LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

STRUCTURAL PLAN COMPONENT

APPENDIX

June 2009

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

New Orleans District
Mississippi Valley Division
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Table of Contents
PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1
Three-Tiered Screening Process ................................................................................................. 2
Organization of This Appendix .................................................................................................. 3
PLANNING UNIT 1....................................................................................................................................................5
Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments.................................................................... 5
Cost Considerations ................................................................................................................ 8
Screened Alignments .............................................................................................................. 8
Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures............................................................ 10
Full Barrier vs. Weir Options................................................................................................ 11
State’s Lake Borgne Alignment (‘S’) ................................................................................... 12
Open vs. Closed Tidal Passes ............................................................................................... 12
Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives .................................................................. 12
West Shore Alignment Variations ........................................................................................ 16
North Shore Alignment Refinements.................................................................................... 17
Other Findings ...................................................................................................................... 19
Structural Measures to be Included in Planning Unit 1 Alternatives........................................ 19
PLANNING UNIT 2..................................................................................................................................................21
Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments.................................................................. 21
Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures............................................................ 25
Full Barrier vs. Weir Options................................................................................................ 26
Combining the Swamp and Highway 90 Alignments into the Ridge Alignment................. 26
Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives .................................................................. 27
Structural Measures to be Included in Planning Unit 2 Alternatives........................................ 30
SPECIAL CASE: LOWER PLAQUEMINES PARISH ........................................................................................31
Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments.................................................................. 32
Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures............................................................ 33
PLANNING UNIT 3A ...............................................................................................................................................34
Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments.................................................................. 34
Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures............................................................ 37
Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives .................................................................. 40
Structural Measures to be included in Planning Unit 3a Alternatives ...................................... 42
PLANNING UNIT 3B ...............................................................................................................................................43
Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments.................................................................. 43
Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures............................................................ 45
Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives .................................................................. 47
Structural Measures to be included in Planning Unit 3b Alternatives...................................... 49
PLANNING UNIT 4..................................................................................................................................................50
Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments.................................................................. 50
i
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures............................................................ 54
Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives .................................................................. 56
Structural Measures to be included in Planning Unit 4 Alternatives........................................ 58
SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................................59

List of Tables
Table 1. Tier 3 Screening Attributes............................................................................................... 3
Table 2. Planning Unit 1 Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening. ............ 6
Table 3. Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates for Levee Alignments at Lake Pontchartrain
and Lake Borgne in Planning Unit 1............................................................................................... 8
Table 4. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 1 Structural Measures ................................................ 9
Table 5. Planning Unit 1 Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening ......................................... 10
Table 6. Variation in Surge Elevation Impacts Mississippi Coast................................................ 11
Table 7. Design Elevations and Costs for Full Barrier vs. Weir Barrier ...................................... 11
Table 8. Planning Unit 1 Ranking of Measures............................................................................ 13
Table 9. Planning Unit 2 Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening ........... 22
Table 10. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 2 Structural Measures ............................................ 24
Table 11. Planning Unit 2 Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening ...................................... 25
Table 12. Planning Unit 2 Ranking of Measures.......................................................................... 28
Table 13. Screening Results for Lower Plaquemines Parish ........................................................ 33
Table 14. Planning Unit 3a Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening........ 34
Table 15. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 3a Structural Measures .......................................... 37
Figure 18. Reformulated Morganza Levee Alignment with Morgan City Ring Levee................ 38
Table 16. Planning Unit 3a Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening .................................... 39
Table 17. Planning Unit 3a Ranking of Measures ........................................................................ 41
Table 18. Planning Unit 3b Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening ....... 43
Table 19. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 3b Structural Measures .......................................... 45
Table 20. Planning Unit 3b Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening ..................................... 46
Table 21. Planning Unit 3b Ranking of Measures........................................................................ 48
Table 22. Planning Unit 4 Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening ......... 51
Table 23. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 4 Structural Measures ............................................ 53
Table 24. Planning Unit 4 Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening ...................................... 56
Table 25. Planning Unit 4 Ranking of Measures.......................................................................... 57

ii
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

List of Figures
Figure 1. LACPR Planning Area and Planning Units..................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Example of a Lake Pontchartrain Surge Reduction Alignment from the Plan
Formulation Atlas ........................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4. Various Surge Reduction Alignments (1 through 5 and ‘S’) and Golden Triangle
Alignments (‘a’ and ‘b’) ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 5. West Shore Alignment Options..................................................................................... 17
Figure 6. Reformulated North Shore Alignment. ......................................................................... 18
Figure 8. GIWW Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas .................................................... 22
Figure 10. Swamp Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas .................................................. 23
Figure 15. Example Morganza to the Gulf Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas ............ 35
Figure 16. Atchafalaya Backwater Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas......................... 36
Figure 17. Reformulated Morganza Levee Alignment with Tie-in West of Morgan City ........... 38
Figure 19. Reformulated GIWW Alignment ................................................................................ 39
Figure 22. Reformulated Ring Levee Alignment ......................................................................... 46
Figure 23. Example Ring Levee Alignment from Plan Formulation Atlas .................................. 51
Figure 25. Highway 82 Alignment from Plan Formulation Atlas ................................................ 52
Figure 27. Reformulated GIWW Alignment (with tie in to Planning Unit 3b)............................ 54
Figure 28. Reformulated GIWW Alignment (stand alone for Planning Unit 4). ......................... 55

iii
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Purpose
The Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Technical Report has been
developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in response to Public Laws
109-103 and 109-148. Under these laws, Congress and the President directed the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to:
• Conduct a comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and design in close coordination
with the State of Louisiana and its appropriate agencies;
• Develop and present a full range of flood control, coastal restoration, and hurricane
protection measures exclusive of normal policy considerations for South Louisiana;
• Consider providing protection for a storm surge equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane;
and
• Submit preliminary and final technical reports.

The purpose of this appendix is to support the formulation of structural hurricane risk reduction
and flood control measures for LACPR, which is discussed in the main technical report.

Introduction
Structural, nonstructural, and coastal restoration measures are the building blocks of alternative
plans for LACPR. An alternative plan is a set of one or more measures functioning together to
address one or more planning objectives. Structural measures for LACPR primarily consist of
physical structures that reduce surge and wave run-up, such as continuous or ring levees on land
connected to floodgates acting as waterway barriers, where necessary.

The first step in the formulation of measures involved extensive public involvement in
partnership with the State of Louisiana. The USACE partnered with the State of Louisiana to
identify and evaluate hurricane risk reduction strategies for South Louisiana. Through this
partnership, the State developed a Master Plan to provide a long-term vision for hurricane risk
reduction and coastal restoration. Numerous risk reduction measures were identified during the
development of the State Master Plan. The LACPR Plan Formulation Atlas, which can be
viewed and downloaded at [Link] documents the extensive
collaborative identification of the coastal protection and restoration measures for South
Louisiana.

The next step in the plan formulation process was the screening and refinement of measures.
This Structural Plan Component Appendix describes how structural measures were screened and
refined to a smaller and more manageable set of options for integration with the nonstructural
and coastal restoration components of the LACPR alternatives.

Project guidance for LACPR required that LACPR investigate measures that address hurricane
storm risk reduction for a 100-year event, a Katrina like event (or low Category 5 event), and a
high Category 5 event for coastal Louisiana. For LACPR, the Category 5 hurricane event is
represented by a range of frequencies, i.e. the 400-year event represents a "low" Category 5
hurricane and the 1000-yr event represents a "high" Category 5 event. In addition, the
alternatives developed vary in the geographical area receiving such risk reduction, ranging from

1
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
only providing risk reduction to specific areas of significant concentration of assets or
population, as provided for by local or regional ring levees, to providing risk reduction for the
entire coastal area, as considered in the nonstructural only and comprehensive alternatives. All
the 400-yr and 1000-yr alternatives do provide some level of Category 5 risk reduction, to at
least some, if not all of the coastal area, as stated. Also many of the 100-year measures or
alternatives (e.g., the barrier-weirs) provide for varying levels of Category 5 risk reduction to
some specific areas by increasing the design levels of existing or proposed levee systems by
providing for an outer barrier line of defense.

The consideration and screening of nonstructural and coastal management features are described
in the Nonstructural Plan Component Appendix and Coastal Restoration Plan Component and
Environmental Metrics Appendix, respectively. The coastal appendix also contains discussions of
direct and indirect environmental impacts and mitigation requirements that would result from
construction of structural plans.

The final step in the plan formulation process, combining measures into alternative plans,
entailed the consideration of reasonable and efficient integration of structural measures with
nonstructural and coastal restoration measures into viable alternative plans. The Technical
Report presents the performance of various alternative plans and illustrates tradeoffs between
and among plans on specific objectives and overall program goals. Stakeholder input was
incorporated into the plan comparison step using a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
tool as described in the Risk-informed Decision Framework Appendix.

Alternative plans are not limited to those the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) could
implement directly under current authorities. Structural measures that could be implemented
under the authorities of other Federal agencies, State and local entities, and non-government
interests have also been considered. For more information on the LACPR Congressional
authority, plan formulation strategy and planning objectives, refer to the main report.

Three-Tiered Screening Process

A three-tiered screening process was used to reduce possible structural measures, alignments and
alternatives to a more manageable number for further evaluation and consideration across a wide
range of stakeholder interests.

• Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments. Alignments from the Plan

Formulation Atlas were screened considering preliminary construction costs,
constructability, and environmental impacts.
• Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures. Initial hydromodeling results
were used to further screen the number of alignments and strategies.
• Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives. The final step set each remaining
alignment at three design heights, 100-year, 400-year, and 1000-year, to create a set of
structural alternatives, which were then screened using six attributes (see Table 1).

2
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Table 1. Tier 3 Screening Attributes
ATTRIBUTE DESCRIPTION
Ratio of present value costs/average annual risk
Cost Effectiveness
reduction
Present Value Costs Present value at 2025 for life-cycle costs

Annual Equivalent Flood Damages With-project residual damages

Number of people who would be inundated in the year

Population Impacted
2075 for a 400-year frequency event
Construction Period Years required to complete initial construction

Direct Impact – Wetlands Wetland acreage impacted by proposed levees

For the third tier screening, each structural measure was rated based on these six attributes. In
order to have comparable scores for each of these attributes, each had to be normalized or
converted to a range of 0-1 where the lower value is preferred.

All screening attribute values presented in this appendix are based on earlier iterations of data
development (or preliminary data) using primarily 2010 base conditions for estimating with-
project damages. As such, values shown do not represent the metric and evaluation data
presented in the Evaluation Results Appendix.

Details on the hydromodeling results used to screen measures in Tier 2 are contained in Volume
2 (Annex A) of the Hydraulics and Hydrology Appendix.

Organization of This Appendix

This appendix is organized by planning unit as shown in Figure 1.

3
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 1. LACPR Planning Area and Planning Units

Each of the planning unit sections generally follows the same format:
• Brief description of the planning unit.
• Tier 1 screening – initial screening of structural alignments.
o Codes used to refer to measures screened from the Plan Formulation Atlas.
o Maps and text describing structural measure variations from the Plan
Formulation Atlas.
o Table(s) and text describing which measures passed/failed the Tier 1
screening and why.
• Tier 2 screening – initial hydromodeling of structural measures.
o List of remaining formulation issues from Tier 1 screening.
o Codes used to refer to measures in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 screening.
o Maps showing reformulated structural alignments.
o Tables and text describing how hydromodeling results were used to screen
and/or reformulate measures.
• Tier 3 screening – final screening of structural alternatives using six attributes.
o List of remaining formulation issues from Tier 2 screening.
o Table showing ranking of measures followed by descriptions of why each
measure was chosen for the overall LACPR alternatives.

Descriptions of each of the measures to be evaluated with the overall LACPR alternatives.

4
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Planning Unit 1
The following sections provide details on the tiered screening of measures and alignments for
Planning Unit 1. Planning Unit 1 is bordered between the (1) Mississippi River to the west, (2)
Gulf of Mexico to the south and east, (3) Pearl River on the east, and (4) potential extent of surge
inundation to the north. The western border of this planning unit is protected against hurricane
surges translating up the Mississippi River by the Mississippi River levees.

Planning Unit 1 is the most densely populated planning unit in coastal Louisiana, containing
approximately one million residents, or 47 percent, of the entire planning area’s population. The
major portion of greater New Orleans is located within the planning unit. The population at risk
lives between the Mississippi River east bank levee system and the shoreline areas of Lake
Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne.

Structural measures attenuate surge from two main water bodies. The first water body is Lake
Borgne to the east of New Orleans. Lake Borgne is connected to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(GIWW) and its branch channels which includes the de-authorized portion of the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) and the Industrial Canal. This navigation system bisects East New
Orleans. Structural measures would need to address levee improvements and/or navigation gates.

The second water body is Lake Pontchartrain which has two channels connecting it to Lake
Borgne – Chef Menteur and The Rigoletes. Structural measures would need to address levee
improvements and/or lake closures. The tradeoff for providing structural risk reduction to
populated areas along the Lake Pontchartrain perimeter range from closing or limiting flow
through the two passes – at least during surge conditions - to creating and/or raising levees and
floodwalls between the lake and populated areas.

The lower portion of Plaquemines Parish is the area south of metropolitan New Orleans located
along the “bird’s foot” stretch of land terminating at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Lower
Plaquemines Parish has limited opportunity for structural considerations other than ring levees to
protect isolated communities and spillways in the Mississippi River levee system to lower the
surge elevations. Levee height considerations are impacted by soil foundation strength and land
availability for conventional levee width requirements. Screening of structural measures for this
area is discussed following the details on Planning Unit 1 and Planning Unit 2.

Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments

The Plan Formulation Atlas identified two primary strategies for structural risk reduction in
Planning Unit 1. They include a Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction alignment (Figure 2) at
the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain and a high level alignment (Figure 3). The Lake Pontchartrain
surge reduction alignment proposes to add a levee across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain with
storm gates closing the passes at Chef Menteur and The Rigoletes during a storm event. Figure 4
displays six different surge reduction alignments (shown as 1 through 5 and the letter ‘S’) and
two different alignments within the area known as the Golden Triangle (shown as a and b). The
high level alignment proposes to raise levees on the South Shore of Lake Pontchartrain to a
higher level of risk reduction and to add levees on the North Shore of Lake Pontchartrain. Within
the two primary strategies, the Plan Formulation Atlas identified 17 variations. Table 2 describes

5
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
the codes used in the Plan Formulation Atlas and for Tier 1 screening for measures in Planning
Unit 1.

Table 2. Planning Unit 1 Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening.

Code Measure Code Description, e.g. PU1-LP-1a

PU1- Planning Unit 1
-LP- Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction alignment
-HL- High level alignment
-State Alignment that was part of the preliminary draft State Master Plan
-# Variations to the primary alignments, if applicable (see Figure 4)
a Golden Triangle alignment at the confluence of the GIWW and MRGO
b Alignment at the edge of the Golden Triangle and Lake Borgne

Figure 2. Example of a Lake Pontchartrain Surge Reduction Alignment from the Plan
Formulation Atlas

6
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 3. Example of a High Level Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

Figure 4. Various Surge Reduction Alignments (1 through 5 and ‘S’) and Golden Triangle
Alignments (‘a’ and ‘b’)

7
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Cost Considerations
Rough order of magnitude costs were developed for each of the Surge Reduction Alignments and
the Golden Triangle alignments. Alignment ‘a’ refers to the levee alignment that would cross the
Golden Triangle wetlands at the confluence of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. Alignment ‘a’ is part of the baseline conditions scheduled to be in
place around 2011. Alignment ‘b’ follows along the edge of the Golden Triangle and Lake
Borgne and would provide a secondary line of defense to Alignment ‘a.’ Table 3 shows the
initial construction and real estate costs for the levee alignments at Lake Ponchartrain and Lake
Borgne.

Table 3. Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates for Levee Alignments at Lake
Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne in Planning Unit 1

A - Alignment B - Alignment
Initial Costs Initial Costs
Alignment Alignment
($billions) ($billions)
LP-1a $10.8B LP-1b $10.1B
LP-2a $10.8B LP-2b $10B
LP-3a $20B LP-3b $19.2B
LP-4a1 $26.5B LP-4b1 $25.7B
LP-5a1 $26.3B LP-5b1 $25.5B
Note: Planning Unit 1 cost estimates assume the levees are 30 feet high and are built from the ground up. The cost
estimates for the ‘a’ alignments would go down if the new 100-year levees being in place are taken into account.
Costs assume geotextile levee construction (i.e. traditional construction methods).

Screened Alignments
Table 4 lists the variations of both the Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction alignments and the
High Level alignments and describes why some alignment variations were eliminated from
further consideration at this time. As indicated in Table 4 alignments 3, 4 and 5 were eliminated
from further screening due to the extremely high cost as compared to alignments 1 and 2 which
provide similar output.

8
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Table 4. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 1 Structural Measures
Pass/
Measure Code(s) Comments
Fail
PU1-LP-1a and 1b Pass These alignments follow Highway 90 along the landbridge.
The State screened this measure out because of public
opposition (multiple landowners), so it is not included in the
State Master Plan; however, the LACPR team felt that the
multiple landowner issue is not insurmountable and carried
this alignment forward into the next screening because of its
good soil foundation. Costs for 1a and 1b are same
magnitude as for 2a and 2b below (~$10 – 11 billion).
PU1-LP-2a and 2b Pass These alignments follow the GIWW/railroad and are
essentially the same as those represented in the State Master
Plan. Costs for 2a and 2b are same magnitude as for 1a and
1b above ($10 – 11 billion).
PU1-LP-3a and 3b Fail These alignments cross Lake St. Catherine and have
significant constructability, operability, and environmental
concerns. In comparison to alignments 1 and 2 above,
alignment 3 has more constructability, operability, and
environmental concerns. In addition, the cost is higher (~$19
– 20 billion).
PU1-LP-4a1, 4b1, Fail Constructability, operability, and cost concerns. Costs for
4a2, and 4b2 these measures are approximately 2.5 times the costs of LP-1
and LP-2 (~$25 – 27 billion). In comparison to alignments 1
and 2 above, these alignments have more constructability
and operability concerns. In addition, the costs are higher
(~$25 – 27 billion)
PU1-LP-5a1, 5b1, Fail Constructability, operability, and cost concerns. Costs for
5a2, and 5b2 these measures are approximately 2.5 times the costs of LP-1
and LP-2 (~$25 – 27 billion). In comparison to alignments 1
and 2 above, these alignments have more constructability
and operability concerns. In addition, the costs are higher
(~$25 – 27 billion)
PU1-LP-State Pass The State Master Plan presented three barrier alignments.
Two of the alignments approximately correspond to PU1-
LP-2a and PU1-LP-2b. Specific hydromodeling data will be
available for the third State weir alignment (‘S’) across Lake
Borgne.
PU1-HL-1a and 1b Pass Presents an alternative to the Surge Reduction Plan concept
and will be carried through into the MCDA process.
Note: Planning Unit 1 preliminary cost estimates assumed the levees are 30 feet high and are built from the ground
up. The cost estimates for the ‘a’ alignments would go down if the new 100-year levees being in place are taken into
account. Costs assume geotextile levee construction (i.e. traditional construction methods).

9
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures

In addition to the initial screening evaluation, additional hydromodeling was necessary to resolve
and further refine the possible structural measures in Planning Unit 1. Remaining formulation
issues included:

• High level versus Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction alignments.

• Full barrier (non-overtopping) versus weir (overtopping) designs for the Lake
Pontchartrain surge reduction alignments.
• Open versus closed tidal pass designs for the Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction
alignments.
• Lake Borgne alignment (‘S’).
• Golden Triangle alignments (‘a’ or ‘b’).
• Inclusion or exclusion of North Shore, West Shore, and Oakville extension.
• Design level of risk reduction.

For this tier, barrier versus weir and open versus closed tidal gates were evaluated. During this
step, a range of alignments were formulated to address the remaining formulation issues. With
the inclusion of different levels of risk reduction, the naming convention for the structural
measures was revised slightly from previous screening nomenclature. Table 5 describes an
example of the coding.

Table 5. Planning Unit 1 Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening

Code Measure Code Description, e.g. PU1-LP-a-100-1

PU1- Planning Unit 1
-LP- Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction alignment
-HL- High level alignment
-a- Golden Triangle alignment at the confluence of the GIWW and MRGO
-b- Alignment at the edge of the Golden Triangle and Lake Borgne
-100- 100-year design level
-400- 400-year design level
-1000- 1000-year design level
All PU1 primary alternatives include the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project
levees and upper Plaquemines levees. The primary alignments for ‘LP’ also
-1
include a barrier-weir across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain with a tieback to
high ground east of Slidell.
-2 Primary alignment plus North Shore and West Shore levees.
-3 Primary alignment plus Slidell and West Shore levees.

10
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Full Barrier vs. Weir Options

The full barrier (non-overtopping) designs were compared to the weir barrier (overtopping)
designs for the Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction alignments to determine the preferred design
configuration.

Based on the preliminary surge level results (see Table 6), the non-overtopping design increased
surges along parts of the Mississippi coastline by up to 5.4 feet while the weir design increased
surge by 3.2 feet for hurricanes of intensity greater than a 400-year event.

Table 6. Variation in Surge Elevation Impacts Mississippi Coast

Average/Maximum Difference
Distance from LA
Area from Baseline Surge Elevations
State Border
Weir (feet) Barrier (feet)
0 miles Pearl River (Hwy 90) +2.3 / +3.2 + 3.6 / +5.4
18 miles Clermont Harbor +0.7 / +0.9 +1.1 / +2.0
26 miles Bay Saint Louis +0.6 / +0.9 +1.0 / +1.9
49 miles Gulfport +0.2 / +0.5 +0.4 / +1.2
70 miles Biloxi +0.2 / +0.4 +0.3 / +1.0

As shown in the above table, measures in Planning Unit 1 have the potential to impact the
Mississippi coast. Such impacts have been further addressed in a systems analysis conducted in
coordination with the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program (MsCIP) team. A summary of
the potential regional impacts are addressed in the Systems Analysis section of the main report.

The design height of a non-overtopping levee along the Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction
(‘LP-’) alignments would exceed 24 feet for the 100-year storm event (see Table 7), which
means high costs and constructability issues.

Table 7. Design Elevations and Costs for Full Barrier vs. Weir Barrier

Full Barrier Weir Barrier

Alignment
Geo Textile Soil Mix Overflow
Elev. (ft) Elev. (ft)
($billions) ($billions) ($billions)
LP-b-100-1 $7B $9.5B 25 $4.5B 12.5
LP-b-400-1 $18.5B $19.9B 32 $12.8B 12.5
LP-b-1000-1 $22.4B $24.9B 36 $16.1B 12.5
LP-b-100-2 $12.6B $20.6B 25 $10.6B 12.5
LP-b-400-2 $27.1B $33.5B 32 $22.4B 12.5
LP-b-1000-2 $32.2B $40B 36 $27.3B 12.5

In summary, the non-overtopping barrier has been eliminated from further consideration because
of cost constraints, engineering feasibility issues, and potential impacts to Mississippi.

11
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
State’s Lake Borgne Alignment (‘S’)
The State’s Lake Borgne alignment was screened out for the same reason that the full barrier
options were screened out. Hydromodeling results show unacceptable increases in water levels
to the State of Mississippi. Also, this alignment presents many costly constructability issues and
challenges.

Open vs. Closed Tidal Passes

A second design consideration for the Lake Pontchartrain surge reduction measure was whether
to close the tidal passes at The Rigoletes and Chef Menteur passes with floodgates or whether to
leave the passes open for environmental reasons. Evaluation of the hydromodel output for the
open tidal passes revealed limited reduction in surge levels within Lake Pontchartrain. Therefore,
it was determined that the closed tidal passes provide the best engineering solution for all storm
conditions if a barrier plan is selected.

Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives

Based on the Tier 2 screening, the preliminary measures or variations of measures for further
consideration included:
• High level versus surge reduction plans.
• Golden Triangle alignment ‘a’ versus alignment ‘b.’
• North Shore levee or Slidell ring levee.
• West Shore (Laplace).

As part of the Tier 3 screening, structural measures were subjected to analysis using 100, 400,
and 1000-year design heights for each levee alignment considered. This resulted in the
development of 16 variations of the High Level Plan and 18 variations of the Lake Pontchartrain
Surge Reduction. These structural measures were then ranked using the multiple attributes
previously described in Table 1.

Table 8 displays the ranking of the 34 measures and the screening attribute values used to
conduct the ranking.

12
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Table 8. Planning Unit 1 Ranking of Measures
Screening Attributes
2075 Pop.
Cost Annual Equiv. Present Value Construction Direct Impact-
Impacted 400-yr Total
Effectiveness Flood Damages Costs Period Wetlands
Measures Event Value Rank
Score***
$ $
Ratio* Value** Value** People Value** Value** Years Value** Acres Value**
Million Million
LP-a-100-1 29.49 0.20 793 1.00 657,708 0.93 6,459 0.10 14 0.88 980 0.10 3.21 1
LP-b-100-1 42.86 0.29 781 0.98 634,659 0.90 9,900 0.15 14 0.88 1,554 0.16 3.36 2
HL-a-100-3 47.78 0.32 754 0.95 706,211 1.00 12,327 0.19 12 0.75 3,642 0.37 3.59 3
HL-a-100-2 49.44 0.35 714 0.90 691,138 0.98 14,732 0.23 12 0.75 4,686 0.48 3.69 4
LP-b-400-1 67.24 0.45 623 0.79 429,604 0.61 26,157 0.41 16 1.00 4,238 0.43 3.69 5
LP-a-100-3 55.77 0.38 684 0.86 649,395 0.92 18,291 0.29 14 0.88 3,668 0.37 3.69 6
LP-a-400-1 72.96 0.49 624 0.79 429,915 0.61 28,310 0.44 16 1.00 4,055 0.41 3.74 7
HL-b-100-3 59.79 0.40 751 0.95 705,491 1.00 15,605 0.24 12 0.75 4,220 0.43 3.77 8
LP-a-100-2 57.33 0.39 655 0.83 638,120 0.90 20,468 0.32 14 0.88 4,541 0.46 3.78 9
LP-b-100-3 63.92 0.43 672 0.85 626,346 0.89 21,732 0.34 14 0.88 4,242 0.43 3.81 10
HL-b-100-2 59.84 0.42 711 0.90 690,418 0.98 18,012 0.28 12 0.75 5,265 0.54 3.87 11
LP-b-100-2 64.79 0.44 643 0.81 615,071 0.87 23,908 0.37 14 0.88 5,115 0.52 3.89 12
LP-b-1000-1 87.47 0.59 614 0.77 415,159 0.59 34,813 0.54 16 1.00 5,100 0.52 4.02 13
HL-a-400-1 106.37 0.72 734 0.93 466,706 0.66 29,570 0.46 16 1.00 2,540 0.26 4.03 14
LP-a-1000-1 93.58 0.63 615 0.78 415,266 0.59 37,153 0.58 16 1.00 4,924 0.50 4.08 15
HL-b-400-3 92.13 0.62 522 0.66 376,731 0.53 45,143 0.70 16 1.00 5,661 0.58 4.10 16
HL-b-400-1 119.45 0.81 783 0.99 466,309 0.66 27,354 0.43 16 1.00 2,209 0.23 4.11 17
LP-b-400-3 83.40 0.56 488 0.62 350,257 0.50 43,701 0.68 16 1.00 7,587 0.78 4.13 18
LP-a-400-3 87.68 0.59 489 0.62 350,568 0.50 45,856 0.72 16 1.00 7,404 0.76 4.18 19
HL-a-400-3 96.85 0.65 523 0.66 377,128 0.53 47,359 0.74 16 1.00 5,993 0.61 4.20 20
LP-b-400-2 83.64 0.57 455 0.57 324,873 0.46 46,587 0.73 16 1.00 8,590 0.88 4.20 21
HL-b-400-2 91.44 0.62 477 0.60 343,385 0.49 48,920 0.76 16 1.00 7,498 0.77 4.24 22
LP-a-400-2 87.20 0.59 456 0.58 325,184 0.46 48,484 0.76 16 1.00 8,406 0.86 4.24 23
HL-a-400-2 95.76 0.65 478 0.60 343,782 0.49 51,136 0.80 16 1.00 7,830 0.80 4.33 24
HL-a-1000-1 131.12 0.89 722 0.91 436,473 0.62 38,025 0.59 16 1.00 3,211 0.33 4.34 25
HL-b-1000-1 147.97 1.00 772 0.97 436,275 0.62 35,512 0.55 16 1.00 2,940 0.30 4.45 26
LP-b-1000-3 100.76 0.68 471 0.59 330,322 0.47 54,510 0.85 16 1.00 9,042 0.92 4.52 27
HL-b-1000-3 111.76 0.76 501 0.63 337,952 0.48 57,111 0.89 16 1.00 7,491 0.77 4.52 28
LP-a-1000-3 105.28 0.71 472 0.60 330,429 0.47 56,850 0.89 16 1.00 8,865 0.91 4.57 29
LP-b-1000-2 100.88 0.68 441 0.56 307,571 0.44 57,603 0.90 16 1.00 10,081 1.03 4.60 30

13
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Screening Attributes
2075 Pop.
Cost Annual Equiv. Present Value Construction Direct Impact-
Impacted 400-yr Total
Effectiveness Flood Damages Costs Period Wetlands
Measures Event Value Rank
Score***
$ $
Ratio* Value** Value** People Value** Value** Years Value** Acres Value**
Million Million
HL-a-1000-3 116.91 0.79 502 0.63 338,150 0.48 59,625 0.93 16 1.00 7,763 0.79 4.63 31
LP-a-1000-2 105.16 0.71 442 0.56 307,678 0.44 59,943 0.94 16 1.00 9,905 1.01 4.65 32
HL-b-1000-2 112.17 0.76 463 0.58 310,658 0.44 61,583 0.96 16 1.00 9,516 0.97 4.71 33
HL-a-1000-2 116.75 0.79 463 0.58 310,856 0.44 64,096 1.00 16 1.00 9,787 1.00 4.81 34
Indicates structural measure is included in the overall set of LACPR alternatives to be evaluated in detail.
* Cost Effectiveness Ratio = Total Present Value Costs /Average Annual Equivalent Risk Reduction
** Value is the normalized value for the attribute where a value of 1.00 represents the greatest is the largest (lower is better)
***Total of Normalized Values (lower is better)

14
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Based on the ranking above and in consideration of the need to investigate a range of different
ways to reduce the risk of hurricane storm damages the following structural measures were
selected to be carried forward into the set of alternatives to be evaluated in the overall LACPR
effort (listed in order of rankings):

LP-a-100-1: Of all variations considered, this is the least expensive and has the lowest cost per
average annual risk reduction (or biggest bang for the buck) and has the least direct impact on
wetlands than any other plan; however, the spatial extent of risk reduction is limited to
metropolitan New Orleans and vicinity. It should be noted that although the LP-b-100-1
structural measure was ranked 2nd among all structural measures in Planning Unit 1, it costs
considerably more than LP-a-100-1 and has greater wetland impacts. Therefore, LP-b-100-1 was
eliminated from further consideration.

HL-a-100-3: This measure ranked 3rd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1 and is
the least costly High Level Plan.

HL-a-100-2: This measure ranked 4th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1. This
measure costs significantly less than the equivalent Surge Reduction measure (LP-a-100-2) and
was selected because of its ranking.

LP-b-400-1: This measure ranked 5th. In regards to risk reduction benefits, LP-b-400-1 performs
similarly to LP-a-400-1 (ranked 7th) but costs less.

LP-a-100-3: This measure ranked 6th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1. It was
selected to be included in the set of alternatives because it provides risk reduction to other areas
besides metropolitan New Orleans (i.e., Laplace, Slidell, Oakville extension) and has similar
overall score (3.69) with the previous 2 structural measures.

LP-a-100-2: This measure ranked 9th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1. This
measure was selected because it provides structural risk reduction for a 100-year frequency event
to developed areas on the North Shore as well as Laplace, Slidell and Oakville extension.
However, it is considerably more expensive than its equivalent High Level measure (HL-a-100-
2) and will take longer to construct.

LP-b-1000-1: This measure ranked 13th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1. This
measure provides the least costly way to provide Category 5 level of risk reduction within
Planning Unit 1.

HL-b-400-3: This measure ranked 16th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1. While
more expensive than its equivalent Surge Reduction plan (LP-b-400-3), it impacts considerably
less wetlands. This measure provides 400-year level of protection to other areas besides metro
New Orleans (i.e., Laplace, Slidell, Oakville extension).

LP-b-400-3: This measure ranked 18th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1. This
measure was selected for comparison with its equivalent Surge Reduction plan (HL-b-400-3).

15
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
HL-b-400-2: This measure ranked 22nd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1. This
measure was selected because it provides structural risk reduction for a 400-year frequency event
to developed areas on the North Shore. This measure allows for incremental comparison to HL-
b-400-3, which provides risk reduction to only the Slidell areas on the North Shore. Selection of
this measure allows for consideration of a wider array of options for the North Shore using High
Level measures.

LP-b-1000-2: This measure ranked 30th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 1. This
measure provides the greatest average annual risk reduction benefits and Category 5 risk
reduction to all areas (except Plaquemines).

While these ten structural measures do not represent all measures in terms of reducing average
annual damages, this array encompasses a sufficient range of structural risk reduction measures
from which a preferred comprehensive plan or strategy can be identified.

Absent from this array of options are measures that tradeoff risk reduction of site-specific areas
within Planning Unit 1. These areas can be investigated incrementally allowing for comparison
of structural vs. nonstructural measures. Specifically, risk reduction of the North Shore of Lake
Pontchartrain will be evaluated incrementally to address costs, risk reduction, significant
engineering problems/challenges (major water courses, large pumping requirements, and lack of
acceptability from locals). In addition, other areas such as Laplace and Slidell will be evaluated
independently and with various levels (100, 400 and 1000-year) of risk reduction. The following
sections briefly describe the North and West Shore areas.

West Shore Alignment Variations

Figure 5 presents the West Shore or Laplace alignment variations being investigated through the
West Shore Lake Pontchartrain Feasibility Study. For the level of analysis in the LACPR effort,
the “LACPR Alignment” acts as a representative alignment of Alignments A through C.
Selection of the exact alignment would take place through the West Shore Lake Pontchartrain
Feasibility Study.

16
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 5. West Shore Alignment Options.

North Shore Alignment Refinements

Once inundation data became available, the team was able to refine the North Shore alignment
from a continuous levee as shown previously in Figure 2 to a series of ring levees as shown in
Figure 6. These ring levees are expected to be more technically and economically viable and
more publicly acceptable than a long continuous levee and will therefore be carried forward into
the reevaluation in place of the continuous levee.

In addition, the Slidell ring levee previously shown in Figure 3 was modified slightly as shown
in Figure 7.

17
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 6. Reformulated North Shore Alignment.

Figure 7. Reformulated Slidell Ring Levee.

18
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Other Findings
Other findings from this analysis included the following:

1) The Golden Triangle alignment ‘b’ was generally more cost effective for the 400 and
1000-year level of risk reduction than alignment ‘a.’

2) Providing 1000-year level of risk reduction through structural measures may appear to be
a poor financial decision if considering average annual values. For the 1000-year plans,
there is a 30 percent increase in cost and less than one percent increase in average annual
damages prevented compared to the equivalent 400-year plans. This alone should not be
reason to dismiss higher levels of risk reduction. Therefore, a structural measure that
provides 1000-year level of risk reduction is kept for consideration during the MCDA
process during which additional metrics can and will be considered.

Structural Measures to be Included in Planning Unit 1 Alternatives

Below is the array of options to be included as structural components of alternatives to be
considered for detailed analysis for Planning Unit 1. These structural measures allow for
comparison of further improvements to the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project as well as the
North Shore of Metro New Orleans (at similar levels and areas of risk reduction) for 100-year,
400-year and 1000-year levels of risk reduction. For the Planning Unit 1 alternatives, these
structural components are combined with coastal restoration and nonstructural measures to
provide comprehensive risk reduction.

Lake Pontchartrain Barrier Levee Alignments:

LP-a-100-1: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option includes building a 12.5-foot elevation weir across the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain to act
as a surge barrier and extending the levee system east of Slidell up to high ground near Interstate
59. Storm gates would close the passes at Chef Menteur and The Rigoletes.

LP-a-100-2: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option contains the same surge barrier weir as LP-1a-100-1 but it adds levee on the North Shore,
a levee around Laplace, and a levee in Plaquemines Parish on the east bank of the Mississippi
River across from Oakville.

LP-a-100-3: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option contains the same surge barrier weir as LP-1a-100-1 but it adds a ring levee around Slidell
on the North Shore, a levee around Laplace, and a levee in Plaquemines Parish on the east bank
of the Mississippi River across from Oakville.

LP-b-400-1: This structural option targets a 400-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option contains the same surge barrier weir as LP-1a-100-1 but it includes raising existing levees
to a 400-year level of risk reduction. This option also includes a new levee approximately
between Chef Menteur Pass and Bayou Dupre that would follow Lake Borgne along the edge of
the wetlands; construction would include sector gates on both the MRGO and GIWW.

19
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
LP-b-400-3: This structural option targets a 400-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option contains the same surge barrier weir as LP-1a-100-1 but it adds a ring levee around Slidell
on the North Shore, a levee around Laplace, and a levee in Plaquemines Parish on the east bank
of the Mississippi River across from Oakville. This option also includes a new levee
approximately between Chef Menteur Pass and Bayou Dupre that would follow Lake Borgne
along the edge of the wetlands; construction would include sector gates on both the MRGO and
GIWW.

LP-b-1000-1: This structural option targets a 1000-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option contains the same surge barrier weir as LP-1a-100-1 but it includes raising existing levees
to a 1000-year level of risk reduction. This option also includes a new levee approximately
between Chef Menteur Pass and Bayou Dupre that would follow Lake Borgne along the edge of
the wetlands; construction would include sector gates on both the MRGO and GIWW.

LP-b-1000-2: This structural option targets a 1000-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option contains the same surge barrier weir as LP-1a-100-1 but it adds a levee across the North
Shore, a levee around Laplace, and a levee in Plaquemines Parish on the east bank of the
Mississippi River across from Oakville. This option also includes a new levee approximately
between Chef Menteur Pass and Bayou Dupre that would follow Lake Borgne along the edge of
the wetlands; construction would include sector gates on both the MRGO and GIWW. Of all the
structural measures, this measure contains the most structural components to provide a
comprehensive 1000-year level of risk reduction to both the North and South Shore.

High Level Levee Alignments:

HL-a-100-2: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option involves building new levees but without a surge reduction barrier across Lake
Pontchartrain. The new levees would include a levee on the North Shore, a levee around Laplace,
and a levee in Plaquemines Parish on the east bank of the Mississippi River across from
Oakville.

HL-a-100-3: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option involves building new levees but without a surge reduction barrier across Lake
Pontchartrain. The new levees would include a ring levee around Slidell on the North Shore, a
levee around Laplace, and a levee in Plaquemines Parish on the east bank of the Mississippi
River across from Oakville.

HL-b-400-2: This structural option targets a 400-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option involves building new levees but without a surge reduction barrier across Lake
Pontchartrain. The new levees would include a levee on the North Shore, a levee around Laplace,
and a levee in Plaquemines Parish on the east bank of the Mississippi River from Oakville. This
option also includes a new levee approximately between Chef Menteur Pass and Bayou Dupre
that would follow Lake Borgne along the edge of the wetlands; construction would include
sector gates on both the MRGO and GIWW.

20
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
HL-b-400-3: This structural option targets a 400-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option involves raising existing levees and building new levees but without a surge reduction
barrier across Lake Pontchartrain. The new levees would include a ring levee around Slidell on
the North Shore, a levee around Laplace, and a levee in Plaquemines Parish on the east bank of
the Mississippi River across from Oakville. This option also includes a new levee approximately
between Chef Menteur Pass and Bayou Dupre that would follow Lake Borgne along the edge of
the wetlands; construction would include sector gates on both the MRGO and GIWW.

Planning Unit 2
The following sections provide details on the tiered screening of measures and alignments for
Planning Unit 2, a triangular shaped area beginning at Donaldsonville, then extending southeast
along the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This area then continues southwest of Grand
Isle and Port Fourchon and northwest along Bayou Lafourche.

Approximately 300,000 residents, or 14 percent, of the planning area population inhabits

Planning Unit 2, containing the portion of the New Orleans metropolitan area located on the
West Bank of the Mississippi River. Additionally, this planning unit contains Venice, Grand Isle,
and portions of towns located along Bayou Lafourche such as Port Fourchon, Larose, Thibodaux,
and Donaldsonville.

The major Mississippi River ports, noted in the description of Planning Unit 1 also have
infrastructure on the West Bank of the Mississippi River in Planning Unit 2. Additionally, this
highly productive estuary is home to a population where the social and economic cultures have
evolved around and are dependent upon the estuary’s natural resources.

As discussed for Planning Unit 1, the lower portion of Plaquemines Parish is a special case;
therefore, screening of structural measures for this area is discussed following the screening
details of Planning Unit 2.

Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments

The Plan Formulation Atlas identified four primary strategies for structural risk reduction within
Planning Unit 2. The alignment of the levees included the GIWW (three variations were
considered including structural risk reduction for Lafitte and variations of where the levee ties
into to the Mississippi River Levee System), Highway 90 alignment, Swamp alignment (later
modified/combined with Highway 90 alignment and renamed to Ridge alignment) and two
alignments along the West Bank Interior (improvement to existing West Bank levee and
extension of the existing West Bank levee). Table 9 describes the codes used in the Plan
Formulation Atlas and for Tier 1 screening for measures in Planning Unit 2. Figures 8 through
11 show examples of the various alignments.

21
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Table 9. Planning Unit 2 Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening
Code Measure Code Description (e.g. PU2-G-1)
PU2- Planning Unit 2
-WBI- West Bank interior alignments
-G- GIWW levee alignment variation
-H Highway 90 levee alignment
-S Swamp alignment
-State Alignment that was part of the preliminary draft State Master Plan
-# Variations to the primary alignments (if applicable)

Figure 8. GIWW Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

22
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 9. Highway 90 Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

Figure 10. Swamp Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

23
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 11. West Bank Interior Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

Through initial screening, in which preliminary construction costs as well as direct and indirect
environmental impacts were considered, the number of variations was screened to five. Table 10
lists the variations of each of the alignments in Planning Unit 2 and describes why some
alignment variations were eliminated from further consideration at this time.

Table 10. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 2 Structural Measures

Measure
Pass/Fail Comments
Code(s)
PU2-G-1 Pass Essentially the same as the State’s GIWW alignment; however,
the State plan includes a ring levee around Lafitte. Cost estimates
range from ~$5B - $9B depending on the height and levee
construction method (i.e., 30 feet geotextile, 30 feet soil mix, or
35 feet soil mix).
PU2-G-2 Fail Environmental concerns.
PU2-G-3 Fail Environmental concerns.
PU2-H Pass Essentially the same as the State’s Highway 90 alignment. For a
25-foot levee, costs range from ~$10 – 15B depending on levee
construction method (geotextile versus soil mix).
PU2-S Pass Equivalent to the State’s swamp alignment. For a 20-foot levee,
costs range from ~$13 – 30B depending on the levee construction
method (geotextile versus soil mix). If the swamp alignment only
needs to be 20 feet up to Vacherie and Thibodaux, costs could
range from $11-22B.

24
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Measure
Pass/Fail Comments
Code(s)
PU2-WBI-1 Pass A component of the swamp alignment and also the West Bank
component of the high level plan considerations in PU1.
PU2-WBI-2 Pass A component of the swamp alignment and also the West Bank
component of the high level plan considerations in PU1.
PU2-G-State Fail This alignment was presented in the Preliminary Draft State
Master Plan but was changed to more closely resemble the GIWW
alignment. Same environmental concerns as G-2 and G-3; dropped
from State Master Plan.

Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures

In addition to the initial screening evaluation, additional hydromodeling was necessary to resolve
and further refine the possible structural measures. Remaining formulation issues included:
• Non-overtopping versus weir designs for the GIWW and Highway 90 alignments.
• Comparison of GIWW, Highway 90 and swamp alignments.
• Potential impacts to Plaquemines and Larose to Golden Meadow areas.
• Inclusion or exclusion of Lafitte and Des Allemands (provide structural or nonstructural
risk reduction).
• Design level of risk reduction.

For this tier, non-overtopping barrier versus weir and the three alignments were evaluated
(resulting in the elimination of the Highway 90 and the Swamp alignments and the creation of
the Ridge alignment). During this step, a range of alignments were formulated to address the
remaining formulation issues. With the inclusion of different levels of risk reduction, naming
conventions for the structural measures were revised slightly from previous screening
nomenclature. Table 11 describes the coding.

Table 11. Planning Unit 2 Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening
Code Measure Code Description (e.g. PU2-WBI-100-1)
PU2- Planning Unit 2
-WBI- West Bank Interior Plan.
-R- Ridge Alignment Plan
-G- GIWW Alignment Plan
-100- 100-year design level
-400- 400-year design level
-1000- 1000-year design level
-1 All PU2 primary alignments include West Bank and Vicinity levees with new sector
gate and Larose to Golden Meadow levees. Primary alignments for ‘R’ and ‘G’ also
include Lafitte ring levees.
-2 Primary alignment plus Boutte levee.
-3 Primary alignment plus Boutte and Des Allemands levee.
-4 Primary alignment plus Boutte, Des Allemands, and Bayou Lafourche levees.

25
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Full Barrier vs. Weir Options

The non-overtopping versus weir designs for the GIWW and Highway 90 alignments were
evaluated using the surge maps produced by the hydromodels. Based on the surge level results,
the weir alignments in Planning Unit 2 would be more cost effective since they perform nearly as
well as their non-overtopping counterparts but would cost substantially less. In addition, the weir
options have less direct and indirect wetland impacts and less constructability issues due to poor
soil conditions. The weir options also minimize increases in water surface elevations along
Plaquemines and Larose to Golden Meadow levees compared to the non-overtopping barriers.

Combining the Swamp and Highway 90 Alignments into the Ridge

Alignment
As a result of the hydromodeling, which revealed that the estimated storm surge for the 1000-
year event does not impact areas of concentrated assets beyond Highway 90, the swamp
alignment and Highway 90 alignments were found to be unnecessary for risk reduction and were
therefore modified to follow the natural ridges and portions of Highway 90. This reformulated
alignment is referred to as the Ridge Alignment. Figure 12 depicts an example Ridge alignment.
A separate analysis was also done for structural improvements for the Lafitte area and was added
as an increment to the GIWW and Ridge alignment plans.

Figure 12. Reformulated Ridge Alignment

26
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
The remaining formulation issues would be addressed in subsequent screening (Tier 3) or in the
case of structural versus nonstructural risk reduction, as part of the MCDA conducted after the
structural measures are combined with nonstructural and restoration measures.

Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives

The Planning Unit 2 structural measures were then subjected to analysis using 100, 400, and
1000-year events. This resulted in the development of three variations of the West Bank Interior,
six variations of the GIWW and nine variations of the Ridge Alignment. These structural
measures were then ranked using the multiple attributes previously described in Table 1.

Table 12 displays the ranking of the 18 measures and the screening attribute values used to
conduct the ranking.

27
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Table 12. Planning Unit 2 Ranking of Measures
Screening Attributes
2075 Pop.
Cost Annual Equiv. Present Value Construction Direct Impact- Total
Impacted 400-yr
Measure Effectiveness Flood Damages Costs Period Wetlands Value Rank
Event
Score***
$ # $
Ratio* Value** Value** Value** Value** Years Value** Acres Value**
Million People Million
G-100-1 13.83 0.23 510 0.70 174,599 0.43 6,281 0.18 11 0.85 969 0.10 2.49 1
WBI-100-1 2.79 0.05 725 1.00 398,872 0.99 750 0.02 6 0.46 0 0.00 2.52 2
G-100-4 21.47 0.35 435 0.60 178,505 0.44 11,509 0.33 11 0.85 2,241 0.24 2.80 3
R-100-2 9.31 0.15 684 0.94 403,309 1.00 2,849 0.08 11 0.85 704 0.07 3.10 4
R-100-3 13.89 0.23 635 0.88 403,309 1.00 4,937 0.14 11 0.85 993 0.10 3.20 5
R-100-4 19.78 0.32 613 0.85 403,012 1.00 7,461 0.21 11 0.85 1,635 0.17 3.40 6
WBI-400-1 40.16 0.65 588 0.81 168,022 0.42 15,751 0.45 12 0.92 3,688 0.39 3.65 7
R-400-2 41.08 0.67 540 0.74 159,309 0.40 17,966 0.51 13 1.00 4,392 0.46 3.79 8
R-400-3 41.43 0.67 487 0.67 150,132 0.37 20,233 0.58 13 1.00 4,687 0.50 3.79 9
R-400-4 44.66 0.73 462 0.64 144,021 0.36 22,906 0.66 13 1.00 5,323 0.56 3.94 10
G-400-1 46.68 0.76 485 0.67 142,734 0.35 22,591 0.65 12 0.92 6,161 0.65 4.00 11
WBI-1000-1 54.07 0.88 578 0.80 161,006 0.40 21,727 0.62 13 1.00 5,152 0.54 4.24 12
G-400-4 50.14 0.82 400 0.55 119,794 0.30 28,438 0.81 13 1.00 7,433 0.79 4.26 13
R-1000-3 53.15 0.86 476 0.66 142,402 0.35 26,518 0.76 13 1.00 6,146 0.65 4.28 14
R-1000-2 53.96 0.88 530 0.73 151,579 0.38 24,141 0.69 13 1.00 5,857 0.62 4.30 15
R-1000-4 55.99 0.91 452 0.62 135,800 0.34 29,250 0.84 13 1.00 6,787 0.72 4.43 16
G-1000-1 57.81 0.94 484 0.67 141,362 0.35 28,061 0.80 12 0.92 8,186 0.87 4.55 17
G-1000-4 61.46 1.00 399 0.55 117,457 0.29 34,927 1.00 13 1.00 9,458 1.00 4.84 18
Indicates structural measure is included in the overall set of LACPR alternatives to be evaluated.
* Cost Effectiveness Ratio = Total Present Value Costs /Average Annual Equivalent Risk Reduction
** Value is the normalized value for the attribute where a value of 1.00 represents the greatest is the largest (lower is better)
***Total of Normalized Values (lower is better)

28
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Based on the ranking above and in consideration of the need to investigate a range of different
ways to reduce the risk of hurricane storm damages the following 13 structural measures were
selected (listed in order of rankings):

G-100-1: This measure ranked 1st among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2. This
measure, although not the cheapest, provides flood risk reduction to the greatest number of
people among all 100-year measures.

WBI-100-1: This measure ranked 2nd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2 and is
the least expensive of all measures.

G-100-4: This measure ranked 3rd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2. Although
considerably more expensive than the previous two measures (WBI-100-1 and G-100-1), it
reduces average annual flood damages to levels comparable (and in most cases more efficiently)
to the 400 and 1000-year measures.

R-100-2: This measure ranked 4th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2. It is the
least costly ridge alignment (modified swamp and Highway 90 alignments) measures.

R-100-3: This measure ranked 5th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2.

R-100-4: This measure ranked 6th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2. This
measure provides the greatest protection among the 100-year ridge alignment measures.

WBI-400-1: This measure ranked 7th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2 and is
the least costly 400-year measure.

R-400-2: This measure ranked 8th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2.

R-400-3: This measure ranked 9th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2.

R-400-4: This measure ranked 10th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2. This
measure provides the greatest risk reduction among the 100-year Ridge Alignment measures.

WBI-1000-1: This measure ranked 12th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2 and is
the least costly 1000-year measure.

R-1000-4: This measure ranked 16th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2 and was
selected for comparison purposes with the other 1000-year measures.

G-1000-4: This measure ranked last among the structural measures in Planning Unit 2. This
structural measure provides the greatest risk reduction in terms of average annual damages
prevented and the number of people impacted by flooding from a hurricane event.

29
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Structural Measures to be Included in Planning Unit 2 Alternatives

Below are descriptions of the measures to be included as structural components of alternatives to
be considered for detailed analysis for Planning Unit 2. These structural measures allow for
comparison of further improvements to the existing West Bank, as well as, detailed comparison
of the GIWW versus Ridge alignments (at similar levels and areas of risk reduction) for 100-
year, 400-year and 1000-year levels of risk reduction. For the Planning Unit 2 alternatives, these
structural components have been combined with coastal restoration and nonstructural measures
to provide comprehensive risk reduction.

West Bank Interior Levee Alignments:

WBI-100-1: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. The only new
feature in this option involves an improvement to the existing West Bank and Vicinity project,
which would be to add Sector Gate South on Bayou Barataria to keep surge from entering the
existing interior canals on the West Bank of Metro New Orleans. This option assumes that the
existing Larose to Golden Meadow ring levee which is authorized at a 100-yr level of risk
reduction will be raised to the new 100-year design heights as part of the baseline condition.

WBI-400-1: This structural option is similar to WBI-100-1 but targets a 400-year level of risk
reduction. This option also includes raising the Larose to Golden Meadow ring levee to 400-year
design heights.

WBI-1000-1: This structural option is similar to WBI-100-1 but targets a 1000-year level of risk
reduction. This option also includes raising the Larose to Golden Meadow ring levee to 1000-
year design heights and ring levee that provides 100-year level of risk reduction for Laffite.

Ridge Levee Alignments:

R-100-2: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This structural option
builds on WBI-100-1 but also includes extending the existing West Bank and Vicinity levee
along the edge of development to include the Luling/Boutte area. Further, this option includes
100-year level of risk reduction to the Laffite through a series of four ring levees (Crown Point,
Jean Laffite, Laffite, and Barataria) known collectively as the Lafitte ring levees.

R-100-3: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This structural option
builds on and includes the same features as R-100-2 but also includes extending the existing
Larose to Golden Meadow levees along the edge of development to include communities along
Bayou Lafourche south of Highway 90 and Lafitte ring levees would be raised to the 100-year
level.

R-100-4: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This structural option
builds on and includes the same features as R-100-2 but also includes extending the existing
Larose to Golden Meadow levees along the edge of development to include communities along
Bayou Lafourche south of Highway 90. In addition, existing Des Allemands and Lafitte ring
levees would be raised to the 100-year level.

30
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
R-400-2: This structural option targets a 400-year level of risk reduction. This structural option
contains the same features at R-100-2 but all levees would be raised or built to the 400-year level
with the exception of the Lafitte ring levees which would be raised to the 100-year level.

R-400-3: This structural option targets a 400-year level of risk reduction. This structural option
contains the same features at R-100-3 but all levees would be raised or built to the 400-year level
with the exception of the Lafitte ring levees which would be raised to the 100-year level.

R-400-4: This structural option targets a 400-year level of risk reduction. This structural option
includes the same features as R-100-4 but involves building those levees at a 400-year design
height (except the Lafitte ring levees which would be at the 100-year design) as well as raising
existing levees on the West Bank of New Orleans and the existing Larose to Golden Meadow
ring levee to a 400-year design height.

R-1000-4: This structural option targets a 1000-year level of risk reduction. This structural
option includes the same features as R-100-4 and R-400-4 but involves building those levees at a
1000-year design height (except the Lafitte ring levee which would be at the 100-year design) as
well as raising existing levees on the West Bank of New Orleans and the existing Larose to
Golden Meadow ring levee to a 1000-year design height.

GIWW Levee Alignments:

G-100-1: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This option builds on
and includes the same features as WBI-100-1 and also consists of a surge reduction barrier in the
form of a 12.5-foot elevation weir that roughly follows the GIWW, which already acts as a
partial barrier. Structures would consist of sixteen 50-foot tainter gates, a 110-foot sector gate on
Bayou Perot, and a 110-foot lock on Bayou Barataria and ring levees that provides 100-year
level of risk reduction for Laffite

G-100-4: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. The option includes
the same new levee alignments as described in R-100-4 but also includes the 12.5-foot elevation
surge reduction barrier weir that is described in G-100-1.

G-1000-4: This structural option targets a 1000-year level of risk reduction. The option includes
the same weir and levees described in G-100-4 but levees would be at the 1000-year design
height.

Special Case: Lower Plaquemines Parish

Plaquemines Parish, which is split roughly in half by the Mississippi River, lies in both Planning
Units 1 and 2. The portion of Plaquemines Parish on the east side of the Mississippi River is
contained in Planning Unit 1 and the west side is contained in Planning Unit 2. Because of its
unique nature, the portions of Plaquemines Parish below Belle Chasse are handled as a special
case for plan formulation.

31
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments

The Plan Formulation Atlas presented four options for increased risk reduction in Plaquemines
Parish:
1. Ring Levees/Spillways (PL-RS) – This option proposes spillways in combination with
ring levees in multiple locations in Plaquemines Parish. The spillway concept was
envisioned to reduce hurricane surge in the New Orleans area and Plaquemines Parish by
degrading sections of the existing Plaquemines Parish levees to allow storm surge
transfer between Breton Sound and Barataria Bay areas. Highway bridges would be
constructed over degraded levee reaches.
2. Closed Ring Levee System (PL-RL) – This option includes a series of basins (ring
levees) that would provide an increased level of risk reduction to critical facilities and
more densely populated areas of lower Plaquemines Parish. Levee sections outside the
closed ring levee areas would remain at existing height.
3. Federal Levee Alignment (PL-FL) – This option proposes to raise the height of all
Federal levees in lower Plaquemines Parish to the 100-year design level and to leave the
non-Federal levees at existing height.
4. Existing Levee Alignment (PL-EL) – This option would incorporate non-Federal levees
in Plaquemines Parish into the Federal levee system and raise the height of all existing
levees in lower Plaquemines Parish.

Figure 13 displays the ring levee/spillway concept in Plaquemines Parish. Note: The location
and width of spillways is purely conceptual. For the hydromodeling evaluation used in the Tier 2
screening only three spillways were considered.

Figure 13. Plaquemines Ring Levee/Spillway Concept from the Plan Formulation Atlas

32
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the USACE conducted a study to provide risk reduction
though structural measures in lower Plaquemines Parish. Specifically, two options that provide
100-year level of risk reduction were developed for that study. These options include:
1. Creation of ring levees around the most populated portions of the Parish (estimated cost of
roughly $3.6 billion) and
2. Providing 100-year risk reduction to the entire lower Plaquemines Parish by raising and
armoring existing levees (estimated cost of roughly $5.8 billion).

As a result of the high cost and the potential surge increase in Louisiana and Mississippi created
by levees in this area, both the State Master Plan stakeholder process and the USACE screening
process eliminated most of the structural measures in lower Plaquemines Parish. Table 13
summarizes the results of the Tier 1 screening.

Table 13. Screening Results for Lower Plaquemines Parish

Measure Pass/Fail Comments
Code(s)
PL-RS Pass Spillway concept carried forward pending hydromodeling results to
evaluate regional benefits.
PL-RL Fail Excessively high costs; constructability issues; lack of stakeholder
support; transportation access issues (would require elevated
roadways connecting areas inside and outside the ring levees).
PL-FL Fail Excessively high costs; constructability issues; lack of stakeholder
support.
PL-EL Fail Excessively high costs; constructability issues.

Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures

In order to understand the influence of the Mississippi River levees and adjacent back levees in
lower Plaquemines Parish, the following two cases were modeled:
1. The creation of three spillways (totaling 9.5 miles) across the lower Mississippi River;
2. The removal of all levees (totaling 57 miles) along the Mississippi River within the delta
which allows the relatively free flow of water across the Mississippi River.

This analysis was designed to understand how surge builds up along these levees from Breton
Sound and propagates towards New Orleans and Baton Rouge in the Mississippi River. In
addition, the effectiveness of building localized ring levees to provide a higher level of risk
reduction in lower Plaquemines Parish can be ascertained.

The first case described above for the spillway concept did not produce significant regional
reductions in water levels. The second case (tearing down all levees) did produce some
reductions in regional water levels; however, this approach would not likely be acceptable. In
general, the results are inconclusive for making a recommendation at this time. The spillway
concept appears to have some merit but further study is needed; therefore, the spillway option
was not carried forward as a risk reduction measure for LACPR.

33
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Planning Unit 3a
The following sections provide details on the tiered screening of structural measures and
alignments for Planning Unit 3a. Planning Unit 3a begins in Baton Rouge and continues south
along the Mississippi River and Bayou Lafourche to the Gulf of Mexico. The boundary then
extends westward to Bayou de West, and then generally follows Bayou de West north to
Interstate Highway 10 and back to Baton Rouge. The Planning Unit consists of Terrebonne, St.
Mary (East Bank), Lafourche (West Bank), Assumption (West Bank), and St. Martin (East
Bank) Parishes.

This planning unit includes approximately 249,000, or 12 percent, of the population within the
overall planning area. Communities at risk in this Planning Unit include a portion of the Baton
Rouge metropolitan area as well Bayou Cane, Houma, Morgan City, Raceland and Thibodaux
among others.

This planning unit contains infrastructure assets in and around population centers, consisting of
oil and gas infrastructure, marinas, and port facilities.

Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments

The Plan Formulation Atlas identified three primary strategies for structural risk reduction in
Planning Unit 3a. They include a GIWW alignment (Figure 14), a Morganza to the Gulf
alignment (Figure 15) and an Atchafalaya Backwater alignment (Figure 16). The alignments
proposed in PU3a would provide flood risk reduction to Lockport, Raceland, Houma, Thibodaux
and Morgan City, among others. The GIWW alignment would consist of a new levee along the
GIWW from Larose to Morgan City or to Thibodaux with a ring levee around Morgan City. The
Morganza to the Gulf alignment proposes to add a levee using the Morganza to the Gulf
alignment from Larose to Morgan City or Thibodaux with a ring levee around Morgan City. The
Atchafalaya Backwater alignment would consist of a new levee around the backwaters of the
Atchafalaya including ring levees and the recently authorized Morganza to the Gulf levee
alignment. Within these three strategies, the Plan Formulation Atlas identified six variations
including an alignment identified in the State Master Plan. Table 14 describes the codes used in
the Plan Formulation Atlas and for Tier 1 screening for measures in Planning Unit 3a.

Table 14. Planning Unit 3a Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening

Code Measure Code Description (e.g. PU3a-G-1)

PU3a- Planning Unit 3a
-M- Morganza levee alignment
-G- GIWW levee alignment with Morganza Levee at 100-year design
-AB Atchafalaya backwater alignment
-State Alignment that was part of the preliminary draft State Master Plan
-# Variations to the primary alignments (if applicable)

Figures 14 through 16 show examples of the various structural measure alignments.

34
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 14. Example GIWW Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

Figure 15. Example Morganza to the Gulf Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

35
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 16. Atchafalaya Backwater Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

Through the first tier of screening, in which preliminary construction costs, constructability as
well as direct environmental impacts were considered, the number of variations was screened to
three. Table 15 lists the variations of the levee alignments and describes why some alignment
variations were eliminated from further consideration at this time.

36
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Table 15. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 3a Structural Measures
Measure Pass/Fail Comments
Code(s)
PU3a-G-1 Pass Similar to GIWW alignment in SMP; works well with bypass
channel identified in the coastal restoration measures. The levee
may only have to be built to 10 or 15 feet.
PU3a-G-2 Pass Related to Morganza to the Gulf tie back associated with new 100-
year surge data. This option may be incomplete because it would
require parts of PU3a-AB to be implemented.
PU3a-M-1 Fail Excessive costs; doesn’t prevent flooding from hurricane surge
and wave run-up.
PU3a-M-2 Fail Excessive costs; doesn’t prevent flooding from hurricane surge
and wave run-up.
PU3a-AB Fail Excessive costs
PU3a-State Pass Similar to G-1 but includes additional alignment from Golden
Meadow to Pointe au Chene that will likely be screened out due to
environmental concerns and poor soil conditions (higher
cost/mile). Bayou DuLarge levee alignment creates a surge
amplification.

Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures

In addition to the initial screening evaluation, additional hydromodeling was necessary to resolve
and further refine the possible structural measures in Planning Unit 3a. Remaining formulation
issues included:

• Comparison of the various GIWW alignments.

• A continuous levee or a ring levee for Morgan City.
• Design level of risk reduction.

The hydromodeling revealed that the measures from the Plan Formulation Atlas needed to be
reformulated based on areas impacted and the location of concentrated assets. This resulted in
three structural measures including:

• A continuous levee from Larose in the east to Morgan City in the west then north where
it will tie into the ridge following the Bayou Black. This alignment is similar to the
recently authorized Morganza levee (Figure 17).
• Modification to the Morganza Alignment by tying back the Morganza levee to high
ground south of Thibodaux. This measure includes a ring levee around Morgan City
(Figure 18).
• This measure is the same as described in the previous bullet but it includes a levee along
the GIWW to create a secondary line of defense (Figure 19).

37
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 17. Reformulated Morganza Levee Alignment with Tie-in West of Morgan City

Figure 18. Reformulated Morganza Levee Alignment with Morgan City Ring Levee

38
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 19. Reformulated GIWW Alignment

With the inclusion of different levels of risk reduction, name convention for the structural
managements measures were revised slightly from previous screening nomenclature. Table 16
describes the coding.

Table 16. Planning Unit 3a Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening
Code Measure Code Description (e.g. PU3a-M-100-1)
PU3a- Planning Unit 3a
-M- Morganza Levee alignment
-G- GIWW Alignment Plan with Morganza Levee at 100-year design
-100- 100-year design level
-400- 400-year design level
-1000- 1000-year design level
-1 Morganza alignment with tieback to high ground west of Morgan City
-2 Morganza alignment with tieback to high ground south of Thibodaux and ring
levee around Morgan City

39
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives

The Planning Unit 3a structural measures were then subjected to analysis using 100, 400, and
1000-year events. This resulted in the development of six variations of the Morganza Levee
alignment and two variations of the GIWW alignments. These structural measures were then
ranked using the multiple attributes previously described in Table 1.

Table 17 displays the ranking of the eight measures and the screening attribute values used to
conduct the ranking.

40
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Table 17. Planning Unit 3a Ranking of Measures
Screening Attributes
2075 Pop.
Cost Annual Equiv. Present Value Construction Direct Impact- Total
Impacted 400-yr
Measure Effectiveness Flood Damages Costs Period Wetlands Value Rank
Event
Score***
$ # $
Ratio* Value** Value** Value** Value** Years Value** Acres Value**
Million People Million
G-400-2 15.50 0.36 1,184 0.84 51,913 0.43 20,207 0.44 10 0.71 5,261 0.62 3.41 1
G-1000-2 16.67 0.39 1,169 0.83 50,809 0.42 21,978 0.48 10 0.71 6,642 0.79 3.62 2
M-100-1 13.82 0.32 1,207 0.86 100,745 0.83 17,701 0.38 10 0.71 4,880 0.58 3.69 3
M-100-2 12.08 0.28 1,212 0.86 121,307 1.00 15,405 0.33 10 0.71 4,201 0.5 3.69 4
M-400-2 23.53 0.55 1,285 0.91 34,879 0.29 28,290 0.61 12 0.86 6,128 0.73 3.95 5
M-400-1 27.45 0.64 1,290 0.92 27,229 0.22 32,870 0.71 12 0.86 7,639 0.91 4.26 6
M-1000-2 35.98 0.84 1,401 1.00 33,590 0.28 39,070 0.85 14 1.00 6,313 0.75 4.71 7
M-1000-1 42.61 1.00 1,406 1.00 26,429 0.22 46,087 1.00 14 1.00 8,425 1.00 5.22 8
Indicates structural measure is included in the overall set of LACPR alternatives to be evaluated.
* Cost Effectiveness Ratio = Total Present Value Costs /Average Annual Equivalent Risk Reduction
** Value is the normalized value for the attribute where a value of 1.00 represents the greatest is the largest (lower is better)
***Total of Normalized Values (lower is better)

41
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Based on the ranking above and in consideration of the need to investigate a range of different
ways to reduce the risk of hurricane storm damages the following four structural measures were
selected for the final array (listed in order of rankings):

G-400-2: This measure ranked 1st among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3a. It is the
least costly among the measures designed to provide protection against the 400-year hurricane
event.

G-1000-2: This measure ranked 2nd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3a. It is the
least costly among the measures designed to provide protection against the 1000-year hurricane
event.

M-100-1: This measure ranked 3rd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3a. This
measure is the 2nd cheapest among PU3 structural measures but impacts twice as many people
than any of the 3 previous measures.

M-100-2: This measure ranked 4th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3a. This
measure is the most cost effective among PU3a structural measures and is the least costly,
however, it provides hurricane surge protection to the fewest people. The remaining structural
measures in PU3a, ranked 5th – 8th, were eliminated do to the extremely high costs.

Structural Measures to be included in Planning Unit 3a Alternatives

Below is the array of options to be included as structural components of alternatives to be
considered for detailed analysis for Planning Unit 3a. These structural measures allow for
comparison of risk reduction improvements to Houma, Morgan City and other communities in
Planning Unit 3a for 100-year, 400-year and 1000-year levels of risk reduction. For the Planning
Unit 3a alternatives, these structural components are combined with coastal restoration and
nonstructural measures to provide comprehensive risk reduction.

Morganza to the Gulf Levee Alignments:

M-100-1: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This option involves
constructing the Morganza to the Gulf levee with extension tying into high ground west of
Morgan City at 100-year design level.

M-100-2: This structural option targets a 100-year level of risk reduction. This option involves
construct a portion of the Morganza to the Gulf levee from Larose west to a tieback to high
ground south of Thibodaux. Included in this option is a ring levee around Morgan City at 100-
year design level.

GIWW Levee Alignments:

G-400-2: This structural option targets a 400-year level of risk reduction. This option involves
construct a portion of the Morganza to the Gulf levee from Larose west to a tieback to high
ground south of Thibodaux at 100-year design level. A secondary levee would be constructed

42
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
along the GIWW that provides 400-year level of risk reduction. Included in this option is a ring
levee around Morgan City that provides 400-year level of risk reduction.

G-1000-2: This structural option targets a 1000-year level of risk reduction. This option involves
construct a portion of the Morganza to the Gulf levee from Larose west to a tieback to high
ground south of Thibodaux at 100-year design level. A secondary levee would be constructed
along the GIWW that provides 1000-year level of risk reduction. Included in this option is a ring
levee around Morgan City that provides 1000-year level of risk reduction.

Planning Unit 3b
The following sections provide details on the tiered screening of measures and alignments for
Planning Unit 3b. The planning unit extends from Bayou de West westward to Freshwater Bayou
with Interstate Highway 10 forming the northern boundary and the southern boundary formed by
the Gulf. The western boundary falls just to the west of the coastal wetlands, Abbeville and
Lafayette, covering all or part of Terrebonne, St. Mary, Iberia, and Vermilion Parishes.

This planning unit includes a population of about 350,000, which represents approximately 16
percent of the population within the planning area. It includes the cities and towns of Berwick,
Patterson, Franklin, Jeanerette, New Iberia, Abbeville, Garden City, Sorrel, Louisa, Avery
Island, Delcambre, Erath, Henry, Intracoastal City, and others, as well as the southern portion of
Lafayette. Most of the area population is located along Bayou Teche.

This planning unit contains infrastructure assets in and around population centers, consisting of
oil and gas infrastructure, marinas, and port facilities.

Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments

The Plan Formulation Atlas presented two primary strategies for structural risk reduction in
Planning Unit 3b. They include an alignment along the GIWW and the Franklin to Abbeville
alignment which is inland from the GIWW. Within these two strategies, the Plan Formulation
Atlas presented four variations. Table 18 describes the codes used for Tier 1 screening of
measures in Planning Unit 3b. Figure 20 and Figure 21 show examples of the various
alignments.

Table 18. Planning Unit 3b Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening
Code Measure Code Description (e.g. PU3b-G-1)
PU3b- Planning Unit 3b
-G- GIWW levee alignment
-FA- Franklin to Abbeville alignment (inland of the GIWW)
-State Alignment that was part of the preliminary draft State Master Plan
-# Variations to the primary alignments (if applicable)

43
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 20. Example GIWW Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

Figure 21. Example Franklin to Abbeville Alignment from the Plan Formulation Atlas

44
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Through the first tier of screening, in which preliminary construction costs, constructability as
well as direct environmental impacts were considered, the number of variations was screened to
three. Table 19 lists the variations of the levee alignments and describes why some alignment
variations were eliminated from further consideration at this time.

Table 19. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 3b Structural Measures

Measure Pass/Fail Comments
Code(s)
PU3b-G-1 Pass Alignment that forms part of a continuous levee across all of
South Louisiana.
PU3b-G-2 Fail Captured in alignments ‘G-1’ and ‘FA.’ When comparing the ‘G-
2’ alignment to the ‘FA’ alignment, ‘FA’ is the preferred
alignment.
PU3b-FA Pass The Franklin to Abbeville (FA) alignment is essentially same as
and PU3b- the State Master Plan alignment.
State

Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures

In addition to the initial screening evaluation, additional hydromodeling was necessary to resolve
and further refine the possible structural measures in Planning Unit 3b. Remaining formulation
issues included:

• Comparison of the GIWW and the Franklin to Abbeville alignment.

• Formulation of additional structural measures due to the dispersed population with
isolated areas of higher density.
• Design level of risk reduction.

As a result of the high cost of a continuous levee (GIWW and Franklin to Abbeville alignments),
a measure that includes a series of ring levees rather than a continuous levee was considered and
evaluated. This resulted in a measure with ring levees in the west to protect the major population
centers, with a continuous levee from Baldwin and across to the east. As a result of Tier 2
screening, the following three types of measures were carried to Tier 3:
• The GIWW alignment (similar to Figure 20);
• The Franklin to Abbeville alignment (similar to Figure 21);
• A series of ring levees around Patterson/Berwick, Franklin/Baldwin, New Iberia, Erath,
Delcambre, and Abbeville (see Figure 22 below).

45
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 22. Reformulated Ring Levee Alignment

With the inclusion of different risk-reduction levels, name convention for the structural
managements measures were revised slightly from previous screening nomenclature. Table 20
describes the coding.

Table 20. Planning Unit 3b Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening
Code Measure Code Description (e.g. PU3b-RL-100-1)
PU3b- Planning Unit 3b
-G- GIWW levee alignment
-F- Franklin to Abbeville alignment (inland of the GIWW)
-RL- Ring levee alignment
-100- 100-year design level
-400- 400-year design level
-1000- 1000-year design level
-1 Primary alignment for each plan strategy.

46
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives

The Planning Unit 3b structural measures were then subjected to analysis using 100, 400, and
1000-year events. This resulted in the development of nine variations. These structural
measures were then ranked using the multiple attributes previously described in Table 1.

Table 21 displays the ranking of the nine measures and the screening attribute values used to
conduct the ranking.

47
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Table 21. Planning Unit 3b Ranking of Measures

Screening Attributes
2075 Pop. Present
Cost Equiv. Annual Construction Total
Impacted 400-yr Value Direct Impact- Wetlands
Measure Effectiveness Flood Damages Period Value Rank
Event Costs
Score***
#
Ratio* Value** $ Million Value** Value** $ Million Value** Years Value** Acres Value**
People

G-100-1 33.61 0.35 353 0.64 11,793 0.16 13,876 0.47 10 0.71 2,296 0.29 2.62 1

F-100-1 35.48 0.37 411 0.75 67,980 0.90 12,589 0.43 10 0.71 2,466 0.31 3.46 2

F-400-1 62.15 0.64 411 0.75 8,053 0.11 22,069 0.75 12 0.86 3,878 0.49 3.58 3

G-400-1 56.14 0.58 385 0.70 2,964 0.04 21,403 0.73 12 0.86 5,506 0.69 3.59 4

RL-100-1 43.93 0.45 528 0.96 75,917 1.00 10,433 0.35 10 0.71 940 0.12 3.60 5

RL-400-1 71.63 0.74 529 0.96 40,911 0.54 16,966 0.57 12 0.86 1,702 0.21 3.89 6

F-1000-1 91.07 0.94 444 0.81 7,706 0.10 29,280 0.99 14 1.00 5,188 0.65 4.49 7

RL-1000-1 97.13 1.00 549 1.00 38,308 0.50 21,092 0.71 14 1.00 2,218 0.28 4.50 8

G-1000-1 85.63 0.88 421 0.77 2,870 0.04 29,519 1.00 14 1.00 7,987 1.00 4.69 9

Indicates structural measure is included in the overall set of LACPR alternatives to be evaluated.
* Cost Effectiveness Ratio = Total Present Value Costs /Average Annual Equivalent Risk Reduction
** Value is the normalized value for the attribute where a value of 1.00 represents the greatest is the largest (lower is better)
***Total of Normalized Values (lower is better)

48
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Based on the ranking above and in consideration of the need to investigate a range of different
ways to reduce the risk of hurricane storm damages the following four structural measures were
selected for the final array (listed in order of rankings):

G-100-1: This measure ranked 1st among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3b. This
measure performed considerably better than the other structural measures in PU3b. Although it is
not the least cost, it was the most cost effective and protected the greatest number of people.

F-100-1: This measure ranked 2nd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3b. This
measure is less costly than G-100-1 but protects less people.

F-400-1: This measure ranked 3rd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3b. This
measure ranked highest among all the measures designed to provide protection against the 400-
year hurricane event G-400-1 was more cost effective and protected more people, but the
impacts to wetlands was much greater.

RL-100-1: This measure ranked 5th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3b. This
measure has the least cost and has the least impact to wetlands.

RL-400-1: This measure ranked 6th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 3b. This
measure is included to provide a comparison between the management measures

F-1000-1: This measure ranked 7thamong the structural measures in Planning Unit 3b. This
measure is the highest ranking measure designed to that provide protection against the 1000-year
hurricane event, however it is not the least expensive.

Structural Measures to be included in Planning Unit 3b Alternatives

Below is the array of options to be included as structural components of alternatives to be
considered for detailed analysis for Planning Unit 3b. These structural measures allow for
comparison of risk reduction improvements in Planning Unit 3b. These structural components
will be combined with coastal restoration and nonstructural measures to provide comprehensive
risk reduction.

Continuous Levee Alignments:

G-100-1: Raise ring levee around Patterson/Berwick to 100-year design level and construct levee
along the GIWW west to the boundary of Planning Unit 4 at the 100-year design level.

F-100-1: Raise ring levee around Patterson/Berwick to 100-year design level and construct levee
along the edge of development north of the GIWW to high ground west of Abbeville at the 100-
year design level.

F-400-1: Raise ring levee around Patterson/Berwick to 400-year design level and construct levee
along the edge of development north of the GIWW to high ground west of Abbeville at the 400-
year design level.

49
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
F-1000-1: Raise ring levee around Patterson/Berwick to 1000-year design level and construct
levee along the edge of development north of the GIWW to high ground west of Abbeville at the
1000-year design level.

Ring Levee Alignments:

RL-100-1: Raise ring levee around Patterson/Berwick to 100-year design level and construct
ring levees around Franklin/Baldwin, New Iberia, Erath, Delcambre, and Abbeville at the 100-
year design level.

RL-400-1: Raise ring levee around Patterson/Berwick to 400-year design level and construct
ring levees around Franklin/Baldwin, New Iberia, Erath, Delcambre, and Abbeville at the 400-
year design level.

Planning Unit 4
The following sections provide details on the tiered screening of measures and alignments for
Planning Unit 4. Planning Unit 4 extends from the western bank of Freshwater Bayou westward
to the Louisiana/Texas state line in Sabine Lake, and from the Gulf of Mexico in the south to the
northern boundary located just north of Sulphur, Lake Charles, and Interstate Highway 10. The
planning unit includes all or parts of Vermilion, Cameron, Acadia, Jefferson Davis, and
Calcasieu Parishes. The Chenier Plain extends from Freshwater Bayou westward to Sabine Pass,
and is influenced by three interconnected rivers and marine processes. There are two major
hydrologic basins in the Cheniers: the Mermentau Basin and the Calcasieu/Sabine Basin. The
navigation channels of the Chenier Plain are the Sabine/Neches Waterway, Calcasieu River
Navigation Channel, the GIWW, Mermentau Ship Channel, and Freshwater Bayou Canal, and all
of them influence hydrology throughout the planning unit.

This planning unit represents approximately 250,000 residents, or 12 percent of the population,
within the planning area. Major population centers within the planning unit include Duson,
Rayne, Crowley, Estherwood, Mermentau, Jennings, Welsh, Iowa, Lake Charles, Sulphur,
Vinton, Kaplan, Morse, and Lake Arthur.

Significant oil and gas facilities, chemical plants, and other coast-related industries are located in
the Lake Charles area, Lafayette, Hackberry, Vinton, and smaller communities. Agricultural land
and cattle land are the primary land uses in much of Planning Unit 4.

Tier 1 – Initial Screening of Structural Alignments

Five primary strategies were identified for structural risk reduction in Planning Unit 4. They
include ring levees, GIWW alignment, Highway 82 alignment, ten-foot contour alignment and
the State Master Plan alignment. The ring levees provide risk reduction to concentrated assets in
communities such as Abbeville, Kaplin, Vinton, Sulphur, Westlake, Lake Charles and Gueydon.
The GIWW alignment would provide a continuous levee from Patterson/Berwick to Abbeville
along the GIWW while the Highway 92 alignment would provide a continuous levee along the
highway from Vinton to Abbeville. The ten-foot contour alignment would provide a nearly
continuous levee along the ten-foot contour from Texas to Abbeville. The State Master Plan
alignment is a hybrid between the GIWW and the Ring Levee alignments. Within these five

50
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
strategies, six variations were identified. Table 22 describes the codes used in the Plan
Formulation Atlas and for Tier 1 screening for measures in Planning Unit 4. Figures 23 through
26 show examples of the various alignments.

Table 22. Planning Unit 4 Codes from Plan Formulation Atlas used for Tier 1 Screening
Code Measure Code Description (e.g. PU4-RL-2)
PU4- Planning Unit 4
-RL- Ring levee alignment
-G GIWW levee alignment
-H Highway 82 alignment
-C 10-foot contour alignment
-State Alignment that was part of the preliminary draft State Master Plan
-# Variations to the primary alignments (if applicable)

Figure 23. Example Ring Levee Alignment from Plan Formulation Atlas

51
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 24. GIWW Alignment from Plan Formulation Atlas

Figure 25. Highway 82 Alignment from Plan Formulation Atlas

52
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 26. 10-Foot Contour Alignment from Plan Formulation Atlas

Through the first tier of screening, in which preliminary construction costs, constructability as
well as direct environmental impacts were considered, the number of variations was screened to
three. Table 23 lists the variations of the levee alignments and describes why some alignment
variations were eliminated from further consideration at this time.

Table 23. Initial Screening of Planning Unit 4 Structural Measures

Measure Pass/ Comments
Code(s) Fail
PU4-RL Pass Consistent with State’s ring levee concept.
PU4-RL-2 Fail Ring levee concept captured better by ‘RL’ above; this version has
excessive costs and would exacerbate Vermilion River flooding in
comparison to ‘RL.’
PU4-G Pass Forms part of a continuous levee from border to border for evaluation of
a comprehensive “Category 5” structural option.
PU4-H Fail Strong local opposition; high cost; environmental concerns such as
wetland impacts and drainage problems (e.g. trapping saltwater after a
storm).
PU4-C Fail Long length (high life-cycle costs); environmental concerns such as
wetland impacts and drainage problems (e.g. trapping saltwater after a
storm).
PU4-State Pass Hybrid approach using both a ring levee and a GIWW alignment.

53
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Tier 2 – Initial Hydromodeling of Structural Measures

In addition to the initial screening evaluation, additional hydromodeling was necessary to resolve
and further refine the possible structural measures in Planning Unit 4. Remaining formulation
issues included:

• Comparison of the various GIWW alignments.

• A continuous levee or a series of ring levees to protect isolated areas.
• Design level of risk reduction.

The hydromodeling results revealed that the measures needed to be reformulated based on areas
impacted and the location of concentrated assets. This reformulation resulted in variations on the
two structural strategies, including a levee along the GIWW that runs south of the majority of
population-at-risk from flooding (Figure 27 and Figure 28) and a series of site specific ring
levees to protect major population centers (Figure 29).

Figure 27. Reformulated GIWW Alignment (with tie in to Planning Unit 3b).

54
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix

Figure 28. Reformulated GIWW Alignment (stand alone for Planning Unit 4).

Figure 29. Reformulated Ring Levee Alignments.

55
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
With the inclusion of different levels of risk reduction, name convention for the structural
managements measures were revised slightly from previous screening nomenclature. Table 24
describes the coding.

Table 24. Planning Unit 4 Codes used for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Screening
Code Measure Code Description (e.g. PU4-RL-100-1)
PU4- Planning Unit 4
-G- GIWW levee alignment
-RL- Ring levee alignment
-100- 100-year design level
-400- 400-year design level
-1000- 1000-year design level
For the ‘G’ alignments, the primary alignment follows the GIWW across the
-1
planning unit boundaries.
-2 GIWW alignment with tieback to high ground near Kaplan.
-3 GIWW alignment with the levee set at a height of 12 feet.

Tier 3 – Final Screening of Structural Alternatives

The Planning Unit 4 structural measures were then subjected to analysis using 100, 400, and
1000-year events. This resulted in the development of 11 variations. These structural measures
were then ranked using the multiple attributes previously described in Table 1.

Table 25 displays the ranking of the 11 measures and the screening attribute values used to
conduct the ranking.

56
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Table 25. Planning Unit 4 Ranking of Measures

Screening Attributes
2075 Pop.
Equiv. Annual Present Value Construction Direct Impact-
Cost Effectiveness Impacted 400-yr Total
Flood Damages Costs Period Wetlands
Measure Event Value Rank
Score***
$ # $
Ratio* Value** Value** Value** Value** Years Value** Acres Value**
Million People Million

RL-100-1 16.37 0.06 565 0.83 44,284 0.58 2,374 0.11 10 0.71 88 0.02 2.31 1

RL-1000-1 106.66 0.39 679 1.00 49,117 0.64 3,299 0.15 14 1.00 99 0.02 3.20 2

G-400-3 76.57 0.28 571 0.84 46,102 0.60 10,692 0.50 10 0.71 2,483 0.44 3.38 3

RL-400-1 105.38 0.39 681 1.00 76,409 1.00 3,057 0.14 12 0.86 95 0.02 3.40 4

G-100-2 75.29 0.28 568 0.83 73,948 0.97 10,736 0.50 10 0.71 1,763 0.31 3.60 5

G-100-1 73.51 0.27 562 0.83 73,304 0.96 10,907 0.51 10 0.71 2,221 0.39 3.67 6

G-400-2 111.49 0.41 567 0.83 27,530 0.36 15,946 0.74 12 0.86 2,939 0.52 3.72 7

G-400-1 109.15 0.40 562 0.82 26,439 0.35 16,209 0.75 12 0.86 3,719 0.66 3.84 8

G-1000-3 271.63 1.00 669 0.98 47,299 0.62 11,119 0.52 10 0.71 2,485 0.44 4.27 9

G-1000-2 156.40 0.58 577 0.85 26,968 0.35 20,861 0.97 14 1.00 4,277 0.76 4.50 10

G-1000-1 155.77 0.57 572 0.84 25,885 0.34 21,546 1.00 14 1.00 5,625 1.00 4.75 11

Indicates structural measure is included in the overall set of LACPR alternatives to be evaluated.
* Cost Effectiveness Ratio = Total Present Value Costs /Average Annual Equivalent Risk Reduction
** Value is the normalized value for the attribute where a value of 1.00 represents the greatest is the largest (lower is better)
***Total of Normalized Values (lower is better)

57
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
Based on the ranking above and in consideration of the need to investigate a range of different
ways to reduce the risk of hurricane storm damages the following seven structural measures were
selected for the final array (listed in order of rankings):

RL-100-1: This measure ranked 1st among the structural measures in Planning Unit 4. This
management measure is the least costly and most cost effective management measure among
structural measures considered.

RL-1000-1: This measure ranked 2nd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 4. This
management measure provides protection to a greater population than RL-100-1 at a slightly
higher cost. RL-1000-1 is the most cost effective management measure among the measures
designed to provide protection against the 1000-year hurricane event.

G-400-3: This measure ranked 3rd among the structural measures in Planning Unit 4. This
management measure is the most cost effective measure among the measures designed to
provide protection against the 400-year hurricane event.

RL-400-1: This measure ranked 4th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 4.
Although considerably less expensive than G-400-3, this measure provides structural protection
to a significantly smaller population.

G-100-2: This measure ranked 5th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 4. This
measure is included to provide a comparison between the management measures.

G-100-1: This measure ranked 6th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 4. This
measure is included to provide a comparison between the management measures.

G-1000-3: This measure ranked 9th among the structural measures in Planning Unit 4. This
measure is included to provide a comparison between the management measures.

Structural Measures to be included in Planning Unit 4 Alternatives

Below is the array of options to be included as structural components of alternatives to be
considered for detailed analysis for Planning Unit 4. These structural measures allow for
comparison of risk reduction improvements to communities in Planning Unit 4. For the Planning
Unit 4 alternatives, these structural components will be combined with coastal restoration and
nonstructural measures to provide comprehensive risk reduction.

GIWW (Continuous Levee) Alignments:

G-100-1: Construct a continuous levee (with gates) along the GIWW plus a ring levee to the
west of the Calcasieu River and a series of levees within Lake Charles to separate the river from
the land at the 100-year design level. Alignment joins with similar alignment in Planning Unit
3b.

G-100-2: Construct a continuous levee (with gates) along the GIWW plus a ring levee to the
west of the Calcasieu River and a series of levees within Lake Charles to separate the river from

58
 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Final Technical Report
Structural Plan Component Appendix
the land at the 100-year design level. Alignment ties to high ground to the west of the Vermilion
River so this alternative can be evaluated as "stand alone" from alternatives in Planning Unit 3b.

G-400-3: Construct a continuous 12-foot levee (with gates) along the GIWW plus a ring levee to
the west of the Calcasieu River and a series of levees within Lake Charles to separate the river
from the land. Includes small ring levees around parts of Lake Charles, Gueydan, and Kaplan to
provide 400-year level of risk reduction. Alignment ties to high ground to the west of the
Vermilion River so this alternative can be evaluated as "stand alone" from alternatives in
Planning Unit 3b.

G-1000-3: Construct a 12-foot continuous levee (with gates) along the GIWW plus a ring levee
to the west of the Calcasieu River and a series of levees within Lake Charles to separate the river
from the land. Includes small ring levees around parts of Lake Charles, Gueydan, and Kaplan to
provide 1000-year level of risk reduction. Alignment ties to high ground to the west of the
Vermilion River so this alternative can be evaluated as "stand alone" from alternatives in
Planning Unit 3b.

Ring Levee Alignments:

RL-100-1: Construct ring levees to the east and west of Lake Charles; construct a series of
levees within Lake Charles to separate the river from the land; and construct ring levees around
Kaplan and Gueydan to the 100-year design level.

RL-400-1: Construct ring levees to the east and west of Lake Charles; construct a series of
levees within Lake Charles to separate the river from the land; and construct ring levees around
Kaplan and Gueydan to the 400-year design level.

RL-1000-1: Construct ring levees to the east and west of Lake Charles; construct a series of
levees within Lake Charles to separate the river from the land; and construct ring levees around
Kaplan and Gueydan to 1000-year design level.

Summary
This appendix described the steps taken to screen structural risk reduction measures for the
LACPR technical evaluation. The process started with a wide array of concepts gathered from
previous studies as well as input from the State Master Plan and other stakeholders. The three-
tiered screening process first eliminated measures that were either undesirable on their own
merits or in comparison to similarly performing measures. The next step was to evaluate and
reformulate the remaining measures using quantitative hydromodeling data. The final screening
used six attributes to rank the structural measures to determine which should be carried forward
into the set of alternatives to be evaluated for the overall LACPR effort.

The coastal restoration and nonstructural measures, which are part of the overall LACPR
alternatives, were developed on parallel tracks. The formulation of those measures is described
in the Coastal Restoration Plan Component and Environmental Metrics Appendix and
Nonstructural Plan Component Appendix, respectively.

59