalion~ lo and rtul:.h Cnnnl Dayou Carencro

Upper•· Verm111011 Bnsiu S ..:orage I\.rea Rul:.h Canal

13 would be required. Also, flooding problems in st. Martin Parish may increase with additional water from the Vermilion River. Because of the many complications and uncertainties associated with this alternative, it has been eliminated from further consideration. 5. Channel Modifications on the Isaac Verot Coulee - The Isaac Verot Basin contains approximately 9,075 acres in the southern portion of Lafayette Parish. This area is experiencing rapid urbanization and other land use changes which.have resulted in :j..nc:caaa~'LX!20~ The bas in is pr imar iiy·draTne(r-Ey ··t.ne·~-··-=· Isaac Verot Coulee' and laterals 2 and 2A. This alternative (Figure 6) consists of channel modifications to the Isaac Verot Coulee and its laterals. Modifications include excavation of a trapezoidal channel or construction of a concrete lined channel and modification and/or relocation of several bridges and drainage structures to accommodate the larger channel section. 6. Alter the Operation of the Teche-Vermilion. courtableau, and Eastern Rapides South-Central Avoyelles Systems to Achieve Lowerings in Lafayette Parish - This alternative involves more efficient operation of the Bayou Courtableau Drainage Structure and the Teche-Vermilion Pump station to possibly lower flood stages on the Vermilion River. Although runoff rates have increased from upper St. Landry, Rapides, and Avoyelles Parishes, efficient operation of the Courtableau Drainage Structure and lowering of the tailwater due to the lowered f lowline on the Atchafalaya River have offset the effects of increased runoff rates. The Corps has stated that there appears to be no operational deficiencies, new procedures, or design flaws in the present system that would significantly affect flood stages on the Vermilion River. This alternative was eliminated during preliminary screening. Nonstructural Alternatives - Nonstructural measures are those which would avoid or reduce damages without changing the frequency or level of flooding. Su.ch. iQ~<=Uii\ll:~Ji!~!!lclude land _u_~! c~a!!,~. ii;L~h~ .. LlP.Qgp_l.Ain_s;u;__ R:t;"2t!!St~!~~-!-:>t.!£s~- '1Jtruc~ures and facilities which incur flood damages. This may involve permanent evacuation and/or relocation of properties from the floodplain, flood proofing structures by means of ring levees, f walls, or by elevating structures above flood levels. act

POTENTXAL SXGNXFXCANT XMPACTS Significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources could result from implementing several of the alternatives under

14 Alternative 5. Channel Modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee

1. Isaac Verot Coulee 2. Lateral 2

3. Lateral 2A

15 consideration. During reconnaissance phase planning, estimates of impacts to fish and wildlife resources are often more qualitative in nature; detailed quantitative analyses are conducted during subsequent feasibility planning phases. The following is a discussion of potential impacts associated with each alternative. Alternative 1. Modify the Vermilion River Implementation of this alternative would adversely affect riparian habitats and biological communities along the Vermilion River including bottomland hardwoods, streamside vegetation, and instream aquatic vegetation. Riparian zones along the Vermilion River vary from a few feet wide (e.g., a single row of trees) to several hundred feet wide (i.e., forested areas). Widening the Vermilion River would involve removal of riparian vegetation and spoil disposal in adjacent forested and/or wetland habitat. These activities would substantially increase turbidity, reduce detrital input, and reduce streamside shade and cover in the Vermilion River. Those habitat alterations would cause a decrease in wildlife use and fish populations would experience significant losses from increased water quality problems and diminished habitat quality. Also, the more-efficient channel would reduce backwater flooding of agricultural areas and adjacent wetlands, eliminating valuable habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Alternative 2. Retention Gravity Storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp Flood storage in the Bayou Tortue Swamp, south of the Lake Martin Road, could adversely impact fish and wildlife resources. Artificially lowering water levels to approximately 3.0 ft. NGVD would reduce water levels to near ground elevation in the lower areas of the swamp such as around Lake Charlo. water levels would be below ground elevation for higher areas of the swamp away from Lake Charle. This would severely reduce brood-rearing and feeding habitat for wood ducks, limit feeding areas for wading birds such as herons and egrets, and reduce wintering habitat for waterfowl. Reduction in surface water would also impact habitat for furbearers, numerous species of reptiles and amphibians, and migratory songbirds. Excessive dewatering would also alter the natural hydrology of the swamp. The Bayou Tortue swamp contains Fausse and Sharkey soil associations which are considered hydric soils. These soils are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons. The high water table in these soils is the primary mechanism which dictates plant species composition. Prolonged dry periods may encourage invasion by species (e.g., Chinese tallow tree) which are not typically found in bald cypress swamp but are able

16 to quickly colonize the area during dry conditions causing a shift in species composition. Those changes in habitat would then result in a change in animal community structure and populations. Over the long term, excessive drying of the soil could also cause oxidation of organic material in the upper soil horizons resulting in subsidence and loss of elevation. Lower elevations may result in increased ponding and inhibit bald cypress regeneration, which requires an exposed seedbed. Alternative 3. Combined Gravity and Pumped Retention Storage to the Bayou Tortue Swamp The gravity drainage structures and pump on Bayou Tortue and Coulee Crow will function as outlined in Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts associated with dewatering, previously discussed under Alternative 2, would also be a concern with this alternative. The proposed retention area north of the Lake Martin Road consists primarily of bottomland hardwood forest with limited cypress swamp. Tree species in this area will not tolerate prolonged inundation, as will those in the Bayou Tortue swamp, west of Coulee Crow. Prolonged inundation of flood-intolerant species, especially during the growing season, could adversely affect several physiological processes associated with growth, mast production, and nutrient uptake. Prolonged flooding during the growing season could also affect regeneration and seedling survival of oaks and other mast-producing species important to wildlife. Stress associated with prolonged flooding may result in eventual mortality of several species of particular importance to wildlife. The upper retention area drains south into the Bayou Tortue Swamp through several culverts in the Lake Martin Road. Utilizing the upper area for flood storage would increase flood duration for bottomland hardwoods south of the road as all additional floodwater must drain south through the Bayou Tortue swamp and into the Vermilion River. This would place additional flood­ related stress on bottomland hardwoods in the lower unit. Bottomland hardwoods are typically not flooded during late spring and summer except during extreme rainfall events where they may flood for a few days only. In addition to tree stress, prolonged flooding during spring and summer would also impact ground­ nesting species of wildlife such as swamp rabbits, wild turkeys, bobwhite, some songbird species, and several species of reptiles and amphibians. Improvements to surrounding levees, spoil banks, and the Lake Martin Road would also impact several acres of bottomland 17 hardwood forest. These impacts would result from land clearing to allow access for construction equipment. Alternative 4. Provide Retention Storage in the Upper Vermilion River Basin with Possible Modifications to Bavou Carencro and Possible Modifications to the Ruth Canal utilization of wetlands in the Upper Vermilion Basin for flood storage could adversely impact fish and wildlife resources depending on operational schemes. Artificially lowering water levels in wetland areas to increase capacity would produce similar impacts to those associated with Alternative 2. Prolonged flooding of bottomland hardwoods would adversely affect tree growth, mast production, and survival; impacts would be similar to those with Alternative 3. Channel modifications to Bayou Carencro would adversely affect riparian habitat along the bayou. Although this alternative has not been thoroughly investigated, implementation would likely involve deepening and widening the channel, resulting in removal of streamside vegetation, instream aquatic vegetation, and spoil disposal in adjacent forested and/or wetland habitat. These activities would increase turbidity, reduce detrital input, and reduce streamside shade and cover. Removal of riparian vegetation would decrease wildlife habitat values, and fish production would suffer from increased water quality problems and reduced habitat quality. Also, a more efficient channel would reduce backwater flooding of agricultural fields and adjacent wetlands, reducing valuable habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Modifications to the Ruth Canal would adversely impact wooded riparian habitat along the channel from land clearing and dredging activities. Alternative 5. Implement Channel Modifications on Isaac Verot Coulee The Isaac Verot Coulee (IVC) and laterals 2 and 2A primarily provide drainage for developed areas south of Lafayette and west of Broussard. Major impacts associated with this alternative include destruction of riparian habitat, especially along the lower reaches of the Isaac Verot Coulee, and reduction in downstream water quality in the Vermilion River. Riparian habitat varies considerably along the IVC and laterals 2 and 2A. The IVC contains extensive riparian habitat near its intersection with the Vermilion River. However, upstream of the LA Highway 733 bridge and along laterals 2 and 2A, poor quality riparian habitat exists due to previous channel alterations and urban development. Most reaches of the IVC and its laterals

18 contain only a single row of trees or shrub/scrub vegetation. In several sections, residential areas have been constructed immediately adjacent to the channel bank. Additional channel improvements would likely result in minimal impacts to wildlife habitat as little significant habitat remains. The IVC and its laterals contain very poor-quality fishery habitat due to previous channel alterations, urban and agricultural runoff, and extended dry periods. However, removal of streamside and instream vegetation would reduce water quality functions provided by these vegetative buffers and increase pollutant runoff to the Vermilion River. This would adversely impact the production of fishes and other aquatic organisms in downstream areas. Alternative 6. Alter the Operation of the Teche-Vermilion, Courtableau. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Systems to Achieve Lowerings in Lafayette Parish Implementation of this alternative would not adversely affect fish and wildlife resources in the study area. However, improved drainage of agricultural lands in st. Landry, Avoyelles, and Rapides Parishes would reduce wintering habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Alternative 7. Nonstructural Alternatives Nonstructural measures are those which reduce or avoid flood damages without significantly affecting the frequency or level of flooding. Such measures reduce damages by changing the use of the floodplain or retaining existing floodplain use with modifications made to the structures susceptible to flood damages. Proposed measures for existing development could include permanent evacuation and/or relocation of properties from the floodplain, protection by means of ring levees or barriers, or elevating structures above flood levels. For future development, measures could include adopting local regulations to curtail floodplain development, or to require that structures be built to a base elevation standard. Although specific components of this alternative have not been identified, impacts to fish and wildlife resources would likely be negligible. Perhaps the most cost-effective and least damaging measure (from a fish and wildlife resource standpoint) would be development and implementation of a flood control/drainage plan for Lafayette Parish. This plan should take into consideration future urban expansion and include strong regulations governing floodplain development. A reduction in floodplain development would allow these areas to function naturally as flood storage areas and reduce damages to buildings and facilities. This would also reduce the need for structural

19 flood control/drainage projects which could adversely impact fish and wildlife resources.

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES The President's Council on Environmental Quality defines the term "mitigation" in the National Environmental Policy Act regulations to include: (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal Register Volume 46, No. 15, January 23, 1981) supports and adopts this definition of mitigation and considers its specific elements to represent the desirable sequence of steps in the mitigation planning process. Therefore, the Service recommends that project plans be modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce negative impacts to fish and wildlife resources as much as possible, and to compensate for remaining significant and unavoidable resource losses. Wooded riparian habitat, such as that found along the Vermilion River and the Isaac Verot Coulee, is recognized as high quality wildlife habitat and is becoming scarce on a national and regional basis. Therefore, we have designated that cover type as Resource Category 2, as defined in the Service's Mitigation Policy. The Service's mitigation goal for Resource category 2 habitats is no net loss of in-kind habitat value. Riparian habitat would be impacted with implementation of Alternatives 1, 4, and 5. Impacts to riparian habitat from channel enlargement could be avoided by utilizing existing wetlands for flood storage along the Vermilion River. This technique is included as part of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Also, undeveloped flood-prone lands along the Vermilion River and its tributaries could be purchased and used as flood storage areas. Development would be prohibited in these areas and retention structures may be necessary to contain floodwaters until stages on the Vermilion River decrease. If channel alteration is a selected alternative, minimizing riparian habitat loss would be the next preferred technique. If feasible, selective removal of instream obstructions (log jams, fallen trees, etc.) should be implemented in lieu of channel enlargement. If channel enlargement is performed, it should be done in a manner which would minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. Measures to minimize impacts could include any or all of the following: 1) restricting channel enlargement to the minimum cross-section necessary for adequate flow; 2)

20 performing work from one bank only or alternating banks, whichever would provide minimal impacts; 3) depositing spoil in cleared uplands to avoid impacts to adjacent forested and/or wetland habitat; 4) install vegetated buffer strips whenever possible to reduce sedimentation; and 5) perform normal maintenance activities including removal of snags and debris to maintain efficient flow. Flood protection for Lafayette Parish may also decrease winter flooding of harvested agricultural fields, reducing habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Because of the importance of winter flooding of croplands and forested wetlands to wintering waterfowl and the decline in the aerial extent of such flooding, the Service's mitigation goal is to seek full replacement of project induced reduction of winter flooding of these lands. Impacts to flooded agricultural lands could be minimized by designing interior drainage structures to allow fall/winter flooding. Also, easements could be acquired in cleared and/or forested areas to allow fall/winter flooding. Forested wetlands such as those found in and around the Bayou Tortue Swamp are considered to have high value for wildlife. Such large, contiguous tracts are limited in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Forested wetlands in the study area are designated as Resource Category 2. Impacts to bottomland hardwoods and wooded swamp would result from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Impacts associated with excessive dewatering of wooded swamp could be avoided by only lowering water levels to the average annual daily stage. This would avoid the potential deleterious effects of soil drying and allow the area to continue to provide brood-rearing habitat for resident wood ducks, wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl, and foraging habitat for wading birds. The operational scheme of the low-lift pump and gravity drainage structures could be adjusted to reduce prolonged dry periods, especially during winter and early spring. This would reduce impacts associated with soil drying, provide surface water for wildlife at critical times, and still increase flood storage capacity. Prolonged flooding of bottomland hardwoods, especially north of the Lake Martin Road, may result from implementation of Alternative 3. Impacts to bottomland hardwood tree species could be minimized or perhaps avoided if the upper retention area is used only during the dormant season and only during extreme rainfall events. Following an operational scheme which closely mimics natural flooding of bottomland hardwoods would also reduce impacts. Whichever alternative is selected, careful attention should be given to flood tolerance levels of the species found in the retention area. Compensation for unavoidable habitat losses associated with channel enlargement (Alternatives 1,4,5), construction of pump

21 stations and drainage structures (Alternatives. 2,3,4), and improvements to levees and spoil banks (Alternative 3) would likely involve acquisition and/or management of similar habitat or restoration of former wetlands. Detailed mitigation needs and measures to offset these losses would be determined during feasibility studies. Future loss of fish and wildlife resources from urban development, floodplain alterations, and other flood control measures could be minimized by: 1) development and implementation of long-term flood control/drainage plans for Lafayette Parish which consider future urbanization and land use changes, and 2) placing and enforcing restrictions on development of floodplain areas. These measures should be integral to the local sponsor's roles and responsibilities for any project implemented with federal funding.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ACTIVITIES IN THE FEASIBILITY STAGE Data Needs from Corps of Engineers Should any alternatives be recommended for investigation, the Service would need the following data to conduct a quantitative analysis of project impacts on fish and wildlife resources and to formulate measures to mitigate losses of those resources: 1. A detailed description of alternatives to be considered in feasibility studies, including: dimensions and locations of proposed channel enlargements; designated spoil disposal site locations and dimensions; locations and sizes of pump stations and gravity drainage structures; locations of improvements to levees, spoil banks, and roads; hydrologic regimes under future with-project and future without-project scenarios, including expected flood stage-area and stage­ frequency reductions (particularly in the Bayou Tortue Swamp and other forested wetlands and cleared lands); and operational plans for pump stations and gravity drainage structures. 2. An estimate of current, future with-project, and future without-project acreages of habitat types within the area to be impacted by each alternative considered, and of agricultural lands which will undergo reduced fall/winter flooding. The data should be presented for 10-year intervals over the anticipated project life. 3. An analysis of current water quality data for each major waterway in the study area.

22 Fish and Wildlife Service Tasks and Associated Cost Estimates

Additional fish and wildlife resource studies and reports will be necessary if this study proceeds into later planning stages. Among those Service requirements would be participation in the evaluation of alternative plans, completion of a Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) analysis, and preparation of draft and final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act reports. The estimated funding requirements include $11,100 for participation in the plan formulation process and $29,600 for a draft and final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report (including HEP analysis) . RECOMMENDATIONS

The Service does not object to feasibility investigations of alternatives that would utilize existing wetlands for floodwater storage, e.g., Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. However, operational schemes should closely mimic natural conditions, and should result in no net-loss of valuable fish and wildlife habitat. Alternative 1, and the channel enlargement components of Alternatives 4 and 5 would incur the most severe impacts to fish and wildlife resources. However, implementation of Alternative 5 would impact relatively low-quality fish and wildlife habitat, and measures could be implemented to minimize and off set adverse impacts. The Service does not oppose further study of potentially damaging alternatives; our final position on any such alternative will be based on our assessment of the impacts, the feasibility of less-damaging alternatives, and the adequacy of potential mitigative measures.

The Service provides the following recommendations in the interest of fish and wildlife conservation:

1. Incorporate the Service's recommended planning objectives, identified in this report, and in future planning activities.

2. Include the Service in all future feasibility study activities, including the formulation and evaluation of project alternatives, the development of mitigation features, and the selection of the recommended plan.

23

APPENDIXE

COORDINATION MEETING ATIENDEES

~~ol.J~ E0-

~/lt.-Tc/e. Cotv1eAv)< /.4r//Yerrc--~;r1P1-0w-f. (!31.r_)~o7-70 {j I

c 1-1/1,~..S A C,t.-AR D 0 VS.t\C.G: - ffl.oJ"EtT 11<-,.. (so'f) ac~-/")..7.S

'J?>~i D ~.· ~ ci ._ l---1=7 ~-t- ~ ~~- (&"bt'J34L-1~7S:- Ge..r't!J t:J.j.,'b~rsclT ti 6/,~v,'JJe. /(.arh1r1. ]er.,,.,..~ Jig cP-53 ~'P66- -"747 dr??f~6ZL /}jj~1Z4-/4klz #'78o»1/AC ,3/ i g-72 9Y'l5'J- 4vuiou c~ _6'£0'-! 55.>{f(,{ LA { 47 e f-1 e ~ ,(' / \ ~ fo Li c;c. 1 J ,....."~ 31 J'. ~ 3 3 -3 .P3 0 f\o.l/i el IA), ls~ lA [) ~ ~. !\)c,1. Iv~ /f_e s. YT:JY / '??Cf 2:_ - ( 3 7J Kob-e.r--t -S,~V"o'1 1- U:.. {, PAf'. Gav'1 r~1 ~ ~(- 711 s- f .'- u l~:r=e=·u....- LAf"kfto) zc, 7-7,,c, ') l> t' ndcL G. f1f cLt,h,·eo /L..511 eE - D/ er-a_,t / o o .j (..:Jo±) 8(p :; -c:

Z .)UY\ q3 M+5 a..\. L~ D N ~ Co Yl<:.el ''°' ·, Vl_j Ve. ( tY\ ·• ( i o v' ~ '\/ e. r \'.= l ooJ ·, Vlj

VERMILION RIVER BASIN FLOODING DOTO Lafayette District Off ice January 25, 1994

Name Representing Phone Nwnber

:i< _4-tu« ~UCN'.t-7 _ir-c /,,.,1 Ecu-1 C1 .... -ps c~ 61,,.,11:;Cr.J (::;-o'/)8(eZ-Z773 5tJd~£ J1RA/ldD s; MARr ;J 8~1sH G.' ~) 3 94-31 ~;;.. ~..\ c..:iL, G \~~l,\.., L<>vo'> c:i\ r~,,~ (~)i\od--'}53'1 ~1J J, BALr:Ju& v·JTD (S?Jf}371-1477 O..L 'T '( of ~ L e-e '.3~LLF-Y (P'GN'?:l!), c Af?.litvt./l.'O> ( 3/ a) z 33-Cf,lt Ce yayJ f Our1a11~ {]; ,~r& lr1-~J/J)c·e XJAv(ll;)..3 2?-~o/!P () ~ r I ,r:1c11A1'?j) ::JCHEl~A.1A,.,.J (r;-y tJ~ t"f;iqc,'tf"TT€. ""(/(-'Z6F-~(., 9<._

,lf w o "~ou ~S-l't/C'c/ K ·)Ii ~ L -L '1f lA 23 3 3 f 3J () ' .- ·~ / '(itJ ~ -

l..\f'ro-c. &1Jd6vJ.- (31s;.u. 7--i.o~ c;; D·C· /. D. -Lefe.r/£_ JJ8-Z53-7<}0

DD TO - L c-c<;,~ 11-e: ~18 - u 2. -G./tJ64- sw-371-llfY

# 'Pre.sevd-cd-• en t.v\ --the. C.o .... ps P14•·11'\ ·, ""j P;"o_c

ATTENDANCE RECORD

'.:>ATE(S) SPONSORING ORGANIZATION LOCATION

PURPOSE ,(,4~AYn/tf ~/S/...; /,,fl ~o" ~A/~o~ ..>roPv PARTICIPANT REGISTER *

o_. la- 'M D~\ €_ f-: () -- \) (. NAME JOB TITLE ANO ORGANIZATION

f!c.z - zso 8GZ-Z773

62. .. 1793

~l) ·-EC e.D . J-/D

0 LMV FORM 583•R * If you wish to be furnished a copy of the atten~ance record, JAN 88 please indicate so next to your name.

~ ~ l.=J ATT!NDAHCll Rl!CORD ~

... • I ' ' ' . \ . 1ATE(8) .. ~ .... ~ ... .\ .. ' ...... SPONSORING ORGANIZATION · . ,, •' · L,OCATIOH ... .. i ,, ...... ' . ·-1 -- I I I .. :, ... #&'.?'...... I .\o •••••• ~. ~LFnt¥~.:~··__J)~~C"/ "' .. .. .J1 • •• - ~t7jiff." \ '· \ .. 'I i - Ct)/;' I ...

I , . PURPOSE - .,L4,e";l'/F/7'e' ~/J'A" 6~~ .S:r:-~y. • ! . ' . ·~"' I .. . . .·-· . " ' ...... - . -..... -····- .. --···· I - ...... - . PARTICIPANT AeGIBTl!R * ! .. ... - ...... ·-··NAME .. ORGANIZATION TEL.EPHONE NUMBER . I ~/.A/ /,h~ .... ~ . rl'!)F ?.4..J ~ - ~~ ~ ~~ /5o~k:z .. ~e;'9 / 'i ( i l~o4' eiro:z. Z775 . ~arclVY\ fur\' : pk (.)tJ~ ~ ~lul-v ~ b\vt.,1.... c~~ , \" ,.J ·~f\,~i...t~ ) q~)- .. ~~~ 9

! I - 8it,.,t- ~hf7c!:2~ /.u::. &1.r ,;{ ~_;._,v' J-: 1 ~16} 'J~·:7,,..70(~ ~ .. I I dV\ ~N;i...f?__VL-L I c-1rl er. Lf\P-A'fc=...rrc p.vJ' ~6)~/-g~~ . 1 (v.no c..oe ". µ.. ~· /-/; I l ', I 1 ~) ~62-?..+Ze . R. /J 'Bro .)6$6':¢} /3r-J ~e- ~H'ri1s /-\ \... FoM~~ · (',()~ £/J6r< - OJ\.. / I (':>-o4)~~i' -Z-4 's fl\ (j '{"fl ~ Sttw;,Ja 1) 1 ~ 6 CD,.). Bor. I . ($"o4) 8(od..·- l ~ I 0 • I I I Cv;:::: a=;, ._ ')• e,:_ /J;,j? e~~. ·- l:>7q - /rJ 77 . .

•

j

• . •'

; •

: :

' 'I .

! :

I -· - ! l.W(V P'OPUI 8'83•R '\''. 11 you wlah lo be lurnlahed a copy ol 1h1 attendance record, replaces LMN 906 * / Pllllat Indicate so next to your name, AUQ 87

rreo-J.t:J-j.";}";}:.• J.t.J• J,"4 rr".LJI I

FebrumJ1 13, 1995 DOTD Headquarters 10:00 am

LAFAYETTE PAIUSH FLOOD CONTROL STUDY

NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE

Ml'/) ,,.c;1.. t5 o /?o/P

/Vlr11~1c:. 01,v(g14 TP-"- (I So'I ~6 Z ;JS"/ 2

\: ~ \ '"'° \ rv. . b. l.\ J lA.... ~~ ~-1r7 d'P ~arrc;

~~ _.? 'u--- ~ ·cr2...A- lAt=&Je~ &r..r1..1 '-~' 8) 26 i ~ i:;> f>/" c::~ ~IS /l/PC>4';>D eoG 5D 4: iJ '7 t.. t4o' kJ:J 1kr./1v {:fol) 3 7'1-/:?F!J · ...... ~-A1201J j, ·BA"~oo1e 311- l

SY 7W 1 E :.TAotdNJ:>

LQ.~je#e 'Pa.rish J LA Rec.o,...., 5-/-cA...cl__:J -::c 'PT rvL e._-e...+~ ~

Ck.ro ljV\ ~a..r I 8~Z- z-;73 M.a.rk w;~~+e_ 8r-.>S TA."5t-i tJ e O?S 6Co'2- z 2..~? B '/2. \.(. c£ b3 •'v ccMI A Bv -F]) ;u4 ~ l)oL..L.. e:t7 -s~ Z.t,?Z.. Morr'"·~ S;iLJJyer eo-c P'-/484 L ar'f Lhrike e.o- rr-­ )I ~t,4. C:/fCIL '(1.- Pe:r 1fVJ-·f IZJ?-J/)7 I z44"- Ke.~tto /J. /3ro .u -:,52-/J 1.:-D- J..1 D K 7. 4-2. 3 lirn look;f'J5b;() Pb- ~w X: /qlO ·D- e q_ n ri G\ Wy_ I \~ -e r I~ E - f-\ p "d.5lq v(! o/ A/a ic:-.eq ti){_ i1e-£ ;r 1/7.f Lf~JQ.. ~Midon ~ E; l x ('j'6~

~ -r lA t.: &\ .,J I f,o ti ~. -P~~+. w·. \J\ :t·c. 1' F~;/, er; e.s 3/g - 9iJ ~():i..5S" -(01>\ M.,,,_re~ pb-G 1463 K1c.Avdo R. 'fAztp v. rJ -z_ £:: 1-· ~ . 11q3

J. [. ..>. /!> 0 Co\~ 11___ Ob--r- < .]S' < .~0~3~~ E.b-\*Y ;i. 4' ;;.'"3 .-. 11f;,y ;:::·· f') ·- ;.;: ~ a //AaJ/

~~~ S q,,7e:-A~z ~/J--~ -C? 2~9 '8' _Cii~-4$ ~f'oN~ ~-o -Lvil Z4D I ,Alt-eH C?o~tes B~~LL 162-8 _ Ke"" Ash vJ or-\-~ -:PD - ~N ZS'+~. ,. r:

LC£-+ a..j £ -4-e Pct.r-

Alo..WI.. e.. A~ e..pi...e- ~ f'~ ,,._e <1.ro !.J "- IZ a/ I IA.SAC e" (5oc.fJ tB{g;Z -Z773

"b1 !,.(..- ~f::>~ lt+r"'I ff?:t k, :,,(./ /8) .z.r;, 7-7 0 re, '1 5Y P #IC /)/..P~£-4 IJ..P ?- /l/4f:r71J riJ.3f

,.Pr~~ l./o/?~r 1-::>-r-Al~co ('.1' 1 -:j 233'. 99 1 J- teY'a..J F. [Jt,,.,,~JY.. ~/?l,.,W I,,,.;_, JAla: " lA21D (SCJ?:J 3 7q- 1117 MMk \,J;v'\'o...~ 1.ASAC.E (504) Btoz.- z.s \2 R~Jvtold tXc'-l.$SA..fJ LA.SACE. (S04J fJ