Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
Recommended Determination
on a Request by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to Modify the Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act
Section 404(c) Designation
April 2009
EPA, 2008
-------
Contents
Part I: EPA Region 6 Recommended Determination
Introduction 1-1
Statutory Authority and Administrative Procedures 1-1
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) Designation I-2
Summary of Other Major Federal Projects Effecting the
Bayou aux Carpes Site I-3
Past and Current Ecological Status of the Site I-6
Proposed Action 1-11
Projected Wetland Impacts and Ecological Studies I -17
Region 6 Recommendation I-24
Conditions I-26
Project Design and Construction
Mitigation Features
Augmentation Features
Long-term Monitoring and Operation
References I-29
Appendix A - EPA Federal Register Notice
Appendix B - Corps modification request package
Part II: Response to Comments
Responsiveness Summary
Appendix A - GIWW Floodwall Alternative Evaluation
• Corps letter to EPA - March 26, 2009
• U.S. Coast Guard letter to EPA - February 23, 2009
Appendix B - Annotated comments
Appendix C - Complete copies of public comments
Appendix D - Transcript from public hearing
-------
Parti
EPA Region 6 Recommended Determination
Introduction
On November 4, 2008, the New Orleans District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modify the Bayou
aux Carpes Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(c) designation to accommodate
discharges to the Bayou aux Carpes wetlands associated with proposed post-Katrina
upgrades to the West Bank and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Levee system in Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana.
Statutory Authority and Administrative Procedures
Section 404(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c), authorizes EPA to restrict or prohibit
the use of a wetland area as a disposal site for dredged or fill material if the discharge
will have unacceptable adverse effects on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and
fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.
The regulations establishing procedures to be used by EPA in applying this provision are
found at 44 FR Part 231. These procedures were employed by EPA in 1984 and 1985
when the existing CWA Section 404(c) designation was made. Key milestones during
that process included a hearing and opportunity for the public to provide written
comments, a recommended determination proposed by EPA Region 6, and a final
determination issued by EPA headquarters and noticed in the Federal Register. EPA is
proceeding with this modification review via a similar process. A notice was published in
the Federal Register on January 14, 2009 (Part I, Appendix A), and a public hearing was
held in New Orleans on February 11, 2009. Public comments were accepted through
February 23, 2009. This recommended determination, issued by EPA Region 6, will be
followed by a final determination and Federal Register notice, issued by the EPA
headquarters Office of Water.
The overall Corps project to provide 100-year protection to south Louisiana is known as
the Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System
(GNOHSDRRS). That project involves two large levee systems, the West Bank and
Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project and the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
Protection Project, and approximately 350 miles of earthen levees and floodwalls
throughout five parishes in the New Orleans metropolitan area. Wthin the West Bank
and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, the Corps has divided the study areas into six
components and will report on plans for each of those areas in Individual Environmental
Reports (lERs). The proposed plans for the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c)
area are reported in Draft IER # 12 (USAGE, 2009).
Draft IER # 12 has been prepared by the Corps in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR §1500-1508). In an agreement with the CEQ, the Corps is
1-1
-------
employing alternative NEPA arrangements (40 CFR §1506.11) in order to expedite the
review and design process.
The Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006 (3rd Supplemental -
P.L. 109-148, Chapters, Construction, and Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies)
authorized accelerated completion of the Corps project, as well as restoration of project
features to design elevations at 100 percent federal cost. The Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery of
2006 (4th Supplemental - P.L. 109-234, Title II, Chapters, Construction, and Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies) authorized construction of a 100-year level of risk
reduction; the replacement or reinforcement of floodwalls; and the construction of levee
armoring at critical locations. Additional Supplemental Appropriations include the U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 (5th Supplemental - P.L. 110-28, Title IV, Chapter 3, Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies, Section 4302) and the 6th Supplemental (P.L. 110-
252, Title III, Chapters).
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) Designation
EPA published a CWA Section 404(c) Final Determination prohibiting, with three
exceptions, future discharges of dredged or fill material to wetlands into the Bayou aux
Carpes site at 50 Fed. Reg. 47267 (November 15, 1985). The Corps proposal for
providing increased hurricane and storm damage risk reduction for this area does not fall
within one of the three exceptions.
The first exception is for discharges associated with the completion of the Corps'
modified design for the Harvey Canal - Bayou Barataria Levee Project. The second
exception is for discharges associated with routine operation and maintenance of the
Southern Natural Gas Pipeline. The third exception covers discharges associated with
EPA approved habitat enhancement activities.
The modified Harvey Canal - Bayou Barataria Levee Project dates back to the 1970's.
The project was never completed and there is no longer any interest in pursuing it.
Therefore, the first exception has never been utilized. The second exception was the
subject of a modification request two decades later by a company other than the one
specified originally, as described in the paragraph below. The third exception has only
now come into play in conjunction with the Corps' current modification request. A
complete explanation of this situation is discussed below.
After completion of the Final Determination, several requests for modifications were
reviewed by EPA. Shell Pipeline Corporation was granted an emergency exception in
1992 to bury an existing pipeline deeper via horizontal drilling techniques as a response
to unstable soil conditions and a leaking pipeline (57 Fed. Reg. 3757). This was
approved on the basis that relocating the pipeline to non-wetlands was infeasible from
the perspectives of engineering alternatives and public safety, the work would have only
minimal and temporary impacts on the wetlands, and the work was essentially the same
as that envisioned under the second exception. The Corps also requested an exception
in 1988 to allow construction of the West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee such that the
toe of the V-shaped levee would extend into the protected area. That request was
1-2
-------
based only on potential cost savings, did not fall within the bounds of the exceptions set
out in the 404(c) Final Determination, and was therefore considered to be a restricted
action. In response, the Corps modified the levee alignment and constructed the levee
without discharges into the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site.
The 1985 EPA CWA Section 404(c) action was based upon a thorough record of
investigations, including field surveys, remote sensing, and other technical analyses
conducted by three EPA facilities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
National Park Service (NPS), and the Louisiana State University (LSU) Center for
Wetland Resources. These study reports and additional documentation supporting the
designation may be found at:
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/BayouA uxCarpes404c1985RecDeterm.pdf.
Summary of Other Major Federal Projects Effecting the Bayou aux Carpes Site
As summarized below, EPA has taken a number of administrative actions over the
years, all intended to protect the Bayou aux Carpes wetlands. Several of those actions
have resulted in protracted litigation, leading District Court Judge Lansing Mitchell to
note "this court takes up this decision not unlike Sisyphus, once more shall we attempt to
dispose of this rocky case."
In the 1970's, Jefferson Parish applied to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development for funding to construct a waterline from Marrero to Lafitte, Louisiana. As
originally proposed, the waterline would have supported development in the Bayou aux
Carpes wetlands and EPA Region 6 pursued objections through the NEPA review
process. The matter was resolved through a 1979 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between EPA Region 6 and Jefferson Parish that established the Bayou aux Carpes
area as part of a "prohibited service area." The MOA was appended as a condition to
the Corps CWA Section 404 permit for the waterline. Though EPA Region 6 has
evaluated several requests to modify that agreement, the last in 2002, no changes have
been made to the original agreement and much of the area incorporated in the
"prohibited service area" ultimately came under the restrictions of the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404(c) designation.
As previously mentioned, federal involvement with the Bayou aux Carpes property
began in the 1960's with a proposed Corps flood control and reclamation project. The
first phase of that project was completed in 1973 and, at the request of EPA Region 6,
the Corps re-evaluated the next phase. The Chief of Engineers subsequently ordered
the project to be modified to provide flood protection but to avoid draining the Bayou aux
Carpes wetlands. Substantial litigation ensued, with various landowners filing suits
against the Parish1 and the Corps2. As a result, that phase of the project was never
1 See Creppel v. Parish of Jefferson, 384 So.2d 853 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1980), writ denied,
392 So.2d 698 (La. 1980).
2 See Creppel v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 500 F.Supp. 1108 (E.D.La.
1980) and Creppel v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 670 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.
1982).
1-3
-------
constructed, though a shell plug was installed at some point at the mouth of Bayou aux
Carpes.
One of the reasons the Corps ordered the Harvey Canal - Bayou Barataria Levee
Project modified in 1976 was a threatened "veto" by EPA under the authority of CWA
Section 404(c). The District Court (on remand from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals),
stayed the proceedings to allow EPA 90 days to determine whether or not to proceed
with a CWA Section 404(c) action. An administrative restriction or prohibition of
discharges could have effectively nullified, or complicated, a judicial ruling in the case.
EPA Region 6 conducted an additional site review, initiated a CWA Section 404(c) action
in 1984, and published the existing designation in 1985.
In response to the CWA Section 404(c) designation, the landowners amended their
complaint in the federal suit, alleging that the EPA decision was arbitrary and capricious
and should be set aside. In addition, they sought to set aside the 1979 MOA between
EPA and the Parish and a 1976 permit decision by the Corps that required the
installation of culverts under the Lafitte-Larose highway to maintain water flows from the
Bayou aux Carpes area to the area that is now the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park
and Preserve. The District Court rejected each of those claims.
Subsequently, the landowners filed a Tucker Act claim contending that the 5th
Amendment to the United States Constitution required EPA to compensate them
because the CWA Section 404(c) designation had deprived them of all economically
viable use of their property. After several years of procedural litigation, those claims
were compromised in 1996 and the federal government purchased the plaintiffs property
for a price in excess of $8 million. The land purchased included about 2800 acres of
wetlands covered by the CWA Section 404(c) designation. Small areas of uplands and
a large tract of privately held land (the "Harvey Tract") were not purchased by the
government.
1-4
-------
Bayou aux Carpes
CWA 404 (c) Site
Jean Lafitte
National Historic
Park & Preserve -
Barataria Unit
EPA, 2008
In a separate but related action in the 1980's, the Corps proposed to construct a
hurricane protection levee for the west bank of Jefferson Parish. The preferred
alternative in the Corps' 1984 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would have
resulted in the discharge of dredged or fill material into 59 acres of wetlands in the
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site, as well as to 257 acres of wetlands within
the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. EPA Region 6 rated the Draft
EIS as being "environmentally unacceptable" based on the projected impacts to
wetlands and water quality. The Corps subsequently adopted and constructed another
alternative, which avoided impacts to the wetland areas of concern to EPA.
In 1996, the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (BTNEP) completed a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, approved by the Governor and
the EPA Administrator (BTNEP, 1996). The management plan represents over five
years of work by a partnership including representatives of government agencies at all
1-5
-------
levels, scientists, industries, and citizens and serves as a guide for the preservation and
restoration efforts throughout the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary over the next 25 years.
The four million acre study area covers the entire Barataria-Terrebonne estuary and
includes the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site. One of the priority problems
currently being addressed by the program is focused on habitat loss and modification.
"No other place on Earth is disappearing as quickly as the Barataria-Terrebonne
estuarine system, where a half-acre of coastal land turns to open water every 30
minutes. In the process, we are losing not only valuable resources but also a natural
flood-protection system that absorbs storm water before it can harm our low-lying
communities" (St. Pe, per. comm.). The Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site
incorporates valuable coastal resources and provides a wide array of benefits, including
flood protection services, to the citizens of this area.
As described above, most of the site is now federally owned and the CWA Section
404(c) designation continues to apply to all wetlands within the site, regardless of
ownership. The most recent federal action was finalized on March 30, 2009, as the
President signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which added the
federally owned portion of the CWA Section 404(c) site to the Barataria Preserve unit of
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve.
In summary, the public record of governmental decisions on this property is extensive
but the EPA Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) designation has stood the test of
time.
Past and Current Ecological Status of the Site
The Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site is bounded on the north by the east-
west Old Estelle Pumping Station Outfall Canal, on the east by Bayou Barataria (Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, or GIWW), on the south by Bayou Barataria and Bayou des
Families, and on the west by State Highway 3134 and the "V-Levee." Immediately
across State Highway 3134 to the west of the site is the Barataria Preserve unit of Jean
Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve.
1-6
-------
BAYOU AUX CARPES STUDY AREA
JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA
NORTH
Jean Lafitte
National Historical P
Barataria Unit
* • Denotes study
area
Latitude 29° 47'N
Longitude 90° 05'M
EPA, 1984
The CWA Section 404(c) site lies in the upper Barataria basin within the Mississippi
deltaic plain, an area experiencing some of the highest historic rates of coastal wetland
loss in the county and on a worldwide basis. Coastal wetland loss has been widespread
in Louisiana over the past half century and has averaged approximately 100 km2 per
year during the 1960's through the 1980's, decreasing to approximately 62 km2 per year
between 1990 and 2000. An additional loss of approximately 1300 km2 is anticipated by
2050 (Evers et al., 2007). This region experienced a spike in wetland loss and
degradation as a result of hurricanes over the last few years. The Bayou aux Carpes
site, however, has weathered the storms and other natural and human-induced forces,
existing today as a unique and productive wetland system, which provides ecological,
flood storage, and water quality benefits. The approximately 3,000 acres of wetlands
within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site represent an important regional
and national asset.
1-7
-------
EPA, 2008
The 1985 scientific analyses (EPA, June1985; EPA, January 1985; LSU, 1984; USFWS,
1985; Steimle and Associates, 1985) supporting the original CWA Section 404(c)
evaluation concluded that the site was a diverse estuarine ecosystem consisting of a
mosaic of habitats, including forested wetland, shrub wetland, cypress-tupelo swamp,
marsh, and open water. Today, the habitat looks much the same.
From an ecological perspective, the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site exhibits
some particularly notable habitat features. Within the forested swamps, naturally-
regenerating cypress trees may be found, a situation all too uncommon along the
Louisiana coast where natural and human-induced alterations have resulted in
conditions limiting natural regeneration. The resulting loss and degradation of the
ecosystem functions provided by coastal wetland forests has been highlighted by a
report to the Governor of Louisiana from the Coastal Wetland Forest Conservation and
Use Science Working Group (CWFWG, 2005).
Yet another fascinating ecological feature is exhibited in the site. One of the dominant
habitat types present in the CWA Section 404(c) site is flotant (or floating) marsh. This is
an ecologically valuable and unique type which functions quite differently than the better-
understood attached marshes (Sasser et al., 1994). These marshes react differently to
natural and human-induced processes and require different strategies for management
(BTNEP, August 1996).
1-8
-------
Virtually unstudied since initial descriptions in the 1940's, mapping efforts funded by
EPA Region 6 revealed that about 70% of the freshwater marshes in the Barataria-
Terrebonne estuary are floating (Sasser et al., 1994). Aside from the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404(c) site, about 3,000 hectares of healthy flotant marsh are found in the
Barataria Unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve (Swarzenski, no
date). However, "[i]n the freshwater areas of the coasts, major losses have occurred in
the floating marshes that have historically covered extensive areas, particularly in the
Mississippi River Deltaic Plain..." (Evers et al., 2007).
They are usually found in areas with freshwater or brackish marshes and they are
composed of thick, floating mats of vegetation with open water beneath them. "They
apparently develop in quiet freshwater environments where organic matter production in
the absence of mineral sediment inputs make the marsh mat buoyant. As the underlying
mineral substrate subsides, the buoyancy of the mat eventually leads to its separation
from the substrate, and it subsequently floats on the water surface" (BTNEP #20, 1995).
"The classic example of floating marsh (flotant) in Louisiana is a marsh dominated by
maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). It has a 40-60 cm thick, buoyant, organic mat of
densely intertwined roots and rhizomes in a mostly organic matrix that floats
continuously, rising and falling with level changes (Sasser et al., 1994). This ability to
float vertically as water level increases effectively neutralizes flooding as a stress, while
providing a continuously wet environment for vegetation growth" (Evers et al., 2007). As
a part of the mitigation and enhancement/augmentation study plan being devised (see
"Projected Impacts and Studies" below), further characterization of the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area flotant marsh will be accomplished.
NPS, 2008
1-9
-------
During the field studies in 1984 and 1985, at least 70 wildlife species were observed,
including nine species of amphibians, 10 species of reptiles, 45 species birds, and six
species of mammals. At least 23 species of freshwater fish and 27 taxa of
macroinvertebrates were observed. Forage species (e.g., mosquitofish, threadfin shad,
and golden top minnow) were the most abundant fish species sampled. The field data
showed the area to be seasonally brackish, supporting species that can tolerate both
fresh and brackish salinities. The USFWS concluded in 1985 that the "diverse
assemblage of fisheries species is indicative of a stable fisheries community in a
relatively unstressed environment" (USFWS, 1985).
The USFWS 1985 habitat analysis determined that the bottomland hardwood and
forested swamp habitat in this drainage area "rated moderate to high value for all
species evaluated (i.e., gray squirrel, pileated woodpecker, North American mink, wood
duck, great egret, American alligator, and common muskrat). Upland forested habitat
rated low for gray squirrel and pileated woodpecker and was found to be optimum for
mink. Scrub-shrub wetlands in the study area were found to be of high quality as wood
duck wintering habitat and alligator habitat, and were moderate quality for mink, great
egret, and muskrat. Fresh marsh was of high to moderate in value as alligator, mink,
and muskrat habitat" (USFWS, 1985).
During the 2008 field studies for IER # 12, the USFWS found that the habitat continues
to be significant for fish and wildlife, providing "valuable habitat for resident waterfowl
and migratory game species (i.e., wood ducks, mallards, and other waterfowl) and non-
game species (i.e., great blue herons and great egrets)." Bald eagles and osprey have
been observed in the area and a bald eagle nest was documented in the Bayou aux
Carpes site in 2007. "Several species of non-game, resident and migratory birds that
are known to utilize or expected to utilize the project area (e.g., red-headed woodpecker,
prothonotary warbler, and wood thrush) have exhibited substantial population declines
over the last 30 years, primarily as the result of habitat loss and fragmentation, and are
of particular concern to the Service. The Bayou aux Carpes drainage area and
associated habitats provide valuable spawning, feeding, and nursery habitat for
recreationally-important freshwater fish such as largemouth bass, and various sunfishes;
crustaceans such as crawfish and grass shrimp; and estuarine species such as striped
mullet and blue crab." ..."The Bayou aux Carpes drainage basin provides plant detritus
to adjacent coastal waters, and such detritus is essential to the maintenance of
commercially and recreationally important fisheries" (USFWS, 2009).
In addition to habitat values, the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) wetlands
provide floodwater storage and water quality benefits. During the 1984 -1985 studies,
the relatively flat topography was found to enhance the capacity of the area to detain
surface waters and slow the release of water downstream. The water storage capacity
was confirmed by measuring the cyclic chloride concentrations of swamp water
discharged to Bayou Barataria and by monitoring a dye tracer. This also contributes to
downstream water quality by reducing excessive dissolved nutrient levels and removing
suspended sediments" (USFWS, 2009).
The CWA Section 404(c) area was historically drained by Bayou aux Carpes, which has
been plugged at its connection to Bayou Barataria for several decades. Tidal connection
is now maintained through the old Southern Natural Gas pipeline canal that courses
through the CWA Section 404(c) site, connecting to other interior canals and to Bayou
Barataria. The current working hypothesis of the resource agency review team is that
1-10
-------
the system of interior access canals and associated spoil banks influences the system's
hydrology by impeding flows. Pending hydrology studies by the Corps are expected to
shed some light on this situation and aid in developing mitigation and augmentation
features.
The currently proposed project location within the Bayou aux Carpes site is comprised of
bottomland hardwood and swamp habitat that has formed on top of the western bank of
the GIWW, created when the waterway was originally dredged (USAGE, 2009). The
bank is low and undulating and shows signs of downed and damaged trees as a result of
recent hurricane winds. The floodwall would serve as an artificial barrier between the
site and the GIWW.
Proposed Action
As a result of the residential, commercial, and industrial damages caused by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in 2005, Congress directed the Corps to enhance the existing Lake
Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project and the West Bank and Vicinity
Hurricane Protection project to the 100-year level of protection, as determined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. As proposed, that work largely follows
existing alignments, with a notable exception in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) area with the IER # 12 study area, which is depicted below in the Corps' graphic.
Existing Alignment Within Project Area
| Area of Risk Reduction
; Bayou Aux Caipcs CWA Section 404 (c) Area Boundary
1-11
-------
By way of the West Closure Complex alternative, the Corps plans to construct an
improved storm surge barrier system around the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c)
area and tie into a new array of flood gates and pumping stations crossing the GIWW.
The Corps' diagrams of these structural features are reproduced below.
CURRENT PROPOSED SITE PLAN
- LOCATION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN 404(C) AREA WOULD REMAIN AS SHOWN. MAXIMUM
AREA OF IMPACT WOULD BE 100' WIDE BY 4200' LONG (9.6 acres),
- ORIENTATION OF PUMP STATION. GATE(S). BYPASS CHANNEL AND LEVEE ON EAST SIDE OF
GIWW ARE NOT FINAL AND COULD CHANGE AS DESSGN PROGRESSES.
PSGPOSED WATER
CONTROL STRUCTURE ,
PROPOSED T-WALL
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
rifFz"
i
~( i ^ MAINTaWHCSACXeSS
ROAD, BARGE IMPACT
BERM. AND CONCRETE
SCOUR PROTECTION
'-PROPOSED T-WALLCEKTERLIME
GtVVW
- CONSTRUCTION
OORRIIXJft BOUNDARY
I
SECTION 404{C} WETLAND
1-12
-------
The construction area within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) boundary is
located along the west bank of the GIWW, or Bayou Barataria, from its junction with the
Old Estelle Pumping Station Outfall Canal to a point at which the Corps proposes to
construct a sector gate across the Waterway. As described in the March 26, 2009 letter
to EPA (Part I, Appendix B), the floodwall would be constructed on the previously
impacted GIWW spoil bank. As described by the Corps:
The design would consist of a T-wall design to minimize the footprint of the
structure in the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area and foreshore protection using
650 Ib stone in the GIWW adjacent to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area. The T-
wall would tie into the proposed flow control structure at the end of the Old
Estelle Outfall Canal to the north and the closure and pump station complex that
would cross the GIWW to the south. The T-wall would be constructed within the
100 ft by 4,200 ft corridor along the eastern edge of the Bayou aux Carpes
404(c) and include an earthen berm with an access road for maintenance and
inspection purposes. The floodwall would be a cast-in-place reinforced concrete
T-wall designed to elevation +16.0 ft (NAVD 88 2004.65) founded on three rows
of steel H-piles. Preliminary design calculations indicate the concrete stem would
be 14 ft tall and 2 to 3 ft thick, while the concrete slab would be 3 to 5 ft thick and
20 to 25 ft wide. A continuous steel sheet pile wall will be provided beneath the
1-13
-------
base slab for seepage cutoff purposes. Construction of the proposed action
would impact no more than 9.6 acres within the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c)
boundary. The Corps is committed to further reducing this footprint to the
greatest extent practicable during the final design phase of this project.
With this proposed action, protection of the wall from potential barge impacts
would be provided by the earthen berm and access road along the existing bank
line constructed to elevation +8 ft (NAVD 88 2004.65) on the protected side of
the floodwall. The location of the wall away from the waterway's edge increases
the safety of the wall against potential catastrophic barge tow impacts by
absorbing the energy of the impact in the embankment, thus stopping the tow
before it contacts the wall. Placement of the protected earthen berm outside the
channel results in no constriction of the waterway as a storm water evacuation
route. The reliability of the HSDRRS is highest for this alternative and the
potential for damage to the protected side of the floodwall by the daily
commercial marine traffic is lessened.
The placement of the wall within the 100 ft by 4,200 ft corridor on the previously
impacted area of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area, along with the commitment
by the Corps to augment the design as necessary to enhance the hydrology of
the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area to offset any potential impacts due to
construction, provides the most practical approach from an environmental
perspective while ensuring the 100-yr level of risk reduction is accomplished and
completed expeditiously.
- BAYW AUK CAHftS 4WC WEHAMD
PROTECTED SOte - GtWW
:. .:
T-vtiUj. Cfl yr* n-KJTQ yr*
'''' '
1-14
-------
EPA Region 6 played a key role in assisting the Corps in evaluating the ecological risks
associated with the leading project alternatives during the project planning phase
(USAGE, 2009, Section 6.3). Initially, the Corps' preferred alternative included a 3,000
foot long levee, and then a 3,000 foot floodwall, bisecting the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) site (the South Sector Gate alternative). Early in the planning process,
EPA Region 6 notified the Corps of our determination that this option would present
irreparable environmental impacts and would most likely result in the loss of over 600
acres of unique flotant marsh wetlands. Below, is a diagram of the Corps' initially
preferred alternative.
Floadijaie mAfoanu/at by pas j d:imial in
l):i OlVk W hil.:*. ll-.J ;,:i:flLii:;i .:l"ll:i
Algiers and Harvey Caiials i.: il:i i::::->r
f'S DisdsirgeCliiitnfil Wills ai
pnav ious Jy
Proposed Floodgate aitd p uinp
amionai KKKyt level
Levees and
previously auih.:rizij liv-sl
ICKKyt level of p«>tecti
Riy«u Aux Carpes
404 (c) Site
Along with the NPS, EPA Region 6 suggested a conceptual alternative, which the Corps
subsequently designed and which is now known as the West Closure Complex
alternative. At the request of EPA Region 6, the interagency review team was provided
an opportunity to conduct a detailed comparison of the environmental impacts of the
leading alternatives and concluded that the West Closure Complex alternative was
preferable. The Corps reviewed and adopted the conclusions of the natural resource
agencies and determined that the West Closure Complex option would meet the
economic, social, and engineering risk and reliability criteria. That alternative became
the Corps' current preferred alternative, now known as the West Closure Complex
alternative and illustrated below.
1-15
-------
A summary of the risk and reliability comparison for the four main structural alternatives
that were carried through the NEPA planning process is provided in the Corps'
modification request package, attached below (Part I, Appendix B, pages 9-12). The
Corps' current preferred alternative, the West Closure Complex, is listed in the charts as
the "GIWW WCC" alternative. The evaluation criteria include reliability, risk,
environmental impacts, and time. This comparison incorporates the entire
GNOSHDRRS planning segment known as IER # 12, a segment larger than the Bayou
aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) alignment.
Once the West Closure Complex alternative became the preferred design, EPA asked
the Corps to consider any siting or design options that could reduce the environmental
impacts even further. One suggestion was to build the floodwall within the same
alignment but closer to the GIWW or completely within the water outside the boundary of
the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site. A number of environmental
organizations also focused on this issue, as reflected in the Responsiveness Summary
(Part II of this document). In the end, the Corps found that this was not a viable
alternative that would meet the project purpose. Such an alternative was determined to
pose significant navigational safety issues and would not meet the cost, social, and
engineering risk and reliability criteria (Part II: Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A).
After careful review of the Corps' analysis, EPA Region 6 accepts those conclusions.
In addition to the Corps' preferred West Closure Complex alternative, three other major
alternatives were evaluated in detail. The "No Action" alternative affords the greatest
level of protection to all environmental attributes within the planning segment covered by
DIER # 12, including the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area. While both the
1-16
-------
Algiers Gate Alternative and the Parallel Protection Alternative would avoid impacts to
the Bayou aux Carpes Section 404(c) area, there would be environmental impacts to
other areas of the flood protection planning segment covered by DIER #12. Based on
our review of the Corps' recommendations regarding the relative flood risk reduction
benefits, social and economic costs, as well as the hydrologic, engineering, and
navigation constraints, the West Closure Complex alternative has the potential to
accomplish the Corps' flood control, navigation, timing, and engineering objectives while
avoiding and minimizing the impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area
to the maximum degree possible (USAGE, 2009).
The Corps has incorporated into the West Closure Complex alternative a number of
innovative designs and construction techniques to reduce the wetland impacts. The
structure proposed in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area would be
constructed as a "T-wall" style floodwall in lieu of an earthen levee in order to minimize
the footprint. A berm to protect the floodwall from barge collisions would be constructed
on the water side of the floodwall and would serve as a maintenance access road. This
configuration would contain impacts within a maximum 100 foot width. The floodwall
would be built from the water side to reduce construction impacts and the Corps has
committed to make every effort during the design phase to minimize the width of this
corridor to the greatest extent practicable. Further, the Corps has located the gates and
pumps that would span the GIWW as far north as practical to further reduce the length of
the structure along the boundary of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site.
These factors have resulted in a maximum corridor for the floodwall of 4,200 feet by 100
feet.
The existing Enterprise Gas pipeline would be relocated by directional drilling a new
pipeline under the proposed bypass channel, the GIWW, and the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404(c) area. By directional drilling the pipeline under the 404(c) area,
relocation impacts are avoided as are any future impacts associated with maintaining
this portion of the pipeline. Finally, a foreshore protection feature (rock berm) would be
constructed near the southern end of the floodwall and further south of it, totally within
the GIWW. The purpose of this feature would be to prevent impacts to the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) boundary such as scouring or bank erosion that could
result from operation of the 20,000 cfs pump station.
Projected Wetland Impacts and Ecological Studies
The lengthy planning, engineering, and interagency review process has resulted in the
development of a storm damage risk reduction alternative (West Closure Complex
alternative) which has avoided and minimized impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) area to the extent practicable. However, implementation of this
alternative will still result in unavoidable impacts, or discharges, to wetlands in the
restricted site. Loss of this habitat value is not expected to jeopardize the ecological
integrity of the CWA Section 404(c) wetland site and the loss of habitat will be fully
compensated, as described below.
The proposed floodwall would impact no more than 9.6 acres within a 100 foot width
from the GIWW toward the interior of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site. A
maximum of 7.2 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and 2.4 acres of bottomland hardwood
wetlands within the site would be directly and permanently impacted by mechanical
1-17
-------
clearing and grubbing prior to construction of the new floodwall. Hydrologic impacts to
the CWA Section 404(c) site from the floodwall are expected to be minimal. No
additional indirect effects are anticipated. Early in the planning process, EPA Region 6
advised the Corps that full mitigation and additional compensation for unavoidable
wetland impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site would be a required
component of a modification request package.
As described in the section above, EPA Region 6 staff has provided guidance to the
Corps on avoiding and minimizing the impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) site from the West Closure Complex alternative and continue to evaluate the
possibilities for minimizing and mitigating those impacts. In addition, we are working
with an interagency team to evaluate an array of additional features that might provide
environmentally beneficial hydrologic and wetland effects. These enhancement features
are being considered in order to add an extra measure of environmental benefits in light
of the unique status of the CWA Section 404(c) site. Also, the alternative NEPA
procedures developed for the GNOHSDRRS project include a provision for a cumulative
impact assessment to be published as one of the last pieces in the NEPA documentation
process.
Accordingly, we are not currently able to offer a final evaluation of the full range of
impacts associated with the proposed West Closure Complex alternative and the
associated mitigation and augmentation features. However, we clearly understand the
maximum extent of the projected unavoidable impacts and we have reached an
understanding with the Corps and the interagency review team as to the minimum
amount of mitigation required to offset the wetland impacts (USFWS, 2009 and USAGE,
2009). The Corps has also agreed to fund and implement additional ecological
enhancement features, if the results of ongoing investigations indicate that they will
contribute environmental benefits (see Part I, Appendix B).
As previously mentioned, the Corps has involved a team of State and federal agencies
with natural resource expertise to advise them on the study designs and data analyses
for the mitigation and augmentation features. This work is not complete and may not be
completed for some time to come. However, an adaptive process of mitigation and
augmentation feature design and implementation has been agreed upon by the Corps
(see Part I, Appendix B, and USAGE, 2009). An adaptive management approach
involves monitoring changes over time, evaluating the observed results with respect to
intended objectives, and applying any changes needed to achieve the desired outcome.
Some hydrologic and water quality data collection work will extend over several
hydrologic periods. While some field analyses have begun, other data collection is
planned and is expected to continue for at least year, and possibly longer, depending on
the findings. The advisory team is not comfortable in making recommendations
regarding hydrologic and ecological modifications to a wetland of national significance
without further study. EPA Region 6 trusts that the Corps will continue to work with the
advisory team in good faith on this adaptive approach, as outlined in the November 4,
2008 modification request letter from Col. Alvin B. Lee to Lawrence E. Starfield (Part I,
Appendix B).
A considerable amount of field work has already been initiated and some aspects have
been completed. As an example, the Corps' Engineering Design and Research Center
(ERDC) is currently studying hydrology and inundation data in an effort to analyze
1-18
-------
mitigation and augmentation features that might improve circulation throughout the site,
e.g., gapping canals and re-establishing historic tidal connections.
Another example is the work led by USFWS, with participation by an interagency team,
to analyze the habitat impacts of the proposed alternative. Two methodologies were
employed to quantify changes in habitat quality and quantity that are projected to occur
as a direct result of the proposed 4200-foot floodwall to be constructed along the GIWW.
The Wetland Value Assessment methodology was employed for the cypress-tupelo
swamp habitat and the Habitat Assessment Methodology was employed for the upland
and bottomland hardwood habitat over the maximum acreage expected to be effected
(9.6 acres). Specific recommendations to protect flora and fauna were also prepared by
the USFWS and documented in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Report for IER # 12
(USFWS, 2009).
Field work that is still in the planning phase focuses on the flotant marsh habitat and will
be led by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS), in consultation with the Corps, NPS,
USFWS, EPA Region 6, and the rest of the interagency team. Data will be collected to
assist the team in evaluating the potential effects of allowing surface water from the
Estelle Outfall Canal to circulate through the marsh. As a contingency, the Corps is
incorporating into the project design a flow control structure at the junction between the
Estelle Outfall Canal and the GIWW in case it is determined that these flows should be
limited under certain hydrologic conditions. Monitoring stations will be established to
gain an understanding of the hydraulic gradients across the marsh.
The surface water studies include a review of data collected by Jefferson Parish at the
Estelle pumping station and canal and some new post-rainfall samples will be collected
and analyzed for selected parameters. The interagency scientific team has not
recommended starting off with a broad sampling spectrum of surface water parameters
but with a more narrowly targeted suite of parameters. This recommendation was made
based on practical knowledge of the effects of similar sources of surface water flows to
the same type of flotant marsh habitat existing within the Jean Lafitte National Historical
Park and Preserve, Barataria Preserve Unit, which is adjacent to and hydrologically
connected to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site.
In addition to the habitat, hydrology, and surface water quality studies of the flotant
marsh, the effects of potentially adding nutrients or contaminants from increased
stormwater flows through the site from the Estelle Outfall Canal will be assessed,
starting with an examination of porewater quality. Sampling bottom sediments over time
will provide an indirect method of assessing whether contaminants from stormwater are
accumulating, as will tracking macroinvertebrate community composition and analyzing
fish tissue contaminant concentrations. Soil characteristics of the flotant marsh will also
be analyzed in order to establish a basis for future comparisons and the current marsh
type will be classified according to a system previously by scientists from LSU, as a
result of previous work partially funded by EPA Region 6.
As a baseline for comparison, the results of the initial phase of ecological studies will be
compared to results from similar marshes within the adjacent Barataria Unit of the Jean
Lafitte National Historical Park & Preserve that are considered to be healthy and
productive.
1-19
-------
To complement the characterization and modeling efforts described above, a long-term
monitoring plan will be devised and the results will be used to respond to any
unanticipated impacts to the site. Since the design of the monitoring plan depends upon
the ERDC hydrology studies, details are still pending.
The Corps' Draft IER # 12 (USAGE, 2009, page 158) describes the mitigation and
augmentation feature planning process:
Mitigation procedures and requirements regarding impacts within the 404c area are being
coordinated with the EPA, USFWS, and the National Park Service. Mitigation for all
unavoidable adverse impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area would
occur within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area and/or JLNHPP as per
agreement with the resource agencies. ...[Additional coordination is required to
determine the best possible mitigation actions. Mitigation projects would be designed
and implemented concurrently with the design and construction of the project. Full
mitigation within this unique environment may require mitigation in addition to the basic
average annual habitat unit method as determined by Wetland Value Assessment (WVA)
models used by the USAGE in cooperation with the resources agencies (see table 7b).
Project feature augmentations would be considered by the mitigation team as they
develop a full plan to compensate for any unavoidable impacts. The CEMVN has agreed
to work in collaboration with state and Federal agencies to ensure a successful mitigation
effort.
Also, the initial study plan recommended by the advisory team, subject to further
revision, is described in the following excerpt from IER # 12 (USAGE, 2009, pages 160-
162):
To determine which project augmentations would be most beneficial to the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area an interagency study effort is being completed to
establish existing soil and water-quality conditions in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) wetlands, as well as prevailing patterns of inundation within and adjacent
to the 404c area. The wetlands in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area are
currently isolated from direct inflow of storm water runoff and natural tidal exchange in
some locations because of levees and dredge material banks. Upon completion of the
interagency study storm water runoff may be directed from the Old Estelle Pump Station
through and across the wetlands and some tidal exchange may be permitted in certain
areas to restore the natural hydrology. It is unknown what impact this change in water
quality and hydrology may have on the wetlands. The wetlands consist of floating
marshes, with a predominately organic substrate, and forested wetlands, some of which
occur within the floating marshes (see the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area
description in section 3.2.2).
Studies are underway at the USAGE Engineering Research and Development Center
(ERDC) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, the Vicksburg USAGE District, and at the United
States Geological Survey in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to determine the best possible
design to allow for maximized benefit of this work in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) area. Hydrologic and environmental surveys are ongoing within and
adjacent to the 404c to determine the appropriate areas for the proposed dredge material
bank gapping within the Old Estelle discharge canal and dredge material bank gapping in
other canals and for the removal of plugs or portions of the plugs in Bayou aux Carpes
and other canals. In addition, the surveys will determine the appropriate water flow
velocities within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area so creating the gaps
and removal of canal plugs can be properly designed. Additional design work would take
into consideration the appropriate nutrient loading levels. These studies will be
integrated into the efforts of the Interagency resource team that was formed early in the
1-20
-------
analysis phase to ensure that the national interest placed on the Bayou aux Carpes site
meets the wisest and best use of the area. All actions would be fully coordinated with the
EPA and the interagency team and the public before being implemented.
The monitoring of preexisting conditions has three components:
Floating marsh:
Pore water quality will be documented at four locations, near and at some distance from
the project area (Figure 14). The two northern most sites are located approximately 50
yards to 100 yards off the dredge material bank. At each marsh sampling site, pore water
will be sampled at 15 cm and 45 cm depth for a suite of parameters including low-level
nutrients including dissolved inorganic N, ions and dissolved organic carbon. Samples
will be taken quarterly, in November of 2008, and in February, late April and
August/September 2009.
At these same sites, soil quality (degree of decomposition) will be documented at 5 cm
and 15 cm depth (root zone) using the NRCS fiber analysis (see Swarzenski and others,
2005; Figure 14). In addition, soils will be cored with a McAuly auger to a clay layer or
2 meters (whichever is nearer the surface), to evaluate the thickness of the peat layer.
Floating marsh type will be determined following the Sasser et al (1996) classification.
Estelle Pumping Station
At the pumping station, one sample of surface water will be collected for analysis of a
suite of herbicides, including fipronil and atrazine (Figure 14). Similarly, a surface water
quality sample will be taken in the main canal. These samples will be collected 1-2 days
after a major rainfall event.
Inundation, hydraulic gradient
Two stations continuously measuring water level will be established on the property, as
per figure 14. An attempt to establish hydraulic gradients will be made by matching up
peaks in the water surface during major inundation events, and hydraulic gradients
established based on floor elevation.
1-21
-------
Existing CRMS sile (01B4)
Continuous salinity and wafer level
Proposed monitoring
o
Continuous water level
recorder
Hsrb tide "pesticide sampling
(after major rain foil)
Quarterly pore water samping
(nutrients, ions), marsh mat
drarafitenzation. and soil
descriptions.
water quality iiionitnrinu stiilkm* within the Bayou au\ Ciirpes
C\VA Section 404(c) area.
The data collected throughout these ongoing studies would be compared to similar,
pristine, nearby marshes, and would also provide baseline data against which to evaluate
future change.
Once the baseline data set is completed and the results are presented to the Interagency
team, the CEMVN in cooperation with the EPA, NPS, USFWS and other members of the
Interagency team would determine which project feature augmentations would be
beneficial to the 404c area. The ongoing studies to determine the existing hydrology and
water and soil conditions within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area are
considered to be adequate to determine which augmentations would be beneficial. Those
beneficial project feature augmentations would then be implemented in partnership with
the EPA and the NPS. Though these data are not available within this document, the
data and project augmentation implementation plans will be disclosed in future
environmental reports prior to any decision being made by the CEMVN District Engineer.
In addition to the ongoing environmental studies, the Interagency team also suggested
cypress tree surveys along with eagle, wading bird, and other indicator species surveys
should be conducted to indicate habitat quality. Baseline Bald Cypress and wildlife data
would also be required. The cypress tree and wild life surveys are under consideration,
and survey plans, including specific indicator species, survey frequency, etc., would be
determined by the CEMVN in collaboration with the Interagency team and disclosed in
future environmental reports.
1-22
-------
The Corps, EPA Region 6, the NPS, and the interagency review team have agreed, as
documented in the Corps' modification request letter (see Part I, Appendix B) that
mitigation will be conducted within in the Bayou aux Carpes Section 404(c) area and/or
other portions of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Barataria
Preserve Unit. In light of the national significance of this wetland site, EPA Region 6 has
advised, and the Corps has agreed, that mitigation should not be accomplished by
buying credits at a mitigation bank. Further, the interagency team has established a
priority for mitigation and augmentation features, as follows:
1) gapping the existing earthen bank along the southern side of the Old Estelle
Outfall Canal to provide regulated sheet flow into the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) area;
2) modifying the existing earthen bank along the Southern Natural Gas Pipeline
Canal to provide hydrological exchange between the northern and southern sections
of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area;
3) modifying the shell plug at Bayou aux Carpes to provide hydrological exchange
between the GIWW and the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area;
4) closing the Southern Natural Gas Pipeline Canal to promote hydrological flow
within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area;
5) gapping or grading down drill hole access canal banks to promote hydrological
flow within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area; and
6) gapping or grading down oil well access roads to promote hydrological flow within
the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area.
EPA Region 6 believes that the development of a long-term monitoring plan is a key
factor that will contribute to the success of any mitigation and augmentation plans. The
same interagency team described above has agreed to help develop such a plan. Since
the complete design of the long-term monitoring plan depends upon the results of the
ongoing Corps ERDC hydrology studies, details of the plan are still pending. Initial
recommendations being considered include establishing hydrologic gauges and
vegetative monitoring plots for seasonal data collection. The goals for this monitoring
effort will be to identify temporal changes in hydrologic patterns, vegetative community
characteristics, and tree growth rate and regeneration as a result of the Corps project.
This will include the effects of the floodwall as well as the mitigation and augmentation
features. The long-term monitoring plan will be adaptive in nature, meaning it will be
subject to change by the interagency review team along the way, depending on the
incremental findings. If the constructed mitigation or augmentation features are
determined at some point to be ecologically harmful, the Corps has committed to
implementing the necessary modifications.
In addition to the interagency planning work described above, the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality issued a Water Quality Certification, USFWS and National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concluded that the proposed action would not
adversely affect threatened or endangered species, and the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources found the proposed alternative to be consistent with the Louisiana
Coastal Resource Program (USAGE, 2009). Further, the USFWS provided a detailed
list of recommendations as a part of their review under the Fish and Wldlife
Coordination Act and the Corps conducted a Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) analysis
(USAGE, 2009, Appendices E and K).
1-23
-------
All of the State and federal natural resource agencies have taken strong positions in
support of preserving and protecting the wetland functions and values of the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) wetlands to the maximum extent practicable in light of the
overwhelming public risks from storm-related flooding. At this point in the design of the
West Closure Complex alternative and in consideration of the evaluation and design
process established for the mitigation features, augmentation features, and long-term
monitoring plan, none of these resource agencies have identified any unacceptable
impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) wetlands.
In summary, the Corps and the interagency review team have worked for almost two
years on ways to avoid and minimize impacts from the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) segment of the work proposed for IER # 12. The Corps is currently gathering
baseline data for the team to use in evaluating potential wetland mitigation options and
other project features that might improve the existing hydrology of the Bayou aux Carpes
area. The Corps has committed to funding and constructing those additional features if
the analyses indicate that they would be ecologically beneficial. Discharges of dredged
or fill material associated with such construction would require no additional modification
to the CWA Section 404(c) designation, which contains an exception for EPA approved
habitat enhancement projects. Work is also underway to develop a long-term monitoring
plan for the CWA Section 404(c) site.
Members of the public, as well as local and national environmental groups, have also
demonstrated a fierce commitment over a period of decades to protecting the Bayou aux
Carpes wetlands from unlawful or unnecessary adverse wetland impacts. This vigilance
is evident in comments received during the public hearing on February 11, 2009,
conducted as part of the EPA Region 6 review of the Corps' request to EPA to modify
the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) designation (see Part II of this
document). Many of those comments relate to concerns about the potential for
unavoidable impacts to the wetlands and the need to appropriately mitigate and
compensate for those losses. We believe that the plans outlined above, and
documented by the Corps, adequately address those impacts.
Region 6 Recommendation
Section 404(c) of the CWA authorizes EPA to restrict or prohibit the use of a wetland
area as a disposal site for dredged or fill material if the discharge will have unacceptable
adverse effects on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including
spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. In over three decades
since this authority has existed, EPA has finalized only 12 such CWA Section 404(c)
actions. Together, those few actions have protected the ecologically significant functions
and values of over 73,000 acres of wetlands.
This history shows that EPA has used its CWA 404(c) designation authority sparingly,
typically reserving it for special circumstances and/or unique wetlands. Nationally, there
have only been three instances in which a CWA Section 404(c) designation has been
modified in response to unusual situations or changed conditions.
As explained above, EPA has previously determined that a request to repair a leaking
pipeline within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site was acceptable for both
environmental and safety considerations. In that case, EPA decided that the proposed
1-24
-------
emergency action was essentially the same as that envisioned by one of the three
exceptions written into the original CWA Section 404(c) restriction, that only minor and
temporary impacts would result, that adverse wetland impacts were likely if the repairs
were not made, and that appropriate mitigation measures would be employed.
However, a previous request for modification of this designation by the Corps was
denied and another alternative was implemented that did not affect the CWA Section
404(c) area. The Corps' justification for the current request is substantially different than
justifications claimed for the flood control project that led to the1985 EPA designation
(flood protection for a sparsely populated area dominated by wetlands) or for the
subsequent work on the "V-Levee" (cost savings to the government).
The intent of the Corps' current request is to reduce risks to the 286,000 people living on
the west bank of the Mississippi River and to infrastructure supporting the greater New
Orleans area by building a more resilient and reliable storm damage and risk reduction
system, as directed by Congress. In an effort to reconcile the potentially conflicting
goals of increased flood protection and ecological protection, the Corps and EPA Region
6 have worked closely together and with other federal partners, State and local
agencies, and many stakeholders in an effort to understand fully the possibilities for
accommodating these serious needs. Seeing no acceptable option but to recommend
flood control measures which would have minor adverse environmental impacts on the
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) wetlands, the Corps has asked EPA to modify
the 1985 CWA Section 404(c) determination to allow the construction of a berm and
floodwall in an area disturbed by dredged material discharges predating the EPA
designation.
The Corps proposal involves constructing an improved storm surge barrier system
around the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site, crossing the GlWWwith a
floodgate and pumping structure, and then tying into the existing Hero Canal federal
levee (i.e., the West Closure Complex alternative). The Corps has determined that this
alternative would provide the most reliable, time sensitive, and cost effective solution
with the least environmental impact to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c)
wetland site. This alternative represents a more streamlined surge barrier that reduces
the number of potential failure points in the system. A critical lesson the Corps learned
from Hurricane Katrina was that extensive reaches of levees, floodwalls, and floodgates
provided numerous possible points of failure within the system. By removing 25 miles of
parallel protection from the primary line of defense, this more streamlined surge barrier
significantly reduces risks and increases resiliency of the system.
Having worked closely with the Corps and other resource agencies on the evaluation of
the environmental aspects of this segment of the overall West Bank and Vicinity project
upgrade, EPA Region 6 agrees with Corps' conclusion that there is no reasonable and
less environmentally damaging structural alternative for achieving the Congressional
directive than to locate a sector gate adjacent to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) site. We therefore recommend that the requested modification be granted with
conditions.
We believe this recommendation achieves a balance between the national interest in
reducing overwhelming risks to the people and critical infrastructure of south Louisiana
while minimizing damage to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site to the
maximum degree possible. EPA has a long record of protecting these wetlands, dating
back to the early 1970's and we do not believe that this recommendation, coupled with
1-25
-------
EPA approved mitigation and site augmentation features, will result in significant or
unacceptable impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) wetland site. The
projected construction impacts will be limited in time and area, the unavoidable impacts
will be appropriately mitigated, additional environmental augmentation features will be
developed and implemented, and the site will be monitored and managed for any
adverse changes for the life of the Corps project.
Further, we believe that the West Closure Complex construction plan, which would allow
for adding additional height to the floodwall while working within the same footprint, will
be amenable to any future needs for a greater level of protection without invoking a need
for further modifications to the CWA Section 404(c) designation. However, the Corps
does not currently envision the need for future "lifts" to the floodwall.
Because this is an extraordinary and unprecedented situation, we do not expect that this
modification will have any bearing on any other CWA Section 404(c) designations or
modification requests. Each CWA Section 404(c) designation represents a unique
situation that responds to a specific set of parameters unlike any other.
In this case, EPA Region 6 concludes that compelling circumstances justify a
modification of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) designation, that there are no
less environmentally damaging alternatives that would adequately address those
circumstances, and that all feasible means of minimizing adverse wetland effects to the
Bayou aux Carpes site will be implemented. As explained above, no measures
compensating for unavoidable wetland impacts have yet been adopted but
EPA Region 6 is confident that such measures can and will be adopted and
implemented by the Corps. Therefore, EPA Region 6 recommends the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Water grant the Corps' modification request for constructing the West
Closure Complex, subject to the conditions specified below.
Conditions
Project Design and Construction
1. During final project design, the New Orleans District of the Corps shall utilize all
feasible engineering and construction practices to reduce impacts to the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) wetlands.
2. During project construction, the New Orleans District of the Corps shall comply with
the conservation recommendations as specified in the "Fish and Wldlife Coordination
Act Report, Individual Environmental Report (IER) 12, Harvey to Algiers" (February 18,
2009), or as they may be amended by the USFWS, Ecological Service, Lafayette.
Mitigation Features
1. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall fully fund and implement mitigation
measures to compensate for the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. EPA
Region 6 will make the final determination as to whether compensation is adequate,
appropriate, and satisfactorily implemented in a timely manner.
1-26
-------
2. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall obtain written approval from EPA Region
6, after consulting with the GNOHSDRRS interagency review team, prior to
implementing any mitigation feature. At a minimum, the Corps shall document for EPA
Region 6 the concurrence or non-concurrence on each mitigation feature by the NPS
(Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve), USFWS, NMFS, USGS, Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, and
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
3. The Corps shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and conducting all
required regulatory coordination and approvals prior to implementing any mitigation
feature. The Corps shall coordinate with the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and
Preserve to determine the appropriate lead agency for conducting the interagency
coordination and approval processes and shall obtain all necessary National Park
Service permits.
Augmentation Features
1. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall fully fund and implement augmentation
features to enhance the wetland functions and values of the site. EPA Region 6 will
make the final determination as to whether such features are adequate, appropriate, and
satisfactorily implemented in a timely manner.
2. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall obtain written approval from EPA Region
6, after consulting with the GNOHSDRRS interagency review team, prior to
implementing any augmentation feature. At a minimum, the Corps shall document for
EPA Region 6 the concurrence or non-concurrence on each augmentation feature by the
NPS (Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve), USFWS, NMFS, USGS,
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
3. The Corps shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and conducting all
required regulatory coordination and approvals prior to implementing any augmentation
feature. The Corps shall coordinate with the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and
Preserve to determine the appropriate lead agency for conducting the interagency
coordination and approval processes and shall obtain all necessary National Park
Service permits.
Long-term Monitoring and Operation
1. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall coordinate the development of a long-
term site monitoring plan, to be approved in writing by EPA Region 6, after consulting
with the GNOHSDRRS interagency review team.
2. The New Orleans District of the Corps and EPA Region 6 shall develop and sign a
Memorandum of Agreement with those willing and active State, federal, and local
participants with natural resource management missions who have participated on the
IER # 12 interagency review team. The Memorandum of Agreement shall document the
commitment to participate in the planning and analyses specified by the long-term
monitoring plan.
1-27
-------
3. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall obtain written approval from EPA Region
6, after consulting with the GNOHSDRRS interagency review team, prior to
implementing the long-term monitoring plan. At a minimum, the Corps shall document
for EPA Region 6 the concurrence or non-concurrence on the long-term monitoring plan
by the NPS (Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve), USFWS, NMFS,
USGS, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
4. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall be responsible for ensuring full funding
and implementation of a long-term site monitoring plan, to extend throughout the 50-year
of the Corps project.
5. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall provide EPA Region 6 with digital aerial
photography of the site (season and flood stage to be determined jointly) prior to
constructing the floodwall along the perimeter of the site and annually for the first five
years after its construction, and at other times as specified by EPA Region 6.
6. The New Orleans District of the Corps shall gather the monitoring data and report
results to EPA Region 6 annually, on a schedule to be specified by EPA Region 6, each
year for the first five years, and at other times as specified by EPA Region 6.
7. Throughout the 50-year life of the project, the New Orleans District of the Corps shall
institute any necessary adaptive construction modifications, including removal or repair,
of any mitigation or augmentation feature based on the recommendations of EPA
Region 6.
8. In the event that EPA determines during the life of the project that operation,
maintenance, or long-term management by the Corps of the flood protection/risk
reduction features, mitigation features, or augmentation features is causing
unanticipated and unacceptable wetland impacts, EPA may modify the terms of these
conditions.
1-28
-------
References
BTNEP. Digitization of the Floating Marsh Maps in the Barataria and Terrebonne
Basins, Louisiana. Publication # 28. August 1996.
BTNEP. The Estuary Compact: A Public-Private Promise to Work Together to Save the
Barataria and Terrebonne Basins, CCMP - Part 2 of 4. June 1996. Thibodaux, LA.
BTNEP. Saving Our Good Earth: A Call to Action, Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
System Characterization Report. 1995. Thibodaux, LA.
BTNEP. Status and Trends of Hydrologic Modification, Reduction in Sediment
Availability, and Habitat Loss/Modification in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
System. Publication 20. 1995.
EPA. Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Evaluation: Bayou aux Carpes, Louisiana.
September 1985.
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/BayouA uxCarpes404c1985RecDeterm.pdf.
EPA. Description of Data Collection, Methodology and Photo Analysis Results of
Photointerpretive Study of Bayou aux Carpes Area. June 19, 1985. Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada.
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/BayouA uxCarpes404c1985RecDeterm.pdf.
EPA. Final Determination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant
Administrator for External Affairs Concerning the Bayou aux Carpes Site in Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana Pursuant the Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. 50 Fed. Reg.
47267 (November 15, 1985).
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/BayouA uxCarpes404cFinalDetVol1_3.pdf
EPA. A Hydrological, Chemical, and Biological Assessment of Bayou aux Carpes, New
Orleans, Louisiana. January 1985. Ecological Support Branch, Athens, Georgia.
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/BayouA uxCarpes404c1985RecDeterm.pdf.
Coastal Wetland Forest Conservation and Use Science Working Group (CWFWG).
Conservation, Protection and Utilization of Louisiana's Coastal Wetland Forests: Final
Report to the Governor of Louisiana. April 2005.
Evers, D. Elaine, Erick M. Swenson, Lee Stanton, and Charles E. Sasser. Distribution
and Ecological Characteristics of the Marshes in the Eastern Mississippi River Delta
Plain, Louisiana. June 2007. Louisiana State University, Coastal Ecology Institute,
Baton Rouge. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, Texas.
1-29
-------
Lee, Colonel Alvin B. Letter to Lawrence E. Starfield. November 4,2008.
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/M odificationLetterToEPA4Oct08.pdf
LSU. A Study of the Effects of the Proposed Leveeing and Drainage of the Bayou aux
Carpes Swamp on the Adjacent Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park.
Novembers, 1984. Center for Wetland Resources. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/BayouA uxCarpes404c1985RecDeterm.pdf.
Sasser, C.E., E.M. Swenson, D.E., Evers, J.M. Visser, G.O. Holm, and J.G. Gosselink.
Floating Marshes in the Barataria and Terrebonne Basins, Louisiana. Louisiana State
University, Coastal Ecology Institute, Baton Rouge. 1994. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, Texas, LSU-CEI-94-02.
Steimle and Associates. Review of CWA 404(c) Related Studies in the Bayou aux
Carpes Area. August 1985.
St. Pe, Kerry. Personal communication. 2009.
Swarzenski, Christopher M. Ecology of Peat (Floating) Marshes at Jean Lafitte National
Park and Preserve, Louisiana. No date. USGS, Louisiana Water Science Center.
USAGE. Draft Individual Environmental Report, GIWW, Harvey, Algiers Levees and
Floodwalls, Jefferson Orleans, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana, IER 12. January
2009. New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/Draft%20IER%2012%2005%20Jan%2009.pdf
USFWS. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, Individual Environmental Report
(IER) 12, Harvey to Algiers. February 18, 2009. Lafayette, Louisiana.
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/IER12FinalFWCAR2.pdf
USFWS. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Bayou aux Carpes Drainage Area,
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. June 1985. Lafayette, Louisiana.
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/
original/BayouA uxCarpes404c1985RecDeterm.pdf.
1-30
-------
Part I, Appendix A
-------
2072
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 9/Wednesday, January 14, 2009/Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650; FRL-8398-6]
Petition for Rulemaking Requesting
EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver
Products as Pesticides; Extension of
Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; extension of comment
period.
SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the
Federal Register of November 19, 2008,
concerning a petition for rulemaking
and collateral relief filed by the
International Center for Technology
Assessment (ICTA) and others. In
general, the petition requests that the
Agency classify nanoscale silver as a
pesticide, require formal pesticide
registration of all products containing
nanoscale silver, analyze the potential
human health and environmental risks
of nanoscale silver, take regulatory
actions under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
against existing products that contain
nanoscale silver, and take other
regulatory actions under FIFRA as
appropriate for nanoscale silver
products. This document extends the
comment period for 60 days from
January 20, 2009 to March 20, 2009.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2008-0650, must be received on or
before March 20, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed
instructions as provided under
ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of November 19, 2008 (73 FR
69644).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nathanael R. Martin, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: 703-305-6475;
e-mail address:
martin.nathanael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document extends the public comment
period established in a notice that was
published in the Federal Register of
November 19, 2008 (73 FR 69644) (FRL-
8386-4). In that document, the Agency
made the petition submitted by ICTA et
al., available for review and asked for
public comment on the same. On
December 12, 2008, EPA received a
request from ICTA to extend the
comment period on the petition. EPA is
hereby extending the comment period,
which was set to end on January 20,
2009, to March 20, 2009.
To submit comments, or access the
public docket, please follow the detailed
instructions as provided under
ADDRESSES in the November 19, 2008
Federal Register document. If you have
questions, consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
Nanotechnology, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: January 8, 2009.
Martha Monell,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-622 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-8762-2]
Request for Amendment of
Designation Prohibiting Discharges of
Dredged or Fill Material to the Bayou
aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section
404(c) Site, Louisiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Public Hearing and
Request for Comments.
SUMMARY: In 1985, EPA prohibited the
discharge of dredged or fill material to
wetlands in the Bayou aux Carpes
Swamp pursuant to Section 404(c) of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). On
November 4, 2008, the New Orleans
District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) requested that EPA
modify that designation to
accommodate discharges to the Bayou
aux Carpes wetlands associated with
post-Katrina upgrades to the West Bank
and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Levee
system in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.
EPA solicits written public comment on
that request and will hold a public
hearing for receipt of comments.
Public Hearing: The public hearing
will be held in the District Assembly
Room at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers New Orleans District office,
7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA
70118. The public hearing will
commence at 6 p.m. on February 11,
2009, and will end when all comments
have been received. During the hearing,
any member of the public may submit
written comments or present comments
verbally.
Public Comments: In addition to
providing comments at the public
hearing, written comments on the CWA
Section 404(c) modification request may
be submitted to EPA for 30 days
following the date of this notice.
Comments should be addressed to Ms.
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC), EPA Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-
2733. All comments should directly
address whether the 1985 Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) EPA Final
Determination should be modified as
requested by the Corps.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information regarding this matter,
contact Ms. Barbara Keeler by phone at
(214) 665-6698 or by e-mail at
keeler.barbara@epa.gov. Copies of the
modification request and supporting
documentation are available online at:
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/
n ola_public_da ta/projects/u sa ce_levee/
docs/original/
ModificationLetterToEPA4Oct08.pdf.
Additional project information may be
found at: http://
www.nolaenvironmental.gov/projects/
usace_levee/IER.aspx?IERID=12.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bayou
aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site is
located approximately ten miles south
of New Orleans, Louisiana, on the West
Bank of Jefferson Parish. The site covers
approximately 3200 acres, including
about 3000 acres of wetlands subject to
federal jurisdiction under the CWA. The
area is bounded on the north by the
east-west Old Estelle Pumping Station
Outfall Canal, on the east by Bayou
Barataria (Gulf Intracoastal Waterway),
on the south by Bayou Barataria and
Bayou des Families, and on the west by
State Highway 3134 and the "V-Levee."
Immediately across State Highway 3134
to the west of the site is the Barataria
Unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical
Park and Preserve.
Section 404(c) of the CWA authorizes
EPA to restrict or prohibit the use of a
wetland area as a disposal site for
dredged or fill material if the discharge
will have unacceptable adverse effects
on municipal water supplies, shellfish
beds and fishery areas (including
spawning and breeding areas), wildlife,
or recreational areas. EPA published a
CWA Section 404(c) Final
Determination prohibiting, with three
exceptions, future discharges of dredged
or fill material to wetlands in the Bayou
aux Carpes site at 50 FR 47267
(November 15, 1985). Since then, the
Agency has received two other requests
for modification.
In connection with initial
construction of the West Bank
Hurricane Protection Levee, the Corps
requested that EPA modify its CWA
Section 404(c) designation to allow
extension of the toe of the "V-Levee"
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 9/Wednesday, January 14, 2009/Notices
2073
into the protected Bayou aux Carpes
area. The Corps stated that such a
modification would result in significant
cost savings to the government and
would affect only a relatively small part
of the area protected by the Section
404(c) designation. EPA summarily
denied that request and in 1988 the
Corps modified the levee alignment to
avoid discharges to the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area.
In 1992, Shell Pipeline Corporation
requested that EPA amend the
designation to allow the discharge of
dredged and fill material to wetlands in
the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) area in connection with
emergency reconstruction of a leaking
pipeline. After notifying interested
parties of the request via Federal
Register publication and coordinating
with the Corps and other agencies, EPA
granted the request, publishing the
decision at 57 FR 3757 (January 31,
1992). EPA concluded that relocating
the pipeline to non-wetlands was
infeasible from the perspectives of
engineering and public safety, and that
the work would have only minimal and
temporary effects on the wetlands at
issue.
The request noticed today was
submitted by the Corps and is
associated with proposed improvements
to the West Bank and Vicinity Hurricane
Protection Levee system. By way of a
letter dated November 8, 2008, the
Corps requested that the designation be
modified to allow construction of an
earthen berm and floodwall in an area
disturbed by dredged material
discharges predating the 1985 404(c)
designation. The construction area is
located along the west bank of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, or Bayou
Barataria, from its junction with the Old
Estelle Pumping Station Outfall Canal to
a point at which the Corps proposes to
construct a sector gate across the
Waterway. As described in the
modification request, the berm and
floodwall would be 14 to 16 feet high
and would occupy an area no greater
than 4,200 linear feet by 100 linear feet.
No more than ten acres of wetlands in
the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) site would be affected and other
design and construction features have
been incorporated to minimize impacts
to the wetlands.
The Corps is currently gathering
baseline data to evaluate potential
wetland mitigation options and other
project features to improve the existing
hydrology of the Bayou aux Carpes site.
The Corps has committed to
constructing those features if the
analyses indicate that they would be
ecologically beneficial. Discharges of
dredged or fill material associated with
such construction would require no
additional modification to the CWA
Section 404(c) designation, which
contains an exception for approved
habitat enhancement projects.
Additional information on the Corps
project and its relationship to the Bayou
aux Carpes site may be found in the
alternative National Environmental
Policy Act document, known as
Individual Environmental Report #12
(IER #12), which is posted online at:
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/
projects/usace_levee/
IER.aspx?IERID=12.
The public hearing referenced above
will be jointly conducted by EPA Region
6 and the Corps. At the hearing, EPA
will receive comments on the Corps
request to EPA to modify the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) designation
and the Corps will receive comments on
IER #12.
After considering all comments
submitted, EPA Region 6 will transmit
to the EPA Office of Water in
Washington, DC, a written
recommendation on whether the CWA
Section 404(c) modification request
should be granted or denied. The
Assistant Administrator for Water will
make the final decision and publish a
notice of its availability in the Federal
Register.
Dated: January 6, 2009.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. E9-690 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Notice of Public Information
Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the
Federal Communications Commission
for Extension Under Delegated
Authority, Comments Requested
January 8, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burden
invites the general public and other
Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on the
following information collection(s), as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number. No person shall be subject to
any penalty for failing to comply with
a collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that
does not display a valid control number.
Comments are requested concerning (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) comments should be
submitted on or before March 16, 2009.
If you anticipate that you will be
submitting PRA comments, but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the FCC contact listed below as
soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to
Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget, (202) 395-
5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via
Internet at
Nicholas_A._FraseT@omb. eop.gov and
to fudith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, Federal
Communications Commission, or an e-
mail to PRA@fcc.gov. To view a copy of
this information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web
page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the
Web page called "Currently Under
Review", (3) click on the downward-
pointing arrow in the "Select Agency"
box below the "Currently Under
Review" heading, (4) select "Federal
Communications Commission" from the
list of agencies presented in the "Select
Agency" box, (5) click the "Submit"
button to the right of the "Select
Agency" box, and (6) when the list of
FCC ICRs currently under review?
appears, look for the title of this ICR (or
its OMB Control Number, if there is one)
and then click on the ICR Reference
Number to view detailed information
about this ICR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information, contact Judith B.
Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the
Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060-0755.
Title: Sections 59.1 through 59.4,
Infrastructure Sharing.
FormNo.:N/A.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-
profit.
-------
Part I, Appendix B
-------
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEiRS
P. O. BOX 60267
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70180-0267
UJ1W '/n fj
NUV « 1
Planning, Programs, and
Project Management Division
Environmental Planning
and Compliance Branch
Mr. Lawrence E. Starfield
Deputy Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Dear Mr. Starfield:
The purpose of this letter is to request modification of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) Final Determination issued October 16, 1985. The US Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) requests that the EPA consider approving a modification that would
allow the Corps to construct a segment of the West Bank and Vicinity Hurricane Protection
Project / Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS) along the
northeastern property boundary. The intent of the Corps proposed action is to reduce risk to the
citizens of Greater New Orleans Metropolitan area by building a more resilient and reliable
storm damage and risk reduction system. We can accomplish this by constructing an improved
storm surge barrier system around the Bayou aux Carpes site, crossing the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (GIWW) with a floodgate(s)/pumping station structure, and then tying into the
existing Hero Canal Federal levee (GIWW West Closure Complex (GIWW WCC) alternative,
see enclosed map and floodwall cross section).
The Corps has been working closely with EPA and other federal and state resource agency
staff for several months to come up with the least environmentally damaging alternative that
lowers the risk of storm surge damage to the greatest number of people in the area. It is our
determination that the proposed action, GIWW WCC is the best alternative to provide the
greatest level of risk reduction while minimizing environmental impacts. The Corps intends to
make a final decision in the upcoming months concerning this project by circulating a draft of
Individual Environmental Report (IER) # 12 and a Clean Water Act Section 404 (b) (1) public
notice for a 30-day public comment period. Upon completion of the 30-day comment period, the
Corps will review all comments received along with the data and analysis discussed in the IER in
order to make a decision on the proposed action. The Corps will not make a decision on this
portion of the proposed action until the EPA makes a determination on a modification to the
Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c).
-------
-2-
The proposed alternative would require the construction of a floodwall and earthen berm
along the eastern boundary of the 404 (c) site. To construct this alternative the Corps would
need to impact an area within the 404 (c) area no greater then 4,200 LF by 100 LF, This action
would impact no greater then 9.6 acres along the west bank of the GIWW within the Bayou aux
Carpes 404 (c) area. Please refer to the enclosed documentation that describes in detail the:
a. Need to modify the original HSDRRS alignment;
b. Need to modify the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) Final Determination;
c. Measures taken to ensure the avoidance and/or minimization of all adverse impacts to
the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area;
d. Planning and design considerations to avoid additional impacts from any reasonable
foreseeable future flood protection measures (i.e., the Louisiana Coastal Protection and
Restoration (LACPR) Study);
e. Plans for adequate site specific mitigation for all unavoidable adverse impacts to the
Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area;
f. Review of projected wetland impacts as per Corps 404 (b)(l) guidelines and the EPA
404 (b)(l) and 404 (c) procedures found in 40 CFR Parts 230 & 231; and
g. Draft Path Forward with GIWW WCC.
Summarizing the above attachments; The Corps has determined that the GIWW WCC
alternative, which alters the current system alignment, is the government's proposed action for
this segment of the HSDRRS because this alternative would provide the most reliable, time
sensitive and cost effective solution with the least adverse environmental impacts. Though this
alternative would impact the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area, the Corps agrees that final design
efforts would utilize all feasible engineering and construction practices to reduce impacts to
these nationally significant wetlands. In order to minimize the footprint of the surge barrier
component to no greater than 4,200 LF by 100 LF along the western side of the GIWW within
the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area, the Corps agrees to investigate and utilize innovative
techniques to design and build a structure that incorporates a floodwall and earthen berm rather
than an earthen levee. The Corps would also locate the GIWW floodgate(s) as close to the
Harvey and Algiers Canals confluence as engineeringly feasible in order to minimize impacts to
the 404 (c) area. To further ensure the minimization of adverse impacts within the 404 (c) area,
construction of the floodwall and earthen berm / access road would occur from the GIWW side
of the construction area. In addition, project feature augmentations, such as allowing Old Estelle
effluent into the 404 (c) area by gapping the spoil bank and removing the shell plug at Bayou aux
Carpes, are being studied and would be incorporated as project features if the results of the
-------
-3-
environmental studies demonstrate that this proposed action would augment the Corps actions to
minimize effects to the 404 (c) wetland habitat. Additional project feature augmentations, such
as the gapping of other canal banks in the 404 (c) area are also being studied and would be
incorporated into the project if it is found that the features further minimize impacts as a result of
the Corps proposed action. The Corps agrees that mitigation for all unavoidable adverse impacts
to the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area would occur within the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area
and/or Jean Lafitte National and Historical Park. Mitigation projects would be designed and
implemented concurrently with the design and construction of the floodwall and earthen berm /
access road. Full mitigation within this unique environment may require mitigation in addition
to acres indicated by the Wetland Value Assessment. The Corps further agrees to work in
collaboration with the interagency team to monitor the area to ensure mitigation is successful in
reaching its targeted goal and to utilize adaptive management efforts to ensure the project feature
augmentations are assisting to minimize adverse impact within the 404 (c) area. The total
funding required for the entire HSDRRS, $16.8 billion, has been appropriated by Congress. This
funding includes funds for the design and construction of all HSDRRS mitigation measures. The
Corps would ensure that all impacts due to upgrading structures currently outlining the Bayou
aux Carpes 404 (c) area would occur on the protected side and would not impact the 404 (c) area.
Lastly, the GIWW WCC proposed action, would have the greatest adaptability to accommodate
an enlargement associated with future system upgrades, i.e., LACPR.
We recognize the significance of this request and greatly appreciate the cooperation the
EPA has shown in working with the Corps in our efforts to construct the most reliable hurricane
risk reduction system possible.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Mr. Gib Owen by E-mail:
gib.a.owen@usace.army.mil or by phone at (504) 862-1337.
Sincerely,
t
Alvin B. Lee
Colonel, US Army
District Commander
Enclosure
See page 4 for list of copies furnished.
-------
-4-
Mr. Garret Graves
Chairman
Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority of Louisiana
1051 North 3rd Street
Capitol Annex Building
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
Mr. James MeMenis
LA Office of Coastal Protection
8900 Jimmy Wedell Road
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70807
Mr. David Bindewald
President
Southeast Louisiana Flood
Protection Authority - West Bank
7001 River Road
Marrero, Louisiana 70072
Mr. Jerry Spohrer
Executive Director
West Jeff Levee District
7001 River Road
Marrero, Louisiana 70072
Honorable Billy Nungesser
Plaquemines Parish President
8056 Highway 23, Suite 200
Belle Chasse, Louisiana 70037
Mr. David Luchsinger
Park Superintendent
Jean Laffite National Historic Park and Preserve
419DecaturStreet
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-1035
-------
CURRENT PROPOSED SITE PLAN
- LOCATION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN 404(C) AREA WOULD REMAIN AS SHOWN. MAXIMUM
AREA OF IMPACT WOULD BE 100' WIDE BY 4200' LONG (9.6 acres).
- ORIENTATION OF PUMP STATION, GATE(S), BYPASS CHANNEL AND LEVEE ON EAST SIDE OF
GIWW ARE NOT FINAL AND COULD CHANGE AS DESIGN PROGRESSES.
--
-------
TYPICAL PROPOSED 404(C) WALL SECTION
(FINAL DESIGN WOULD BE COMPLETED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH EPA AND NPS)
FLOOD SIDE - SECTION 404(C) WETLAND
PROTECTED SIDE - GIWW
PROPOSED
ROW
100' CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR BOUNDARY -
,-EMSTING GROUND
JS.
— CONCRETE SCOUR PROTECTION,
MAINTENANCEACCESS ROAD,
AND BARGE PROTECTION BERM
-EL, VARIES
IMPERVIOUS SHEET
^EIEJZMI
T1PEL.-21.01
PILE STEEL HPMx«9
AT S'X-S SPACING.
KTT LONGITUOE 3PACMS
WITH WiL -110.0', WP.
T-WAU. C/l STA. 0*00 TO 37*?8
GIWW SWL = Q&*
SECTION 404(C) WETLAND T-WALL TYPICAL SECTION
ALTERNATIVE 2E
-------
a) The need to modify the current hurricane system alignment.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been studying the current HSDRRS
alignment, and based upon factors associated with system reliability has determined that
in order to provide the greatest risk reduction, certain segments of the system must follow
an improved alignment. The proposed new alignment for this project, GIWW WCC
alternative, would significantly reduce risk to nearly 286,000 people living on the West
bank of the Mississippi River. By removing 27 miles of parallel protection from the
primary line of defense, this more streamlined surge barrier reduces the number of
potential failure points in the system, increases quality control and certainty of subsurface
conditions during construction, and minimizes human impacts since the existing footprint
of the current system would not be widened to 100 year level of protection (LOP). This
is a critical lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Catastrophic failure due to
breaching along the 17th Street and London Avenue Outfall canals and the Inner Harbor
Navigational Canal (IHNC) occurred because expanses of parallel protection were an
inadequate risk reduction measure for such complex and challenging environments
(USAGE 2008). The structures may have been designed and constructed properly;
however, there was an overall failure to incorporate new technologies and new risk
reduction measures into the previous risk reduction system (USAGE 2008). Hurricane
Katrina brought many issues to the forefront. A major issue that surfaced was extensive
reaches of levee, floodwall and floodgates provide numerous possible points of failure
within the system and reduce the ability to maintain strict quality control. Hurricane
Katrina also demonstrated that structures need to be resilient and must be constructed
with the ability to reduce risk while withstanding system overtopping. The structures
must still hold back the majority of the storm front, while some water may overtop the
structure. In addition, having multiple lines of defense, such as a second barrier behind
the initial surge barrier, i.e., the existing line of defense at pre Katrina authorized
elevations, would even further ensure risk reduction within an area.
The Corps Project Delivery Team (PDT) identified all possible alignments in the area.
All the alternatives were then evaluated according to various criteria, and all non-
reasonable alternatives, i.e., those alternatives with overwhelming engineering
challenges, were eliminated. In general, assessing all possible alignments demonstrated
two things: system reliability increases as the actual length of the surge barrier decreases
(deeming a further south, more streamlined alignment as most reliable) and this further
southern alignment, which offers the most system reliability and protection, proposes to
impact the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area. There were five surviving alternatives
brought forward from a preliminary alternative evaluation process conducted in early
2007. Two of those five alternatives were further analyzed and then eliminated due to
non-constructability. The three surviving alternatives were then brought forward and
further evaluated according to system reliability, environmental impacts, schedule and
cost. These three surviving alternatives and the evaluation process were presented to
EPA staff along with other Federal and state resource agencies to solicit input. In
collaboration with the EPA and NFS, the Corps PDT revisited a previous alternative from
the original proposed southern alignment that would maintain system reliability and
additionally would minimize adverse environmental impacts. This fourth alternative was
-------
evaluated against the same four criteria, was presented to the Federal and state resource
agencies and local stakeholders, and was brought forward as the government's proposed
action. Listed below are the proposed action and three other alternatives.
The Proposed Action - The GIWW WCC alternative would consist of the Corps along
with its non-Federal partner, the State of Louisiana, constructing a floodwall and earthen
/ concrete barrier with an access road around the northern portion of the Bayou aux
Carpes 404 (c) area. The barrier would run from the v-line levee situated west of the
Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area to the Old Estelle pump station, west to east along the
northern bank of the Old Estelle discharge canal, down the western bank of the GIWW
within the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area to a point where the alignment would cross the
GIWW to the east bank to tie in with a levee being planned for construction along the
northern side of the Hero Canal (see proposed action schematic below). Previously
existing levee structures would be upgraded and/or replaced with floodwall to 14' /16',
the height specified for 100 year LOP, while a new floodwall with an earthen berm would
be constructed along the western bank of the GIWW within the Bayou aux Carpes 404
(c) area. The new floodwall and earthen berm within the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area
would be no greater then 4,200 linear feet (LF) in length, no greater than 100 LF in width
and 16' in height. Other features of the system include a navigation gate(s) system at
the GIWW that would be 150 to 350 foot wide to allow for navigation and current
reduction. Storm gates would be built to an elevation of 16'. The pump station would
have a capacity between 20,000 and 25,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to accommodate
existing storm water discharges from the local parishes' drainage system. A by-pass
channel would be built on the east bank of the GIWW to allow navigation on the GIWW
during construction of the permanent gate structure. The existing Enterprise Gas pipeline
would be relocated by directional drilling a new pipeline under the proposed bypass
channel, the GIWW and the 404 (c) area. By directional drilling the pipeline under the
404 (c) area, the Corps not only avoids impacts to the area, but minimizes future impacts
associated with maintaining the pipeline right-of-way across the area. These engineering
specifics are the most current but are only preliminary and cannot be finalized without
further investigation. Soil borings from the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area are required
to gather geotechnical specifics and give an indication of the actual floodwall and earthen
berm footprint. The Corps submitted a letter on August 12, 2008 to EPA Region 6 and
NPS requesting right-of-entry (ROE) within the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area to
conduct field surveys and obtain soil borings. Both the EPA and NPS responded quickly
to the request granting ROE to begin the necessary data collection. The clearing to obtain
boring samples occurred on October 6, 2008.
-------
Figure 1. Conceptual GIWW West Closure Complex alternative schematic.
When the GIWW WCC alternative was evaluated with respect to system reliability,
adverse environmental impacts, time and cost, it was determined the construction of this
alternative alignment would dramatically increase system reliability. This proposed
action reduces the primary line of defense by 36% and would be comparable in system
reliability to GIWW A alternative, the other southern alignment, but would be much
more reliable than the Algiers Gate or Parallel Protection alternatives (see alternative
descriptions below). The GIWW WCC alternative would have the fewest adverse
environmental impacts. Even though proposing to impact the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c)
area, this proposed alignment would minimize all direct and indirect adverse impacts to
both the natural and human environments (see item 3 below). In addition, the proposed
action would have a surge barrier in place, with reduced pumping capacity, by 2011, and
would be more economical to construct than the AG or PP alternatives. See the
alternative comparison tables below for specific details on system reliability,
environment and schedule.
The GIWW A alternative is similar to the proposed action described above, but utilizes
different levee and floodwall alignments. A navigable floodgate would be constructed in
the GIWW approximately 1 mile south of the confluence of the Harvey and Algiers
canals. The details regarding the navigable floodgate are identical to those described for
the proposed action (GIWW WCC). The overall structure would include the floodgates,
-------
pumping station, and by-pass channel as previously described. A new 3,000-foot long
tidal exchange structure would be constructed west of the navigable floodgate across the
EPA Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area to the V-Line Levee. The tidal exchange structure
floodwall would be designed to utilize the smallest construction footprint possible to
minimize environmental impacts. Gates in the wall would be constructed at specified
locations in an effort to maintain the natural hydrology of the area. The floodwall would
also be designed to facilitate the passage of wildlife. The navigable floodgate and tidal
exchange structure would be constructed to the 100-year LOP 16'. The specific tie-in
locations of the GIWW A alternative to other HSDRRS (IER #13 and #14) project
elements would provide 100-year LOP to the study area without raising the parallel
protection above that currently authorized along the Harvey and Algiers Canal Reaches.
Floodgate and permanent bypass channel in
the GIWW below the confluence of the
Algiers and Harvey Canals to the 100-yr
level of protection
Lapalco Floodgate and Cousii
PS Discharge Channel Walls ai
previously
authorized level
of protection
Proposed Floodgate and pump
station at 100-yr level
of protection
GIWW permanent bypass
channel
Levees and Floodwalls to the
previously authorized level
of protection or greater
Levees and Floodwalls to the
100-yr level of protection
Pump Stations
Bayou Aux Carpes
404 (c) Site
Figure 2. Conceptual GIWW A alternative schematic.
When the GIWW A alternative was evaluated with respect to system reliability, adverse
environmental impacts, time and cost, the GIWW A alternative had comparable system
reliability, schedule and cost to the proposed action (GIWW WCC); however, the adverse
environmental impacts for the GIWW A alternative would be much greater than the
proposed action. Though both alternatives would impact the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c)
area, the tidal exchange structure floodwall in GIWW A proposes to bifurcate the Bayou
aux Carpes 404 (c) area and would result in irreparable direct and indirect impacts to the
unique area (i.e., potential degradation or loss of flotant marsh located in the northern
region of the 404 (c) area). In addition, this GIWW A alternative could preclude the
possibility of including a portion of the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area in the adjacent
-------
Jean Lafitte National and Historical Park, where as the proposed action would create a
more manageable situation for the NFS. While the GIWW WCC alternative also
proposes a floodwall structure within the 404 (c) area, construction would be confined to
a narrow footprint within a previously disturbed spoil bank along the west bank of the
GIWW. The GIWW A alternative would also have a surge barrier in place, with reduced
pumping capacity, by 2011, and would be much more economic to construct than the AG
or PP alternatives. See the alternative comparison tables below for specific details on
system reliability, environment and schedule.
The Algiers Gate alternative would require the construction of a navigable floodgate located
on the Algiers Canal and major levee and floodwall improvements along the Harvey Canal,
GIWW, and V-Line Levee. The AG alternative would include a 150-foot to 300-foot
navigable floodgate located on the Algiers Canal, just above the confluence with the Harvey
Canal. This navigable floodgate would require a permanent pumping station (approximately
20,000 cfs) adjacent to the gate, providing 100-year LOP along the Algiers Canal. Levee
extending from the gate and pump station would need to be raised to 100-year LOP (14.0
feet). These improvements would tie into additional levee and floodwall improvements
within the GIWW and Harvey Canal Reaches. Levees and floodwalls would be raised to
14.0 feet along both banks of the Harvey Canal, sections of the GIWW, and sections of the
V-Line Levee. Levee improvements would specifically occur in two main locations.
Existing levee on the eastern side of the GIWW would be raised from the navigable
floodgate on the Algiers Canal to the Hero Canal Levee. In addition, existing levee on the
west bank of the Harvey Canal would be raised from Lapalco Blvd. to the Estelle Pump
Station Outfall Canal, west to the Estelle Pump Station, and continuing south along the V-
Line Levee. Floodwall would be built to 14.0 feet on the east bank of the Harvey Canal
from Lapalco Blvd. south to the GIWW. Floodwall would be used in this area in order to
minimize impacts to existing development. These floodwall improvements along the
Harvey Canal are currently being constructed under previous authorization. The proposed
levee and floodwall improvements would require major modifications to the Harvey Canal
Floodgate at Lapalco Blvd. and the Cousins Pump Station discharge channel. Fronting
protection to the 100-year LOP would also be required at the Cousins Pump Station and all
pump stations south of Lapalco Boulevard on the Harvey Canal, to prevent inundation of the
existing pumps. These additional improvements would provide the desired 100-year LOP in
coordination with levee tie-ins to additional HSDRRS projects (IER #13 and #14).
-------
Sector floodgate in the
Algiers Canal to
the 100-yr level of protection
Lapalco Floodgate and Cousins
PS Discharge Channel Walls
(raised to provide 100-yr level
of protection)
Levees and Floodwalls to the
previously authorized level
of protection or greater
Levees and Floodwalls to the
100-yr level of protection
Pump Stations
Bayou Aux Carpes
404 (c) Site
Figure 3. Conceptual Algiers Gate alternative schematic.
When the AG alternative was evaluated for system reliability, adverse environmental
impacts, schedule and cost, it was determined this alternative would be less reliable than
the proposed action (GIWW WCC) and GIWW A alternative but more reliable than the
PP alternative. The AG alternative would reduce the primary line of defense by 18 miles.
Though this alternative proposes to reduce the extent of parallel protection in the system
along the Algiers Canal, there would still be areas with parallel protection serving as the
primary line of defense along the Harvey Canal industrial reach. In addition, the line of
parallel protection along the Harvey Canal industrial reach is situated behind the
businesses and would not serves as a flood barrier to those industrial areas. The proposed
action (GIWW WCC) would create a primary line of defense that would also reduce risk
to those industrial areas and prevent flooding of the businesses. Construction of the
proposed action would place the existing floodwalls and levees along the Harvey and
Algiers canals as the secondary line of defense in the event of canal flooding due to
system over topping. In addition, upgrading levee stretches west of the Harvey Canal
would greatly increase the levee footprint and would impact both the human and natural
environment. Adverse environmental impacts for this alternative would be greater than
those of the proposed action (GIWW WCC). See the alternative comparison tables below
for specific details on system reliability, environment and schedule.
The Parallel Protection alternative uses only improvements to existing levees and floodwalls
along the GIWW, Harvey and Algiers Canal to achieve 100-year LOP. This alternative is
similar to the AG alternative along the GIWW and Harvey Canal; however, there is no
navigable floodgate built on the Algiers Canal. Instead, 100-year LOP is achieved along the
-------
Algiers Canal by raising levees and floodwalls. Levee would be raised to 14.0 feet along the
V-Line Levee to the Estelle Pump Station, continuing along the Estelle Outfall Canal, and
finally running north along the western bank of the Harvey Canal to Lapalco Blvd. Major
modifications to the Cousins pump station discharge walls and the Lapalco floodgate would
be required. On the opposite side of the Harvey Canal (east bank), floodwall would be
raised to 14.0 feet from Lapalco Blvd. to the Algiers Canal. The existing levees and
floodwalls on both banks of the Algiers Canal would be modified from Hero cut to the
Algiers Locks. Elevations of the levee and floodwall improvements along the Algiers Canal
would range from 14.0 to 16.0 feet. Improvements to existing flood protections structures
would consist of:
• Raising existing levees (which will require the acquisition of additional rights-of-
way and the removal of numerous dwellings, apartment complexes, electrical
transmission towers, modifying the bridge supporting piers for two vehicle bridges
and one railroad bridge crossing the canal, degrading the existing levees, installing a
high strength geotextile at elevation 0.0 and rebuilding the levee to the 100-year
LOP);
• Constructing and modifying existing floodwalls; and
• Constructing floodwalls and floodgates on existing levees.
The construction options utilized throughout the Algiers Canal reach would be highly
dependent upon localized land use and constructability. In addition to the levee and
floodwall improvements, the PP alternative would require elevation modifications and flood
protection tie-ins to all pump stations along the Harvey and Algiers Canals, the Algiers
Locks, the Lapalco Sector Gate and the Estelle Pump Station. Some of these modifications
have already occurred, or are currently under construction as part of a pre-Katrina
authorized action. These modifications, and the PP alternative levee and floodwall
modifications, would provide 100-year LOP in coordination with levee tie-ins with
additional HSDRRS projects (IER #13 and #14).
Belle Chasse Tunnel - The existing lanes of south-bound LA 23 at Belle Chasse travel
through a tunnel under the Algiers Canal; this complicates raising the LOP in that area. The
tunnel structure is probably inadequate to support higher water loads that would be
associated with the 100-year LOP. Two options have been identified:
• Locate the line of protection away from the canal to points beyond the tunnel
entrances. This would require flood closure gates across the highway at each end of
the tunnel. This plan would result in flooding of the tunnel during periods of high
water, and it might even be necessary to require flooding of the tunnel to prevent
structural damage from high water pressure.
• Abandon the tunnel and reroute the highway to a new high-level bridge. This plan
would also require relocating the roadway and the addition of ramps to the bridge,
and might require backfilling the tunnel for structural security.
-------
Lapalco Floodgate and Cousins PS
Discharge Channel Walls (raised to
provide 100-yr level
of protection)
Levees and Floodwalls to the
100-yr level of protection
Pump Stations
Bayou Aux Carpes
404 (c) Site
Figure 4. Conceptual Parallel Protection alternative schematic.
When the PP alternative was evaluated with respect to system reliability, adverse
environmental impacts, schedule and cost, it was determined this alternative would have
the lowest system reliability, have the most adverse socioeconomic impacts, have
significant environmental impacts, require the most time to construct and be least
economic. This alternative that keeps the approximately 27 miles of existing risk
reduction system as the primary line of defense would be the least reliable because this
alignment contains numerous potential failure points. In addition to reduced reliability,
upgrading the current alignment would require large scale residential and commercial
relocations and would have serious environmental implications (i.e. HTRW issues). See
the alternative comparison tables below for specific details on system reliability,
environment and schedule.
Alternative Comparison Tables
The tables below demonstrate alternative comparisons for three criteria: risk and
reliability, environment, and schedule. The criteria were broken out into multiple "sub-
criteria" for a more thorough comparison among alternatives. Specific cost comparison
information was excluded as it cannot be disclosed at this time.
-------
RISK & RELIABILITY COMPARISON
Reliability
Storm load exposure
Overtopping
frequency
Overtopping volume
Non-storm load
exposure
Value to terrorists
Resistance to
explosive devices
Transitions (levee-to-
floodwall, floodwall-to-
floodgate, etc)
Compartmentalization
Foundations
Complexity
Interdependency of
features
^j mj
GIWW WCC
Approximately 3 miles
of storm frontage
Overtopping frequency
more than GIWW A
alternative but less than
AG alternative
Overtopping volume
more than GIWW A
alternative but less than
AG alternative
More storm load
exposure than GIWW A
alternative but less than
AG alternative
Less value to terrorists
than GIWW A
alternative, but more
than AG alternative
Lower resistance to
man-portable
explosives and more
accessible to larger
devices
Approximately 10
Creates 2ntl largest
storm water storage
subbasin
Same as GIWW A
alternative, except for
some levee reaches, in
which case see PP
alternative
High; largest number of
new HPS features,
though many separate
levee reaches are
eliminated
8-9 pump stations
upstream dependent on
the new pump station
Pumping capacity is
GIWWA
Approximately 1 mile
of storm frontage
Lowest overtopping
frequency because it
has least lineal exposure
and 2' superiority over
100-yr water elevations
along entire storm front
Lowest overtopping
volume because it has
the highest superiority
over 100-yr elevations
and shortest frontage
Least lineal exposure to
non-storm loads. Not
susceptible to
vegetation and wildlife
encroachment.
Protection is
perpendicular to the
navigation, possibly
affecting frequency or
severity of collisions
High because HPS
features are
concentrated in terms of
location and value, but
easier to monitor and
defend
Lower resistance to
man-portable
explosives and more
accessible to larger
devices
Least number of
transitions
approximately 6
Creates the largest
storm water storage
subbasin
Pile foundations are
engineered
High; largest number of
new HPS features,
though many separate
levee reaches are
eliminated
9 pump stations
upstream become
dependent on the new
pump station
Pumping capacity is
AG
Approximately 9 miles
of storm frontage
Overtopping frequency
more than GIWW WCC
alternative but less than
PP alternative
Overtopping volume
more than GIWW WCC
alternative but less than
PP alternative
Significantly more
storm load exposure
than GIWW WCC
alternative but less than
PP alternative
Less value to terrorists
than GIWW WCC
alternative, but more
than PP alternative
Lower resistance to
man-portable
explosives and more
accessible to larger
devices
Approximately 60
Creates smallest storm
water storage subbasin
Same as GIWW A
alternative, except for
some levee reaches, in
which case see PP
alternative
High; though lower
than GIWW WCC and
GIWW A alternatives
7 pump stations
upstream depend on
new pump station
Pumping capacity is
PP
Approximately 27
miles of storm
frontage
Highest frequency of
overtopping because it
has greatest lineal
exposure and least
superiority over 100-
yr water elevations
Highest overtopping
volume because it has
no superiority over
100-yr elevations and
longest frontage
Greatest lineal
exposure to non-storm
loads. Earthen levees
are susceptible to
vegetation and
wildlife
encroachment.
Protection is parallel
to the navigation,
possibly affecting
frequency or severity
of collisions
Low because HPS
features are
distributed by location
and value, but harder
to monitor and defend
High resistance to
man-portable devices;
vulnerability to larger
devices is low because
access would be
difficult
Highest number,
approximately 90
No new sub-
compartments created
Levee foundations
would be non-
engineered unless
geo-textile or soil
cement design
alternatives are
adopted; any T-wall
foundations would be
engineered
Low; largest number
of reaches, but no new
HPS features created
No new dependencies
No redundancy
A W U. LIA 1VJ.CI A IV y
-------
-i
5«
s
Active vs. Passive
control
Operation &
Maintenance
Inspections and
maintenance
Quality control
Utility dependence
Reliability Team
Assessment (relative
scoring)
Hurricane seasons under
construction
Redundancy of system
Uncertainty in
subsurface conditions
Barge impact causing
catastrophic failure
supplied by 4 sets of 4
independently powered
pumps; 2 generators
provide redundant
backup power supply to
each set of pumps
Pump station and gates
must be staffed before,
during, and after a
storm event; 1
additional pump station
(Old Estelle) must be
staffed
Most expensive
More rigorous
inspections
Pre-fabricated
components have added
layers of quality control
prior to placements and
must satisfy industry
standards; however, any
specialized test
procedures and
resources required for
these features may be a
liability
Pump stations and gates
will require connection
to utility grids
7(extrapolated)
3
Most redundant
More uncertain than
GIWW A alternative,
Less uncertain than AG
alternative
Least susceptible
supplied by 4 sets of 4
independently powered
pumps; 2 generators
provide redundant
backup power supply to
each set of pumps
Pump station and gates
must be staffed before,
during, and after a
storm event
Most expensive
More rigorous
inspections
Pre-fabricated
components have added
layers of quality control
prior to placements and
must satisfy industry
standards; however, any
specialized test
procedures and
resources required for
these features may be a
liability
Pump stations and gates
will require connection
to utility grids
8
3
Most redundant
Least uncertain
Least susceptible
supplied by 3 sets of 3
independently powered
pumps; 2 generators
provide redundant
backup power supply to
each set of pumps
Pump station and gates
must be staffed before,
during, and after a
storm event; 30 flood
gates and 4 pump
stations must be
operated
Less expensive than
GIWW WCC and
GIWW A alternatives,
but significantly more
than PP alternative
More rigorous
inspections
Pre-fabricated
components have added
layers of quality control
prior to placements and
must satisfy industry
standards; however, any
specialized test
procedures and
resources required for
these features may be a
liability
Pump stations and gates
will require connection
to utility grids
3
3
Redundancy on Algiers
Canal; no redundancy
on Harvey Canal
More uncertain than
GIWW WCC
alternative, Less
uncertain than PP
alternative
More susceptible than
GIWW WCC and
GIWW A alternatives,
but less than PP
alternative
Levees are generally
considered passive
flood protection, but
there are 47
floodgates, 33 sluice
gates, and 19 butterfly
valves that must be
manually operated
Least expensive
Less rigorous; only
visual inspection of
levee and floodwalls
Greatest opportunity
for non-compliance
with construction
specifications; Quality
during placement and
compaction of earthen
levees and floodwalls
would vary over space
and time
No connection to
utility grids required
0
5
No redundancy
Most uncertain
Most susceptible
10
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON
Total Wetlands and Non-
wetlands Uplands
Resources (Unavoidable
Impacts)
Socioeconomic/Human
Resources
GIWW WCC
Direct Impacts:
9.6 acres of Nationally
significant 404 c area
wetlands + 223.3 acres
of direct impacts to BLH
+ 8.9 acres of swamp
(not in 404 (c)) =232.2.
Total acres of wetland
Indirect impacts:
-Minimal
-Minimal impact to
flotant marsh
Other Details:
-Possible project feature
augmentation by
discharging Estelle PS
storm water effluent into
404 (c) area (dependent
on study and
coordination with EPA
and rest of Interagency
team to minimize
impacts to the 404 (c)
area as a result of the
Government's action.
Could be engineered to
allow storm water flow
on 404 (c) area to better
maintain the fresh/salt
water regime
-May return 20 acres of
land currently on the
protected side of levee to
the flood side as part of
the bypass navigation
channel. Habitat could
be restored to
bottomland hardwood
forest.
-Wall along GIWW
would prevent industrial
debris and effluent from
flowing into 404 (c)
area.
-Relocation of 1
business and 1 pipeline
(Enterprise Gas pipeline)
-Harvey canal
businesses would
included in the
protection
GIWW A
Direct Impacts:
5.1 acres of Nationally
significant 404 (c) area
wetlands + 112 acres
(not in 404 (c)) = 117.1
Total acres of wetlands
Indirect impacts:
-Bifurcation of the 404
(c) area alters wildlife
migration and ground
water flow
-Impoundment of
northern 519 acres of
flotant marsh and the
potential total loss of
flotant marsh and
degradation within the
404 (c)
Other Details:
-Floodwall would be
designed to allow
drainage and exchange
of surface water during
non-storm conditions
-The wall would be
designed and built to
control outflow of
flooded marsh
-This alternative may
return 20 acres of
wetlands to the flood
side
-Relocation of 1
business
-Bisecting 404 (c)
degrades recreational
use of area and
potentially impacts
hunting, bird watching,
canoeing, kayaking,
photography and
commercial uses
(swamp tours, etc.),
though gates crossing
the 404 c could
accommodate the
recreational use
-Harvey canal
businesses would be
included in the
protection
AG
Direct Impacts:
161 acres of wetlands +
150 acres of BLH =
311 Total acres of
wetland
Indirect impacts:
-Minimal indirect
impacts
Other Details:
-Storm surge reduction
by marsh and flotant
-May return —10 acres to
flood side
-Relocation of 13
residences and 3-4
businesses
PP
Direct Impacts:
150 acres of BLH + 50
acres BLH = 200 Total
acres of wetlands
Indirect impacts:
-Minimal indirect
impacts
Other Details:
- Storm surge
reduction by marsh
and flotant
-Relocation of 70
residences, 600
apartments, and 55
businesses
11
-------
Other: HTRW, borrow,
air quality, noise quality,
cultural, and aesthetics
-Minimal HTRW issues
-keeps HTRW out of
404 c area
-possible impacts due to
borrow transport (likely
barge in borrow to
reduce impacts (3.5 M
cy))
-Air quality medium
impacts
-Minimal HTRW issues
-minimal environmental
impact due to borrow
transport (250K cy)
-minimal air quality
issues
-Minimal HTRW issues
on Harvey reaches
(surge into area would
pick up industrial debris,
etc.)
-possible Impacts due to
borrow Transport (likely
barge in borrow to
reduce impacts (4. 5 M
cy)
-Air quality medium
impacts
-Potential significant
HTRW issues on
Harvey reaches (surge
into area would pick
up industrial debris,
etc.); landfills on
Algiers reaches
-Cultural issues:
Antebellum homes
-Impacts due to borrow
Transport (9.54M cy)
-Air quality high
impacts
TIME COMPARISON
Construction
Completion Date
100-year "wall of
protection" completion
date. Full pumping
capacity would not be in
place until Construction
Completion date
Possible time slips due
to real estate,
relocations,
environmental
proceedings and
litigation
GIWW WCC
MAR 20 13
JUN2011
Action within 404 (c)
area, and relocation
issues
GIWW A
MAR 20 13
JUN2011
Action within 404 (c)
area and relocation issue
Acquisition of property
AG
AUG2013
JUN2011
Real estate and
relocations issues
PP
JUN2013
JUN2013
Real estate and
relocation issues
Summary
The proposed action, GIWW WCC alternative proposes to alter the original system
alignment and construct a streamlined surge barrier. The alternative would consist of 3
miles of levee and floodwall that would reduce the primary line of defense by 36%, a
navigation gate(s) structure, a 20,000 -25,000 cfs pump station, 10 transition points, and a
bypass channel. The existing protection at the approximate elevation 8.5' would become
the secondary line of protection during a storm event. Construction of this alternative
would directly impact a total of 232.2 total acres of wetlands (9.6 acres of nationally
significant 404 (c) wetlands), would have minimal indirect impacts to wetlands, and
would have minimal socioeconomic impacts. Borrow requirement would be
approximately 250,000 cubic yards (cy).
The GIWW A alternative also proposes to alter the original system alignment to
construct a streamlined surge barrier. This alternative would consist of less than 1 mile
(0.9 mi) of levee and floodwall that would reduce the primary line of defense by 41%, a
navigation gate(s) structure, an approximately 20,000 -25,000 cfs pump station, 6
transition points, and a bypass channel. The existing protection at the approximate
elevation 8.5' would become the secondary line of protection during an event. This
12
-------
alternative would directly impact 117.1 acres of wetland (5.1 acres of nationally
significant 404 (c) wetlands) would bifurcate the 404 (c) area and have potentially
significant, irreparable direct and indirect impacts to the northern impounded region (alter
ground water flow, alter animal migration, potentially degrade flotant marsh, etc.)
However, this alternative would have minimal socioeconomic impacts (i.e., residential or
commercial relocations.) Borrow requirement would be approximately 3.5 M cy.
The AG alternative proposes to keep parallel protection along the Harvey Canal but build
a gate at Algiers Canal to reduce the primary line of defense by 24%. This alternative
would consist of 9 miles of floodwall (4 miles) and levee (5 miles), fronting protection at
4 pump stations, retrofitting the Lapalco Sector Gate, 30 floodgates on Harvey Canal, and
12 transition points. The existing protection at approximate elevation 8.5' behind the
Algiers Canal gate would serve as secondary protection during an event. This alternative
would impact 311 acres of wetlands, 13 residences, and 3-4 businesses. Borrow
requirement would be approximately 4.5 M cy
The PP alternative proposes to keep the original alignment, approximately 27 miles of
levee and floodwall, 47 floodgates on Algiers (17) and Harvey canals (30), approximately
90 transitions, 33 sluice gate structures, 19 butterfly valves, fronting protection and
backflow suppression at 9 pump stations, retrofitting the Lapalco Sector Gate, and secure
the Belle Chasse tunnel. This alternative would have no secondary line of defense during
an event, would impact 200 acres of wetlands, 70 residents, 600 apartments and 55
businesses. Borrow requirement would be approximately 9.4 M cy.
Government's Proposed Action
The Corps has determined that the GIWW WCC alternative, which alters the current
system alignment, is the government's proposed action for this segment of the HSDRRS
because this alternative would provide the most reliable, time sensitive and cost effective
solution with the least adverse environmental impacts.
13
-------
b) The need to modify the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) Final Determination and
why this modification is in the public's interest.
After rigorous investigation of all possible alternatives and close collaboration with the
EPA, other Federal and state resource agencies, and local stakeholders, the Corps has
brought forward the GIWW WCC alternative as the proposed action. Though possible to
design, engineer and construct all four previously discussed alternatives, the proposed
action would provide the most system reliability and maximum risk reduction with the
least adverse environmental impacts; therefore, the GIWW WCC alternative has been
identified as the proposed action.
Since the alternative that would provide the most reliable, least risk, time sensitive and
cost effective solution with the least adverse environmental impacts would require
constructing a floodwall along the western bank of the GIWW within the Bayou aux
Carpes 404 (c) area, the Corps requests a modification to the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c)
Final Determination.
The proposed action would serve the national public interest because it would
significantly reduce the risk during a 100 year storm event for nearly 286,000 people,
nearly 80,000 residences, and over 3,000 businesses on the West Bank of the Mississippi
River. Given the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, it is in the national interests for
the Federal government to wisely invest in the alternative that provides the lowest risk
and is the least environmentally damaging. The hurricane system in New Orleans is only
as good as the sum of its parts. By ensuring that all the parts are selected and constructed
to the highest standards possible, the nation would benefit due to lower risk to the system
and lower potential for catastrophic losses. The system, when completed, will provide
the citizens of the area the opportunity to participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program. Certification of the system to meet flood insurance standards is an issue critical
to the full economic recovery of the area. Pre-Hurricane Katrina assets for the area at
risk were valued at nearly 22 billion dollars. The GIWW WCC alternative would provide
a more streamlined barrier system that would not only reduce the length of the hurricane
system but would also create a primary and secondary line of defense during a storm
event. The proposed action also builds upon the Federal mandate to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts by reducing overall impacts to wetlands, bottomland hardwoods
and people. The GIWW WCC alternative eliminates the need to relocate businesses and
residents along the Algiers and Harvey canals that would be required if the Corps were to
construct either the AG or PP alternatives. The construction of this proposed action
would be a tremendous step forward for the nation in providing the 1% LOP
congressionally authorized and demonstrates the Corps' drive to incorporate current,
more adequate risk reductions measures into the system.
There are also overwhelming benefits to the overall economy of the nation from
constructing this alternative. The proposed action serves the public interest of the nation
as stated above by reducing risk for the City of New Orleans, but this alternative also
provides for a more resilient Port of New Orleans.
14
-------
The Port of New Orleans is the fifth largest port in the United States based on cargo
handled, is the second largest in Louisiana after the Port of South Louisiana, and is
the 12th largest in the United States for value of cargo. The Port of New Orleans handles
approximately 84 million short tons of cargo a year, where as the Port of South Louisiana
handles approximately 199 million short tons a year. The two Louisiana ports combined
form the largest port system in the world by bulk tonnage, and the world's fourth largest
by annual volume handled. The Port of New Orleans is a major transshipment point for
steel, rubber and coffee. It is the largest port in the United States for rubber imports.
Approximately 6,000 ships from nearly 60 nations dock at the Port of New Orleans
annually. The chief exports are grain and other foods from the Midwestern United States
and petroleum products. The leading imports include rubber, chemicals, cocoa beans,
coffee, and petroleum. The port handles more trade with Latin America than does any
other United States gateway, including Miami. In addition, the rail system is a major
component in cargo transport, and the Port of New Orleans is the only seaport in the US
with access to six class one rail roads (Port of New Orleans 2008).
New Orleans is also a busy port for barges. The Mississippi River and the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in the New Orleans area are used to transport
approximately 50,000 barges a year. Within the port, cargo (commodity) is transferred
from barges to rail and overland transport for distribution across the country. In addition
to shipping commerce, the Port of New Orleans is considered one of the nation's premier
cruise ports. It handles nearly 700,000 cruise passengers a year (Port of New Orleans
2008).
Besides serving local interests and reducing risk to local residences and business for the
purpose of public safety and securing the local economy, the construction of this
proposed alignment (GIWW WCC alternative) would also serve the national interest and
reduce risk for the Port of New Orleans, a cornerstone of the national economy.
c) Planning and design efforts that have been incorporated into the proposed
action to minimize impacts to the 404 (c) area.
The Corps proposes to employ several measures to reduce the impacts to the Bayou aux
Carpes 404 (c) area.
1. The GIWW WCC alternative: The first measure employed was the derivation of
the GIWW WCC alternative. Based on a system reliability study of the West
bank and vicinity HSDRRS, the Corps had initially proposed the GIWW A
alternative; however, after collaborating with EPA, National Park Service staff
and other Federal and state resource agencies, the GIWW WCC alternative was
derived to minimize adverse direct and indirect impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes
404 (c) area. The GIWW WCC alternative, which would maintain system
reliability while minimizing adverse environmental impacts, was accepted by the
Corps and brought forward as the proposed action. As described in the alternative
comparison above, the GIWW WCC alternative limits adverse impacts to the 404
15
-------
(c) by building a structure with a narrow footprint (floodwall and earthen berm)
on a previously disturbed area along the west bank of the GIWW.
2. Innovative techniques to build a floodwall along a navigable water way: The
segment of the WBV HSDRRS 100 year LOP proposed within the Bayou aux
Carpes 404 (c) area would be constructed as a floodwall in lieu of an earthen
levee in order to ensure that the most reliable, least damaging alternative is in
place. A floodwall can be built on a much smaller footprint than an earthen levee.
The Corps recognizes that there are certain risks associated with placing a
floodwall along a navigable waterway, but to minimize the footprint of this surge
barrier component within the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area, the Corps will
investigate and utilize innovative techniques to design and build a structure with
the narrowest footprint possible.
3. Construction via water based equipment: The floodwall would be constructed
within the 100' right-of-way. No additional construction easements would be
required for wall construction.
4. GIWW Gate location: The Corps proposes to move the gate on the GIWW as far
north as practical to further reduce impacts. However, it is understood that the
GIWW is a Federal navigation channel that is of national significance which
requires that design of this structure be such that safety of users of the system be a
paramount design consideration.
5. Project features: The Corps also believes that it is feasible to complete alterations
to existing project features to minimize adverse impacts that could potentially
occur as a result of the construction of the GIWW WCC alternative along 4,200
LF of the eastern shoreline of the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area. Another feature
would be the redirection of the Old Estelle pump station storm water effluent into
the 404 (c) area to introduce additional nutrients and fresh water into the system.
Additionally, under the proposed action, the Corps would create gaps in several
existing canals in the southern end of the 404 (c) area to promote improved
hydrology within the 404 (c) area. Specifically, the shell plug at Bayou des
Families as well as plugs along other canals would be removed if study results
demonstrate a positive benefit in minimizing the environmental impacts to the
area can be achieved. All actions would be fully coordinated with EPA and the
interagency team. Studies are underway at the Corps Engineering Research and
Development Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg, Mississippi to determine the best
possible design to allow for maximized benefit of this work in the Bayou aux
Carpes 404 (c) area. Hydrology studies are ongoing and are expected to be
completed by 17 October 2008. Environmental surveys are underway to
determine the appropriate areas for the proposed spoil bank gapping within the
Old Estelle discharge canal and for the removal of plugs in Bayou des Families
and other canals. In addition, the surveys will determine the appropriate water
flow velocities within the 404 (c) when creating the gaps and removing canal
plugs, and the appropriate nutrient loading levels. These studies will be integrated
16
-------
into the efforts of the Interagency resource team that was formed early in the
analysis phase to ensure that the national interest placed on the Bayou aux Carpes
site meets the wisest and best use of the area.
d) Planning and design considerations that have been taken to avoid additional
impacts from any reasonably foreseeable future flood protection measures (i.e. the
Louisiana Area Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Study) when
designing hurricane protection to prevent further impacts to the 404 (c) area.
In 2007, Congress authorized the Corps to conduct a study to be known as the Louisiana
Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) to determine viable projects to be
considered for providing a higher level of risk reduction (Category 5) and coastal
restoration for southern Louisiana. The Corps is not authorized by Congress to
incorporate adaptations for LACPR when planning and designing the 1 percent risk
reduction projects; however, the Corps is carefully considering the impacts that could
occur if Congress authorized a larger project.
Of the alternatives investigated to reduce risk during a 100 year storm event, the GIWW
WCC alternative (the proposed action) has the greatest adaptability to accommodate an
enlargement. The Corps proposes that the upgrade to the floodwall and earthen berm be
constructed via water access as currently proposed. In addition, all upgrades to levee and
floodwall stretches that border the eastern and northern side of the 404 (c) area would be
shifted to the protected side of the risk reduction system and would not impact the 404 (c)
area. It is also not likely that a Category 5 upgrade to the risk reduction system would
require movement of the navigation gate(s) structure.
The GIWW A alternative which would bisect the 404 (c) area would require additional
construction impacts to cross the 404 (c) area, potentially compounding the ecological
and hydrologic impacts to the area.
If the Algiers Gate alternative were constructed it would require further upgrades to the
Harvey Canal and levees west of Harvey Canal, which would result in more business
relocations, leaves Harvey Canal business on the flood side of the protection system, and
has more direct environmental impacts. This would pose serious design considerations
and costs given the length of the system (45,720 LF or 9 miles), the instability of the
western side of the Harvey Canal, and the amount of upgrades to floodgates and pump
stations required to reach the prescribed elevations.
The Parallel Protection alternative poses even more serious design and cost issues.
Upgrading approximately 27 miles of the risk reduction system would include the
upgrades and impacts listed above for the Harvey Canal and upgrades for all of the
levees, floodwalls, and floodgates along the Algiers Canal, and the Belle Chasse tunnel.
If upgrading the current alignment along the Algiers and Harvey canals for the 1 percent
storm risk reduction system requires the relocation of approximately 700 people and 55
17
-------
businesses, upgrading the system for a Category 5 system would potentially directly
impact 1,000s of people and hundreds of businesses.
e) Detailed plan for adequate site specific mitigation of unavoidable adverse
impacts to the 404 (c) area, at a level commensurate with the significance of an
action impacting wetlands with in a 404 (c) area.
The Corps agrees that mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the unique and nationally
significant Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) wetlands would be determined in partnership with
the EPA and NFS and that mitigation would occur within the 404 (c) area and/or the
adjacent Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve. Mitigation projects proposed
by EPA, NFS and other members of the Interagency team consist of spoil bank gapping
of drill hole areas within the 404 (c) area, and tallow tree control projects within the
Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area and the National Park. The Interagency team is
committed to continue to investigate reasonable alternatives as the Corps moves forward
with finalizing a construction alternative for the GIWW West Closure Complex. Once
field surveys are conducted, and refined habitat units of impact are defined, mitigation
projects can be explored and designs can be developed and submitted to the Interagency
team for review. Once a decision is made by the Corps on the governments action for
reducing risk in the Harvey and Algiers Canal area, mitigation projects would be fully
developed. The Corps proposes to implement any required mitigation projects within the
404 (c) area concurrently with the design and construction of the floodwall and earthen
berm / access road.
Currently a feasibility level analysis of the mitigation options is underway. A draft
Wetlands Value Assessment (WVA) coordinated by US Fish and Wildlife Service has
been provided to the Interagency team for comments. The Corps agrees that all impacts
calculated by this WVA process will be fully mitigated. Even any unavoidable impacts
to the Bayou aux Carpes area as a result of the investigative surveys and borings would
be included in the final mitigation plan for the project. The Corps acknowledges the
significance of the 404 (c) wetlands and agrees full mitigation for adverse impacts within
this unique area may require mitigation in addition to the direct impacts calculated by the
WVA to fully compensate for the impacts associated with constructing the Government's
proposed action. Monitoring of the mitigation implemented would be conducted in
collaboration with the EPA, the NFS, and other Federal and state resource agency
partners. If monitoring reveals any issues, changes would be investigated and
implemented to ensure full mitigation.
The Corps in partnership with the non Federal sponsor, the state of Louisiana, the EPA
and NFS would closely monitor mitigation efforts within the 404 (c) area throughout the
life of the project (50 years) to ensure the benefits of the mitigation projects.
The HSDRRS project is fully authorized and funded at 16.3 billion. This funding
includes sufficient amounts to complete the design and construction of any identified
mitigation measures.
18
-------
f) A review of projected wetland impacts as per the Corps 404 (b)(l) guidelines,
and EPA 404 (b)(l) and 404 (c) procedures found in 40 CFR Parts 230 & 231.
The Corps is preparing a Clean Water Act, Section 404 evaluation using standard
methods and analysis practices. This evaluation will be coordinated with Federal and
state resource agencies before being published for a 30-day public review period. The
evaluation will follow the guidelines and procedures of 404 (b)(l) and 404 (c) as found in
40 CFR Parts 23 0& 231.
A draft of the Corps 404 (b)(l) evaluation that would be available during the 30-day
public comment period is provided below.
19
-------
SECTION 404 (b)(l) EVALUATION
The following short form 404 (b)(l) evaluation follows the format designed by the Office of the Chief of Engineers.
As a measure to avoid unnecessary paperwork and to streamline regulation procedures while fulfilling the spirit and
intent of environmental statutes, the New Orleans District is using this format for all proposed project elements
requiring 404 evaluation, but involving no significant adverse impacts.
PROJECT TITLE: IER #12: WBV, GIWW, Algiers and Harvey Canals Hurricane
Protection Alternatives
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
The proposed action, GIWW West Closure Complex (WCC), includes construction of a
navigation/current reduction flow structure and gate in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(GIWW) south of the confluence of the Algiers and Harvey Canals and upstream of the
Hero Canal, along with an adjacent pumping station and a by-pass canal. Upgrading of
existing levees and/or construction of new levee structures will be required for 3 miles;
approximately 4200 linear feet (LF) of floodwall construction along the west side of the
GIWW, 3700 LF of floodwall improvements from the Harvey Canal to Old Estelle pump
station, and 5700 LF of improvements along the V-line levee. This will result in
approximately 3 miles of levee improvements or construction for this alternative.
Features of the system along the east side of the GIWW include a 150-to-300 foot gate
and a 100-to-200 foot gate built to a protection elevation of 16 feet or greater, tied to the
nearest flood protection levee. A pumping station of at least 20,000 cubic feet per second
(cfs) will provide 100-year discharge and positive backwater prevention. The bypass
channel will be used in the event of the closure of the primary closure structure. The
adjacent 404 (c) area will be affected by the levee construction on the western side of the
GIWW.
The current levee and floodwall system providing parallel protection for the GIWW,
Algiers, and Harvey Canals is 27 miles long and will provide secondary protection to 8.5
feetNAVD.
The new levee design will require approximately 986,000 cubic yards of earthen material
and 120,000 cubic yards of stone to construct.
The WCC alternative provides 100-year protection based upon improvements,
enhancements, and construction confined to the GIWW reach in concert with tie-ins to
improvement to the Hero Canal Levee (IER #13) and the Pipeline Canal Levee (IER
#14).
Typical equipment utilized to accomplish the work outlined above will include water
trucks, dump trucks, hole cleaners\trenchers, bore\drill rigs, cement and mortar mixers,
cranes, graders, tractors/loaders\backhoes, bull dozers, front end loaders, aerial lifts, pile
drivers, fork lift, generators and, marine vessels and barges.
20
-------
FIGURE 1: IER 12
21
-------
1. Review of Compliance C230.10 (a)-(d)).
A review of this project indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least environ-
mentally damaging practicable alternative and if in
a special aquatic site, the activity associated with
the discharge must have direct access or proximity to,
or be located in the aquatic ecosystem to fulfill its
basic purpose (if no, see section 2 and information
gathered for environmental assessment alternative);
b. The activity does not appear to: (1) violate
applicable state water quality standards or effluent
standards prohibited under Section 307 of the Clean
Water Act; (2) jeopardize the existence of Federally
listed endangered or threatened species or their
habitat; and (3) violate requirements of any Federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section 2b and check responses
from resource and water quality
certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or contribute to
significant degradation of waters of the United States
including adverse effects on human health, life stages
of organisms dependent on the aquatic ecosystem,
ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, and
recreational, esthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2);
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have been
taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of the
discharge on the aquatic ecosystem (if no, see section
5).
NO*
YES NO
NO*
YES NO
NO*
NO*
YES NO
YES NO
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F).
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C).
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns and water
circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water fluctuations/
hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity gradients.
N/A
Not Significant
Significant*
X
X
X
X
X
X
b. Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic
Ecosystem (Subpart D).
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered species
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
X
X
22
-------
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F~).
N/A
Not Significant
Significant*
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals, birds,
reptiles, and amphibians).
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E).
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mudflats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F).
(1) Effects on municipal and private water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Esthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and historical
monuments, national seashores, wilderness
areas, research sites, and similar preserves.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Remarks. Where a check is placed under the significant category, preparer has attached explanation below.
Implementation of the proposed action will directly impact approximately 232.2 acres of
wetland habitat. All wetland impacts will occur adjacent to sections of pre-existing ROW
within the GIWW reach. The proposed action will primarily impact bottomland hardwood
forest, cypress-tupelo swamp and marsh wetland habitats. The majority of the wetland
impacts will occur on the eastern side of the GIWW due to the construction of the gate and
bypass channel. Wetland impacts are minimized along the remaining sections of the
alternative by utilizing floodwall and protected side shifts where necessary, particularly to
avoid additional impacts to the EPA 404 (c) area. Among the wetlands potentially impacted
by the proposed action, a total of 71 acres of forested wetland habitat will be impacted,
specifically requiring in-kind mitigation. Approximately 9.6 acres of wetland impacts within
the GIWW reach would potentially occur within the EPA Bayou Aux Carpes 404 (c) site.
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G~).
a. The following information has been considered in evaluating the biological availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material.
(1) Physical characteristics
(2) Hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of contaminants .
(3) Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the
vicinity of the project
(4) Known, significant sources of persistent pesticides from land runoff or
percolation
(5) Spill records for petroleum products or designated (Section 311 of CWA)
hazardous substances
(6) Other public records of significant introduction of contaminants from
industries, municipalities, or other sources
Yes
No*
Yes
No*
No*
No*
23
-------
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G).3
(7) Known existence of substantial material deposits of substances which could
be released in harmful quantities to the aquatic environment by man-induced
discharge activities No*
(8) Other sources (specify) No*
* All fill material will be free from contaminants before use in levee construction projects. The fill will come from
multiple sources but will all meet minimal physical and chemical criteria being evaluated separate lERs.
Appropriate references:
1. Environmental Regulatory Code, Part IX. Water Quality Regulation, Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, 1994, 3ndEdition.
2. State of Louisiana Water Quality Management Plan, Volume 5, Part B - Water Quality Inventory, Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Water Resources, 1994.
3. Sector Gate South, Final Assessment Report, GIWW, Algiers and Harvey Canal and Highpoint Shooting Range,
AEROSTAR Environmental Services, July 2008
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a above indicates that there is reason to believe the proposed dredge
or fill material is not a carrier of contaminants, or the material meets the testing exclusion criteria.
NO
4. Disposal Site Delineation (230.1 Iff)).
a. The following factors, as appropriate, have been considered in evaluating the disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site Yes
(2) Current velocity, direction, and variability at disposal site No
(3) Degree of turbulence Yes
(4) Water column stratification No
(5) Discharge vessel speed and direction NA
(6) Rate of discharge Yes
(7) Dredged material characteristics (constituents, amount, and type of
material, settling velocities) Yes
(8) Number of discharges per unit of time No
(9) Other factors affecting rates and patterns of mixing (specify) No
Appropriate references:
Same as 3(a).
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in 4a above indicates that the disposal site and/or size of mixing zone are
acceptable.
I YES I NO*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken, through application of the recommendations of 230.70-230.77 to ensure
minimal adverse effects of the proposed discharge.
YES ' N°*
Actions taken: A number of actions will minimize the adverse effects of the proposed actions.
24
-------
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
The material must meet certain criteria to be used in levee construction, and will be similar to material used in the original
levee work.
According to the Corps, all material will be free from contaminants before use in levee rebuilding projects. The fill may come
from many different areas being evaluated in separate lERs. Qualified contractors using the appropriate equipment to
minimize impacts to wetland areas will place all material.
The new footprint of the levee was designed to minimize wetland impacts by utilizing existing ROW and non-wetland areas
whenever feasible. Best Management Practices will be utilized during the placement of the fill to minimize runoff and
turbidity.
6. Factual Determination (230.11').
A review of appropriate information as identified in items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal potential for short- or
long-term (adverse) environmental effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site (review sections 2a,
3, 4, and 5 above).
b. Water circulation, fluctuation and salinity (review sections
2a, 3, 4, and 5).
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity (review sections 2a, 3, 4,
and 5)
d. Contaminant availability (review sections 2a, 3, and 4).
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function (review sections
2b and c, 3, and 5).
f Disposal site (review sections 2, 4, and 5).
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic ecosystem.
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the proposed project may not be in compliance with the Section
404 (b)(l) Guidelines.
A negative response to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project may not be
evaluated using this "short form procedure". Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the technical information
of items 2a-d, before completing the final review of compliance.
A negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project does not comply with
the guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404 (b)(2) are to be evaluated in the decision-making
process, the "short form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
3 If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the "short form" evaluation process is
inappropriate.
7. Evaluation Responsibility.
Evaluation prepared by:
Position: Robert H. Boudet. Senior Project Manager. AEROSTAR Environmental Services
Date: October 10. 2008
Evaluation reviewed by:
25
-------
Position: Getrisc Coulson Environmental Manager. Ecological Planning and Restoration Section CEMVN
Position: Gib A. Owen. Chief. Ecological Planning and Restoration Section. CEMVN
Date:
8. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404 (b)(l) guidelines [[[
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404 (b)(l) guidelines with the inclusion of the following conditions
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of dredged or fill material does not comply with the
Section 404 (b)(l) guidelines for the following reason(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant degradation of the
aquatic ecosystem
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all practicable and appropriate
measures to minimize potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem
Date Elizabeth Wiggins
Chief, Environmental Planning
and Compliance Branch
-------
In addition, below is a path ahead for this project, the GIWW West Closure Complex -
Individual Environmental Report 12. Since the project being proposed is a Federal
action, it is in the public's best interest to present all of the information concurrently.
Thus it is in the government's best interest to simultaneously publish for 30 day public
review the draft Individual Environmental Report, the Corps Clean Water Act 404 (b)(l)
public notice, and the EPA notice of consideration of a modification to the Bayou aux
Carpes 404 (c) Final Determination. Additionally, given the Administration's
commitment to expedite the construction of the HSDRRS and the Corps' stated goal of
having the system in place by 2011, the simultaneous publishing of the government's
proposal is in the public's best interest and is critical for moving this project towards
completion.
27
-------
g)
Draft Path Forward with GIWW WCC
Task
Colonel Lee Approved Proposed Action
Briefed Corps TFH Director
Briefed Corps MVD Commander
Briefed Corps HQ
Corps Submitted CZM, WQ, T&E, etc.
Public Meeting (IER 12,13,14)
Briefed Corps ASA
EPA Briefed HQ Level
NGO Quarterly Meeting
Submit Formal Request to EPA for
Modification of 404 (c) Final Determination
EPA Completeness Review
Complete Draft IER 12 and 404 (b)(l)
Public Notice
IER 12 Public Review - Start
IER 12 Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(l)
Public Notice public review
EPA notice in Federal Register: Proposed
modification; Request for comments to the
proposed action; Notice for a public hearing
regarding the proposed action
Corps Review Public Comments
Joint Corps/EPA public hearing on proposed
action
EPA review of public comments on
proposed action (with Corps support)
Final IER and Clean Water Act Section
404 (b)(l) staffed for approval
EPA R6 sends all supporting documentation
to EPA HQ
EPA lists modification in Fed Reg.
Final Modification Determination
Signing of Clean Water Act 404 (b)(l)
Duration
30
30
30
7
7
7
7
1
30
0
Start Date
7/10/2008
7/24/2008
7/30/2008
8/13/2008
8/18/2008
8/21/2008
9/16/2008
9/30/2008
10/7/2008
11/4/08
11/4/08
TBD
12/4/08
12/4/08
12/4/08
1/3/09
1/5/09
1/5/09
1/10/09
1/12/09
1/19/09
1/19/09
2/19/09
Remarks
Review of Corps' Request for Modification
Document
EPA will get draft IER 12 to review before it
goes out for public comments
Concurrent Tasks
Possibility for an addendum and second 30-day
public review period if substantive comments
received.
IER 12 Decision Record routed for
Commanders approval1 (assumes no
substantive comment) COL Lee signs Final
IER 12 anytime after 1/11/09
Effective 30 days after publication (2/18/09)
Approved by Chief PM-R
1 Approval of IER 12 Decision Record allows Corps to proceed with approval of Project
Description Document (Internal Corps Document) and a Project Partnering Agreement with the
non-Federal Sponsor (State of Louisiana - (CPRA). 404 (b)(l) not signed by Corps until EPA
modification is approved and published.
28
-------
Literature Cited
US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2008. Performance Evaluation of the New
Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System. Final Report of
the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET). Volume 1-Executive
Summary and Overview. June.
Port of New Orleans. 2008. "Port of New Orleans Overview." Accessed 15 September,
2008 from http://www.portno.com/pno_pages/about_overview.htm.
29
-------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
Responsiveness Summary
March 2009
Addressing Comments on the Corps of Engineers'
Request to
Amend the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Determination
On January 14, 2009, EPA posted a notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 2072-2073)
announcing a public comment period on a request to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) by the New Orleans District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to amend the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(c)
determination. The comment period was subsequently extended and was open for a
total of 40 days. A public hearing was held on this matter on February 11, 2009.
Thirteen people spoke at the hearing and written comments were received from 25
individuals and organizations. A transcript of the hearing is available at the following
website:
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/original/
BPublicHearingTranscript11feb09.pdf
Copies of the written comments are available at:
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/original/
EPACommentsMerged.pdf
The public hearing provided an opportunity to raise issues associated with two matters.
The broader topic is the Corps' Draft Individual Environmental Report (IER) # 12,
regarding plans for providing upgraded hurricane and storm damage risk reduction for a
portion of the West Bank and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Levee system. Those
comments have been provided to the Corps. The second topic concerned a subset of
the work described in Draft IER #12, i.e., whether EPA should grant the Corps request
to modify the CWA Section 404(c) designation to accommodate construction of a
floodwall in that area. This document provides a summary of the major issues brought
to our attention on the latter issue relating to the Corps request to modify the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) designation.
A reproduction of all the comments on both topics and an annotated set of responses
are provided in Appendices B and C at the end of this document.
II-1
-------
Policy Concerns
Many comments stated opinions as to whether the Clean Water Act Section 404(c)
modification should either be granted or denied. Some comments in support of
maintaining the current restrictions invoked by the CWA Section 404(c) designation were
based on the position that such designations should not be subject to change or should
not be changed without a showing of urgent need and consideration of less damaging
alternatives. One person pointed out that taxpayer funds were used to purchase much
of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site, that its maintenance is thus now a
matter of public trust, and that no modification should be considered. The comments on
the other side of the issue, in support of modifying the designation, focused on finding a
balance between adequate public safety and economic risk reduction on the one hand
and minimized environmental damage on the other.
EPA has invoked the provisions of the CWA Section 404(c) in only 12 instances
nationally and only once in Louisiana. These designations are reserved for special
circumstances and/or unique wetlands. When, over the last three decades, EPA has
infrequently invoked this provision, it has certainly not been with an expectation that
modifications would be required in the future; the intent has been to make a lasting
determination the first time. Nothing is immutable, however, and such designations have
been modified, though only on a very few occasions and for extraordinary situations
when practicable alternatives were not available and impacts were minimal.
When CWA Section 404(c) restrictions were placed on the Bayou aux Carpes site in
1985, EPA was responding to a federally assisted flood control project that would have
resulted in the unacceptable adverse effects to about 3,000 acres of wetlands providing
substantial fisheries, wildlife, water retention, pollutant filtering, and recreational values
to the Barataria watershed. However, at the time of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) designation in 1985, we did not envision either the current post-Hurricane
Katrina/Rita environmental and social circumstances or the degree of coastal land loss
we now face. These are extraordinary times and this is a weighty social issue with the
potential for significant ecological implications. Accordingly, we have expressed to the
Corps a willingness to consider the merits of the request to modify the existing Bayou
aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) designation to accommodate the construction of the
West Closure Complex. However, we do not intend for this re-evaluation to have
precedent-setting implications for any other current or future CWA Section 404(c)
designations or modifications. Each CWA Section 404(c) designation represents a
unique situation that responds to a specific set of parameters unlike any other. Any
future requests for modifications to CWA Section 404(c) actions would be subject to an
individual site-specific review by EPA.
As we evaluate the Corps' modification request for this case, EPA will consider whether
the Corps' proposal for the West Closure Complex alternative has avoided and
minimized the potential for negative impacts on the CWA Section 404(c) site to the
maximum extent practicable; evaluate methods of mitigating or compensating for
unavoidable adverse impacts; and determine whether the proposed action will
jeopardize the ecological functions and values upon which the original designation was
based. The modification request has posed quite a challenge and we appreciate the
II-2
-------
assistance provided by the Corps, the interagency review team, the IER # 12
stakeholder group, and the comments we have received during the public review.
Summary of Other Comments
Many of the other comments we received raised the following four groups of issues:
1) A project design alternative should be considered that would avoid all impacts to the
Bayou aux Carpes Section 404(c) area by building the floodwall out into the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). These comments contend that Draft IER # 12 failed to
adequately consider that alternative and that EPA should thus deny the modification
request.
2) A detailed mitigation plan (including indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts)
should be provided in the Corps' Draft IER # 12. These comments contend that EPA
should deny the modification request because it lacks such a plan.
3) Mitigation and augmentation features should be thoroughly researched and planned.
4) A long-term monitoring plan should be developed for the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) area.
Response to Detailed Comment Group 1:
EPA Region 6 agrees that potential alternatives that would avoid all impacts to the
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site warrant consideration. In response to an
EPA Region 6 request, the Corps provided a detailed response, attached as Appendix
A. The response is largely based on engineering capabilities and specific Corps project
authorities. Though EPA will certainly review and evaluate this information but will also
give substantial deference to the Corps' engineering expertise and views of its legal
authority.
As further background, EPA Region 6 played a key role in assisting the Corps in
evaluating the ecological risks associated with the leading project alternatives during the
project planning phase. At an earlier point in the planning process, the Corps' preferred
alternative included a floodwall bisecting the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c)
site. Along with the National Park Service (NPS), EPA Region 6 suggested a conceptual
alternative, which the Corps subsequently designed and which is now known as the
West Closure Complex alternative. The interagency review team conducted a detailed
comparison of the environmental impacts of the leading alternatives and concluded that
the West Closure Complex alternative was preferable. The Corps reviewed and adopted
the conclusions of the natural resource agencies and determined that the West Closure
Complex option would meet the cost, social, and engineering risk and reliability criteria.
That alternative became the Corps' current preferred alternative, the West Closure
Complex alternative.
Once the West Closure Complex alternative became the preferred design, EPA asked
the Corps to consider any siting or design options that could reduce the environmental
impacts even more. One suggestion was to build the floodwall in the same alignment
II-3
-------
but along the edges of the GIWW and off the boundary of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) site. A number of environmental organizations also focused on this
issue, as reflected in this comment and discussed by the Corps in Appendix A.
Response to Detailed Comment Group 2:
The second issue relates to the alternative procedures approved by the Council on
Environmental Quality for complying with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act for the entire Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk
Reduction System, i.e., for all lERs. To expedite project planning and implementation,
those procedures allow the Corps some latitude in proceeding with detailed construction
design prior to completing mitigation planning. However, the Corps has made a firm
commitment to EPA to fund and implement mitigation measures. In light of the special
significance of the CWA Section 404(c) designation, the Corps has agreed that it would
be appropriate to incorporate additional environmental augmentation measures. The
Corps' modification request letter to EPA may be found at the following website:
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/original/
Modificationl_etterToEPA4Oct08.pdf
The following passage from IER # 12 (Chapter 7, page 159) provides an explanation of
the alternative procedure with regard to mitigation planning:
Though mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts due to the proposed action presented
within this IER is only briefly discussed, mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the human
and natural environment described in this and other lERs will be addressed in a separate
mitigation IER as per the alternative NEPA arrangements implemented in March 2007.
The CEMVN has partnered with Federal and state resource agencies to form an
interagency mitigation team that is working to assess and verify these impacts, and to
look for potential mitigation sites in the appropriate hydrologic basin. This effort is
occurring concurrently with the IER planning process in an effort to complete mitigation
work and construct mitigation projects expeditiously. As with the planning process of all
other lERs, the public will have the opportunity to give input about the proposed work.
These mitigation lERs will, as described in chapter 1 of this IER, be available for a 30-day
public review and comment period.
A complementary comprehensive mitigation IER or lERs will be prepared documenting
and compiling these unavoidable impacts and those for all other proposed actions within
the HSDRRS that are being analyzed through other lERs. Mitigation planning is being
carried out for groups of lERs, rather than within each IER, so that large mitigation efforts
could be taken rather than several smaller efforts, increasing the relative economic and
ecological benefits of the mitigation effort.
The forthcoming mitigation IER will implement compensatory mitigation as early as
possible. All mitigation activities will be consistent with standards and policies established
in appropriate Federal and state laws, and the CEMVN policies and regulations.
Response to Detailed Comment Group 3:
In response to the third comment group, EPA Region 6 is in complete agreement about
the critical importance of developing and implementing appropriate mitigation and
augmentation features. As a means to this end, the Corps has involved a team of State
II-4
-------
and federal agencies with natural resource expertise to advise them on the study
designs and data analyses for the mitigation and augmentation features.
Some hydrologic and water quality data collection work will extend over several
hydrologic periods. While some field analyses have begun, other data collection is
expected to continue for at least year, and possibly longer, depending on the findings.
The advisory team is simply not comfortable in making recommendations regarding
hydrologic and ecological modifications to a wetland of national significance without
further study. EPA Region 6 trusts that the Corps will continue to work with the advisory
team in good faith on this adaptive approach, as outlined in the November 4, 2008
modification request
(http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/
docs/original/Modificationl_etterToEPA4Oct08.pdf).
A considerable amount of field work has already been initiated and some aspects have
been completed. As an example, the Corps' Engineering Design and Research Center
(ERDC) is currently studying hydrology and inundation data in an effort to analyze
mitigation and augmentation features that might improve circulation throughout the site,
e.g., gapping canals and re-establishing historic tidal connections.
Another example is the work lead by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with
participation by an interagency team, to analyze the habitat impacts of the proposed
alternative. Two methodologies were employed to quantify changes in habitat quality
and quantity that are projected to occur as a direct result of the proposed 4200-foot
floodwall to be constructed along the GIWW. The Wetland Value Assessment
methodology was employed for the cypress-tupelo swamp habitat and the Habitat
Assessment Methodology was employed for the upland and bottomland hardwood
habitat over the maximum acreage expected to be effected (9.6 acres). Specific
recommendations to protect flora and fauna were also prepared by the USFWS and
documented in the Fish and Wldlife Coordination Report for IER # 12
(http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/
docs/original/IER12Final FWCAR2.pdf).
Field work still in the planning phase focuses on the flotant marsh habitat and will be
lead by the U.S. Geological Service, in consultation with the Corps, NPS, USFWS, EPA
Region 6, and the interagency team. Data will be collected to assist the team in
evaluating the potential effects of allowing surface water from the Estelle Outfall Canal to
circulate through the marsh. As a contingency, the Corps is incorporating into the
project design a control structure at the junction between the Estelle Outfall Canal and
the GIWW in case it is determined that these flows should be limited under certain
hydrologic conditions. Monitoring stations will be established to gain an understanding
of the hydraulic gradients across the marsh.
The surface water studies include a review of data collected by Jefferson Parish at the
Estelle pumping station and canal and some new post-rainfall samples will be collected
and analyzed for selected parameters. The interagency scientific team has not
recommended starting off with a broad sampling spectrum of surface water parameters
but with a more narrowly targeted suite of parameters. This recommendation was made
based on practical knowledge of the effects of similar sources of surface water flows to
the same type of flotant marsh habitat existing within the Jean Lafitte National Historical
II-5
-------
Park and Preserve, Barataria Preserve unit, which is adjacent to and hydrologically
connected to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site.
In addition to the habitat, hydrology, and surface water quality studies of the flotant
marsh, the effects of potentially adding nutrients or contaminants from increased
stormwater flows through the site from the Estelle Outfall Canal will be assessed,
starting with an examination of porewater quality. Sampling bottom sediments over time
will provide an indirect method of assessing whether contaminants from stormwater are
accumulating, as could tracking macroinvertebrate community composition and
analyzing fish tissue contaminant concentrations. Soil characteristics of the flotant
marsh will also be analyzed in order to establish a basis for future comparisons and the
current marsh type will be classified according to a system devised by scientists from
LSU.
The results of the initial study phase will be compared to results from similar marshes,
considered to be healthy and productive, within the adjacent Barataria Unit of the Jean
Lafitte National Historical Park & Preserve, Barataria Preserve unit, as a baseline for
comparison.
To complement the characterization and modeling efforts described above, a long-term
monitoring plan will be devised and the results will be used to respond to any
unanticipated impacts to the site. Since the monitoring plan depends upon the ERDC
hydrology studies, details are still pending.
The Corps' Draft IER # 12 (Section 7.1, page 158) describes the mitigation and
augmentation feature planning process:
Mitigation procedures and requirements regarding impacts within the 404c area are being
coordinated with the EPA, USFWS, and the National Park Service. Mitigation for all
unavoidable adverse impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area would
occur within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area and/or JLNHPP as per
agreement with the resource agencies. Initial agency preferred mitigation for the Bayou
aux Carpes site includes Chinese tallow tree removal and marsh creation in JLNHPP, but
additional coordination is required to determine the best possible mitigation actions.
Mitigation projects would be designed and implemented concurrently with the design and
construction of the project. Full mitigation within this unique environment may require
mitigation in addition to the basic average annual habitat unit method as determined by
Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) models used by the USAGE in cooperation with the
resources agencies (see table 7b). Project feature augmentations would be considered
by the mitigation team as they develop a full plan to compensate for any unavoidable
impacts. The CEMVN has agreed to work in collaboration with state and Federal
agencies to ensure a successful mitigation effort.
Also, the initial study plan recommended by the advisory team, subject to further
revision, is described in the following excerpt (IER # 12, Section 7.2, pages 160-162):
To determine which project augmentations would be most beneficial to the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area an interagency study effort is being completed to
establish existing soil and water-quality conditions in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) wetlands, as well as prevailing patterns of inundation within and adjacent
to the 404c area. The wetlands in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area are
currently isolated from direct inflow of storm water runoff and natural tidal exchange in
some locations because of levees and dredge material banks. Upon completion of the
II-6
-------
interagency study storm water runoff may be directed from the Old Estelle Pump Station
through and across the wetlands and some tidal exchange may be permitted in certain
areas to restore the natural hydrology. It is unknown what impact this change in water
quality and hydrology may have on the wetlands. The wetlands consist of floating
marshes, with a predominately organic substrate, and forested wetlands, some of which
occur within the floating marshes (see yhe Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area
description in section 3.2.2).
Studies are underway at the USAGE Engineering Research and Development Center
(ERDC) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, the Vicksburg USAGE District, and at the United
States Geological Survey in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to determine the best possible
design to allow for maximized benefit of this work in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) area. Hydrologic and environmental surveys are ongoing within and
adjacent to the 404c to determine the appropriate areas for the proposed dredge material
bank gapping within the Old Estelle discharge canal and dredge material bank gapping in
other canals and for the removal of plugs or portions of the plugs in Bayou aux Carpes
and other canals. In addition, the surveys will determine the appropriate water flow
velocities within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area so creating the gaps
and removal of canal plugs can be properly designed. Additional design work would take
into consideration the appropriate nutrient loading levels. These studies will be
integrated into the efforts of the Interagency resource team that was formed early in the
analysis phase to ensure that the national interest placed on the Bayou aux Carpes site
meets the wisest and best use of the area. All actions would be fully coordinated with the
EPA and the interagency team and the public before being implemented.
The monitoring of preexisting conditions has three components:
Floating marsh:
Pore water quality will be documented at four locations, near and at some distance from
the project area (Figure 14). The two northern most sites are located approximately 50
yards to 100 yards off the dredge material bank. At each marsh sampling site, pore water
will be sampled at 15 cm and 45 cm depth for a suite of parameters including low-level
nutrients including dissolved inorganic N, ions and dissolved organic carbon. Samples
will be taken quarterly, in November of 2008, and in February, late April and
August/September 2009.
At these same sites, soil quality (degree of decomposition) will be documented at 5 cm
and 15 cm depth (root zone) using the NRCS fiber analysis (see Swarzenski and others,
2005; Figure 14). In addition, soils will be cored with a McAuly auger to a clay layer or
2 meters (whichever is nearer the surface), to evaluate the thickness of the peat layer.
Floating marsh type will be determined following the Sasser et al (1996) classification.
Estelle Pumping Station
At the pumping station, one sample of surface water will be collected for analysis of a
suite of herbicides, including fipronil and atrazine (Figure 14). Similarly, a surface
waterquality sample will be taken in the main canal. These samples will be collected 1-2
days after a major rainfall event.
Inundation, hydraulic gradient
Two stations continuously measuring water level will be established on the property, as
per figure 14. An attempt to establish hydraulic gradients will be made by matching up
peaks in the water surface during major inundation events, and hydraulic gradients
established based on floor elevation.
[Figure on page 162 is not reproduced here]
The data collected throughout these ongoing studies would be compared to similar,
pristine, nearby marshes, and would also provide baseline data against which to evaluate
II-7
-------
future change.
Once the baseline data set is completed and the results are presented to the Interagency
team, the CEMVN in cooperation with the EPA, NPS, USFWS and other members of the
Interagency team would determine which project feature augmentations would be
beneficial to the 404c area. The ongoing studies to determine the existing hydrology and
water and soil conditions within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area are
considered to be adequate to determine which augmentations would be beneficial. Those
beneficial project feature augmentations would then be implemented in partnership with
the EPA and the NPS. Though these data are not available within this document, the
data and project augmentation implementation plans will be disclosed in future
environmental reports prior to any decision being made by the CEMVN District Engineer.
In addition to the ongoing environmental studies, the Interagency team also suggested
cypress tree surveys along with eagle, wading bird, and other indicator species surveys
should be conducted to indicate habitat quality. Baseline Bald Cypress and wildlife data
would also be required. The cypress tree and wild life surveys are under consideration,
and survey plans, including specific indicator species, survey frequency, etc., would be
determined by the CEMVN in collaboration with the Interagency team and disclosed in
future environmental reports.
Response to Detailed Comment Group 4:
As with the previous comment, EPA Region 6 believes that the development of a long-
term monitoring plan is a key factor that will contribute to the success of any mitigation
and augmentation plans. The same interagency team described above has agreed to
help develop such a plan.
Since the complete design of the long-term monitoring plan depends upon the results of
the ongoing Corps ERDC hydrology studies, details of the plan are still pending. Initial
recommendations being considered include establishing hydrologic gauges and
vegetative monitoring plots for seasonal data collection. The goals for this monitoring
effort will be to identify temporal changes in hydrologic patterns, vegetative community
characteristics, and tree growth rate and regeneration as a result of the Corps project.
This will include the effects of the floodwall as well as the mitigation and augmentation
features. The long-term monitoring plan will be adaptive in nature, meaning it will be
subject to change by the interagency review team along the way, depending on the
incremental findings. If implemented mitigation or augmentation features are determined
at some point to be ecologically harmful, the Corps has committed to implementing the
necessary modifications.
Appended to this document:
Appendix A - GIWW Floodwall Alternative Evaluation
• Corps letter to EPA - March 26, 2009
• U.S. Coast Guard letter to EPA - February 23, 2009
Appendix B - Annotated comments
Appendix C - Complete copies of public comments
II-8
-------
Part II, Appendix A
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Evaluation of a Floodwall in the Bayou aux Carpes
404(c) Site Versus a Floodwall in the GIWW Channel
II-9
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 60267
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70160-0267
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Planning, Programs, and Project Management Division
Environmental Planning and Compliance Branch
Mr. Lawrence E. Starfield
Acting Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Dear Mr. Starfield:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to questions raised by members of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and some Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGO) during the EPA Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification request comment period
regarding the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) West Closure Complex (WCC)
project and the US Army Corps of Engineers' (USAGE) request for a modification to the
1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section 404(c) final determination. The
USAGE requested a modification to the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) final
determination to enable construction of the GIWW WCC project, a part of the Greater
New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS). Some
of the comments received questioned the necessity of building a floodwall on the
previously impacted spoil bank on the edge of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area and
stated that the floodwall could be moved into the waters of the GIWW without
consequence. Enclosed is the US ACE's response to these comments.
As shown in the enclosed response, four alternatives for the Bayou aux Carpes
404(c) floodwall / levee system were considered during the government's evaluation
process. Alternative 1 is the proposed action presented in Individual Environmental
Report (IER) # 12. Alternatives 2 and 3 are floodwall variations located within the
GIWW channel. The final alternative, Alternative 4, considered construction of an
earthen levee within the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area along the eastern bank line.
Alternative 4 was dismissed in the initial screening without further analysis due to the
large footprint required for the levee section and the negative environmental impacts to
the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area associated with it. Each of the floodwall alternatives
was evaluated on providing reliable risk reduction against hurricane storm surge by 2011,
impacts to the natural and human environment, maintaining a safe channel for navigation,
construction complexities, costs, and associated long-term maintenance.
11-10
-------
The constriction of the GIWW posed by alternatives 2 and 3 would adversely impact
the ability of navigation traffic to reliably and safely pass through this area. Given the
proximity of the proposed floodwall to the navigation channel, the high volume of marine
traffic in this reach, and the types of commodities being transported, the risk of damage
to the HSDRRS would be too great and the danger that a damaged floodwall places on
the people of the west bank for these alternatives was determined unacceptable.
Furthermore, the increased risk of a catastrophic environmental event given the
hazardous nature of some of the commodities being transported daily on the GIWW is
unacceptable. A marine mishap along this segment of the channel with a floodwall in the
GIWW channel poses a greater risk of environmental damage to the Bayou aux Carpes
404(c) site than does the WCC alternative (Alternative 1). Just last year, a barge accident
occurred on the Mississippi River that released over 400,000 gallons of fuel oil. Much of
this oil ended up in downstream marshes and National Wildlife Refuges. The effects of
that oil spill on the environment will be seen for the next decade. If a similar accident
were to occur in the proximity of the GIWW WCC floodwall and the floodwall were
damaged, the potential impacts to the people of the west bank, the Bayou aux Carpes
404(c) area, the Jean Lafitte National and Historical Park, and other environmentally
sensitive areas would be catastrophic. The US Coast Guard agrees with the Corps
assessment that constructing a floodwall in the waterway would increase hazards to
navigation and the possibility of a major marine accident. In a letter to the EPA, dated
February 23, 2009, the US Coast Guard stated that it objects to the construction of any
segment of the GIWW WCC floodwall in the GIWW channel.
Based on the risks associated with floodwall systems constructed in the GIWW
channel, it is my determination that the safest and most reliable location to build the
GIWW WCC floodwall is along the 100 ft by 4,200 ft previously impacted spoil bank
identified as the proposed action for WCC in IER #12.
The EPA, USAGE, and our other resource agency partners have closely collaborated
on this issue for over a year and a half and have proposed a solution that provides the
safest and most reliable system for the people of the area while still preserving the
integrity and beauty of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area. The proposed action would be
constructed on the previously impacted spoil bank along the eastern edge of the Bayou
aux Carpes 404(c) area, would minimize the impacts to the 3,000 acre Bayou aux Carpes
404(c) area and would result in less than 10 acres of unavoidable impacts to the area.
The less than 10 acres impacted by the proposed project will be fully mitigated for as
discussed in the final Individual Environmental Report that I approved on February 18,
2009. Because of the national significance of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area, the
team took additional steps to incorporate project features that will further improve the
hydrology of the entire Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area. Upon completion of the ongoing
study and in coordination with the EPA and other resource agencies staff, those
augmentations will be constructed.
The USAGE recognizes the significance of this issue and greatly appreciates the
cooperation the EPA has shown in working with the USAGE in our efforts to construct
the most reliable hurricane risk reduction system possible. The team's efforts to date
11-11
-------
have been nothing short of remarkable and truly reflect the partnership the EPA and the
USAGE have fostered.
As the EPA understands, there is tremendous urgency to minimize the risk to the
public by completing the New Orleans HSDRRS by hurricane season 2011. I am
requesting that the EPA evaluate the information provided in this letter and move forward
to approve the USAGE request to modify the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) final determination.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Mr. Gib Owen at: US Army
Corps of Engineers, CEMVN PM-R, Attn: Mr. Gib Owen, P.O. Box 60267, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 70160-0267. Mr. Owen can be contacted by E-mail:
gib.a.owen@usace.army.mil or by phone at (504) 862-1337.
Sincerely,
AlvinB. Lee
Colonel, US Army
District Commander
Enclosure
See page four for copies furnished.
11-12
-------
Copies Furnished:
L. D. Stroh
Captain, US Coast Guard
Commander, Sector New Orleans
Staff symbol: spw
1615Poydras Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112-1254
Mr. Garret Graves
Chairman
Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority of Louisiana
1051 North 3rd Street
Capitol Annex Building
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
11-13
-------
US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District
Comparison of Alternatives: Floodwall on shoreline of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) site
versus a floodwall in the GIWW channel.
INTRODUCTION:
At the February 11, 2009 joint Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) hearing on the Corps' request for modification to the Bayou
aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Final Determination, several individuals and
environmental groups requested that the EPA deny the Corps' request based on the
assumption that the proposed floodwall could be constructed outside of the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area and in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) with comparable risk
reduction. Some of the speakers questioned whether the Corps had performed adequate
studies on the possibility of placing a floodwall into the waterway. Additional comments
were received by the EPA during the 404(c) modification public comment period urging
that the EPA deny the Corps' request based upon the idea that moving the floodwall into
the GIWW channel was a reasonable alternative.
In response to these comments, the Corps maintains that the construction of the
floodwall in the GIWW channel is not a reasonable or practicable alternative as discussed
in Individual Environmental Report (IER) #12. Although technically possible, issues of
public safety, navigation safety, increased risk to the Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk
Reduction System (HSDRRS) and substantial increases in cost and schedule all make the
placement of the wall into the waterway impractical. The purpose of this response is to
demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives were fully considered and evaluated and to
document the data and rationale used by the Corps to make the determination that the
placement of the floodwall within waters of the GIWW is not a viable alternative.
BACKGROUND:
Comments received at the public hearing suggested that construction of a floodwall in
the GIWW channel could be accomplished because the navigable waterway is authorized
as a 125 ft wide by 12 ft deep channel while the bank-to-bank width adjacent to 404(c)
area is at least 500 ft wide on the surface. The GIWW for the purposes of discussion in
this report is defined as the entire waterway (bank-to-bank) as it exists today. Within the
GIWW is a federally maintained navigation channel with authorized channel bottom
dimensions of 125 ft width by 12 ft depth. At the water surface, the channel has a 350 ft
wide required "structure free zone" defined by the "structure limit lines" which extend
175 ft on either side of the channel center.
While the authorized channel dimensions and corresponding required "structure free
zones" are defined, it is important to note that these boundaries typically have no physical
constraints in regards to navigable channels - similar to the interstate highway system
which has defined lanes with markers and boundaries, but often no physical constraints.
On the interstate, vehicles controlled by humans for various reasons lose control and
11-14
-------
move beyond these boundaries, often with catastrophic results. The same is true for
marine traffic on navigable waterways. One of the Corps' primary missions is to ensure
that the nation's navigation industry has viable means of commerce that meets the needs
of the nation. A critical feature of this mission is to ensure the safety of the users of the
channel as well as the general public, their property, and the infrastructure in the vicinity
of any federally maintained navigation channel.
The GIWW is a heavily traveled inland commercial waterway that links over 30 ports
along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida with connections to the Mississippi River via
3 navigation locks in the New Orleans area: Harvey, Algiers and Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal. This section of the waterway services the critical transportation needs
of the petrochemical and other industries vital to the United States economy, defense and
infrastructure. Over 25 million tons of cargo and 35,000 vessel bottoms travel this section
of the waterway yearly. Nearly 70% of the 25 million tons are volatile products of the
petrochemical industry: benzene, crude oil, gasoline, jet fuel, organic solvents, propane,
butane, naptha, fertilizers and poisons. On average, 30 commercial barge tows navigate
through the project area of the GIWW each day, all under the control of humans
operating and piloting the vessels in all types of weather conditions.
In addition to the critical navigation function of this waterway, the Algiers and
Harvey canals also serve as the main drainage conduit for the highly urbanized areas of
the west bank collecting the discharge of nine interior drainage pumping stations with a
total discharge capacity of over 28,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). These discharges are
directed through the GIWW and into the surrounding lakes and coastal marshes.
Recreational boaters and commercial interests also use the waterway to access a variety
of water bodies in the area. All of these factors were considered in the evaluation and
development of the proposed alternatives.
ALTERNATIVES:
Four alternatives for the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) floodwall / levee system were
considered during the government's evaluation process. Three of the alternatives were
screened out as not being reasonable or practicable at various stages of the plan
formulation phase due to reasons discussed below. The first alternative is the proposed
action presented in the IER #12 where the floodwall is placed within a 100 ft by 4,200 ft
previously impacted spoil bank on the eastern edge of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area.
The second alternative was placement of a floodwall in the GIWW 50 ft from the edge of
the bank of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area protected to the maximum extent practical
with a series of pipe pile dolphins that would extend into the GIWW approximately 50 ft
beyond the floodwall. The third alternative follows the same alignment as Alternative 2
but would be a constructed earthen embankment in the GIWW in lieu of pipe pile
dolphins. The final alternative considered was to construct an earthen levee within the
Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area along the eastern bank line. This alternative was dismissed
without further evaluation due to the large footprint required for the levee section and the
negative environmental impacts associated with it. All of the alternatives were initially
screened for:
11-15
-------
• The ability of the completed wall to provide reliable surge protection.
• Environmental impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area.
• Impacts to the natural and human environment.
• Impacts and concerns to navigation, especially in light of the fact that the
structure would be constructed where 3 navigable waterways converge.
• Construction complexity and construction safety.
• Construction schedule
• Construction costs
• Long term maintenance
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and Gustav and Ike in 2008 emphasized the
importance and urgency for considering all reasonable scenarios and investigating the
most reliable, environmentally acceptable and constructible plan to reduce the risk to the
residents and businesses for the West Bank area.
Each alternative was developed in sufficient detail to identify its relative strengths
and weaknesses. Schematic typical sections presented herein are developed to a level of
detail sufficient to generate preliminary quantities and costs. Detailed hydraulic modeling
has not been performed and is not necessary for this analysis of potential wall locations.
It is commonly understood any alternative that reduces the cross-sectional area of the
channel will necessarily negatively impact the storm drainage function of the canals with
higher stages upstream. Thus the comparison and selection of alternatives here is based
on the preliminary design of each alternative to date as is common and acceptable
practice in the field of engineering.
Safety is paramount in selecting an alternative for final design and construction. First
and foremost, the selected plan must reliably reduce risk to the people of the United
States who live and work behind the HSDRRS. Safe navigation for commercial and
recreational craft is included in that mandate. Other factors considered include impacts to
environmental integrity, construction costs, operational and maintenance costs, and
construction duration.
11-16
-------
DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION OF THE ALTERNATIVES:
Floodwall Alternative 1: Floodwall constructed on the previously impacted spoil
bank within the 100 ft by 4,200 ft corridor along the eastern edge of the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area.
FLOOD SIDE - BAYOU AUX GWtS 4MC WETLAND
PROTECTED SIDE- GIWW
Diagram 1
Alternative 1 is the recommended proposed action (see Diagram 1). Under this
alternative, the floodwall would be constructed on the previously impacted spoil bank
within the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area. The design would consist of a T-wall design to
minimize the footprint of the structure in the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area and foreshore
protection using 650 Ib stone in the GIWW adjacent to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area.
The T-wall would tie into the proposed flow control structure at the end of the Old Estelle
Outfall Canal to the north and the closure and pump station complex that would cross the
GIWW to the south. The T-wall would be constructed within the 100 ft by 4,200 ft
corridor along the eastern edge of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) and include an earthen
berm with an access road for maintenance and inspection purposes. The floodwall would
be a cast-in-place reinforced concrete T-wall designed to elevation +16.0 ft (NAVD 88
2004.65) founded on three rows of steel H-piles. Preliminary design calculations indicate
the concrete stem would be 14 ft tall and 2 to 3 ft thick, while the concrete slab would be
3 to 5 ft thick and 20 to 25 ft wide. A continuous steel sheet pile wall will be provided
beneath the base slab for seepage cutoff purposes. Construction of the proposed action
would impact no more than 9.6 acres within the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) boundary. The
Corps is committed to further reducing this footprint to the greatest extent practicable
during the final design phase of this project.
With this proposed action, protection of the wall from potential barge impacts would
be provided by the earthen berm and access road along the existing bank line constructed
to elevation +8 ft (NAVD 88 2004.65) on the protected side of the floodwall. The
11-17
-------
location of the wall away from the waterway's edge increases the safety of the wall
against potential catastrophic barge tow impacts by absorbing the energy of the impact in
the embankment, thus stopping the tow before it contacts the wall. Placement of the
protected earthen berm outside the channel results in no constriction of the waterway as a
storm water evacuation route. The reliability of the HSDRRS is highest for this
alternative and the potential for damage to the protected side of the floodwall by the daily
commercial marine traffic is lessened.
The placement of the wall within the 100 ft by 4,200 ft corridor on the previously
impacted area of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area, along with the commitment by the
Corps to augment the design as necessary to enhance the hydrology of the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area to offset any potential impacts due to construction, provides the most
practical approach from an environmental perspective while ensuring the 100-yr level of
risk reduction is accomplished and completed expeditiously. Potential augmentation as
discussed in IER #12 includes efforts to gap the existing spoil banks along the Old Estelle
Outfall Canal and at the southern terminus of Bayou aux Carpes are under study by the
Corps in cooperation with the EPA and other stakeholders to ensure that the unavoidable
impacts to the 404(c) area are minimized to the greatest extent practicable.
Of the alternatives considered, Alternative 1 provides the greatest navigation safety
because it provides greater distance between the floodwall structure and the typical path
traveled by barge tows without encroachment or narrowing of the GIWW. It also
eliminates the need for other appurtenant structures along the bank which could result in
catastrophic impacts including environmental damages to people and the surrounding
marsh system should an errant barge tow collide with the pipe pile dolphin protection
system.
11-18
-------
Floodwall Alternative 2: Floodwall constructed in the water along the eastern edge
of the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) areas. Pipe pile dolphins added for protection.
H.OQD SIDE • BA YOU AUX CARPfS 4QiC WFTIAHO
PROTECTED S\OE - G1WW
I h.. I ,. I I
HLEDdPrth
*• \ -s'i••
Diagram 2
In Alternative 2, the floodwall would be constructed in the water of the GIWW
without affecting the surface of the previously impacted spoil bank of the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area (see Diagram 2). Preliminary analysis shows that the floodwall would
be a cast in-place T-wall designed to elevation +16.0 ft (NAVD 88 2004.65) founded on
four rows of steel H-piles. The concrete stem would be 26 ft tall and 3 to 5 ft thick, while
the concrete slab would be 4 to 6 ft thick and 25 to 35 ft wide. A continuous steel sheet
pile wall would be provided beneath the base slab for seepage cutoff purposes and
extended 5 ft past the critical failure plane (elevation -30 ft (NAVD 88 2004.65)) per the
latest HSDRRS Design Guidelines. A 12-ft-wide roadway supported by brackets and
columns placed approximately 20 ft on center would be incorporated into the design for
maintenance access and inspection purposes. The floodwall would be placed in the water
of the GIWW 50 ft from the edge of the bank of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area.
A system of pipe pile dolphins would be required to provide a substantial degree of
protection to the protected side of the floodwall from daily commercial marine traffic.
Based on a preliminary analysis and in accordance with the minimum requirements of the
HSDRRS Design Guidelines, a row of about 140 pipe pile dolphins spaced at intervals of
no more than 30 ft would be necessary to block vessels from impacting the floodwall.
These protective dolphins would be located approximately 50 ft toward the channel from
the wall to allow for underground pile clearances. It is important to note, however, that
this is only a cursory analysis of required protection based on minimum requirements.
Data obtained from the Algiers and Harvey Locks show that vessels traveling through the
area weigh as much as 7,800 tons and may be traveling at 8 mph (per Gulf Intracoastal
Canal Association). Impact forces calculated from the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Commentary for Vessel Collision
11-19
-------
Design show that impacts on the dolphins required in Alternative 2 could be significantly
higher than those specified by the minimum design criteria. As a result, the appropriate
design loads and features necessary to provide an acceptable level of safety comparable
to the protection offered by Alternative 1 remain undetermined. For the purposes of this
analysis, it is sufficient to note that the resulting additional cost and design complexity
further diminishes this alternative when compared to others.
Direct environmental impacts to the previously impacted spoil bank of the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area under this alternative would be eliminated. Project feature
augmentations in the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area would not be required since there are
no impacts to the 404(c) area. Surface hydrology would be maintained by a small
channel between the bank and the floodwall on the flood side of the floodwall. This
small channel would remain connected to the Old Estelle Outfall Canal to the north and
the GIWW just south of the gate structures.
Alternative 2 does have the greatest potential for catastrophic human and
environmental impacts from a spill that could be caused by a barge tow impacting the
dolphin system and floodwall. Safety is of particular concern with this alternative which
has been determined to be unacceptable to the US Coast Guard (USCG). The pipe pile
dolphins constructed in the GIWW to provide floodwall protection would be exposed to
the frequent barge tows that travel the waterway on a daily basis. The contents of
navigation traffic in this area consist of many hazardous materials, and a collision
impacting the wall and its protective structure creates the potential for severe negative
environmental impacts on the sensitive 404(c) ecosystem, and surrounding businesses
and residents. Both, the USCG, the federal agency responsible for navigation waterway
safety, and the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association representing the waterway users have
expressed serious concerns on the severe navigation safety hazard presented by this
alternative. As stated by Mr. Raymond Butler of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
in an e-mail to EPA, dated February 18, 2009, "This portion of the GIWW is one of the
highest traveled reaches of the waterway, moving over half the total tonnage of the entire
1,300 mile long waterway. Nearly 70 million tons per year of petroleum, petrochemicals,
chemical products and other bulk freight are moved on the waterway here. Most of this
cargo is hazardous in nature and would pose significant environmental risk to this area
should a barge incident be incited by the presence of this floodwall and its associated
restrictive structures. Risks to navigation safety, the environment, and the public would
be unnecessarily increased due to the presence of the supporting structures required by
the proposed design change."
Construction of the floodwall in the channel under this alternative is more complex
than the other alternatives considered. The proposed construction would be accomplished
by means of an extensive internally-braced cofferdam system requiring unwatering of the
cofferdam to provide a dry working area for the construction of the T-wall. Additionally,
because the cofferdam would be in the proximity of the navigation channel, a barge
protection system would be necessary to ensure the safety of the workers. This protection
system would consist of the permanent dolphin system or a flexi-float barge system
equipped with energy absorption devices. The protection system would need to be
11-20
-------
constructed prior to commencing work on the T-wall construction within the cofferdam,
pushing out the construction schedule significantly. Also, even with a substantial
protection system in place, there will remain some risk of a major barge impact into the
cofferdam causing a catastrophic loss of life of those working within the cofferdam.
Construction within the cofferdam would be staged from floating plants, greatly
increasing the construction duration. The cofferdam would be removed upon completion
of the floodwall.
11-21
-------
Floodwall Alternative 3: Floodwall constructed in the water along the eastern edge
of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area. Man-made bank line and berm added for
protection.
Diagram 3
Alternative 3 would be constructed on a man-made sand/stone embankment
constructed in the GIWW along the eastern edge of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area
without affecting the surface of the previously impacted spoil bank of the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area (see Diagram 3). Like Alternative 1, a floodwall would be
continuously protected from potential barge impacts by the man-made embankment. The
floodwall would utilize a similar design as Alternative 1 and be a cast in-place T-wall
designed to elevation +16.0 ft (NAVD 88 2004.65) founded on three rows of steel H-
piles. Additional forces imposed on the piling from the embankment placed in the water
will require that the steel H-piling be substantially increased in length from Alternative 1
for each of the piling driven. The concrete monolith would be similar to Alternative 1. A
continuous steel sheet pile wall would be provided beneath the base slab for seepage
cutoff purposes. The man-made embankment on the channel side of the wall would
consist of sand fill placed between the T-wall and a separate sheet pile retaining wall,
while a "67" type gradation of stone would be used for the embankment on the channel
side of the sheet pile retaining wall. A minimum 2,200 Ib stone cover would be placed
over the "67" type gradation stone and sand to prevent erosion. Once the structure is
complete, additional lifts of the 2,200 Ib stone would be necessary to maintain the
embankment design elevation. Because of the substantial amount of fill being placed in
the channel, additional engineering analysis and modeling would be needed to quantify
the potential for long term settlement, differential settlement, and lateral movement of the
soil. Experience and knowledge in working in similar geomorphologic conditions
indicates that the potential movement and/or settlement of materials could jeopardize the
integrity, stability, and safety of the HSDRRS, and poses an unacceptable risk to the
reliability of the project.
11-22
-------
While this alternative would remove the direct impacts to the 100 ft wide by 4,200 ft
long construction corridor located on the previously impacted spoil bank of the Bayou
aux Carpes 404(c) area, it does have additional environmental impacts not present in
Alternative 1. Construction of the man-made embankment in the GIWW would require
the relocation of the channel further to the east from the Old Estelle Outfall Canal
approximately 2,000 ft south towards the intersection with the Algiers Canal. This shift
would be necessary for navigation as well as to maintain the cross section of the existing
channel. The relocation of the channel would require the dredging of the Hero Cut. This
dredging would have direct and permanent impacts on the island at the intersection of the
Algiers and Harvey canals. Additionally, the material dredged from this area would be
suspect due to the proximity of a barge cleaning and painting operation just across the
canal. Based upon preliminary investigations by the Corps, this island is considered to
pose a high risk of containing contaminated or hazardous substances due to the industrial
complexes that have been operated in the area for years. Additionally, there are a number
of abandoned barges in this area that are likely to pose a risk of contamination if
disturbed. It is the policy of the United States Government to avoid areas that contain
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
(formerly known as Superfund) regulated substances. Furthermore, the clean up of any
hazardous substances would be the responsibility of the State of Louisiana acting as the
non-Federal sponsor for this project. The disturbance of this site would likely lead to an
extended delay in the construction of the project, thus delaying hurricane and storm
damage risk reduction for the people of the West Bank for many more years.
Augmentations in the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area would not be required for
Alternative 3 since no impacts the 404(c) area would occur.
Impacts and concerns for the navigation industry under this alternative would be
those associated with the construction and not the permanent feature since the channel
would be modified as necessary to allow for safe navigation passage and drainage.
Construction of the floodwall in the channel under this alternative is more complex
than Alternative 1, but has fewer complexities than Alternative 2. Construction would
begin with the dredging necessary to establish the new navigation and drainage channel.
This would be contingent upon environmental soil sampling and a determination that the
material would be suitable for normal dredge material disposal. Construction of a
cofferdam approximately 100 ft from the existing bank line of the 404(c) area would
closely follow the relocation of the channel. The cofferdam would be similar to the
cofferdam proposed for Alternative 1. Sand would be placed in the interior of the
cofferdam to elevation+2.0 ft (NAVD88 2004.65) while small stone would be placed on
the exterior of the cofferdam to elevation+2.0 ft (NAVD88 2004.65) to stabilize the
cofferdam wall. Because of the weight of sand and stone that would be placed, a
considerable amount of consolidation and lateral spread of the underlying soft, organic
soils would occur, creating a "mud wave" within the GIWW. Additional dredging will be
necessary to remove this "mud wave" during placement of the sand and stone material to
maintain the authorized navigation channel. Because of the consolidation and lateral
spread, multiple additional lifts of sand and stone would be necessary to stabilize the
11-23
-------
material at elevation+2.0 ft (NAVD88 2004.65) so that construction of the T-wall could
commence. As with Alternative 2, because the cofferdam would be in the navigation
channel, a barge protection system would be necessary to ensure the safety of the
workers. This protection system would consist of a protective dolphin system or a flexi-
float barge system equipped with energy absorption devices. The protection system
would need to be constructed prior to commencing work on the T-wall construction
within the cofferdam, pushing out the construction schedule significantly. Also, even
with a substantial protection system in place, there will remain some risk of a major barge
impact into the cofferdam causing a catastrophic loss of life of those working within the
cofferdam. Construction within the cofferdam would be staged from floating plants,
greatly increasing the construction duration. The cofferdam will be removed upon
completion of the floodwall.
Earthen Levee Alternative 4: Earthen levee constructed within the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) along the eastern edge.
Alternative 4 would involve the construction of an earthen levee within the Bayou
aux Carpes 404(c) area in lieu of the floodwall. The required footprint of the levee and
berms within the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area was estimated to be over 300 ft wide by
4200 ft long and would require placement of material outside of the previously impacted
spoil bank and on the floatant marsh itself. Because Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 involved less
environmental impacts to the 404(c) area, Alternative 4 was eliminated from
consideration without further analysis.
COSTS, CONSTRUCTION DURATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS:
Preliminary costs, construction durations and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs are provided for comparison purposes.
Alternative
Estimated Initial Construction Cost
Construction Duration (months)
Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
Floodwall
Maintenance Road
Foreshore Dike
Roadway, Bracket & Columns
Pipe Pile Dolphins
Rock Berm & Maintenance Access
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M:
1
$87 Mil
18
$7,000
$2,750
$21,000
$30,750
2
$251 Mil
24
$7,000
$20,000
$100,000
$127,000
3
$2 15 Mil
28
$7,000
$200,000
$207,000
4
Eliminated
11-24
-------
SUMMARY:
The Corps evaluated a number of alternatives for the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area.
Three alternatives for the construction of a floodwall along the eastern edge of the Bayou
aux Carpes 404(c) area were considered in sufficient detail to determine their viability.
Alternative 1 is the proposed action presented in the Individual Environmental Report
#12 where the floodwall is placed within a 100 ft by 4,200 ft corridor of the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area. The second alternative was placement of a floodwall in the GIWW
50 ft from the edge of the bank of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area protected to the
maximum extent practical with a series of pipe pile dolphins located in the GIWW
approximately 50 ft beyond the floodwall. The third alternative follows the same
alignment as alternative 2 but would be protected by a constructed embankment in the
GIWW. All three of the floodwall alternatives were fully evaluated considering the
following:
• The ability of the completed wall to provide reliable surge protection.
• Environmental impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area.
• Impacts to the human environment.
• Impacts and concerns to navigation, especially in light of the fact that the
structure would be constructed where 3 navigable waterways converge.
• Construction complexity and construction safety.
• Construction schedule
• Construction costs
• Long term maintenance
The discussion of alternatives describes the relative strength and weaknesses
associated with each. After review of all aspects and effects of the alternatives
considered, Alternative 1 was selected as the recommended proposed action because it
was determined to be the safest and most reliable location to build a floodwall. This
alternative has minimal impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area (which would be
fully mitigated), offers project augmentation features that would further improve the
hydrology of the entire Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area, is the most cost effective, practical
alternative for the GIWW West Closure Complex, and has the shortest construction
schedule.
Alternatives 2 and 3, which include construction of a floodwall system in the GIWW,
have inherent risk and safety issues that are unacceptable to the Corps. These alternatives
pose long-term risk of catastrophic failures and a hazardous condition given the
probability for vessel collisions with the floodwall due to its placement in close proximity
to a Federal navigation channel. The USCG also objects to the construction of any
floodwall in the GIWW channel because of the increased hazards of vessels hitting the
floodwall and causing a major marine incident.
The risks of damage to the HSDRRS would be so great as to be unacceptable with
Alternatives 2 and 3 given the proximity of the floodwall to the Federal navigation
channel, the high level of marine traffic utilizing the channel, and the types of
11-25
-------
commodities being transported. Furthermore, the increased risk of a catastrophic
environmental event given the hazardous nature of some of the commodities being
transported daily on the GIWW is unacceptable. A marine mishap along this segment of
the channel with a floodwall in the GIWW channel poses a significant risk to the people
living in the area and of environmental damage to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) site than
does the Alternative 1. Construction associated with either of these two alternatives
would be extremely challenging and costly, would take longer and poses unacceptable
risks to the Federal government.
11-26
-------
Part II, Appendix A
U.S. Coast Guard Letter to EPA
Regarding the GIWW Floodwall Alternative
11-27
-------
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
United States
Coast Guard
Commanding Officer
U.S. Coast Guard
Sector New Orleans
1815PoydrasSt.
New Ofteans, LA 70112
Staff Symbol: SPW
Phone: 504.665.5000
16630
23 February 2009
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Ms, Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, XX 75202-2733
Dear Ms. Barbara Keeler:
Please accept the following comments offered on behalf of the United States Coast Guard
regarding the EPA's request to move certain floodwalls associated with the Westbank Closure
Complex Flood Protection Project off of the Section 404C parcel and into the navigable waters
of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near the confluence of the Harvey and Algiers Canals. We
referenced the below website: www.nolaenvironmental.gov.
Sector New Orleans objects to any modifications of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
project design that will further impede the navigable waters of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
If the ACOE has to reduce the width of the gates to accommodate the floodwall being moved
into the channel, it will severely impact safe navigation through these flood gates in one of the
most highly traveled waterways in Louisiana. We cannot have a floodwall in the waterway
because of the increased hazards of vessels hitting the floodwall and causing a major marine
incident A shoreline is a necessity as a buffer between marine traffic'and the floodwall.
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is paramount to the facilitation of commerce within the Gulf
coast region and a floodwall in the waterway in this high traffic zone greatly increases the
chances of potentially disastrous marine casualties.
If you have any questions please contact LCDR Eva Van Camp of my staff at (504) 565-5044.
Sincerely,
D, STROH
Captain, U. S. Ctfast Guard
Commander, Sector New Orleans
Copy: Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
-------
Part II, Appendix B
Annotated Responses to Comments
Received by EPA During the Public Comment Period
on the Corps of Engineers'
Request to
Amend the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Determination
Prepared by EPA Region 6
March 2009
This document contains copies of the comments EPA Region 6 received during the
public comment period (Jan. 14, 2009 - Feb. 23, 2009) on the Corps' request to amend
the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(c) determination. All
of these comments were considered during the EPA evaluation of the Corps' request.
Each person or organization that provided input is listed below along with responses
where appropriate. The first group of responses relates to correspondence sent to EPA
Region 6. A complete copy of those original comments is included as Appendix C. The
numbered responses correspond to numbers marked in the margins of the original
comments, found in Appendix C.
The second group of responses relates to comments made during the public hearing.
Those comments may be found in the public hearing transcript, in Appendix D.
One comment that was offered by a number of people relates to an alternative that
would locate the Bayou aux Carpes floodwall off the boundary of the CWA Section
404(c) area and into the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). The response to that
comment requires an evaluation of engineering design constraints, navigational safety,
and Corps authorities. These topics are the expertise of the Corps. Therefore, EPA
Region 6 requested an additional detailed response from the Corps on this topic, which
is included as Appendix A.
The public hearing concerned two related topics, meeting the public interest needs of
two federal agencies. The Corps was accepting comments on the NEPA document, IER
#12, for a segment of the 100-year hurricane and storm damage risk reduction project.
This segment incorporates a project area greater than the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) site alone. EPA was accepting comments on the Corps' request to EPA
to modify the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) determination. The purpose of
this EPA Region 6 document is to respond to issues related to the CWA Section 404(c)
issue. Where it is relevant, this document also includes some responses from the Corps
11-29
-------
on the broader IER # 12. It is not, however, intended as a complete compendium of
Corps responses on IER # 12.
Group One: Responses to Correspondence Sent to EPA During the Comment Period
(See Appendix C for copies of the correspondence and numbered comments)
Joseph I. Vincent
1. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
2. Response from the Corps: Dredging of Algiers Canal has no bearing on Corps
request to modify the 404c final determination. No contaminated material or water will
be pumped or placed in the 404c area.
3. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
US Fish and Wildlife Service
1. No response necessary.
Gulf Restoration Network
1. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
request. The Corps comment period was 37 days and was extended by seven days to
allow for comments at the public hearing to be counted towards the IER 12 draft. The
Corps did not receive any notification requesting a comment extension during the
original 30 day comment period (5 Jan to 4 Feb). The purpose of the public hearing was
to gather additional comments from the public. The purpose of the meeting was not to
provide new or previously undisclosed information to the public. All information
discussed at the public hearing was disclosed in the draft IER 12 document that was
published 5 January for public comment. Members of the NGO groups that requested
extension of comment period turned in verbal and written comments during the comment
period.
Response from EPA: EPA extended the comment period on the CWA Section 404(c)
issue until Feb. 23, 2009.
2. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
3. Response from EPA: EPA will make a decision to modify the 404(c) determination,
to modify it with conditions, or to deny the Corps' request based on the information
provided in the Corps' formal request, in the IER and associated documents, in
comments received during the public comment period, and in additional information
requested from the Corps (e.g., the Corps' analysis of the possibility of locating the
floodwall away from the boundary of the CWA Section 404(c) site and out into the
GIWW, Appendix A) .
4. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. There are no new areas being placed on the protected side of the HSDRRS
with the exception of the business along Harvey Canal. There are no foreseeable
indirect impacts to wetlands that have not been previously disclosed in past
environmental compliance documents.
5. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. The Corps plan as discussed in final IER 12 does not include any additional
impacts to wetland flows or hydrology then exist for the no action plan.
6. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. No secondary indirect impacts have been identified that have not been
previously disclosed in environmental compliance documents.
11-30
-------
7. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. Table request was on page 134 of the draft IER 12 document.
8. Response from the Corps: The Corps in cooperation with EPA, NPS and other
Federal and state Resource agencies developed a plan to conduct a study to determine
if the augmentations proposed are reasonable and feasible. The plan developed was
based upon best professional judgment that one year of data was enough to proceed
with a determination of the benefits of the augmentations. Should it be agreed upon by
the resource agencies and the Corps that additional study is required prior to a decision
being made then the study period could be extended. Monitoring would be conducted
once the augmentations are in place as per a plan developed with the resource
agencies. As stated in the IER, if augmentations were found not to be effective they
would be modified or removed.
Response from EPA: The interagency team of natural resource specialists are
working on a study plan, to be funded by the Corps (with additional staff time from the
participating agencies), prior to making any decisions on whether to gap the banks of the
Estelle Outfall Canal. Because the only purpose of considering this action would be to
enhance the marsh habitat, the team will proceed cautiously with the analyses, which
will be conducted in a phased approach. The field study plan proposes to initially
sample pore water at floating marsh sites, including a suite of parameters such as
dissolved inorganic nitrogen and dissolved organic carbon. Surface water samples at
the pumping station and in the canal will be collected following rain events and will be
analyzed for a suite of parameters, including pesticides and herbicides. If initial results
indicate a need to gather more data, the approach will be adapted accordingly. The
results of the initial phase will be compared to similar productive marshes within the
adjacent Barataria Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park & Preserve, Barataria
Preserve Unit, as a baseline for comparison. See Chapter 7 of Draft IER # 12.
If EPA concludes that proposed augmentation measures are beneficial and that
implementation should proceed, no amendment of the current CWA Section 404(c)
designation will be required. The original designation contains an exception for EPA-
approved habitat enhancement projects.
9. Response from the Corps: Pages 162 and 163 discuss the monitoring plan that was
developed in cooperation with EPA, USFWS, NPS, and other resource agencies.
Additionally as a final mitigation plan is developed as per the alternative arrangements
additional details on a final monitoring plan would be developed. As stated in the IER
there are no long term operations and maintenance activities envisioned as being
required for the augmentation work.
10. Response from the Corps: Page 163 of the IER states that if the augmentations
were found to not be beneficial or there were adverse impacts appropriate steps as
determined by the Corps in cooperation with EPA, NPS to address those impacts.
Response from EPA: While it is not envisioned that operation and management
activities will be required for these non-structural features, a plan will be developed by
the interagency natural resource team to monitor the effects of the augmentation
features for the life of the Corps project. The plan will be adaptive in nature, meaning it
will be subject to change by the interagency review team along the way, depending on
the incremental findings. If implemented features are at any time determined to be
ecologically harmful, the Corps has committed to implementing necessary modifications.
11. Response from the Corps: This comment does not have a bearing on the 404c
modification decision. Overburden material is typically full of stumps, tree limbs,
grasses, and possibly exotic species. It would not be appropriate to utilize this material
11-31
-------
beneficially in a wetland system, i.e., introduce tallow or other noxious plants to a
wetland area.
12. Response from the Corps: This comment does not have a bearing on the 404c
modification decision. The benefits of non structural alternative were discussed in the
IER. Non-Structural alternatives do not work well in high density urban situations such
as the West Bank of New Orleans. In order to ensure the effectiveness of a non
structural alternative in an urban situation virtually all of the residential and business
structures along with the infrastructure that supports those business and residences
would need to be flood proofed. It is not feasible nor a benefit to the nation to construct
a 100 year HSDRRS and to raise a portion of the infrastructure, business, residential
structures.
13. Response from the Corps: This comment does not have a bearing on the 404c
modification decision. Whether the average house is 1,800 or 1,400, or 2,500 sq. feet is
immaterial to the cost of the non-structural alternative. Cost to construct a structural
barrier is projected to be 1.26 and the cost of the non-structural is 10 B. Even if you half
the number to 5B it is still not a benefit to the nation to pursue a non-structural
alternative for this project.
14. Response from the Corps: This comment does not have a bearing on the 404c
modification decision. Legend was updated in final document.
Sierra Club
1. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
2. Response from the Corps: The Corps in cooperation with EPA, NPS and other
Federal and state resource agencies developed a plan to conduct a study to determine if
the augmentations proposed are reasonable and feasible. The plan developed was
based upon best professional judgment that one year of data was enough to proceed
with a determination of the benefits of the augmentations. Should it be agreed upon by
the resource agencies and the Corps that additional study is required prior to a decision
being made then the study period could be extended. Monitoring would be conducted
once the augmentations are in place as per a plan developed with the resource
agencies. As stated in the IER, if augmentations were found not to be effective they
would be modified or removed.
Response from EPA: The interagency team of natural resource specialists are
working on a study plan, to be funded by the Corps (with additional staff time from the
participating agencies), prior to making any decisions on whether to gap the banks of the
Estelle Outfall Canal. Because the only purpose of considering this action would be to
enhance the marsh habitat, the team will proceed cautiously with the analyses, which
will be conducted in a phased approach. The field study plan proposes initially sampling
pore water at floating marsh sites, to include a suite of parameters such as dissolved
inorganic nitrogen and dissolved organic carbon. Surface water samples at the pumping
station and in the canal will be collected following rain events and will be analyzed for a
suite of parameters, including pesticides and herbicides. If initial results indicate a need
to gather more data, the approach will be adapted accordingly. The results of the initial
phase will be compared to similar productive marshes within the adjacent Barataria Unit
of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park & Preserve, Barataria Preserve Unit, as a
baseline for comparison. See Chapter 7 of Draft IER # 12.
3. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. The Corps is completing NEPA compliance under an alternative arrangement
that was implemented in March 2007. The IER provides adequate documentation for an
informed decision to be made concerning the government action as described. If
changes to the project do occur that pose impacts to the environment that have not been
11-32
-------
disclosed an IER supplemental document will be prepared and released to the public for
a 30 day public comment period.
4. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. The Corps is completing NEPA compliance under an alternative arrangement
that was implemented in March 2007. The IER provides adequate documentation for an
informed decision to be made.
5. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
6. Response from the Corps: Based upon the comments received during the draft IER
comment period, which included a public hearing, the New Orleans District Commander
made a decision that the comment period would not be extended.
Response from EPA: EPA extended by another ten days the comment period on the
CWA Section 404(c) modification request.
Louisiana Audubon Council
1. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
2. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. Not-to-scale drawings are used so that the public can understand the
proposed action demonstrated in the figure. If the figure was drawn to scale as
suggested the floodwall, berm, etc would be so small no one could determine any of the
details.
3. Response from the Corps: This comment is not related to the 404c modification
request. The Corps has stated that the dredged material would only be utilized for
beneficial use if is not contaminated. The Corps has no reason to believe the material is
contaminate, but is performing diligence to ensure that the material is free and clear of
any contaminants hat would pose a hazard to the environment.
4. Response from the Corps: For national security reasons the Corps has been asked
not to release information on known pipeline locations. As stated in the IER a new
pipeline will be directionally drilled under the 404c area avoiding all impacts to the area.
The old pipe will likely be capped in place by the owner of the pipe. Segments of the
pipeline will be removed as necessary to provide adequate clearances for navigation
traffic in the new bypass channel.
5. Response from the Corps: The Corps, in cooperation with EPA, NPS and other
Federal and state Resource agencies, developed a plan to conduct a study to determine
if the augmentations proposed are reasonable and feasible. The plan developed was
based upon best professional judgment that one year of data was enough to proceed
with a determination of the benefits of the augmentations. Should it be agreed upon by
the resource agencies and the Corps that additional study is required prior to a decision
being made then the study period could be extended. Monitoring would be conducted
once the augmentations are in place as per a plan developed with the resource
agencies. As stated in the IER, if augmentations were found not to be effective they
would be modified or removed.
Response from EPA: The Corps has committed to EPA (via the Nov. 4, 2008, letter
from Col. Alvin B. Lee to EPA's Lawrence E. Starfield, available on
http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov) to fully mitigate the adverse impacts of the project
that occur within the 404(c) area, as well as implementing additional habitat
"augmentation" features. An agreement was reached that all mitigation would be
performed within the 404(c) site, if possible. If that is not possible, mitigation would be
performed within the adjacent Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. The
Corps has assured EPA that the funding for the mitigation and augmentation work is in
hand and will be reserved for this purpose. The interagency team of natural resource
specialists are working on a field study plan, to be funded by the Corps (with additional
11-33
-------
staff time from the participating agencies), prior to making any decisions on whether to
implement any particular environmental enhancement feature. From an engineering
standpoint, construction of the mitigation and augmentation features is independent of
construction of the flood risk reduction features.
6. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. The Corps is completing NEPA compliance under an alternative arrangement
that was implemented in March 2007. The IER provides adequate documentation for an
informed decision to be made concerning the government action as described. If
changes to the project do occur that pose impacts to the environment that have not been
disclosed an IER supplemental document will be prepared and released to the public for
a 30 day public comment period.
7. See the response to comment 5.
8. Response from the Corps: This comment has no bearing on the 404c modification
decision. The comment is also outside of the purview of the Corps to study since water
flows between the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve and the Bayou aux
Carpes area are beyond the scope of this project.
Response from EPA: The study team, which includes staff from the National Park
Service, has not determined that investigation of hydrologic flows between the 404(c)
area and the Park is a priority for consideration as a mitigation or augmentation feature,
although other hydrologic features were considered to be priorities for analysis. These
include potentially gapping the Estelle Outfall Canal and other interior canals. However,
this issue will be brought up again for discussion by the interagency review team.
9. See the response to comment 5.
10. Response from EPA: EPA, the Corps, and the interagency study team agree and
are in the process of devising a study plan and analyzing hydrology data the Corps is
assembling. See Draft IER # 12, Chapter 7.
11. Response from EPA: The interagency team of natural resource specialists are
working on a study plan, to be funded by the Corps (with additional staff time from the
participating agencies), prior to making any decisions on whether to gap the banks of the
Estelle Outfall Canal. Because the only purpose of considering this action would be to
enhance the marsh habitat, the team will proceed cautiously with the analyses, which
will be conducted in a phased approach. The field study plan proposes initially sampling
pore water at floating marsh sites, to include a suite of parameters such as dissolved
inorganic nitrogen and dissolved organic carbon. Surface water samples at the pumping
station and in the canal will be collected following rain events and will be analyzed for a
suite of analytes, including pesticides and herbicides. If initial results of testing over four
seasons indicate a need to gather more data, the approach will be adapted accordingly.
The results of the initial phase will be compared to similar productive marshes within the
adjacent Barataria Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park & Preserve, Barataria
Preserve Unit, as a baseline for comparison.
12. Response from EPA: A plan will be developed by the interagency natural resource
team to monitor the effects of the augmentation features for the life of the Corps project.
The plan will be adaptive in nature, meaning it will be subject to change by the
interagency review team along the way, depending on the incremental findings. If
implemented features are determined at some point to be ecologically harmful, the
Corps has committed to implementing necessary modifications.
13. Response from EPA: EPA will support the Corps'efforts to make the study
proposals available for public review.
14. Response from the Corps: NEPA allows for data gaps as part of the process for
agencies making informed decisions. In this case the data gaps do not have an impact
on the decision being made. Corps projects in general by law and regulation are rarely
11-34
-------
taken past a feasibility level of design prior to the NEPA compliance document being
prepared and approved.
Oliver A. Houck, Tulane Law School
1. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A, and the
alternatives analyses in IER 12, Chapter 2.
2. Response from EPA: EPA Region 6 shares this concern and will consider these
issues in our recommendations to the EPA Office of Water.
League of Women Voters
1. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A, and the
alternatives analyses in IER 12, Chapter 2.
2. Response from EPA: EPA Region 6 shares this concern and will consider these
issues in our recommendations to the EPA Office of Water.
3. Response from the Corps: This comment is not related to the 404c modification
request. Furthermore no contaminated material will be utilized for beneficial use.
4. Response from the Corps: IER 12 meets the NEPA standard per the alternative
arrangements.
Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper
1. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve -- No response necessary.
Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority
1. Response from EPA: EPA Region 6 has worked with the Corps in an effort to
develop alternatives which would minimize environmental impacts to the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area. EPA will evaluate the Corps' engineering analysis of such an
option. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
1. Response from EPA: EPA Region 6 has worked with the Corps in their effort to
develop alternatives which would minimize environmental impacts to the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) area. EPA will evaluate the Corps' engineering analysis of such an
option, found in Appendix A. EPA Region 6 also recognizes the expertise of the Gulf
Intracoastal Canal Association in this matter.
2. Response from the Corps: The Corps concurs with this statement and believes that
the action proposed for the WCC is appropriate given the risk, safety, environmental,
and cost that comes with a project such as this. See also Corps response to GIWW
alternative, Appendix A.
3. Response from the Corps: The Corps has been coordinating this project and the
proposed action with the CG for sometime. We welcome their input in to this process
and are happy to have them as a partner in the process. See also the comment letter
from the Coast Guard.
Hydradyne Hydraulics LLC -- No EPA response necessary.
Jefferson Parish - No EPA response necessary.
Plaquemines Parish -- No EPA response necessary.
11-35
-------
Mississippi River Recycling - No EPA response necessary.
Numa C. Hero & Son
1. Response from EPA: It is correct that the habitat along the boundary of the Bayou
aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area is not flotant marsh but is comprised of
bottomland hardwoods grading into cypress-tupelo swamp. The flotant marsh is found
in large expanses within the interior of the site. See IER #12 Appendix I, Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report.
IWS Gas and Supply -- No EPA response necessary.
Connie & Kenny Nanney - No EPA response necessary.
Harvey Canal Industrial Association - No EPA response necessary.
Thomas G. Halko - No EPA response necessary.
Louisiana Wildlife Federation
1. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
U.S. Coast Guard - No EPA response necessary. EPA Region 6 also
recognizes the expertise of the U.S. Coast Guard in this matter.
American Rivers and National Wildlife Federation
1. See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
2. Response from EPA: Based on the plans provided to EPA Region 6 and the habitat
assessment field work conducted by an interagency team, the figure of 9.6 acres of
direct and permanent impact represents the maximum figure projected.
3. Response from EPA: Though EPA Region 6 and the interagency review team have
not identified secondary and cumulative impacts beyond those discussed in the IER, a
long-term monitoring plan is being developed to track any changes over the 50 year life
of the project. If any adverse impacts become evident, the Corps has agreed to work
with EPA Region 6 and the interagency team to address them.
4. Response from EPA: Neither the Corps nor EPA Region 6 have identified any direct
or indirect impacts from the directional drilling proposal. That method of pipeline
relocation has been proposed to avoid impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) area.
5. Response from EPA: Any impacts from the foreshore protection would be accounted
for in the direct impacts to the 9.6 acres discussed in the IER.
6. Response from EPA: The Corps is completing NEPA compliance under a CEQ
approved alternative arrangement that was implemented in March 2007. This allowed
for a "rolling cumulative impact" analysis to be prepared and documented in a
Comprehensive Environmental Document.
7. Response from USFWS: The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Report for
IER 12 incorporated and supplemented several previous reports and assessments,
including FWCA Reports that addressed impacts and mitigation features for the West
Bank and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project (dated November 10, 1986, August 22,
1994, November 15,1996, and June 20, 2005); the November 26, 2007, Draft
Programmatic FWCA Report that addresses the hurricane protection improvements
authorized in Supplemental 4; and the 1985 report titled "Fish and Wildlife Resources of
the Bayou aux Carpes Drainage Area, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana" provided to EPA in
11-36
-------
response to EPA's request during the CWA 404 (c) designation. Because of the high
volume of material those documents produced they were included by reference in the
FWCA Report.
The Fish and Wildlife Service analyses of future with- and without-project conditions
were quantified by acreage and habitat quality (i.e., average annual habitat units or
AAHUs) in accordance with the Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures. Because this
work was initiated while the project was still early in the design phase, the footprint of
greatest impacts was evaluated. The Service used the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources Habitat Assessment Methodology (HAM) to quantify the impacts of proposed
project features on upland and wetland bottomland hardwood habitat and used the
Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) methodology to quantify the impacts on swamp
habitat. The habitat assessment models for bottomland hardwoods within the Louisiana
Coastal Zone utilized in this evaluation were modified from those developed in the
Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). Further explanation of how
impacts/benefits are assessed with the HAM and WVA and an explanation of the
assumptions affecting habitat suitability (i.e., quality) index (HSI) values for each target
year for impacts to bottomland hardwood and swamp habitat are available for review at
the Service's Lafayette, Louisiana, field office, as indicated in the FWCA Report.
8. Response from the Corps: The Corps in cooperation with EPA Region 6, NPS and
other Federal and state Resource agencies developed a plan to conduct a study to
determine if the augmentations proposed are reasonable and feasible. The plan
developed was based upon best professional judgment that one year of data was
enough to proceed with a determination of the benefits of the augmentations. Should it
be agreed upon by the resource agencies and the Corps that additional study is required
prior to a decision being made then the study period could be extended. Monitoring
would be conducted once the augmentations are in place as per a plan developed with
the resource agencies. As stated in the IER, if augmentations were found not to be
effective they would be modified or removed.
Response from EPA: The interagency team of natural resource specialists are
working on a study plan, to be funded by the Corps (with additional staff time from the
participating agencies), prior to making any decisions on whether to gap the banks of the
Estelle Outfall Canal. Because the only purpose of considering this action would be to
enhance the marsh habitat, the team will proceed cautiously with the analyses, which
will be conducted in a phased approach. The field study plan proposes initially sampling
pore water at floating marsh sites, to include a suite of parameters such as dissolved
inorganic nitrogen and dissolved organic carbon. Surface water samples at the pumping
station and in the canal will be collected following rain events and will be analyzed for a
suite of parameters, including pesticides and herbicides. If initial results indicate a need
to gather more data, the approach will be adapted accordingly. The results of the initial
phase will be compared to similar productive marshes within the adjacent Barataria Unit
of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park & Preserve, Barataria Preserve Unit, as a
baseline for comparison. See Chapter 7 of Draft IER # 12.
Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration - No EPA response necessary.
Paul Atkinson -- No EPA response necessary.
11-37
-------
Group Two: Responses to Oral Statements Made at the Public Hearing
(See Appendix D for a transcript of the statements)
Mayor Kerner:
EPA Response: The concern was expressed that the West Closure Complex project
segment would lie on the protected side of at least one alignment of the proposed
"Donaldsonville-to-the-Gulf" hurricane risk reduction project and would, therefore, not be
the most efficient project design or the most efficient use of funds. Several people
claimed that a levee system located farther south would provide hurricane protection to
Bayou Barataria communities such as Crown Point and Jean Lafitte, areas that would
not be protected by the West Closure Complex. The argument was made that the Corps
should proceed directly to build the "Donaldsonville-to-the-Gulf" hurricane risk reduction
project as an alternative to the West Closure Complex or as an alternative to the entire
upgraded West Bank and Vicinity project, as a part of the Greater New Orleans
Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System project (GNOHSDRRS).
Whereas the GNOHSDRRS project is authorized, funded, and proceeding under
expedited NEPA review, the "Donaldsonville-to-the-Gulf" project is still undergoing
engineering design and environmental review. Once this work has been completed,
Congressional authorization and appropriation would then be required before
construction could begin on the "Donaldsonville-to-the-Gulf" project. EPA Region 6
expresses no opinion here on the feasibility of constructing a Category 5 hurricane
protection system.
Mr. Vallee: No EPA response necessary.
Mr. Rota: The EPA comment period was extended by ten days. See responses
above to the detailed letter from Gulf Restoration Network in the annotated comments.
Mr. Modino: See the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW,
Appendix A.
Ms. Mastrototaro: The EPA comment period was extended by ten days. See
also the Corps response to building the floodwall in the GIWW, Appendix A.
Mr. Stern: See the responses above to the detailed letter from Sierra Club and
the Gulf Restoration Network, as well as the response to Mayor Kerner.
Mr. Champagne: See the response to Mayor Kerner.
Dr. Kohl: The EPA comment period was extended by ten days. Seethe
responses above to the detailed letter from the Louisiana Audubon Council.
Ms. Kahn: No EPA response necessary.
Mr. Hero: No EPA response necessary.
Mr. Huffman: No EPA response necessary.
Mr. Halko: See the response above to Mayor Kerner.
Mr. Pourciau: No EPA response necessary.
11-38
-------
Part II, Appendix C
Public Comments
-------
Feb. 9, 2009
509 ThirdAve.
Harvey, La. 70058
Gib Owen, PM-RS Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EPA Region 6
P.O. Box 60267 1445 Ross Avenue
NOLA 70160-0267 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
mvnenvironmentaKa)usace.armv.mil keeler.barbara(d)eva.zov
Dear Sir and Madam:
lam writing today in regard to the GJWWWest Closure Complex, the Corps1
Individual Environmental Report 12, and the Corps9 request to impact the Bayou
aux Carpes 404© area here in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Common sense
dictates that the 404© area continue to receive full protection, and that the Corps
request be denied.
For my entire adult life, the Corps of Engineers has served as a combination
lap dog/lap dancer/towel girl for the Louisiana Congressional delegation, which
has always ranked at or near the top in terms of corruption and its penchant for
acting in direct contrast to the welfare of its constituents. Admittedly, Alaska
probably kept Louisiana out of the top spot the last few years, but not for lack of
trying. Some of what can only be considered to rank amongst the nation *s
greatest eco-terrorists have been members of the Louisiana delegation: Bitty
Tautin, J. Bennett Johnston, John Breaux, and Bob Livingston, to name a few.
And today's delegation has been guilty of tremendous neglect Over 20 years after
the creation (against terrific political opposition) of the only National Park in the
State, the park's boundaries have yet to be normalized.
For close to 40 years, I have been active in attempts to stop the Corps from
either destroying or allowing the destruction of Louisiana's wetlands. But the
Corps has routinely either encouraged or allowed the continued destruction of
our wetlands. Thousands upon thousands of needless projects were approved by
or thought up by the Corps with the primary intent of destroying wetlands that
could protect and nurture us attfor the sake of some individual's or corporation's
short-term gain. Wherever and whenever possible, the Corps ignored the law and
-------
shirked its duties, dreaming up garbage like Nationwide Permits and delegating
its authority to local programs like that of Jefferson Parish, which has always
tried to destroy as many acres of wetlands as is humanly possible.
Jefferson Parish politicians wanted desperately to destroy the Bayou aux
Carpes area. The Corps desperately wanted to help them do so. Only the
miraculous intervention of EPA stopped that destruction from occurring. The
same people who threw their weight around in those days are still around today.
There may be new people in the Corps with whom I am not acquainted, who may
actually want to obey the law and do what's morally right. I hope so, although I
would note that the Corps has yet to correct the situation in Crown Point, where
Jefferson Parish has been illegally draining wetlands for over 30 years.
If our observations are correct, the talweg of the GlWWis now a few hundred
feet from shore. The project was approved as a 125' by 12' channel, so there
appears to be a tremendous amount of room for constructing a "T-wall" between
the boundary of the Bayou aux Carpes 404© area and the boundary of the 125'
authorized channel We find no reason to encroach upon the 404© area to
accomplish the Corps'stated purpose.
I myself live on the West Bank of Jefferson Parish. I need hurricane
protection as much as anyone else. But there never was, and there is no reason to
destroy wetlands to accomplish the completion of a hurricane protection levee
system. Certainly, an area tike the 404© area at Bayou aux Carpes is ever more
rare, and as such ever more valuable as both habitat and a natural storm buffer.
We cannot allow any of it to be lost. We cannot allow contaminated sediment to
be placed in it. We cannot allow contaminated water to be pumped into it
cannot bear to hear the word "mitigation", which has historically been as
pathetic a failure as the Jefferson Parish motto "Jefferson's got to grow."
I hereby ask the Corps to modify its design to move the "T-wall" further in the
direction of the GIWW talweg to spare any and attparts of the 404© area, and I
hereby ask EPA to not allow the destruction of any part of the Bayou aux Carpes
area.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Joseph I. "Jay" Vincent
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
646 Cajundome Blvd.
Suite 400
Lafayette, Louisiana 70506
February 9, 2009
Ms. Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Dear Ms. Keeler:
Please reference the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Notice of Public Hearing and
Request for Comments published in the Federal Register (Volume 74, No. 9, pg. 2072) on
January 14, 2009. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), New Orleans District, has
requested an amendment to EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (c) designation which
prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into the Bayou aux Carpes Site in Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana. That amendment is requested to allow the Corps to construct the proposed
Westbank and Vicinity of New Orleans (WBV), Harvey to Algiers, 100-year level hurricane
protection project, Individual Environmental Report 12 (IER 12), which is authorized in
accordance with Public Law 109-234, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Supplemental 4). The EPA has
requested comments as to whether the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) EPA Final
Determination should be modified as requested by the Corps. The Service submits the following
comments in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, as
amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (40 Stat. 755, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The Ser/ice recognizes the importance of the Bayou aux Carpes wetland complex to fish and
wildlife resources and believes that the designation is warranted to protect these sensitive areas
from development. In cooperation with Federal and State partners, the Corps has minimized
potential direct and indirect impacts to significant flotant marsh and cypress swamp habitat by
aligning the floodwall along the periphery of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site.
While the preferred alignment has resulted in greater direct impacts to forested wetlands, those
forested wetlands at one time were previously altered by fill material. The preferred alignment
would enclose fewer wetland acres, and avoid the damaging hydrologic consequences associated
with bisecting the Bayou aux Carpes flotant marsh with a structural barrier. Moreover, unlike the
Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria Levee project which was the catalyst for EPA's determination, the
preferred alternative alignment would avoid inclusion of the Bayou aux Carpes flotant and
cypress swamp complex into the flood protection system and subsequently placing the area under
-------
pumped drainage.
During the alternatives analysis for IER 12, the Corps considered a series of alternative gate
locations within the project area that would minimize the need for parallel protection. One of
these alternatives included constructing a sector gate across the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404 (c) site and was initially the Corps' preferred alternative. The proposed floodwall alignment
within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site would have, not only directly impacted
high-quality flotant marsh and forested wetlands, but would have isolated approximately 500
acres of flotant marsh by placing them within the flood protection system. Constructing a
floodwall across flotant marsh would disrupt the dynamic hydrologic conditions characteristic of
a flotant marsh and would disrupt the natural hydrologic regimes within the entire Bayou aux
Carpes wetland complex negatively impacting significant fish and wildlife resources. As
proposed, the preferred alternative would minimize impacts by avoiding bisecting the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site and by implementing innovative design and construction
techniques (e.g., floodwall design, construction sequencing).
At this time, the Service is unaware of any threatened or endangered species or their critical
habitat within the proposed hurricane protection system project footprint for IER 12. However,
the project-area forested wetlands provide nesting habitat for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), and a bald eagle nest was documented within the Bayou aux Carpes drainage
area in 2007. This should be considered when designing environmental augmentation features.
The bald eagle was officially removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species on
August 8, 2007. Bald eagles nest in Louisiana from October through mid-May. Eagles typically
nest in mature trees (e.g., bald cypress, sycamore, willow, etc.) near fresh to intermediate
marshes or open water in the southeastern Parishes. Major threats to this species include habitat
alteration, human disturbance, and environmental contaminants (i.e., organochlorine pesticides
and lead). Although the bald eagle has been removed from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Species, it continues to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Service developed the National Bald Eagle
Management (NBEM) Guidelines to provide landowners, land managers, and others with
information and recommendations to minimize potential project impacts to bald eagles,
particularly where such impacts may constitute "disturbance," which is prohibited by the
BGEPA. The Service's Division of Migratory Birds for the Southeast Region (phone: 404/679-
7051, e-mail: SEmigratorybirds@fws.gov) has 'the lead role in conducting such consultations.
Should you need further assistance interpreting the guidelines or performing an on-line project
evaluation, please contact this office.
Direct impacts to bottomland hardwood and swamp habitat associated with the preferred
alternative were quantified by acreage and habitat quality (i.e., average annual habitat units or
AAHUs). The Service used the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Habitat Assessment
Methodology (HAM) to quantify the impacts of proposed project features on upland and wetland
bottomland hardwood habitat and used the Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) methodology to
quantify the impacts on swamp habitat. The Service determined that direct impacts to
approximately 9.6 acres of forested habitat (i.e., 2.4 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat and
7.2 acres of swamp habitat) within the proposed 100-foot right-of-way of the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404 (c) site would result in the loss of 6.1 AAHUs. Riparian habitat and
-------
associated fish and wildlife resources would be minimally reduced within the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404 (c) site. Mitigation for unavoidable losses of wet and non-wet bottomland
hardwoods and swamp habitat, caused by project features of the entire hurricane protection
system will be evaluated through a complementary comprehensive mitigation IER. However,
should this designation be amended and the Corps' proposed alternative authorized, mitigation
for unavoidable impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area would be provided concurrently
with flood protection features and within the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area.
To ensure that potential impacts resulting from the construction of a flood protection structure do
not compromise the value of this nationally-significant wetland ecosystem and to maintain the
integrity of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site, the Corps is proposing to
incorporate environmental augmentation features into the proposed hurricane protection project.
Stormwater from the Old Estelle Pump Station canal is currently being directed into the GIWW
bypassing the Bayou aux Carpes wetland complex. Because of the invaluable water quality
functions wetlands provide, stormwater will be redirected through the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404 (c) site which would restore the natural process of nutrient cycling and reduce the
risk of eutrophication in the lower basin waterbodies, provided modeling results support that
action. Proposed augmentations could supplement hydrologic exchange within approximately
3,000 acres of flotant marsh, cypress swamp, and wetland scrub-shrub habitat.
Although complete avoidance of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site would be
preferred, it is the Service's opinion that amending the designation as proposed would not have
an unacceptable adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources within the Bayou aux Carpes
wetland complex. The Corps has incorporated proposed environmental augmentation features as
a feature of the proposed project. Provided that hydrologic modeling supports implementation of
those features, the Service believes that those augmentations coupled with long-term monitoring
will ensure that unforeseen impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site are
avoided. On the condition that the Corps moves forward with modeling and design of the
environmental augmentation features concurrently with hurricane protection features, the Service
would not be opposed to EPA modifying the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) EPA
Final Determination.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment and look forward to the
continued coordination with the EPA, the Corps, and other State and Federal resource agencies
with regards to the proposed hurricane protection system project. Should you have any questions
regarding our comments, please give me a call (337/291-3115).
Sincerely,
Supervisor
Louisiana Field Office
-------
cc: FWS, Atlanta, GA (ES/HC)
Corps, New Orleans, LA
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, New Orleans, LA
NMFS, Baton Rouge, LA
LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA
LDNR, CMD, Baton Rouge, LA
-------
GULF
RESTORATION
NETWORK
UNITED FOR A HEALTHY GULF
338 Baronne St., Suite 200, New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone:(504)525-1528 Fax:(504)525-0833
www.healthygulf.org
February 11, 2009
Mr. Gib Owen, PM-RS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMVN-PM-RS
PO Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
mvnenvironmental@usace.army.mil
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region* 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
keeler.barbara@epa.gov
RE: DRAFT INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 12 AND PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO
404(C) ACTION
Dear Mr. Owen and Ms. Keeler:
I am writing on behalf of the Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), a diverse coalition of
individual citizens arid local, regional, and national organizations committed to uniting and
empowering people to protect and restore the resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Please
accept the following comments regarding the Army Corps of Engineers' Draft Individual
Environmental Report: GIWW, Harvey, and Algiers Levees and Floodwalls, Jefferson, Orleans,
and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana (IER #12), and the Proposed Modification to the Bayou
aux Carpes 404(c) Action. . .
While we recognize that the protection of our coastal resources is urgent, we have some
comments and concerns about several aspects of IER #12 as it is currently written. These
concerns are outlined below:
1. Public Participation is Not Adequate
While the public comment period was extended to at least coincide with the public
hearing, this is still not adequate. If the public hearing lasts until 9:00 pm, this only
allows the public three hours to process and comment upon any information
presented by the Corps or other commenters. Because of this, we request the public
comment period be extended to allow for the public to comment upon new
information gained at the hearing.
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page_2of6 _
2. Full Avoidance of Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Must Be Further Analyzed
We would first like to applaud the Corps for working with us and EPA to develop the
proposed alignment, instead of selecting an alignment that would have bisected the
Bayou aux Carpes area. It is important that the Corps continue to recognize the
importance of this ecologically sensitive area.
However, we feel that the 9.6 acres in the Bayou aux Carpes could be further
avoided. On page 49, it is stated that "alternatives that would avoid impacts to that
area were considered...this alternative was eliminated from further consideration
due to constructability and navigation concerns" because it would "create
engineering and construction challenges..." This statement is not supported. The
navigation channel is authorized to be 125 feet wide, while the waterway is 400-500
feet wide. The Corps does not demonstrate in this IER why it is not feasible to place
the T-wall further out into the waterway. Assuming the channel is in the
approximate center of the canal, this would still allow a large buffer between
navigation and hurricane protection. Because of this lack of justification and failure
to demonstrate the necessity of impacting the 9.6 acres of the Bayou aux Carpes, we
request that the moving of the t-wall further out be analyzed in order to further
reduce, or even eliminate the wetland impacts. We request that an analysis be done
examining moving the flood wall different distances out into the water.^Siin^cTthis
would constitute a significant change, the IER should also be re-noticed.Additionally,
EPA should not grant a 404(c) modification until it is shown that the CorpslficToTiglTly-
explored all options for the reduction or elimination of impacts to the 404(c) area.
3. Wetland Impacts Must be Considered Fully
While Table 6 on page 63 presents the total direct wetland impacts anticipated,
secondary and indirect impacts are not addressed. With increased storm protection
comes increased development pressure. In fact the Bayou aux Carpes area was
originally going to be drained and developed several years ago. On page 47, the
Corps even admits that rezoning "could minimize future damages frojruiew
development in flood-prone areas," thus implying4+ra"ffrie"surrounding areas very
well could be developed given current zoning. This secondary effect must be taken
into account.TFurther, taller and more expansive levees and flood walls have the
potential to disrupt the flow of water through wetlands, potentially impacting these
. wetlands. V. v
In order for this IER to fully address its environmental impacts, secondary and
indirect impacts must be accounted for within the report, and slated to be mitigated
for, just as direct impacts are.
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 3 of 6
Additionally, cumulative impacts are not thoroughly addressed. Acknowledging that
cumulative impacts will be discussed fully in the CED, more on cumulative impacts
should be included in this IER. In past meetings with the Corps, they have presented
a spreadsheet that had current impacts and anticipated impacts. This analysis, or
best estimate of cumulative impacts should be included in this and all subsequent
lERs
4. Augmentation Features Must Be Thoroughly Researched and Planned
In order for EPA to make a truly informed decision the "augmentation features" must
be further designed and studies. The impact to the 404(c) area is partially justified
because some augmentation features are being examined, the largest of which
would be the gapping of the canal to the north of the area to allow storm runoff to
flow through the wetland. A baseline study of at least two years should be done to
see if this would indeed augment the area. Given that this water would be urban
runoff, which could potentially be carrying high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus,
metals, and petroleum products, care must be taken to ensure that this "fresh" water
is truly fresh and not too contaminated to cause damage to the wetland over the
short and long term.
The operating plan and funds for the augmentation features are also not discussed in
this IER. On page 39, it is stated that "modifications to the banks and shell plug in the
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area would not be expected to require
[operation and maintenance]." However the monitoring and control of flood
structures in the canal would require monitoring, operation, and maintenance for at
least several years after they are put into operation. The operation and management
of the augmentation features must be addressed and guaranteed for years to come.
We also request if this action proceeds, a contingency plan is written into the project.
Specifically if some or all of the augmentation features are not beneficial to the area,
more mitigation should be required within or adjacent to the 404(c) area, since part
of EPA's decision depends on the success of these augmentation features.
5. Beneficial Use
It is stated that dredge material will be used beneficially in the "crib" area to build
wetlands. This must be detailed more in the IER. Specifically, contaminants and
wetland building plans must be further addressed. The dredge materials must be
tested for contaminants to ensure that humans and wildlife will not be acutely or
chronically harmed by any contaminants from industrialized navigation channels.
Additionally if contaminated sediment is identified, and it is landfilled, this sediment
would probably first be de-watered, which could cause large water quality issues.
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 4 of 6
Since this would be an obvious environmental impact, the effects of this dewatering
of contaminated sediment must be addressed fully in the IER.
Further, a specific plan for wetland creation utilizing dredge material should be
detailed in this report. It is not acceptable to defer this to the mitigation IER, as
dredge disposal is an integral part of this project. This plan is vital in order to ensure
that dredge material is not simply dumped in the crib area, but a plan is followed that
will give wetlands the best opportunity for sustainable production.
Also regarding beneficial use, it is stated on page 29 that "overburden
material...would be mulched and used on site or hauled away to a landfill." At a
recent meeting we asked why this overburden cannot be used beneficially in wetland
creation instead of being hauled to a landfill, and our question was not adequately
answered, so we ask again if the Corps looked into this beneficial use of overburden.
If so, this information should be in the IER, if not, we formally request that this be
explored within this IER.
6. Non-Structural
This IER, as well as other IERS that we have reviewed do not adequately address non-
structural options to potential projects for the 100 year protection for metro New
Orleans. On page 47, it stated that "no combination of non-structural tools could
independently achieve the required 100-year level of risk reduction needed to
provide hurricane surge protection on the [West Bank and Vicinity] as intended by
federal statutes." However, the question is not "can non-structural tools eliminate
the need for structural storm protection," but can it be used in combination with
structural components to achieve protection that is sustainable and reduces the
impact on the natural environment. We feel that the Corps is misinterpreting WRDA.
While WRDA states that nonstructural measures can be considered independently or
in combination with structural measures (p. 45 of IER #12), the combination of
structural and nonstructural is completely ignored.
Additionally, when discussing the "raise in place" option, the IER assumes that all
structures would have to be raised, and that each residential structure averages
1,800 square feet. Given that nonstructural and structural can be used together, the
assumption that all buildings would have to be raised is a false assumption.
Additionally, we request evidence to support the assertion that the average home in
this area is 1,800 square feet.
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 5 of 6 ' . _ _ __
7. Preliminary Alternatives Screening Table is Not Complete
Table 3 on page 50 has errors in the key, and thus is not correct. In the table there
are checks, dots, and x's, however nowhere in the table is it stated what a check is.
This is a very important table, as it is supposed to summarize how each alternative
was screened. Without knowing what the symbols are, it is impossible to interpret
this table. Given the importance of this table, we request a re-notice of this IER, so
we and EPA can be positive that the best option was truly chosen.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on IER #12 and the 404(c) modification. While
we are pleased that the Corps has worked towards avoiding impacts to the 404(c) area, we
feel that more could potentially be done to protect the area. Given this, we request that
EPA not modify the 404(c) action until IER #12 is truly completed, including the additions
that are suggested above.
We tr^ust that the Corps and EPA will take all of the above comments seriously, as they would
enhance the project. We look forward to a timely written response. Further, we would
welcome the opportunity to meet with.the agencies to discuss our concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Rota
Water Resources Program Director
CC:
John Ettinger, US EPA
Horst Greczmiel, US CEQ
Jill Mastrototaro, Sierra Club
Melissa Samet, American Rivers
Barry Kohl, lAAudubon Council
Jill Witkowski, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
Mike Murphy, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
John Lopez, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Carlton Dufrechou, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Mark Davis, Tulane University
Maura Wood, National Wildlife Federation
Juanita Constable, National Wildlife Federation
Natalie Snider, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 6 of 6_ __' __
Steven Peyronnin, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
Paul Kemp, National Audubon Society
Haywood Martin, Delta Chapter Sierra Club.
-------
SIERRA
CLUB
FOUNDED 1892
Haywood R. Martin, Chair
Sierra Club, Delta Chapter
400 Glynndale Ave.
Lafayette, LA 70506
February 11,2009
Gib Owen, PM-RS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Re: Combined public hearing on the Draft IER-12, on the modification of CWA Sec. 404(c)
determination for Bayou aux Carpes; and hearing on GIWW West Closure Complex.
The Sierra Club Delta Chapter supports a safe hurricane protection levee for the entire New
Orleans area including the west bank of Jefferson Parish. We also support the use of natural
systems such as forested and non-forested wetlands to add progressive barriers to storm surges.
We thank EPA and the other resource agencies for recommending to the Corps a change in their
original preferred alternative, which was the Southern Closure option. It appears that the
proposed alternative would take 9.6 acres of the BAG as opposed the 600 acres of marsh that
would have been impacted by the earlier proposal. While this is a large decrease in the taking of
wetlands of national significance, we suggest that the Corps can do better. Additional structural
changes to the eastern levee and closure complex would avoid any wetland loss to the BAG. The
Corps Alternative 2, should be modified to avoid any direct or indirect impacts to the Sec 404(c) /~\
wetlands. It appears that there is adequate space to move the structure further into the waterway \\}
so as to avoid the 404(c) wetlands. . ^"^
We are also concerned that any additional information gathered over the one-year baseline study
jvilUome after the project has been approved. This includes most of the impacts to the BAG
area. Also, the engineering design report for the gates and floodwalls has not been completed.
The DIER states that a Draft Comprehensive Environmental Document (CED) "will contain
updated information for any IER that had incomplete or unavailable data at the time it was posted
for public review." It appears that potentially critical information will not be available at the time
the IER is approved and construction commences. The list of inadequacies admitted by the Corps
shows that this document should not have been released until the Corps had time to finish its
work and a complete IER prepared for public and agency review.
-------
We are informed that the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area will be included within the Jean Lafitte
National Historical Park and Preserve this year. Senate bill S. 22 has passed the US Senate and it
is expected to pass the House soon. This provides significant additional importance to the
protection of the BAG as, a 404(c) area and as part of the Barataria Preserve of the National Park.
Because there are still important data omitted from the draft document, we request that a
revised/amended IER be prepared and circulated to the public and resource agencies for review.
We are formally requesting that IER-12 be amended to include omitted information, and full
responses to the public/agency comments on the DIER-12
In conclusion, we oppose Alternative 2, the preferred alignment, as presented in the DIER-12.
We request the Corps do an amended IER containing new designs and supportive data, and we
strongly recommend that EPA deny the request by the Corps to modify its final determination on
the Bayou aux Carpes CWA 404(c^Furthermore we request that the comment period be
extended so that all interested parties have adequate time to prepare substantive comments.
Thank you,
Haywood Martin, Chair
Sierra Club Delta Chapter
cc: Louisiana Audubon Council
-------
ouisiana
udubon
ouncil
1522 Lowerline St., New Orleans, LA 70118
February 11,2009
Gib Owen, PM-RS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Re: Combined public hearing on the Draft IER-12, on the modification of C WA Sec.
404(c) determination for Bayou aux Carpes; and hearing on GIWW West Closure
Complex.
Dear Ms. Keeler and Mr. Owen,
First, the Louisiana Audubon Council wants to be on record as supporting a safe hurricane
protection levee for the entire New Orleans area including the Westbank of Jefferson Parish. The Jean
Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve (JLNHPP) and Bayou aux Carpes (BAC) wetlands will
provide non-structural protection and reduce die hurricane tidal surges before they reach the westbank
levee system. Non-structural protection is provided by forested and non-forested wetlands and have been
documented as reducing the height of tidal surges during Hurricanes Rita, Gustav and Ike.
We thank EPA and the other resource agencies for recommending to the Corps a change in dieir
original preferred alternative, which was the Soudiern Closure option, GIWW-A. This alignment would
have segregated the BAC, Sec. 404(c) area and adversely impacted 600 acres of flotant marsh.
The Corps' new preferred alignment (Alternative 2, GIWW- WWC) would directly take 9.6 acres
of the BAC. While this is a large decrease in the taking of wetlands of national significance, the Corps
should not stop there. Additional structural changes to the eastern levee and closure complex would
avoid any wetland loss to the BAC. The Corps Alternative 2, should be modified to avoid any direct or
indirect impacts to the Sec 404(c) wetlands, (see below).
Alternative 2, GIWW- WWC: (a suggested modification)
It is our opinion that the encroachment into the BAC wetlands can be avoided entirely by moving
the "innovative T-wall", berm and riprap further into the waterway by 100 ft., thereby avoiding the 404(c)
wetlands. Bayou Barataria includes the GIWW barge channel which has a congressionally authorized
width of 125 ft and a depth of 12 ft (USACE, 1998). The GIWW barge channel is a minor constituent of
the waterway which is now 500-650 ft wide along the eastern side of the BAC project area. Moving the
T-wall 100 ft into an area which, based on Corps maps was land prior to 1971, would be a slight
alteration of me preferred alternative.
A waterway with a width of 400 ft was sufficient in 1971 and provided adequate space for a 125
ft barge channel (which then was 31 % of the waterway width). The present width of the waterway, due
to erosion by barge traffic, is now 100- 200 feet wider than in 1971 (USACE, 1971). This increased
width reduces the portion of the waterway needed for the barge channel to 21 % of the total width. There
are additional opportunities to improve die structural design of die T-wall and gate complex to avoid die
BAC all togedier. The Corps stated diat it intends to reduce die structural impacts on die BAC.
B. Kohl, LAC, 2/11/09
-------
Alternative G-GIWW C: Sec. 2.5.3.4 (p. 49)
This section is a misrepresentation of the facts. It states that this alternative, of moving the
"innovative T-wall" to avoid impacts to the 404(c) wetlands, would be to "construct the eastern
innovative floodwall completely within the GIWW ..." and that "construction of a floodwall within the
heavily used navigation channel... would create engineering and construction challenges ..."
The Corps suggests that building the floodwall in the navigation channel is the only other option
to its preferred alternative. The navigation channel is only 125 ft wide in a waterway which is 600 feet in
width. It appears that this misrepresentation is deliberately being used to discredit the practicability of
this alternative.
What should be considered is moving the T-wall into the shallow water area which would still
leave 500 ft to accommodate a 125 ft wide navigation channel. Congress authorized a 125 ft channel for
most of the GIWW. If a wider channel was needed, Congress would have authorized it. Barges moored
along the Harvey and Algiers Canals significantly reduce the waterway width available for barge
navigation. This is evidently not a hazard to navigation. The alternative G-GIWW C was never
presented in stakeholder meetings attended by our organization. Why weren't alternative designs
presented in the DEER-12? Based on the various engineering designs of the sector gates and pumping
station configurations (posted on the Corps' website), surely one could be modified to avoid the 404(c)
wetlands all together. This deficiency should be corrected in the amended IER.
• Appendix K (Figure entitled, "Current Proposed Site Plan"): The description states that the
"orientation of the pump station, gates, bypass channel and levee on east side of GIWW are not final and
could change as design progresses." This means that there is still some flexibility and the final
engineered design could avoid the 404(c) wetlands.
• Diagram 1 on p. 27 should be drawn to scale. It should also include the present width of the
waterway and the position (centerline) of the 125 ft navigation channel. A scale showing the water depth
should also be added. These figures should not be conceptual in this document.
Contaminated sediments: Appendices L, L(b) and M
The chemical analyses of the Algiers Canal sediments areTiot included in the Appendix of DIER-
12. Only two contaminants are discussed but there is not a complete listing of COCs in which the bottom
sediments were tested. Additional testing has been recommended but there is very little discussed in the
DIER. A new document, dated Jan. 5,2009, was posted on the website but not included in the DIER.
Of major concern to our organization is that the Corps intends to use the dredged material from
the bottom of the Algiers Canal and barge it to the JLNHPP. The plan is to use the spoil to plug an
erosional area along Lake Salvador and the Park boundary by placing the dredged material into a Geocrib.
We support the use of clean spoil for beneficial use but oppose the introduction of contaminated material
into the Park's ecosystem.
We request that this section of the B3R be rewritten to fully identify the procedures undertaken by
the Corps to determine whether the sediments are safe for open water disposal. The detection limit
chosen does not take into consideration the affects of contaminants on benthic organisms - only the affect
on human health. That update should include the location of sediment cores, chemical analyses of the
sediments and a presentation of all the results in an appendix as part of an amended IER.
It is important that the screening procedure identify the levels of concentration of toxic sediments
that cause chronic affects to benthic organisms as outlined in the NOAA's ER-M, ER-L sediment criteria
for COC. In Appendix M the executive summary was omitted from the report as well.
Appendix L(b) recommends, "more sediment sampling ... to further delineate the contaminated
area." This canal could be contaminated with PAHs and other hydrocarbon derived toxics. The
executive summary dated 1/5/09 for Final Phase IIESAR (and posted on the website) must be included in
the amended B3R-12 as well as the sediment data. The detection limit for PAHs was set at 330 ppb which
is too high to detect many PAHs that have a consensus based TEL below this detection limit (Macdonald
et al., 2000). Many states are using the consensus based TEL as a screening level for cleanup of
contaminated sediments to protect aquatic organisms.
B. Kohl, LAC, 2/11/09
-------
3.
The ES AR stated that the toxic review was based on human impacts not impacts to the biota and
used the LDEQ RECAP screening standards which do not consider the broader environmental impacts.
Since these sediments will be deposited in the National Park, they should be tested for impacts to the
biota as the highest priority. Unless this is done we oppose any of the Algiers Canal sediments being
used as fill in the Barataria Preserve.
Enterprise Pipeline Relocation: \ M y
We did not find one map that identified the location of the existing Enterprise pipeline nor a
discussion of the impacts of relocation of the pipeline on the BAG wetlands. In Appendix K figure 1 is a
dashed line labeled pipeline relocation. Does this pipeline belong to Shell? It is identified on earlier corps
maps as a Shell pipeline (USACE, 1971). There should be a full discussion describing how the relocation
will prevent any direct or indirect impacts to the BAG. Will the old pipeline be removed? How old is it?
How much will be relocated? Between what reference points will the work be done? (point A to point B).
Will the pipeline segment reconnect to the old pipeline. We request the amended EER include an
expansion of the discussion section fully explaining the pipeline relocation procedure and impacts to the
BAG.
Data Gaps and Uncertainties: (p. 16)
Of concern to us, is that any additional information gathered over the one-year baseline study will
come after the project has been approved. This includes most of the impacts to the BAG area.
Also, the engineering design report for the gates and floodwalls has not been completed. On page ,
16 it states, "At the time of the submission of this report, engineering evaluations have not been (-—>
completed for all of the proposed actions and alternatives."
In fact, this section lists the data not included in this DIER-12 as; 1) sources of levee material
have not been identified, 2) environmental surveys are not complete, 3) cumulative impact data are not
complete, 4) impacts on transportation remain unknown, 5) the engineering analysis is based on a concept
level design and is not complete.
The DIER states that a Draft Comprehensive Environmental Document (CED), "will contain
updated information for any IER that had incomplete or unavailable data at the time it was posted for
public review." (DIER, p. 14). This means that potentially critical information will not be available at the
time the IER is approved and construction commences. The long list of inadequacies admitted by the
Corps shows that this document should have been witheld until the Corps had time to finish its work and
prepare a complete IER prepared for public and agency review.
"Augmentation" issues:
Length of study:
We find the one year baseline study for the BAG too short. For a proper study, several annual
cycles are needed especially for hydrologic information due to changes in rainfall patterns from year to
year.
Monitoring:
The water monitoring should include the measurement of water flow under Highway 3134. The
swamp on the west side of the highway is presently in the JLNHPP. This highway bisected the BAG in
1977. There should be water flow monitoring at the culverts which allow water to pass under the
highway. The conditional permit given to the DOTD and the congressional authorization for the highway
requires that normal water circulation be maintained. It has now been over 30 years since the highway
embankment was completed. How much subsidence has there been? Are all the culverts open to normal
water exchange under the highway? What is the effective culvert cross sectional area available for water
flow? Is there tidal exchange at the culvert locations? If so, can it be measured on both sides of the
highway?
B. Kohl, LAC, 2/11/09
-------
Degrading levees:
We agree that oil and gas drill hole canals should have the spoil banks degraded and in some
instances the canals should be plugged. This should be done carefully since the canals and spoil banks
have been there for over 40 years. A hydrologic study should consider that the swamp may be in
equilibrium with the man-made ponding and drainage. Changes to the system must not harm the
ecosystem of the BAG.
Opening Bayou aux Carpes shell dam: ^—-,
As with degrading the levees, the opening of the dam to water flow from Bayou Barataria, during / \ m
hurricane surges, may harm the swamp. Salinity ranges need to be measured in Bayou Barataria to
assure that flow into the swamp will not harm or raise salinities within the leveed system.
Estelle stormwater diversion:
There is insufficient information on how contaminants in the effluent discharge from the Estelle
Pumping Station will be measured. A complete list of the analytes should be included in the amended
IER. We are concerned that diverting the urban effluent into B AC may not be beneficial for the wetlands.
The effluent of many of the pumping stations, monitored by Jefferson Parish, have been documented to
contain lead, arsenic, chromium and mercury.
How much monitoring will take place to properly document the water quality of the effluent over
decades if the water will be used in the B AC? As urbanization increases in the basin, water quality will
decline as more polluted urban runoff is pumped into the Estelle Canal.
We suggest that the effluent be monitored for chemicals which have shown up in Jefferson Parish
analysis of effluent discharge into the Barataria Preserve (such as the Ames and CrowirP-oint pumping •
stations). Water effluent monitoring must be continued over the life of the project, (\ ^\
The Audubon Council requests a meeting with the federal and state resource agencies to review
the results of the "augmentation studies". There must be public input and review before the final decision
is made to modify the BAG 404(c) ecosystem.
Inclusion in the Barataria Preserve:
The Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area will be included within the Jean Lafitte National Historical
Park and Preserve this year. Senate bill S. 22 has passed the US Senate and it is expected to pass the
House soon. There are now two reasons to protect the BAG well into the future as, 1) a 404(c) area and,
2) part of the Barataria Preserve of the National Park.
Revision of the DIER necessary (IER addendum): VLV
Because there are still important data omitted from the draft document, we request that a
revised/amended IER be prepared and circulated to the public and resource agencies for review.
According to the federal register, "an IER addendum responding to comments received will be completed
and published for a 30-day public review period." (USAGE, 2007). We are formally requesting that IER-
12 be amended to include omitted information, and full responses to the public/agency comments on the
DIER-12. The document should include:
1). Design of the sector gate complex with alternative designs presented- not "conceptual
diagrams".
2). Alternative designs for the innovative floodwall to avoid the 404(c) area
3). Review of all dredged sediment data and chemical analyses. Decision whether dredged
sediments can be utilized for beneficial purposes in the JLNHPP, based on acute and
chronic impacts of toxic sediments to benthic organisms.
4). More specifics on the length of time and parameters measured for all studies discussed in the
"augmentation" section of the DIER - including beneficial or adverse impacts to the
404(c) wetlands.
B. Kohl, LAC, 2/11/09
-------
• - • .5.
5). Monitoring plan details - include detailed section on rationale for placement of water flow
instruments and hydrologic modeling
6). More details on the relocation of the Enterprise pipeline and its impacts to the 404(c) area.
7). A thorough analysis of the proposed diversion of urban discharges from the Estelle pumping
station into the 404(c) wetlands. Also, include the impacts of pollutants on the 404(c)
area.
All these issues and other data gaps must be thoroughly discussed and presented in the amended
IER.
Summary:
1) In conclusion, we oppose Alternative 2, the preferred alignment, as presented in the DIER-12.
The Corps admits that the engineering designs for the floodwall and gate complex are not complete and
therefore we believe the design can be modified to avoid the 404(c) wetlands entirely. The new designs
and supportive data should be presented in a IER addendum for public review and comment. We will
reconsider our position based on the new document.
2) We also recommend that EPA deny the request by the Corps to modify its final determination
on the Bayou aux Carpes CWA 404(c) since the Corps hasn't finished its alternative engineering designs
for the floodwall and gate complex. It would be premature for any action to be taken by EPA at this time.
3) We oppose a process whereby any deficiencies in this IER will be answered sometime in the
future - as part of a catchall document. The public must be engaged in one single process which comes
to a single conclusion - not a decision process which is segmented and strung out for several years on a
specific IER. It is supposed to be an individual environmental report.
4) It appears that this ODER was rushed through without the adequate internal review. This is
precisely what we were concerned about with the Alternative Arrangements (USAGE, 2007). It appears
that expediency was the prime factor - not a thorough evaluation of the environmental impacts and
avoidance. It would be a better process if the Corps allowed time for its engineers to carefully design
and check its own proposals and then the public could review and comment on a document that was ready
rather than one which, is incomplete.
Sincerely,
Dr. Barry Kohl
President, LAC
cc:
Delta Chapter Sierra Club
Gulf Restoration Network
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
Horst Greczmiel, CEQ
National Wildlife Federation
National Park Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
LaDNR
B. Kohl, LAC, 2/11/09
-------
References:
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, T.A. Berger, 2000. Development and Evaluation of consensus -based
sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, v. 39, p.20-21.
USAGE, 1963. Review of reports: Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria Levee, Louisiana. NO District of
USACE , Sept. 20,1963. Appendix A
USACE, 1971. Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria Levee, New Levee Phase I. As Built Plans. Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Jefferson Parish, LA. (provided by Fred Chatty, Chief Engineering Div., to B.
Kohl, 2/15/77).
USACE 1977. (Jeff Parish Wetlands) 26, Conditional permit for Lafitte-Larose Highway segment from
Estelle to Wagner Ferry Bridge.
USACE 1998. Water Resources Development in Louisiana, 1998. USACE, New Orleans District. 177
PP
USACE 2007. Adoption of Alternative arrangements under the National Environmental Policy act for
New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction System. Federal Register, March 13, v. 72, p.
11337-11340.
B. Kohl, LAC, 2/11/09
-------
t "L£ h**i(- i^*n, 1 ond 3 fcj ' ^.^
*,--- -|^^-H;Shaw
-------
"Houck, Oliver A" To Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
cc
0.2/12/200912:05 PM
bcc
Subject In re modification of EPA 404 (c) determination, Bayou Aux
Carpes
| History; ^ This message has be:e:n forwarded.
Dear Ms Keeler,
I am writing to request that EPS deny this modification, for two reasons.
The first is a matter of law. Any modification must meet the stringent alternatives test of the
404(b)(lj guidelines, and the burden is on the applicant to show that less wetland-taking alternatives
are not available. To my knowledge, no such showing has been made. The modification would also
violate the EPA-Corps Memorandum of Understanding establishing avoidance as the first principle of
federal policy'for all such decisions.
The second is an equally important matter of policy. A 404 c area, once designated and in this
case, as I recall, paid for by the public, is held in trust for the public and should not be alienated even for
public purposes, again, without a showing of need. Were a lesser standard to obtain, then all such
areas would be subject to destruction whenever the government wanted, and left with no protections
greater than Section 404 in the first place. American taxpayers paid for more than that, and their
investment should be honored.
Thank you for your attention to these views.
Oliver A Houck
Professor of Law
Tulane Law School
-------
02/12/2889 11:52 5047373682 R HERR PAGE 81
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW ORLEANS
1215 Prytania St., New Orleans, La. 70130
February 12, 2009
To: Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
Dallas, TX
From: Wendy King, President
E-mail: wking@tulane.edu
League of Women Voters New Orleans
Re: Denial of Army Corps of Engineers request for modified CWA
Section 404 (c) determination.
Dear Ms. Keeler,
The LWVNO strongly supports flood protection for the West Bank of
Jefferson Parish. However, in accordance with long standing positions
protecting wetlands, held by local, state and national Leagues, we
respectfully request that applications made by the USAGE to have the 404
designation modified be denied.
• It is apparent that alternative solutions to flood protection for this area
have not been fully considered.
• Tampering with 404 National Significant Wetlands could establish a
precedence which may well have unintended consequences.
• Using contaminated sediments as fill in the Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park & Preserve should not be an option.
• A complete and thorough environmental impact study should be
undertaken by COE&EPA before any actions in wetlands occur,
and before review of such plans are presented to the public for input.
The LWVNO appreciates the opportunity to submit comments
concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Wendy King, President, LWVNO
-------
Barbara
Keeler/R6/USEPA/US
02/12/2009 05:03 PM
To Michael Barra/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Patrick
Rankin/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian
Frazer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann
cc
bcc
Subject Lower Miss Riverkeeper Comments — Bayou aux Carpes
Forwarded by Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US on 02/12/2009 05:01 PM —•
Paul Orr
02/12/2009 04:57 PM
To Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
cc
Subject Corps request for EPA to modify the CWA Sec 404(c)
determination for Bayou Aux Carpes
Please deny the Corps Of Engineers request for EPA to modify the CWA
Sec 404(c) determination for Bayou Aux Carpes. We believe that the
404(c) wetlands can be avoided while still accomplishing the goals of
the project. We support Louisiana Audubon Council's recommendations on
this project submitted in the letter: "Re: Combined public hearing on
the Draft IER-12, on the modification of CWA Sec. 404(c) determination
for Bayou aux Carpes; and hearing on GIWW West Closure Complex."
Sincerely,
Paul Orr •
Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper
-------
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
419Decatur Street
IN REPLY REFER TO: New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-1035
N-16
February 11,2009
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
Dear Ms. Keeler:
On November 4, 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) sent a request to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asking for a modification of EPA's Bayou aux Carpes 404
(c) Final Determination. The purpose of the modification would be to allow the construction of the
so-called West Closure Complex (WCC) as outlined in draft Individual Environmental (IER) 12,
titled "West Bank and Vicinity, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Harvey and Algiers Levees
and Floodwalls, Jefferson, Orleans and Plaquemines Parishes," Jean Lafitte National Historical Park
and Preserve offers the following comments.
The National Park Service maintains a strong interest hi the integrity of the Bayou aux Carpes 404
(c) area (BAG) since it is linked both hydrologically and ecologically to areas within the boundary of
the Barataria Preserve. A bill that has passed the Senate and is being considered in the House would
change the boundary of the Preserve to include the federally owned land within the area. The
proposed change requested by the Corps would affect a portion of that federal land.
NPS is fully cognizant of the Congressional directive under which the Corps is working to provide
enhanced 100-year hurricane protection to the approximately 250,000 people living on the West
Bank of the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Corps presented arguments for their conclusion
that they could achieve the highest level of risk reduction by building a floodwall, navigation gate,
and pumping station complex in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway adjacent to the BAG 404 (c) area.
In that light we worked with the EPA, the Corps, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
federal, state, and local partners to devise a plan that would provide full protection while miriirnizing
environmental impacts. Specifically, we jointly convinced the Corps to abandon its plans for a
cross-basin floodwall (the so-called Southern Closure Complex) across the BAG. We jointly helped
them devise a new plan that reduced to what they contend is the absolute minimum the footprint
within the BAG. The compromise plan is the WCC. It would destroy a narrow strip of early
successional mixed bottomland forest growing on an artificial spoil-bank created by deposition of
dredged material from the GIWW.
-------
The decision by EPA will be based upon a wide range of considerations, which cannot be addressed
by NFS. We address instead specific questions about the impact of the Corps proposal on the
ecological and hydrolpgical integrity of the BAG and on whether or not the WCC would irreparably
impair current or potential park resources.
Congress created Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve to, in part, "preserve significant
examples of the natural and historical resources of the Mississippi delta region." The Barataria
Preserve was located adjacent to the New Orleans metropolitan region, with its boundaries made up,
in part, of existing hurricane protection levees. NFS manages the resources entrusted to its care
adaptively in response to that and other anthropogenic constraints on the restoration of a fully
functioning natural ecosystem.
Our preferred alternative would be that the 404 c site be avoided altogether. That being said, we
have determined based on preliminary review that the direct impact proposed by the Corps request is
confined to an already altered and disturbed strip of artificial levee. While that levee mimics a
natural levee, its most important contemporary hydrological function, which is to isolate the interior
wetlands of the BAG from rapid tidal movement and long-term erosional pressures, will not be
compromised by the project. Disturbed bottomland habitat directly destroyed by the floodwall
complex will be mitigated for by the Corps.
In addition, the Corps has agreed to incorporate project features that will improve hydrological
function within the BAG. If Corps sponsored scientific analysis indicates that such measures are
advisable and said analysis can be substantiated by NFS, these features may help restore more natural
historic water flows by removing man-made impediments. On balance, therefore, NFS concludes
that the project has the potential to provide a net benefit to the resource.
Should EPA grant the Corps request, we look forward to reviewing future design specifications as
they are refined. It is our hope that as the technical analysis proceeds, the impact on the BAG can be
further reduced. Please do not hesitate to contact me on (504) 589-3882 extension 111 or Chief of
Resource Management David Muth on (504) 589-3882 extension 128.
David Luchsinger
Superintendent
cc: Gib Owen, USACOE
Angela Trahan, USFWS
-------
"Gerald A. Spohrer" To Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
02/16/2009 11:25 AM
bcc
Subject GIWW WEST CLOSURE COMMENTS
History:. ^ j^jg message has been forwarded.
Ms. Keeler: The following comment is from Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection
Authority - West regarding the GIWW West Closure Project as proposed by the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - West
7001 River Road
Marrero, Louisiana 70072
The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - West and its member levee
districts, the West Jefferson Levee District and the Algiers Levee District support
and endorse the alignment proposed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers plan,
entitled GIWW West Closure, WBV-go, that would allow construction of a
navigable flood gate and pumping station south of the Algiers and Harvey Canal
As currently proposed the project would require construction of a floodwall in the
EPA 404 c, Bayou aux Carpes area. We understand EPA may propose the (' \
floodwall to be constructed in the waterway away from, but adjacent to the Bayou
aux Carpes area.
The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - West objects to the
possible EPA position to have the floodwall to be constructed in the waterway and
has serious concern that this plan would cause an unnecessary project
construction expense and would definitely expose the floodwall to damage from
marine traffic and significantly increase the cost of maintenance.
There would be NO long term damage to the Bayou aux Carpes area from
construction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers plan. Any momentary impact
to the area would be minimal and of a short duration.
The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - West and its member levee
districts, the West Jefferson Levee District and the Algiers Levee District believe
the benefits of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers plan for the GIWW West
Closure, WBV-9O, far out weigh the possible EPA proposal and therefore urge
construction of the project as currently proposed by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
-------
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Spohrer
Chief of Operations
Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - West
Office - (504) 340-0318
Direct - (504) 347 6847
Fax - (504) 340-7801
-------
"Raymond Butler" . To Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
cc "'Lynn Muench'" ,
02/18/2009 09:17 PM , "Capt. Pauline Cook"
, ,
bcc
Subject Bayou AuxCarpes Clean Water Act, Section 404C
Modiification Request, EPA, IER 12
Dear Ms. Keeler,
Please accept the following comments offered on behalf of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
(GIGA) regarding the EPA's request to move certain floodwalls associated with the Westbank Closure ( \
Complex Flood Protection Project off of the Section 404C parcel and into the navigable waters of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway near the confluence of the Harvey and Algiers Canals^ We reference the below
website:
www.nolaenvironmental.gov.
The GICA strongly objects to any modifications of the project design, such as those suggested by the
EPA, that will further restrict the navigable waters of the United States on the Intracoastal Waterway in this
reach. This portion of the GIWW is one of the highest traveled reaches of the waterway, moving over half
the total tonnage of the entire 1300 mile long waterway. Near 70 million tons per year of petroleum,
petrochemicals, chemical products and other bulk freight are moved on the waterway here. Most of this
cargo is hazardous in nature and would pose significant environmental risk to this area should a barge
incident be incited by the presence.of this floodwall and its associated restrictive structures. Risks to
navigation safety, the environment, and the public would be unnecessarily increased due to the presence
of the supporting structures required by the propose design change. An major accident with
environmental repercussions happening right before a hurricane could bring about catastrophic results for
the city of New Orleans as well as the pristine environmental area adjacent
By copy of this objection to the United States Coast Guard Sector Commander, New Orleans AOR, we
are requesting the Coast Guard review this proposed design change and submit their comments as well. ^ -3
Sincerely,
Raymond Butler
Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
2010 Butler Drive
Friendswood, Tx 77546
281-996-6915 Office
713-882-9750 Cell
281-992-4383 Fax
www.qicaonline.com
-------
"Gale Helton" To Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
bcc
Subject Hydradyne Hydraulics LLG
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
Phone:(214)665-6698
E-mail: keeler.barbara@epa.gov
Dear Ms Keeler:
Hydradyne Hydraulics LLC operates a Sales, Service and Fabrication concern at 2801 Peters
Road, Harvey, La. We have operated along the Harvey Canal for over 40 years. We employ over
80 people in our facility on Peters Road. Our Corporate Headquarters is in Atlanta, and our
primary business customers are located in Texas. We have maintained our company headquarters
here in Harvey because of the history of our company and the loyalty of our employees working
and living in the immediate area. We hope to continue to maintain this facility and grow our
business as in the past.
It is my understanding that the EPA is currently taking comments on the Corps of Engineers
proposed plan to build the West Closure Complex (WCC) in the area south of the Harvey &
Algiers Canals.
The levee alignment for the East of the Harvey Canal Project initially began sometime around
1987. Shortly before Hurricane Katrina, we felt assured that a final authorized alignment would
provide the west bank with the desperately needed hurricane protection. However, with the levee
failure during Katrina, the West Bank and Vicinity Project had to be redesigned and the project
again went to the drawing board.
During Katrina, our building was wind damaged, but with the diligence of our employees, 19 days
later on September 19, we were back here and operational.
Over the past two years, the Corps has studied five different alternatives for levee protection and
has selected the WCC levee option in an effort to finalize this project. The businesses along the
canal as well as the residents of the West Bank had NO protection during Katrina. During
Hurricane Rita - a storm some 300 miles to the west - businesses along the Harvey Canal saw
-------
floodwaters coining dangerously close to the top of the existing levee. We have waited a Ions
time, and we believe it is imperative that we move this project forward.
I certainly understand and appreciate the concerns that have been expressed for environmental
impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area. It is my understanding that several agencies
worked together with the Corps to help adopt a comprehensive plan to minimize adverse impacts
within the 404(c) area and we applaud their effort. But much has been sacrificed by the business
community over the past 20+ years. Some businesses are now behind the flood wall on Peters
Road and others moved away completely.
I urge the EPA to move forward and to modify the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act
Section 404 (c) Final Determination. This project has full funding and it is critical that we move
forward to protect the businesses and the residents East of the Harvey Canal.
A recent Economic Impact study of businesses along the canal (from Lapalco Blvd, to the Hero
Pumping Station) revealed a total employment of 1,619 employees with an aggregate payroll of
more than $67.5 million and showed a direct and indirect spending of over $1.1 billion. The
potential for economic loss from a direct hit by a storm like Hurricane Katrina would be
catastrophic. And, any delays in this project could mean the loss of companies and jobs.
Weighted against the many alternative alternatives, we believe this to be the best proposal, and
will provide the needed protection necessary of our businesses to grow and prosper without fear
of disaster.
Again, I urge you to modify the 404 (c) act to allow the WCC project.
Sincerely,
N. Gale Helton
Vice President
Hydradyne Hydraulics LLC
P.O. Box 760
Harvey, LA. 70059-0760
504-227-0254
The information in the Email and/or attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended solely
for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you have received it in error. The review,
dissemination, copying, or taking of any action based on the contents thereof is strictly prohibited.
-------
If you have received this Email in error, please advise the sender by reply Email and then delete it
and any attachment(s) from your system immediately. Thank you.
-------
JEFFERSON PARISH
LOUISIANA
OFFICE OF PARISH PRESIDENT
ssio
the ser
, and
JelWsonPansh
AARON F. BROUSSARD
PARISH PRESIDENT
February 20, 2009
Ms. Barbara Keeler
Coastal & Wetlands Planning Coordinator
EPA Region 6 (6WQ-EC)
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733~
Dear Ms. Keeler:
As part of the critical Hurricane Risk Reduction System for the West Bank of Jefferson, Orleans and
Plaquemines parishes, the Corps of Engineers is proposing the construction of the GIWW West Closure
Complex located just west of where the Harvey and Algiers canals meet. Consisting of navigable
floodgates, a 20,000 cubic feet per second drainage pumping station, levees, and floodwalls, this complex
would block the storm surge from entering the Harvey and Algiers canals and provide substantial risk
reduction to the nearly 250,000 residents in these areas. As part of this complex a floodwall along the west
bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway just south of the Old Estelle outfall canal will have to be constructed.
This floodwall as currently planned requires that the EPA issue a modification to Bayou Aux Carpes 404c
Final Determination to allow the Corps to construct the wall within 100 feet of the bank line for a distance not
to exceed 4200 feet. In the current plan the wall is protected from barge impacts from the numerous barge
tows traveling the Harvey and Algiers canals. This natural berm protection when enhanced will provide the
most reliable protection for the wall and provide the most reliable system free from the real risk of damage
from barge impacts.
At a recent public hearing, several representatives from environmental groups requested that the EPA deny
the Corp's request to modify the 404c Final Determination and instead force the construction of the wall in
the water adjacent to the bank line. While we understand that this is technically possible, we also
understand that it will require substantial delay in construction time and result in cost increases in excess of
fifty million dollars. Most importantly, the risk reduction provided by the existing bank line will be eliminated
forcing the wall farther into the navigable barge channel and exposing the wall to barge impact damage that
could prove catastrophic if it were to occur just prior to a tropical event. This is unacceptable and cannot be
allowed to occur. The Corps has worked for many months with all stakeholders including those in the
environmental community to reduce impacts resulting from this necessary flood protection project and has
developed a plan that truly minimizes impacts to the environment.
The project, as proposed is the single most important factor in providing hurricane protection to the residents
and businesses on the westbank of Jefferson Parish. The impact to this 10 acres on the fringe of Bayou
Aux Carpes 404c wetland should be allowed in the best interest of the residents of Jefferson Parish and the
taxpayers of this nation. Accordingly, I am requesting that the EPA expeditiously grant the Corps of
Engineers' request to modify the Bayou Aux Carpes 404c Final Determination and allow for construction of
this vital and historic flood protection.
Sincerely,
AARON F. BROUSSARD
Parish President
Printed on Recycled Paper.
SUITE 1002 - 1221 ELMWOOD PARK BOULEVARD - JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA 70123
P. O. BOX 10242 JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA 70181-0242 - (504) 736-6400
-------
Plaquemines Parish Government
BILLY NUNGESSER
Parish President
8056 Hwy. 23, Suite 200 . (504)392-6690
Bel,eChasseILA70037
1-888-784-5387
Fax:(504)274-2463
February 20, 2009
Ms. Barbara Keeler
Environmental Protection Agency
Dear Ms, Keeler:
The following is Plaquemines Parish Government's position concerning the Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water
Act Section 404{c) modification for construction of the GIWW West Closure Complex.
The Parish agrees with the Corps' request for the 404(c) modification. If denied, this would have
substantial construction, cost and flood protection delays for Plaquemines, Jefferson and Orleans Parishes.
The time, cost and overall environmental savings are the very reasons this project has been selected over the
parallel levee protection plan. This is very important to the protection of hundreds of thousands of human
lives and property in all of our parishes. Plaquemines Parish is currently working to develop a mitigation plan
to which any adverse environmental impacts could be assigned. Also, Plaquemines Parish Government is
working diligently developing a coastal restoration project to help with the rebuilding of Plaquemines Parish
of which the sector gate forms a necessary and integral part.
Safety is another issue. Moving the floodwall into the water from the existing bank will cause a much higher
probability of marine traffic impacting the floodwall structure; thus, again endangering the citizens and
property of the mentioned parishes with flooding.
We are urgently requesting to allow this modification for the Corps to provide this necessary flood
protection for our citizens.
Sincerely,
Billy Nungesser
Parish President
-------
"Philip J. Troxclair" To Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
02/19/2009 02:03 PM
' cc
:ptroxclair@bayousteel.com
bcc
Subject IER12
As a business along Peters Road in Harvey, Louisiana, I strongly support the plans of the Army Corps of
Engineers to construct a lock and floodwall around the 404c Bayou aux Carpes wetlands. I understand
the construction will affect approximately 9.6 acres of this sensitive area, but we as a community need
the protection from storm surge that the gate will provide. I appreciate the efforts of the Corps of
Engineers and the EPA to lesson the affect upon this area. I urge the EPA to allow the Corps of
Engineers to proceed with this project and provide the flood protection that is needed to protect
businesses and individuals in Algiers, Belle Chasse, Harvey, and Marrero, Louisiana.
Philip Troxclair
Mississippi River Recycling
4390 Peters Road
Harvey, LA 70058
-------
°1 "-*•
1,
c"
DIVISION OF
BAYOU STEEL CORPORATION 'p. "25
V;:, v.
February 19, 2009 "•$,
^j.'
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC) ^
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Dear Ms Keeler:
Our company is located along the Harvey Canal in Louisiana. We are strongly in support
of the Corps of Engineers IER 12 which includes a lock and floodwall along the 404c
Bayou aux Carpes area. I have attended many stakeholder meetings at which the Corp
has discussed their alternatives to not affect this area. After much deliberation and
calculation the current alternative has proven to be the best case scenario in time and
money to expedite the project. The west bank of the Mississippi River of the
Metropolitan New Orleans Area has long needed surge protection from hurricanes. The
current plan would provide that protection.
1 appreciate the efforts put forth by all involved to reduce the affects of the surge
protection on this environmentally sensitive area. The original plan affected almost half
of the 404c area, but the latest plan only affects some 9.6 acres. I believe this small
sacrifice is necessary to provide the protection that our area needs. I implore the EPA to
grant the Corps of Engineers request to build this project.
Sine
Philip Troxclaif
Harvey Yard Manager
Member
Institute o(
Scrap
Recycling
Industries. Inc.
THE ORIGINAL RECYCLERS®
146 HIGHWAY 3217 • P.O. BOX 1869 • LA PLACE, LOUISIANA 70069-1869 • TELEPHONE (985) 652-4613 • FAX (985) 651-2089
4390 PETERS ROAD • HARVEY, LOUISIANA 70058 • TELEPHONE (504) 367-9538 • Fax (504) 367-9541
-------
rage i or i
From: Allen Hero
To: Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: Friday, February 20, 2009 05:10PM
Subject: IER12
History: % This message has been forwarded.
Ms Keeler,
I am the managing partner of Numa C. Hero & Son which owns properties
in Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes. We are confident that this
project will provide a better protection plan than the single levee
system now in effect and encourage its construction.
The comments as to the ten acres of concern in the Bayou aux Carpes area
seem to be misguided. The thin strip along the Intracoastal Canal is not /"TV
all flotant marsh, but a berm area built up as a result of wave action \lx.
from the traffic in the channel .
Allen Hero
Numa C. Hero & Son
428 Planters Canal Road
Belle Chasse, LA 70037
https://r6mail3.r6oer.epa.gov/mail/hkeeler.nsf/($Inbox)/B84B11798304D4A98525756300... 2/20/2009
-------
rage i 01 i
From: "Dennis Terry"
To: Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
cc: "Ricky Chiasson" , "Gary Hooter"
Date: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:30PM
Subject: Finalization of the 100-year hurricane protection project
History: %This message has been forwarded.
Ms. Keeler,
Attached is our letter requesting the EPA to move forward and modify the
1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section 404 (c) Final Determination.
Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dennis R. Terry
Controller
IWS Gas and Supply
dennis.terry@gasandsupply.com
Attachments:
EPA.pdf
https://r6mail3.r6oer.epa.gov/mail/bkeeler.nsf/($Inbox)/DCCDB882A9D77050852575630... 2/20/2009
-------
WELDING
SUPPLY
Industrial Welding Supply Co., Inc.
MAIN OFFICE
IIIBwas Drive
Bete Clwssa.LA 70037
(504)392-2400
14524th Street
Naray.LA 70058
(504)382-9395
1797 Grand CaSouRd.
Houma, LA 70363
(985)876-7575
41187 Hwy. 23 North
BooBwSle, LA 70038
(985)534-9774
60077 H*y. 11N.
S&fel. LA 70458
(985)6454808
20961 Hwy.1
Gofden Meadow, W 70357
(385)475-5143
February 19, 2009
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Dear Ms. Keeler:
IfWS Gas and Supply has been on the East side of the Harvey Canal for over 25 years and during
that time we have monitored the Corps plans to finalize the 100-year hurricane protection project.
The levee alignment for the East of the Harvey Canal Project has been studied, reviewed and
changed several times since 1987. Shortly before Hurricane Katrina, we felt assured that a final
authorized alignment would provide the west bank with the desperately needed hurricane
protection. However, with the levee failure during Katrina, the West Bank and Vicinity Project had
to be redesigned and the project again went to the drawing board.
Xi'
Since hurricane Katrina, the Corps studied numerous alternative levee options in an effort to finalize
this project. What resulted was the first phase of the new 100 year protection project, (i.e., the flood
walls along Peters Road). Now is the time for the final phase of this project needs to move forward.
I certainly understand and appreciate the concerns that have been expressed for environmental
impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area. It our understanding that several agencies worked
together with the Corps to help adopt a comprehensive plan to minimize adverse impacts within the
404(c) area and we applaud their effort. But the business community has sacrificed much over the
past 20+ years. Some businesses are now behind the floodwall on Peters Road and others have
simply disappeared.
We would urge the EPA to move forward and modify the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act
Section 404 (c) Final Determination. This project has full funding and it is extremely critical that
we move forward to protect the businesses and the residents located east of the Harvey Canal.
Recently an Economic Impact study of businesses along the canal (from Lapalco Blvd, to the Hero
Pumping Station) revealed a total employment of 1,619 employees with an aggregate payroll of
more than $67.5 million and showed a direct and indirect spending of over $1.1 billion.
Quality Products <*, Professional Service
"American Owned & Operated"
-------
WELDING
SUPPLY
Industrial Welding Supply Co., Inc.
MAIN OFFICE
tlf Buns Drive
BefeChasse.LA 70037
(504)392-2400
1452 4ft Street
HarvtyUTOOSS
(504)362-9395
1797 Grand CafltouRd
Houraa,U 70363
(985)876-7575
41187 Hwy. 23 North
Boottwtte.U 70038
(985)5344774
60077 Hwy. 11 N.
SSdeHW 70458
(985)6454806
20961 Hwy. 1
Gotten M«adow. LA 70357
(985)475^143
This study excluded companies such as IWS Gas and Supply and along the upper portion of Peters
Road, the Destrehan corridor or Engineers Road. The potential for economic loss to this area is
astronomical and we would urge the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to approve the final draft of the
IER 12 and to move the West Closure Complex project to completion.
Hooter
President
IWS Gas and Supply
Ricky (Mousey) Chaisson
President
IWS Gases
Dennis Terry
Controller
IWS Gas and Supply
Quality Products <» Professional Service
"American Owned & Operated"
-------
Fage 1 of I
From: Ken
To: Barbara Keeler/R6/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:58AM
Subject:
History: % This message has been forwarded.
I recently read in the local paper that a hearing was held at the Corps of Engineers in regards to the
Westbank Hurricane Project. I'm sure you are aware that this project represents the last link in full
protection for the West Bank Community.
We have lived on the West Bank for more than 25 years. When I first moved here, the Corps had just
begun laying out the alignment of the levee and our Congressional delegation worked hard to fund the
project. What we got was a piecemeal project. And still, all these years later, as we leave town with
every storm, we know our home, our community and our family and friends are not protected and that
full protection is still years away!
We fully understand and appreciate the incredible value we have hi the Bayou aux Carps area.
However, if this project is not moved forward, the risk to the reside nts and businesses here would be
catastrophic. I fully support the Corps proposed West Closure Gate project and ask that the EPA
move this project forward by modifying 1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section 404 (c)
Final Determination .
Sincerely,
Connie & Kenny Nanney
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See^youre in just 2 easy steps!
https://r6mail3.r6oer.epa.gov/mail/bkeeler.nsf/($Inbox)/BE8CD40F9C33B7C7852575630... 2/20/2009
-------
I I A n\ lt^\f f\ A 1 1 A I
HARVEY CANAL
INDUSTRIAL
ASSOCIATION
January 19, 2009
Mr. Gib Owen
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Planning, Programs, and Project Management Division
Environmental Planning and Compliance Branch
CEMVN-PM-RS
P.O. Box60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
RE: Draft Individual Environmental Report #12 (IER #12
Dear Mr. Owen:
The Harvey Canal Industrial Association (HCIA) is a business organization that represents the
interests of businesses in the Harvey Canal area. We have been a driving force for area
improvements for more than sixty years. We represent the vast majority of companies that will be
impacted by Corps of Engineers flood control efforts on the West Bank of Jefferson Parish.
The HCIA has been working with local, state and federal officials on the levee alignment for the
East of the Harvey Canal Project since 1987. Shortly before Hurricane Katrina, we felt assured that
a final authorized alignment would provide the west bank with the^desperately needed hurricane
protection. However, with the levee failure during Katrina, the West Bank and Vicinity Project had
to be redesigned and the project again went to the drawing board. What resulted was the first phase
of the new 100 year protection project, i.e. the flood walls along Peters Road. Businesses between
Lapalco Boulevard and the Hero Pumping Stations are now sandwiched in between the newly
constructed flood wall with no permanent protection.
Since 2005, numerous alternative flood protection options and cost/benefit ratios have been studied
to determine the best option for full risk reduction East of the Harvey Canal. The HCIA supports
the Corps of Engineers proposed West Closure Complex (WCC) as identified in the IER 12
proposal. We will, however, continue to work to provide those affected businesses with a
supplemental protection levee for the smaller storms, tidal surges or rain events that may enter the
canal when the WCC is not needed.
We certainly understand and appreciate the concerns that have been expressed for environmental
impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes Section 404(c) area. It is our understanding that there has been a
tremendous interagency collaboration, especially with EPA, to help identify and adopt a
comprehensive plan to minimize adverse impacts within the 404(c) area during construction and for
P.O. BOX397 • HARVEY,LA -70059 • PHONE (504)367-1721 • FAX (504) 367-8927
EMAIL: hcia@bellsouth.net
-------
Page two
EiARVEY CANAL INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION
Draft Individual Environmental Report (IER 12)
a long term affect once the project is completed. But we feel strongly that much has been sacrificed
by the business community - even to one large employer moving to another part of the State.
The HCIA supports the Corps' request to the EPA to modify the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean
Water Act Section 404 (c) Final Determination and we support the current plan for the WCC as
outlined in the EIR 12 report. We feel the WCC alignment will provide the much needed and long
awaited 100 year storm protection for the West Bank of Jefferson Parish.
The businesses along Peters Road have suffered long enough. Numerous rain events, hurricanes
and tropical storms have flooded our businesses and threatened residential neighborhoods. The
HCIA, in cooperation with other business organizations, commissioned an Economic Impact Study
in late 2007. The study area included all the businesses from Lapalco Boulevard south to the Hero
Pumping Station. The study revealed a total employment of 1,619 employees with an aggregate
payroll of more than $67.5 million and showed a direct and indirect spending of over $1.1 billion.
This study did not include any companies along the upper portion of Peters Road, the Destrehan
corridor or Engineers Road. The potential for economic loss to this area is astronomical and the
HCIA urges the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to approve the final draft of the IER 12 and to
move the West Closure Complex project to completion.
IAL ASSOCIATION
Gerald J.
President
-------
Thomas G. Halko
P.O Box 8, 4518 Jean Lafitte Blvd.
Lafitte, LA 70067-0008
February 22, 2009
Attention: Barbara Keeler, Regional Coordinator, Region 6
United States Environmental Protection Agency
sent via e-mail at Keeler.barbara@epa.gov
Dear Ms Keeler:
RE: Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Section 404(c), Corps project IER 12
Thanks to the EPA for extending the comment period. The Corps should have done the same. I hope a
copy of this directed to them, as well as Senators Landrieu, Vitter and Representative Melancon will give
voice to my displeasure at the Corps failure to extend their comment period.
In regards to the modification request, I ask that it be denied. Too often, sanctuaries - protected, and those
yet to be designated — have been sacrificed in the name of progress and protection. The lack of clear
thought and imagination that the Corps' GIWW flood gates and pumping project represents, is not deserving
of any environmental offset.
Collectively, we need to take pause, and more completely examine the environmental, economic and culture
impact of the project and the adverse environmental impact to the historic and economically vital
communities of the Barataria Basin estuary. The funds for this one-half billion dollar project can be better
spent with flood gates to the South as proposed by the "Donaldsonville-to-the-Gulf" study.
With best regards, I am yours truly,
Thomas G. Halko .
c: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Landrieu
Vitter
Melancon
Kerner
-------
affiliated with
LOUISIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION
". . . conserving our natural resources and your right to enjov'them. "
WILDLIFE
ODEE2SH32.
20 February 2009
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
RE: modification of CWA Sec. 404(c) determination for Bayou aux Carpes
Dear Ms. Keeler:
I am writing on behalf of the Louisiana Wildlife Federation concerning the infringement on the
Bayou aux Carpes wetlands (9.6 acres) by the proposed Corps of Engineers hurricane protection
work on the Westbank in the New Orleans Area. After reviewing the Corps' proposal, we
believe that the Corps has not sufficiently evaluated alternative alignments of the project that
could provide the desired protection while avoiding direct impacts to these important wetlands.
We understand the urgency of the Corps' work and do not wish to unnecessarily impede the
swift accomplishment of its task. However, a more channelward alignment of the proposed
barrier and berm may actually be more effective, and even thrifty, in achieving the protection
needed, while sparing the loss and degradation of the Bayou au Carpes wetlands.
We therefore urge the Environmental Protection Agency to withhold approval of any request by
the Corps of Engineers to alter the Bayou aux Carpes wetlands until the Corps completes a
thorough evaluation of the alternative of aligning the proposed barrier and berm. further
channelward than the currently preferred alterative, and reports its finding to the public. At such
time, a more informed decision can be made regarding the fate of these 9.6 acres.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours in conservation,
CD
Barney Callahan
President
C NOD, USACE
337 S. Acadian Thru-way, Baton Rouge. LA 70806
P.O. Box 65239 Audubon Station, Baton Rouge, LA 70896-5239
Phone/Fax: (225) 344-6707
www.lawildlifefed.org
-------
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
United States
Coast Guard
Commanding Officer
U.S. Coast Guard
Sector New Orleans
1615PoydrasSt.
New Orleans, LA 70112
Staff Symbol: SPW
Phone: 504.565.5000
16630
23 February 2009
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Ms. Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, XX 75202-2733
Dear Ms. Barbara Keeler:
Please accept the following comments offered on behalf of the United States Coast Guard
regarding the EPA's request to move certain floodwalls associated with the Westbank Closure
Complex Flood Protection Project off of the Section 404C parcel and into the navigable waters
of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near the confluence of the Harvey and Algiers Canals. We
referenced the below website: www.nolaenvironniental.gov.
Sector New Orleans objects to any modifications of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
project design that will further impede the navigable waters of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
If the ACOE has to reduce the width of the gates to accommodate the floodwall being moved
into the channel, it will severely impact safe navigation through these flood gates in one of the
most highly traveled waterways in Louisiana. We cannot have a floodwall in the waterway
because of the increased hazards of vessels hitting the floodwall and causing a major marine
incident A shoreline is a necessity as a buffer between marine traffic* and the floodwall.
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is paramount to the facilitation of commerce within the Gulf
coast region and a floodwall in the waterway in this high traffic zone greatly increases the
chances of potentially disastrous marine casualties.
If you have any questions please contact LCDR Eva Van Camp of my staff at (504) 565-5044.
Sincerely,
C-'T. D. STTC.OH
Captain, U. S. O/ast Guard
Commander, Sector New Orleans
Copy: Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association
-------
American Rivers
Thriving By Nature
WILDLIFE
February 23, 2009
Via Email: keeler.barbara@epa.gov
Ms. Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Re: Request for Amendment of Designation Prohibiting Discharges of Dredged or Fill
Material to the Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Site, Louisiana
Dear Ms. Keeler:
American Rivers and the National Wildlife Federation appreciate the opportunity to comment on
the Request for Amendment of Designation Prohibiting Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material
to the Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Site, Louisiana.
American Rivers is a national conservation organization working to protect and restore healthy
rivers and wetlands for the benefit of people, wildlife, and nature. American Rivers has a long
history of working for effective restoration of Louisiana's coastal wetlands to provide storm and
hurricane protection for New Orleans and surrounding parishes, and of working to ensure
effective utilization of Clean Water Act § 404(c) to protect nationally significant wetland
resources. American Rivers has more than 65,000 supporters nationwide, and works in
partnership with thousands of river and conservation organizations.
The National Wildlife Federation is the nation's largest conservation education and advocacy
organization with over four million members and supporters, affiliate conservation organizations
in some 47 states and territories, and which is dedicated to inspiring Americans to protect,
preserve and restore wildlife, wildlife habitat and natural resources for our children's future. The
Federation has a long history of active involvement with protection, restoration and wise
management of our nation's precious water resources.
Our organizations believe that developing a reliable hurricane protection system for the New
Orleans area is essential, and that time is of the essence in both the planning and construction of
such a system. However, because protecting and restoring the region's storm buffering coastal
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
February 23, 2009
Page 2 of II
wetlands is an indispensable component of such a system, hurricane protection planning must
include both comprehensive wetland restoration and the most robust efforts possible to protect
existing wetlands in the first instance. This is particularly true for wetlands protected under
Clean Water Act § 404(c).
We greatly appreciate the significant progress made by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in reducing the proposed impacts
to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area. However, we believe that the Corps has the ability to
completely avoid impacts to this ecologically sensitive and significant area, and it should be
required to do so. In addition, it is clear that the record prepared by the Corps fails to provide
sufficient information upon which a determination to modify the 404(c) could reasonably be
made.
1. The Existing Record Fails to Provide Information Upon Which EPA Can
Reasonably Evaluate the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
As EPA is aware, the agency has used its authority under Clean Water Act § 404(c) quite
sparingly. Of the tens of thousands of activities reviewed under Clean Water Act § 404 each
year, only twelve have ever been prohibited under Section 404(c).' It is clear, then, that a 404(c)
determination is of particular significance and is a recognition of the vital importance of the
resources protected by that determination. As a result, a modification to a 404(c) determination
should be granted only in the rarest of circumstances, and even then, only if the following
analyses and tests are met:
First, it should be a fundamental prerequisite to consideration of any request to modify a 404(c)
determination, that the applicant (here the Corps) have clearly demonstrated that no possible
alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to the 404(c) area altogether. If such
alternatives are available - or the applicant has failed to clearly demonstrate that they are not
available - the requested modification should be denied. This is not an onerous requirement, and
it is one that is squarely in line with the standard showings required under Clean Water Act § 404
and the 404(b)(l) Guidelines.2
1 Of these determinations, only three have ever been modified, and each modification was based on unique
circumstances: (1) the 1988 404(c) determination for the Russo Development Corporation Site in New Jersey was
modified in 1995 to allow Russo to seek authorization for a discharge on the site, which the company had previously
illegally filled, if it performed significant mitigation; (2) the 1985 404(c) determination for Bayou aux Caipes was
modified in 1992 to allow emergency relocation of a pipeline that would produce only minimal and temporary
impacts; and (3) the 1984 404(c) determination for the M.A. Norden Company Site in Alabama was modified to
allow construction of road over an existing railroad spur on the site after the company demonstrated that mere were
no practicable alternatives that would allow access to the company's upland area and EPA determined that the
impacts to the 404(c) site would be minimal, http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/404c.html (last visited
February 12, 2009).
2 The Clean Water Act § 404(b)(l) Guidelines require that a § 404 permit (or an activity such as this that is
otherwise subject to § 404) be denied "if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would
have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a). "An alternative is practicable if it is
available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes." This includes locating the project in an area not currently owned by the applicant. An
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
February 23, 2009
Page 3 of 11
Second, in the highly unusual event that there are no possible alternatives that would completely
avoid impacts to the 404(c) area, a modification should be considered only where a full and
comprehensive assessment of impacts demonstrates that the requested modification is acceptable
under the 404(c) criteria and the proposed project is of such national importance that it would
warrant modification of an existing 404(c) designation. < .
These tests have not been met in this case. Critically, the Corps acknowledges the existence of
an alternative that would avoid the 404(c) area altogether. In addition, neither the Draft
Individual Environmental Report #12 (IER)3 nor the Corps' November 4, 2008 request for
modification provide sufficient information upon which a determination to modify the 404(c)
could reasonably be made.
The lack of information in the IER is compounded by the segmented nature of the environmental
review process being utilized for this project. IER#12 covers only a small portion of the
proposed project, and critical analyses that should be carried out before the Corps makes a
decision on the portion of the plan recommended in IER#12 will not be carried out until some
later date (e.g., cumulative impacts, mitigation, data gaps and uncertainties).
Importantly, a full and comprehensive assessment of both (1) alternatives to avoid impacts to the
404(c) area altogether, and (2) impacts to the 404(c) area, need noi.slow down the Corps 'efforts
to provide hurricane protection for New Orleans. To the contrary, the Corps could proceed with
planning for the vast majority of this project while these evaluations are being conducted.
2. An Alternative that Would Completely Avoid Impacts to th'e Bayou aux Carpes /7
404(c) Site Has Been Summarily and Inappropriately Dismissed
As noted above, while we appreciate the efforts of EPA and the Coips to reduce the proposed
impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area, we believe that the Corps has the ability to
completely avoid impacts to this ecologically sensitive and significant area, and that it should be
required to do so.
The IER describes an alternative that "would eliminate all discharges of fill material and
eliminate all impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area." IER #12 at 49.
However, this alternative was summarily dismissed by the Corps based on unsubstantiated
"constructability and navigation concerns" and "engineering and construction challenges." In
total, the IER devotes only 2 short paragraphs to the discussion of this alternative.4
area that is not presently owned by the applicant may be a practicable alternative if it "could be reasonably obtained,
utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. §
230.10(a)(2). • • .
3 IER #12 addresses the GIWW, Harvey, aid Algiers Levees and Floodwalls Jefferson, Orleans, and Plaquemines
Parishes, Louisiana.
4 The full text of this discussion from page 49 of the IER is as follows:
"2.5.3.4 Alternative G - GIWW C
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
February 23, 2009
Page 4 of 11
This limited discussion is not supported by any evidence in the IER, and cannot be supported by
any reasonable assessment of the facts on the ground. For example, the IER summarily
concludes that the only way to avoid the 404(c) area would be to "construct the eastern
innovative floodwall completely within the GIWW" which the Corps claims would adversely
affect navigation. IER at 49. Both assertions are incorrect and contradicted by other provisions
within the IER.
The GIWW has an authorized width of just 125 feet, but the waterway along the eastern portion
of the 404(c) area where the floodwall would be built is between 500 and 600 feet wide (with
much of this extra width resulting from erosion caused by barge traffic). As a result, the GIWW
occupies only a minor portion of the waterway adjacent to the eastern portion of the 404(c) area.
Thus, the floodwall would not have to be constructed "completely within the GIWW" to avoid
the 404(c) area. Instead, the 100 foot wide floodwall could be constructed in an area that is both
outside of the 404(c) area and outside of the GIWW.
The Corps' claims that constructing the floodwall outside of the 404(c) area would adversely
affect navigation is not supportable as a matter of law, and is contradicted by other significant
elements of the Corps' recommended plan.
First, as a matter of law, the Coips may only maintain the GIWW as a 125 foot wide by 12 foot
deep navigation channel. Because the areajust offshore of the eastern edge of the 404(c) area is
not part of the federally authorized GIWW navigation channel, construction of the floodwall in
that area could not reduce the width of the authorized navigation channel to less than 125 feet.
As a result, construction of a floodwall just offshore of the 404(c) area could not adversely effect
navigation within the authorized GIWW.
Moreover, we have advised that the spoil bank that now forms the edge of the Bayou aux Carpes
area - and upon which the Corps wants to construct the floodwall - was, at the time of the
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404c area alternatives that would avoid impacts to that area were considered.
Alternative G is similar to WCC but would construct the eastern innovative floodwall completely within the GIWW,
avoiding all discharges of dredge and/or fill material in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area..This
alternative was eliminated from further consideration due to constructability and navigation concerns. The
construction a floodwall within the heavily used navigation channel that would eliminate all discharges of fill
material and eliminate all impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area wetland would create
engineering and construction challenges producing significant increases in construction time and cost necessary to
maintain the same structure reliability achieved by placement of the wall on the bank.
The channel geometry in this area, in particular the very tight curves and narrow channel in the Harvey Canal
directly adjacent to this portion of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area present challenges that would
require impractical actions to achieve a structure that would be able to be completed by June 2011. This action
would require the relocation of the navigation channel as well as the wall and berms and or structures required to
protect the wall from barge impacts. A small channel behind the wall to maintain hydraulic flows to .the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area would also have to be constructed under this alternative. The greatly increased
construction cost and durations as well as the increased risk to the walls make moving the walls into the channel
impractical."
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
February 23, 2009
Page 5 of 11
original 404(c) designation, set back from the water's edge. This area is now at the water's edge
only because approximately 100 feet or more of land along portions of the eastern side of the
Bayou aux Carpes area has eroded since the original designation, most likely due to navigation
on the GIWW. If this information is correct (and it could readily be ascertained through
comparisons of maps), it would mean that construction of the floodwall just offshore of the
current boundaries of the 404(c) area would likely be in an area that was formerly wetlands
within the boundaries of the original 404(c) area. As a result, construction in this area could not
affect either the authorized GIWW or navigation within the GIWW. Moreover, the shallow-
nature of the waterway at the area just offshore of the eastern edge of the 404(c) site would seem
to make this area entirely unsuitable for commercial navigation.
Second, the recommended plan includes construction of foreshore protection in the waterway
along another stretch of the eastern edge of the 404(c) area:
"In the GIWW adjacent to the Bayou aux Caipes CWA Section 404(c) area, 2,000 linear
feet (LF) of foreshore dike protection using 650 Ib stone would be constructed to prevent
impacts (i.e., scouring, bank erosion, etc.) from occurring within the 404c area due to the
discharge from the 20,000 cfs pump station (figure 4a, 4c, and 4d; diagram 2). This
foreshore dike protection would be constructed within the GIWW adjacent to but not
within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area. Foreshore protection would not
be expected to alter existing hydrologic conditions within the Bayou aux Caipes CWA
Section 404(c) area." IER at 28; see also IER at 29, diagram 2.
Despite the fact that at least a portion of this foreshore protection would be constructed in an area
of the waterway that appears to be at least as narrow as the portion where a floodwall outside of
the 404(c) area would need to be constructed, the IER raises no concerns whatsoever regarding
adverse effects on navigation from this foreshore protection. See IER at 28; IER at 29, diagram
2. If the foreshore protection would not adversely affect navigation, moving the floodwall to just
offshore of the 404(c) area also should not cause any navigation impacts.
Third, the recommended plan includes a closure complex with channel gates through which
barges will pass. Those gates will have a much smaller area of passage for barges than would be
created by construction of the floodwall just offshore of the 404(c) area and outside of the
GIWW. For example, the Main Channel Gate will have either an opening or footprint of 150 ft
to 300 ft, while the Bypass Channel Gate will have either an opening or footprint of 75 ft to 150
ft. See IER at 25, Table 1; IER 153 ("This complex would include a 150-ft to 300-ft main
channel gate, a 75-ft to 150-ft bypass channel closure gate."). These gates would be part of the
Closure Complex Structure located at - and connected to - the southern end of the proposed
floodwall. Presumably, the Corps has designed those gates with sufficient clearance to allow
safe navigation. As a result, safe navigation clearly does not require the foil 500 to 600 feet of
clearance, including areas outside the authorized channel, that currently exists along the portion
of the 404(c) area where the floodwall would be built.
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
February 23, 2009
Page 6 of 11
EPA should require the Corps to prepare a full and comprehensive evaluation of alternative
alignments that would completely avoid impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes site before EPA
evaluates - or makes any type of decision regarding - the requested modification to the 404(c)
determination. EPA should deny the requested modification if an alternative alignment would
avoid impacts altogether (and of course EPA should deny the requested modification if the
impacts would violate the 404(c) criteria).
3. The Impacts to Wetlands in the 404(c) Area Have Not Been Meaningfully Evaluated
It is beyond dispute that the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area consists of high value, nationally
significant wetlands. As noted in the IER, the area:
"is a highly productive and diverse wetland habitat that is of significant value to the
ecosystem for many species offish and wildlife," and the "wetlands and open water
bodies of the 404c area provide nursery, feeding and spawning habitat for numerous
recreationally and commercially important freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish
species." IER at 70.
* *
"The wetlands serve as valuable feeding, resting, nesting, hunting, and/or escape habitat
for numerous species of game and non-game mammals, commercially important
furbearers, songbirds, raptors, migratory and resident waterfowl, wading birds, and
woodpeckers, as well as many species of amphibians and reptiles, including the
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). Some important wildlife inhabiting the
area are the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), pileated woodpecker (Diyocopus
pileatus), mink (Mustela vison), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and great egret (Ardea alba).
These wetlands also serve as groundwater recharge areas, storage areas for storm and
flood water, and natural water filtration areas. These wetlands store waters during a rain
or tropical storm event and release the water slowly after absorbing pollutants and excess
nutrients." IER at 71
More detail on the ecological value of the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area can be found in the
October 16, 1985 Final 404(c) Determination.
(http://vvwvv.epa.gov/ovvow/wetlands/pdf/BayouAuxCarpesFD.pdflast visited February 17,
2009).
Despite the vital importance of the Bayou aux Carpes wetlands, the IER fails to fully evaluate
the direct impacts, and fails completely to provide any specific information on the indirect and
cumulative impacts to the 404(c) area. The absence of a robust wetlands impacts analysis means
that EPA has no basis for making a determination regarding the requested modification.
The only specific information in the IER on the impacts to the 404(c) area is that the proposed
action would directly impact "approximately 9.6 acres of cypress-tupelo swamp and BLH in the .
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
February 23, 2009
Page 7 of 11
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area" and those impacts would be permanent. IER at
71. However, evidence within the IER suggests that this could understate the direct impacts.
For example, while in some places the IER indicates that the total construction corridor is 4,200
feet long by 100 feet wide - which would yield the 9.6 acres of direct and permanent impacts —
in other places the IER states that the floodwall footprint could take up that entire area. The IER
states at page 65 that the "proposed action consists of constructing an innovative T-wall no
longer than 4,200 ft and no wider than 100 ft along the eastern boundary of the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area." IER at 65 (emphasis added).
If the floodwall footprint covers the full 9.6 acres, the direct impacts from construction must be
larger. Moreover, even if the 9.6 acres covers the entire construction corridor, it is difficult to
imagine that construction would not cause additional impacts outside of that limited construction
corridor, even with the most rigorous adherence to best management practices during
construction. The IER does not explain how it will avoid direct impacts outside of the 9.6 acre
area, other than to say that it will construct the floodwall "via water based equipment." IER at
30. The absence of any discussion of the steps that will be taken to avoid additional direct
impacts adds to the extensive unreliability of the impacts analyses.
Critically, the IER does not identify any specific secondary or cumulative impacts from the
proposed action. Instead, the IER provides only the most generalized statement about the
potential for such impacts:
"[O]verall indirect and cumulative impacts due to additional wetland losses and levee
construction may have a lasting and delayed impact on wetland habitat due to altered
hydrological regimes leading to habitat alterations, changes in'lvater salinity and nutrient
load, and increased rates of subsidence. These factors may contribute to long-term
wetland loss within the region and subsequent negative trickle-down effects on fish and
wildlife communities dependent upon nearby wetland habitat. Cumulative wetland
impacts would be expected due to implementation of the proposed action in concert with
additional WBV projects. Construction of the proposed action would contribute to the
cumulative losses of cypress-tupelo swamp and BLH within the HSDRRS. Cumulative
wetland impacts would be mitigated." IER at 64
* *
"In general, the overall indirect and cumulative impacts due to additional wetland losses
and levee construction for each alternative may have a lasting and delayed impact on
wetland habitat due to altered hydrological regimes leading to habitat alterations, changes
in water salinity and increased rates of subsidence. These factors may contribute to long-
term wetland loss within the region and subsequent negative trickle-down effects on fish
and wildlife communities dependent upon wetland habitat." IER at 68.
Indirect impacts can be significant. For example, the seminal textbook on wetlands makes it
clear that even small alterations in wetlands hydrology can produce significant and ecosystem-
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
February 23, 2009
Page 8 of 11
wide changes: "When hydrologic conditions in wetlands change even slightly, the biota may
respond with massive changes in species composition and richness and in ecosystem
productivity.''^
Indeed, "[h]ydrology is probably the single most important determinant of the establishment and
maintenance of specific types of wetlands and wetland processes," and even "small changes in
hydrology can result in significant biotic changes."6 This is because:
Hydrology affects the species composition and richness, primary productivity, organic
accumulation, and nutrient cycling in wetlands Water depth flow patterns, and
duration and frequency of flooding, which are the result of all the hydrologic inputs and
outputs, influence the biochemistry of the soils and are major factors in the ultimate
selection of the biota of wetlands.... Hydrologic conditions can directly modify or
change chemical and physical properties such as nutrient availability, degree of substrate
anoxia, soil salinity, sediment properties, and pH.7
The indirect impacts, including hydrologic changes, must be fully evaluated before EPA makes a
determination on the requested modification. For example, it is self-evident that construction of
a floodwall along the eastern side of the 404(c) area will affect hydrology. The floodwall will
significantly reduce overbank flooding along almost 0.8 miles of the eastern edge of the 404(c)
area. The proposed floodwall would also significantly reduce the direct hydrologic connection in
that same area, through both the impervious and pervious sheet piling that will be used to
construct the base of the floodwall. See IER at 27, Diagram 1. Indeed, reducing overbank
flooding is the purpose of the above-ground portion of the floodwall, while minimizing
underseepage (i.e., the hydrological connection to the waterway) is a'primary purpose of the
underground sheet piling.
The direct and indirect impacts from relocating the Enterprise pipeline are also not evaluated in
the IER. The IER states only that directional drilling will be used to drill under the 404(c) area
to avoid impacts: "Adverse impacts to 404c area wildlife would be avoided by relocating the
Enterprise Pipeline via directional drilling for 4,000 ft past the current ROW inside the 404c to a
point west of the V-line levee. Using this method to relocate the pipeline minimizes surface ( t_T
impacts to wetlands habitats and fisheries and wildlife species because the pipeline would be
drilled deep under the ground." IER at 86 (emphasis added). No other details are provided, not
even the depth at which the directional drilling will take place. The IER does not discuss the
direct impacts that cannot be avoided through directional drilling, and does not discuss the
indirect impacts that would seem inevitable from drilling under the surface of the 404(c) area.
See, e.g., IER at 27. .
The IER also fails to provide any analysis to support its summary conclusion that "Foreshore
protection would not be expected to alter existing hydrologic conditions within the Bayou aux
5 William J. Mitsch and James G. Gosselink, Wetlands (2nd ed.) (1993) at 68 (emphasis added).
6 Id. at 68.
7 Id. at 67-68.
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request'
February 23, 2009
Page 9 of 11
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area." See IER at 28. If this unsupported assumption is incorrect,
the foreshore protection would affect the hydrology along an additional 0.38 miles of the 404(c)
area. See IER at 25, Table 1 (foreshore protection will be 2,000 feet long).
As noted above, the IER includes only the most general statement on the potential for cumulative
impacts from the recommended alternative, and it fails completely to address the cumulative
impacts to the 404(c) area. Instead, the IER states that cumulative impacts will be discussed in a
document that will be known as the Comprehensive Environmental Document or CED, which
will be completed sometime in the future. IER at 14. According to the Corps, the CED will,
among other things, document "cumulative impacts on a system-wide basis" and provide
"updated information for any IER that had incomplete or unavailable data at the time it was
posted for public review." IER at 16 and 14.
Cumulative impacts, particularly within the 404(c) area, must be comprehensively evaluated
before EPA takes any action on the Corps' modification request. For example, as noted above,
we have been advised that approximately 100 feet or more of the land along portions of the
eastern side of the Bayou aux Carpes area have eroded due to navigation on the GIWW since the
site was originally designated under 404(c). The spoil bank that now forms the edge of the
Bayou aux Carpes area - and upon which the Corps wants to construct the floodwall - was
originally set back from the water's edge. Other changes to the 404(c) area almost certainly have
occurred since the original designation in 1985, and these must be evaluated and considered
before EPA makes a decision on the requested modification.
Importantly, the IER also fails to discuss any of the storm damage reduction benefits that would
be lost due to the loss of wetlands that would occur if the proposed floodwall is constructed
within the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area.
A full and comprehensive understanding of the direct, indirect, and cumulative wetland impacts
is essential for making a reasoned decision on the Corps' request to modify the Bayou aux
Carpes 404(c) determination. EPA should not act in the absence of such information.
4. The Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Have Not Been Analyzed
Clean Water Act § 404(c) allows EPA to. prohibit disposals that will have an "unacceptable
adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning
and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas." A comprehensive evaluation of the impacts
to fishery areas and wildlife must be carried out before EPA can make a decision on the
requested modification.
However, neither the IER nor the Corps' request for modification provide any meaningful
evaluation of these types of impacts. The IER contains only the most vague statements regarding
the impacts of its proposed activities on fish and wildlife. According to the IER, construction of
the floodwall on the eastern edge of the Bayou aux Caipes CWA 404(c) area would:
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request
February 23, 2009
Page 10 of 11
"directly impact approximately 9.6 acres of potential estuary habitat within the EPA
designated Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area. This estuary habitat is
considered an important fisheries resource within the greater Bayou Barataria Estuary
and the loss of this habitat could impact fisheries populations dependent on this area.
IER at 80-81.
"directly impact the wildlife. The construction of the wall would directly remove
valuable habitat. Wildlife species would likely relocate into adjacent similar habitat.
There would also be temporary indirect impacts to wildlife including noise and vibration
that could potentially force species farther from the construction area; however, habitat
adjacent to the wall would likely stabilize following construction completion.
Construction would be expected to take 2 years. IER at 86.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) report for the IER is similarly vague,
particularly with respect to the likely impacts to fish and wildlife within the 404(c) area. While
the vagueness of the FWCA report may result from the vagueness of the information provided by
the Corps, poor planning by the Corps is not an excuse for an inadequate assessment of impacts
by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or by EPA in its analysis of the requested
modification to the 404(c) designation.
A full and comprehensive understanding of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
project on fishery areas and wildlife is essential for making a reasoned decision on the Corps'
request to modify the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) determination. EPA Should not act in the
absence of such information.
5. The Potential for Mitigation or Augmentation Features Does Not Offset Impacts to
the 404(c) Area
While the IER states that the project's impacts will be mitigated, the mitigation features have not
been studied, designed, planned, or committed to. IER at 157. Because the details of the
proposed mitigation are completely unknown (and, at this-time, are unknowable), EPA cannot
evaluate the potential for mitigation to offset the impacts to the 404(c) area. Indeed, until the full
range of impacts to the 404(c) area are identified, EPA cannot even determine how much, or
what kind of, mitigation would be needed. As a result, the potential for mitigation cannot be
used to offset the impacts of the proposed project to the 404(c) area.
The IER also attempts to partially justify the proposed impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c)
area through holding out the potential for "augmentation features" for the 404(c) site. IER at
160-63. However, like the mitigation, the augmentation features have not been studied,
designed, planned, or committed to. Until full planning for the potential augmentation features
has been carried out, EPA cannot determine whether any augmentation features will be
implemented, and if so, what the effects of those augmentation features might be. As a result,
-------
Comments on Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Modification Request'
February 23, 2009
Page 11 of 11
the potential for augmentation features cannot be used to offset the impacts of the proposed
project to the 404(c) area.
Moreover, there is a very real potential for the proposed augmentation to actually cause harm to
the 404(c) area. For example, the largest augmentation feature being considered would involve
gapping the canal to the north of the 404(c) area to allow storm runoff to flow through the
wetland. Since this water would be urban runoff, which could carry high levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus, metals, petroleum products, and other toxins, great care would need to be taken to
ensure such water would not cause damage (instead of benefit) to the 404(c) wetlands over both
the short and long term. The potential value of such augmentation features is further undermined
by the lack of a plan to monitor the proposed augmentation, and the failure to evaluate the
operations and maintenance that would be required to implement such augmentation features.
The potential value of the augmentation features is further undermined by the very limited
baseline study that would be carried out; The IER states that a one year baseline study will be
carried out, but a study of at least two years and probably longer would be needed to provide a
reliable picture of the current conditions (for example, a single year study in a particularly we't or
dry year could produce unreliable results). :
6.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the record cannot support a 404(c) modification, and the
requested modification should be denied. At a minimum, EPA should delay its decision until the
necessary evaluations have been carried out. To this end, EPA should require the Corps to (1)
clearly demonstrate that there are no possible alternative alignments that would avoid impacts to
the 404(c) site altogether, and (2) provide a full and comprehensive evaluation of the full range
of impacts from the proposed modification before EPA makes a decision regarding the requested
modification. Without this information, EPA cannot reasonably determine whether the requested
modification would have an "unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish
beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas."
Sincerely,
Melissa Samet
Senior Director, Water Resources
American Rivers
6 School Street, Suite 230
Fairfax, CA 94930
(415)482-8150
David R. Conrad
Senior Water Resources Specialist
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 501
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 797-6697
-------
JAN-23-2009 05:33 P.01/03
FAX TRANSMISSION
OFFICE OF COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
TELEPHONE: (225) 342-7308
FAX: (225) 342-9417
Date:
Number of Pages, Including Fax Cover Sheet: 3
Fax #:
From:
COMMENTS:
CQNFIDENTIALrrY NOTICE
This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it
is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, distribution, or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by
telephone.
-------
JflN-23-2009 05=33 P.02/03
State of Louisiana
BOBBY J1NDAL
GOVERNOR
February 23, 2009
Ms. Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Dear Ms. Keeler:
I am responding to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) January 14, 2009
Federal Register Notice entitled: "Request for Amendment of Designation Prohibiting
Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to the Bayou Aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section
404 (c) Site, Louisiana." The requested amendment is needed for implementation of the
work described in Individual Environmental Report (IER) No. 12 for the West Bank and
Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, GIWW, Harvey and Algiers Levees and Floodwalls
prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
As the project's Non-Federal Sponsor, the State of Louisiana is opposed to moving the
current T-Wall alignment into the GIWW channel to avoid the'Bayou Aux Carpes 404 (c)
Site. Such an alignment would severely impact the project completion schedule and cost;
the reliability of the hurricane protection system; and the State's operation and
maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) responsibilities over the
life of the project. The encroachment of the T-Wall/Access Road into the GIWW channel
would pose an increased risk to the hurricane protection system from navigation traffic.
The plan presented in (ER No. 12 represents an allowable risk based upon the 100-foot
Right-of-Way limits negotiated by the USAGE and the EPA, and represents a least cost,
least risk, and least impact option over the other alternatives outlined in that document.
For the reasons outlined above, the State of Louisiana strongly supports the requested
amendment of the Bayou Aux Carpes Section 404(c) Site to allow that hurricane protection
project feature to go forward as described in IER No. 12. Furthermore we oppose moving
the current T-Wall alignment into the GIWW channel to avoid impacts to the Bayou Aux
Carpes 404 (c) Site.
Po$tOfficeBox44027«B«onRou8e,Ixuisj!B»70g«>M027 . 450Lau«IStn*l . 15* Floor Chase Tower North .Baton Rouge Louisiana 70801
(225)342-7308 • F«x (225) 342-9417 » htlK/ywww.tacpra.Qfg/
An Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
JRN-23-2009 05:33 P.03/03
Ms. Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
February 23, 2009
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at
(225)-342-4683.
Sincerely,
David Miller, P.E.
Director of Implementation,
Office of Coastal Protection & Restoration
DM:df:ap
cc: David Fruge, Chief, Planning and Project Management Division
Chris Williams, Administrator, Project Management Branch
James McMenis. Project Manager, Project Management Branch
Gerald Sphorer, Executive Director, West Jefferson Levee District
Julie Vignes, USACE, New Orleans District
Kevin Wagner, USACE, New Orleans District
Tim Connell, USAGE, New Orleans District
Gib Owen, USACE, New Orleans District
TOTAL P.03
-------
Corps of Engineers proposed West Closure Complex
Paul Atkinson to: Barbara Keeler 02/24/2009 08:12 PM
Dear Ms. Keeler,
I write to you at the EPA Region 6 office to comment on the Corps' plans to construct the West Closure
Complex near the Bayou aux Carpes Section 404c area.
I am writing as both a 43-year homeowner of the New Orleans West Bank and Editor of the Harvey
Canal Industrial Association Communique newsletter. It is my understanding that the Corps has made
great efforts to work with the EPA and other agencies to avoid damage to the highly-sensitive Bayou aux
Carpes 404c area.
The West Closure Complex project holds great promise to protect the residents and businesses of the
West Bank from future hurricanes. Additionally, I am told that the funding for this $500 million plus
project is approved and ready to go. I ask you and the EPA to approve the Corps' request to modify the
1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act so this major work can begin immediately.
Sincerely,
Paul Atkinson,
3018 Hudson Place,
New Orleans, La., 70131,
patkinsonl 9@cox.net
-------
Part II, Appendix D
Transcript from Public Hearing
-------
ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT
Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN THE MATTER OF GIWW
WEST CLOSURE COMPLEX/BAYOU AUX CARPES 404 REQUEST
FOR MODIFICATION TAKEN AT THE US ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS DISTRICT OFFICE, 7400 LEAKE AVENUE, NEW
ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70118 ON THE llTH DAY OF
FEBRUARY 2009 COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.
REPORTED BY:
RACHEL TORRES-REGIS, CCR, RPR
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, me.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
www.torresreporting.com
1.866.982.6878 Toll Free
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BARRA:
Okay. Let's go on record,
please. Ladies and gentlemen, it
is approximately 7 p.m. on
February 11, 2009, and this joint
public hearing concerning the
Corps of Engineers Individual
Environment Report No. 12, an
environmental document that
details potential impacts of
actions proposed as part of the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway West
Closure Complex Project and
concerning the Corps request that
EPA modify the Bayou aux Carpes
Clean Water Act Section 404 (c)
designation is now in session.
Good evening and thank you for
coming to this public hearing.
My name is Mike Barra. I am
a Regional Judicial Officer with
EPA Region 6 located in Dallas,
Texas. I am the designated
hearing officer for this public
hearing. My responsibility
Page 2
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
includes fully developing the
public hearing record by taking
testimony in admitting data and
information into the hearing
record as evidence. EPA will
consider the public hearing
record in making its final
decision concerning the Corps of
Engineers request to modify the
Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act
Section 404 (c) designation. The
Corps of Engineers will consider
the public hearing record in the
process of making a final
decision on the actions proposed
as part of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway West Closure Complex
Project described as individual
Environmental Report No. 12.
Please note that I do not
participate in making EPA's final
decision concerning the request
to modify the 404 (c) designation
nor in the Corps final decision
on the proposed action described
Page 3
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in Individual Environmental
Report No. 12.
In addition to me there are
other EPA representatives present
this evening, including Brian
Frazer, Chief of the Wetlands and
Aquatic Resources Regulatory
Branch in the EPA headquarters
Office of Water, and two persons
on his staff, Ann Campbell and
Clay Miller. From EPA Region 6
in Dallas, Jane Watson, Chief of
the Ecosystems Protection Branch
in the Water Quality Division,
and Barbara Keeler, Coastal and
Wetlands Planning Coordinator.
There are a number of
representatives of Corps of
Engineers present this evening
including Lieutenant Colonel Mark
Jernigan, Deputy District
Commander, New Orleans District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
And Gib Owen, the Chief of the
Ecological Planning and
Page 4
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting. com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Restoration Section in the New
Orleans District of the Corps of
Engineers.
EPA prepared a public -- a
public notice of tonight's public
hearing in the Federal Register
on January 14, 2009. The Corps of
Engineers published notice of
this public hearing in the
Plaquemines Gazette on January 20
and 27. The Times Picayune on
January 20, 28, February 7 and
11, and in The Gambit, February
8. The Corps also notified the
public of tonight's public
hearing with notices on its
website, postcard mailings to
members of the public who have
requested to be on the Corps
mailing list for this action, and
by running flash ads during the
period February 2 through
February 11 on the nola.com
website. The public notices
informed the members of the
Page 5
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public of their opportunity to
obtain information and copies of
Individual Environmental Report
No. 12 and the request that EPA
modify the Bayou aux Carpes Clean
Water Act Section 404 (c)
designation to submit comments to
attend and participate in the
public hearing being held this
evening. I have entered the
public note -- copies of the
public notices for tonight's
public hearing into the hearing
record and have asked the court
reporter to number them as
Exhibits 1 and 2.
In addition, several people
have submitted written comments
prior to this public hearing. I
am entering those comments into
the record and I have asked the
court reporter to number them as
Exhibits 3 through 6.
Now I would like to outline
the procedures for this public
Page 6
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hearing. The procedures for this
public hearing are rather simple
and informal; however, this
hearing must be conducted in an
orderly manner that will allow
EPA and the Corps to obtain and
record all relevant and
appropriate information related
to the request to modify the
Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water Act
Section 404 (c) designation and
Individual Environmental Report
No. 12. Tonight's public hearing
is not an evidentiary hearing or
trial. There will be no direct
or cross examination of
witnesses. As hearing officer, I
may ask questions but only for
clarification of the hearing
record. Otherwise, persons
giving testimony will not be
requested. This is not a forum
for debate or argumentative
exchanges but rather one for the
gathering of facts, data and
Page 7
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information and opinions
regarding the request to modify
the Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water
Act Section 404 (c) Designation
and Individual Environmental
Report No. 12. EPA will respond
to questions and issues
concerning the Corps request to
modify the Bayou aux Carpes Clean
Water Act Section 404 (c)
Designation raised in the record
of this public hearing and the
Corps of Engineers will respond
to questions and issues
concerning Individual
Environmental Report No. 12
raised in the record of this
public hearing, but those answers
will be in writing and prepared
after this public hearing and
after fully considering the
questions and issues raised. EPA
and Corps of Engineers personnel
will not respond to questions
during the public hearing this
Page
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARTES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
evening. They may respond to
informal questions presented
outside of the hearing record at
the open house that will be
conducted after this hearing
concludes. I will call on
everyone who desires to provide
testimony in the order presented
on the forms provided at the
registration table. If you have
not signed a speaker registration
form and wish to testify, please
take a minute to obtain and
complete a form provided at the
registration table. When I call
upon you to give your testimony,
please state your name, and if
you are affiliated with or
representing an organization,
please identify your
organization. I must obtain a
clear uninterrupted record of the
hearing, so please do not talk
while others are giving
testimony. We can only have one
Page 9
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting. com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
person talking at a time in order
for the court reporter to be able
to hear and accurately record the
testimony provided.
As hearing officer for this
public hearing, I may impose time
limits on providing testimony if
the circumstances warrant. If
your plan testimony is rather
lengthy, I recommend that you
consider summarizing your
testimony followed by a request
to enter your complete written
statement into the hearing
record. At the present time
eleven people have signed up to
speak. In order to give everyone
an opportunity to speak in a
reasonable time, I'm imposing a
time limit of six minutes per
speaker until all have had the
opportunity to give testimony. I
will give you a warning when you
have gone five so that you know
that it will be time to be
Page 10
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wrapping it up. If time permits
after all have had their
opportunity, I may give persons
wishing to add to their testimony
additional time. After the
public hearing closes this
evening, EPA will continue to
accept written comments on the
request to modify the Bayou aux
Carpes Clean Water Act Section
404 (c) Designation through
February 13, 2009. The Corps of
Engineers will continue to accept
written comments on Individual
Environmental Report No. 12 until
12 midnight tonight.
I will now take the testimony
of persons who have signed up to
speak beginning with Mayor Tim
Kerner of the town of Lafitte.
MR. KERNER:
Thank you. Good evening. I
want to thank y'all for having
me. I was going to ask a few
questions but I will just say
Page 11
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that watching the presentation it
said that, you know, they had a
lot of input and you got with the
local government and the Levee
Board. Well, I am the mayor of
the town of Lafitte and nobody
got with me or anybody that
belongs to my town, and also the
— I'm the President of the Levee
Board and nobody ever addressed
the Levee Board with any of these
issues, so -- and I will tell you
what, Lafitte and Barataria is
going to be the ones that's
devastated from this floodgate.
I'm sure that the people from the
Corps here has heard about
Donaldsonville to the Gulf. That
the levee system that is supposed
to be going from Lafourche to
Belle Chasse. Well, the
delegation from Washington signed
a letter in support that Lafitte,
Barataria and Crown Point would
be in that levee system. They
Page 12
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are going to pick that alignment
in the next couple of months.
Why are we going through a $50
million floodgate that is right
north of Lafitte that will flood
us out even quicker when the
tidal surge is coming up and
putting a big pump station to
throw more water on us -- sorry.
Why is the Corps not sitting back
saying, well, if we are going to
protect the people of the
westbank, why not see if
Donaldsonville to the Gulf is --
when it's run and finish the
study, if GIWW — the GIWW
alignment is chosen. If that
alignment is chosen, we are
spending fifty -- I mean, five
hundred million dollars for
nothing because we are going to
have a floodgate south of Lafitte
that is going to be sixteen and a
half feet high. It will be done
for nothing. And I will tell
Page 13
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting. com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you, what a slap in the face of
the people of Lafitte that is
trying to get back in their homes
right now that 70 percent of them
is gutted in a place that clean
up and you wouldn't even know
that a hurricane was there, but
they trying to get back in their
homes, they are doing it
themselves. What a slap in the
face to say $500,000 for a
floodgate right north of you and
not discuss giving one dime for
even tidal protection. The Corps
of Engineers is not coming to
Lafitte to the town hall to see
the town council or anybody in
the public hearing that -- the
Lafitte Levee Board, not anybody.
Look, the Corps of Engineers has
been so good to me with Section
205 in the continuing authority
programs, Donaldsonville to the
Gulf project, the guys have been
great, but what you are doing
Page 14
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here with the five hundred
million dollar floodgate without
coming to talk to the people of
Lafitte, without caring about the
people of Lafitte, Barataria and
Crown Point is a sin and you
ought to be ashamed of yourself.
That's all I got to say. Thank
you. And I oppose of it.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for your comments.
Donald Vallee.
MR. VALLEE:
I'm Donald Vallee. We own
High Point Shooting Grounds,
which is directly along Bayou
Road, which is going to be
affected. After reading the
report on the website, 174 pages,
I wanted to comment on two
things. The little bit -- first
off, let me just say --
compliment the Corps on informing
all of us, this has been going on
for two years and there have been
Page 15
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
numerous meetings we have had as
well as people from the Corps
attending and coming out to our
property and all of the adjacent
property all around and keeping
up informed what is going on;
however, in reading the report,
there really was not enough
significance impact addressed in
it to reflect how we are going to
be addressed. If you look
directly behind you on that map,
those two squares of property at
the end of Bayou Road is what we
utilize as our safe fall in
shooting areas. We have to have
at least a thousand feet of
protected area and shot fall to
protect the general public from
any shot that goes into those
areas. All of that is going to
get lost as well as the adjoining
properties and there's a lot of
facilities that we have back up
in there. So I just want to make
Page 16
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those notes back into the public
comment at that point in time.
That's all I want to say.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for your comments.
Matt Rota.
MR. ROTA:
Hello. My name is Matt Rota.
I am with Gulf Restoration
Network and I thank you for the
opportunity for the comments,
thank you for putting this
hearing together. I will also be
submitting written comments. I
have emailed them to Gib Owen and
Barbara Keeler already, but I
will also be submitting hard
copies into the record.
There is a few aspects that I
would like to talk about today.
The first one is just the whole
idea that we are having this
meeting. This is probably the
first time a lot people are
learning about this project and
Page 17
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our public forum, and for the
Corps to have the public comment
period to end midnight and this
is probably going to go on until
about 8 o'clock, giving everybody
a full three or so hours to
digest and figure out what they
want to comment on is just not
adequate. We don't think that
the Corps comment period has been
adequate for that. I mean, the
EPA isn't that much longer, it's
just 'til Friday, but there is at
least some significant time to be
able to digest what people are
learning today. The second thing
that I would like to mention and
I think others will be talking
about this further is that we
don't feel that the full
avoidance of the Bayou aux Carpes
404 (c) area has been looked at.
It is given a little time in
IER-12 showing that they are
avoiding and I would like to,
Page 18
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first of all, thank the Corps and
EPA for modifying the alignment
so we aren't bisecting the Bayou
aux Carpes like it was originally
proposed, but, still, we don't
think there's enough discussion
and enough analysis to look at
moving the floodwall further out
into the waterway, the dredged --
the dredged handle should only be
125 feet wide so there is a lot
of buffer there that we don't, at
least in the IER has not been
fully analyzed, and so we are
requesting a better analysis see
moving the floodwall further out
into the water, not interfering
with the channel, we would like
to see that further looked at.
Also, there hasn't been any
analysis on secondary or
secondary impacts and also
cumulative impacts to wetlands
was not addressed. It was said
that that basically was going to
Page 19
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be looked at in another one of
the lER's, but in public meetings
that we have had with the Corps
in the past they developed a
spreadsheet that is kind of a
rolling cumulative impact
analysis, and we feel that that
should be included in each one of
these lER's to give everybody the
best idea that they can, what
kind of cumulative impacts we are
going to be looking at with the
entire one hundred year
protection system as a whole.
Finally, last thing that I
would like to talk about today
that I would like to highlight is
the fact that non-structural
alternatives really are just
given lip service in this. It is
basically assumed in here in the
IER that — in IER-12 that if we
can't raise every single house in
the entire area we aren't going
to look at non-structural
Page 20
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
alternatives, raising houses,
weather rising houses at all. In
WRDA it is not an all or nothing,
it says it can be --
non-structural alternatives can
be looked at in conjunction with
structural alternatives such as
levees and floodwalls and I am
not saying that we don't need
levees and floodwalls. I'm a
resident of New Orleans as
probably everybody here is or the
greater metro area and all of us
understand the importance of
levees within a comprehensive
hurricane system, but completely
dismissing raising houses or some
houses in some areas because we
can't -- it would be economically
infeasible to raise every single
house in the metro area is just
flood logic. So in conclusion I
would just like to say that we
feel that the -- and it's
outlined more in my written
Page 21
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments that the IER-12 is not
flushed out enough and that they
have not -- the Corps has not
presented what we feel a full
analysis on all of the
alternatives, and without that,
we don't see how EPA can make a
real informed decision without
having some of that information
basically, like I said, wrote off
maybe moving the floodwall out a
little bit more into the
waterways still not impacting the
channel, and we don't feel
there's enough evidence to
support that, and there might in
the end, but we don't want EPA to
make a hasty decision because
they certainly didn't make a
hasty decision when they first
did this for the foresee action.
Thank you for the opportunity to
comment.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for commenting.
Page 22
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gabriel Mondino.
MR. MONDINO:
Good evening. My name is
Gabriel Mondino. I suppose that
my affiliation would be as a
citizen of New Orleans. I have
no organization that I'm
affiliated with.
I guess the relevant question
that I have noticed looking at
this presentation, reading
materials about it is that with
the 404 (c) Designation and all
of the work that went into what
was -- what is labeled the final
determination, the question of --
at hand really is not so much the
entirety of the levee system, and
this exactly is why EPA is here
tonight, but the impact on this
particular area, and so the
question that -- the way that I
would phrase it is whether it's
reasonable for the Army Corps of
Engineers to use a 404 (c)
Page 23
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Designated area which has already
been given extensive EPA
authority with oversight in
fashioning adequate hurricane
protection for the New Orleans
area, and I would have to
unfortunately say that based on
the presentation that we have
here tonight I don't think that
we can have an adequate answer to
that question because I feel that
the plan at this point, the IER
doesn't really seem like it's
half baked. We ought to be
cooking, I might give it another
20 minutes or so to see if it
really hit the point at that
point, but I don't feel as though
the plan where it is now, there
isn't enough information for the
public. We do not know what the
Environmental Impact of
Alternative studies of placing
the floodwall away from the 404
(c) Designated area back into the
Page 24
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shallow waters, what the
hydrological effects of that or
the engineering challenges in
that and we haven't been able to
witness that as the public to
truly see whether we, as the
public, who are the ones who
benefit from this 404 (c)
Designation are willing to allow
some impact on something that is
as noted by the EPA a national
historic treasure.
The only other comment that I
would make is that it seems to me
that the appropriate action to
take at this time is really to
present the public with an
amended IER as to this project as
opposed to filling in these
details in some sort of
comprehensive environmental
statement after the fact. I
think that doing -- doing that
course of action filling the
necessary details of a project
Page 25
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really runs in the face of a
logic of having these public
hearings in the first place of a
logic that foster one of our
first environmental legislation,
NEPA, and the entire logic of the
public impact and the public
opportunity to engage its civil
servants and its agencies in a
way that is going to benefit not
only the natural environment as
is the case here but also protect
all of the people like me and
everyone else in this room who
live in this metro area. That is
my only comments.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for your comment.
Jill Mastrototano.
MS. MASTROTOTANO:
Good evening. I'm Jill
Mastrototano. I am the senior
field organizing manager for the
Sierra Club based here in New
Orleans and I appreciate the
Page 26
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opportunity that EPA and the
Corps has afforded us all this
evening in the community to
review and comment on this
project. I would echo the
request of Matt Rota with the
Gulf Restoration Network that the
comment period be extended one
additional week to allow those in
the public that have just learned
about this project to put written
comments into the record beyond
midnight tonight or Friday, that
is EPA's deadline.
Certainly the Sierra Club
supports effective comprehensive
and meaningful hurricane
protection for the Louisiana
community, be it in the form of
levees but also non-structural
protection, and certainly since
the 2005 hurricane season there's
been significant scientific
attention given to support the
importance of protecting our
Page 27
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wetlands and maintaining our
coastal resources of which these
404 (c) designated wetlands are,
and we appreciate EPA's concern
to uphold the importance of this
404 (c) area. We would ask that
given the almost 25 years of
protection that this area has has
enjoyed that that continue in
whole. Importantly we recognize
the importance of 404 (c) not
just given the nice presentation
that EPA provided but that our
Sierra Club staff and volunteers
have worked very hard on
protecting 404 (c) area. Of
course last year's recent Yazoo
Pumps is a very good example of
that. We would ask that EPA
continue to explore the
importance of including or the
necessity of including this 404
(c) area in Jean Lafitte Historic
National Park, we would encourage
that. We also recognize that the
Page 28
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra(<7 torresreporting. com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
2
3
4
*5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
Corps has made significant
strides in modifying the impacts
of this project on the ground to
404 (c) area, and we applaud them
for that. However, we feel that
there can be additional distance
met, and we request that the
Corps explore the nine acres of
impacts that continue to exist on
paper. One thing that we would
want them to consider is, and we
don't feel it was fully explored
in the IER itself, was to move
the T-wall, the innovative
T-wall, berm and riprap farther
into the channel center, toward
the channel center. The channel
center currently is 500 feet and
was authorized to about 400 feet,
and because of the shallowness
along the western side of the
channel there are opportunities
to consider for engineering and
structural; however, the IER did
not fully explore that, it just
Page 29
TORRES REPORTING 6s ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT RETORTING 65 LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1,866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
basically had a statement in
there saying that such a -- such
a movement or location of the
T-wall would not be appropriate,
and so we would ask that that be
revisited and the Corps actually
provide adequate data to refute
or support that proposal.
To that end, I would echo the
sentiments forthcoming from our
Louisiana Delta Chapter that
represents three thousand members
as well as the New Orleans group.
Thank you.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for your comments.
Harvey Stern.
MR. STERN:
Good evening. My name is
Harvey Stern and I am also the
Delta Chapter of the Sierra Club,
and I have here a comment of Mr.
Haywood Martin, who is chair of
the Delta Chapter of the Sierra
Club, which do in fact reflect
Page 30
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra(« torresreporting. com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
many of the comments that we just
heard from Jill, the field
coordinator of the Sierra Club.
I will just add a few excerpts
from this letter that I think
will elaborate on her comments.
The Sierra Club of the Delta
Chapter supports a safe hurricane
protection levee for the entire
New Orleans area including the
westbank of Jefferson Parish. We
also support the use of natural
systems such as forested to the
non-forested wetlands to add to
the aggressive barriers to the
storm surges. And we also, as
Jill mentioned, we feel that the
proposed alternative that would
take 9.6 acres of the BAG as
opposed to the 600 needs to be
reevaluated. While this is a
large decrease of the taking of
the wetlands of national
significance, we suggest that the
Corps can do better. Additional
Page 31
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
structural changes to the eastern
levee and closure compacts would
avoid any wetland loss to the
BAG. The Corps alternative 2
should be modified to avoid any
direct or indirect impacts to the
Section 404 (c) wetlands. It
appears that there is adequate
space to move the structure
further away into the waterway so
as to avoid the 404 (c) wetlands
as we heard expressed earlier by
several folks. And we are also
concerned that any additional
information gathered over the
one-year baseline study will come
after the project has been
approved. This includes most of
the impacts to the BAG area.
Also the engineering design
report for the gates and
floodwalls has not been
completed. The DIER states that
a Draft Comprehensive
Environmental Document will
Page 32
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contain updated information for
any IER that had incomplete or
unavailable data at the time it
was posted for public review. It
appears that potentially critical
information will not be available
at the time the IER is approved
and construction commences.
Because there are still important
data omitted from the draft
document, we request that a
revised/amended IER be prepared
and circulated to the public and
resource agencies for review. We
are formally requesting that
IER-12 be amended to include
omitted information and full
responses to the public/agency
comments on the DIER-12.
In conclusion, we oppose
Alternative 2, the preferred
alignment as presented in the
DIER-12. We request the Corps to
do an amended IER containing new
designs and supportive data, and
Page 33
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING 85 LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we strongly recommend that EPA
deny the request by the Corps to
modify its final determination on
the Bayou aux Carpes CWA 404 (c).
Furthermore we request that the
comment period be extended, as we
heard from Jill, so that all
interested parties have adequate
time to prepare substantial
comments. Those are the comments
from the Chair of the Sierra
Club. I have a couple of
personal observations about why
this project is being done in the
first place, and as we heard
referred to at least once in this
presentation, that the intent of
the project is to provide, quote,
one hundred year level of
protection to the residents of
the westbank, and the, quote, one
hundred year level of protection
and five hundred year level of
protection has been the mantra of
the Corps, certainly before
Page 34
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting. com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Katrina as to how to explain to
the public the kind of protection
against a level of risk of
flooding from significant rain
events. I was at at least one
public Corps meeting at which a
Corps official himself told me
after I raised the issue about
the credibility of the one
hundred year concept that the
idea of the one hundred year
storm or even talking about a one
percent chance in any given year
is misleading, it's misguided,
it's obsolete and it needs to be
reassessed, and it's my
understanding, I stand to be
corrected, that the Corps intends
to continue to use the, quote,
one hundred year level of concept
of the one hundred year level of
flood protection in this proposed
project to explain to the public
why particular projects are
needed. I would beg the Corps to
Page 35
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, me.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get on the fast track and find a
different way to assess risk.
The one hundred year level of
flood level of protection concept
just does not work in many
people's mind. We are talking
about reducing flood risk. I
think the credibility of the
Corps is at risk as long as it
continues to talk about the one
hundred year level of flood risk
or the five hundred year level.
There has got to be a better way
to explain risk to the public
that is credible. People's lives
are at risk. People are making
life decisions on where to live
and whether to move back based on
the Corps decisions on this
proj ect.
MR. BARRA:
One more minute.
MR. STERN:
That's my comments. Thank
you very much.
Page 36
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BARRA:
Okay. Thank you. Ray
Champagne.
MR. CHAMPAGNE:
Yes. My name is Ray
Champagne. Resident of Lafitte,
member of the Sixth Ward
Association for Progress. And
realizing that this project is
funded, I want to congratulate
the people that was involved, but
saying that, Crown Point,
Barataria and Lafitte is going to
be left out of this, and since we
have been flooding for the last
three storms, we were just
wondering if the Corps would take
into consideration this proposal
that -- it's lower Jefferson
Parish alternative. It's part of
what the mayor was talking about,
the Donaldsonville feasibility
study. Well, Shaw and other
people put this together, it's
pretty impressing. I would like
Page 37
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to leave it here for the record,
and the people in Lafitte and
Barataria they just tired doing
with these graves every time high
water come in. And they feel --
like the mayor was saying, they
feel a little left out because no
money has been spent south of
this project and everything south
of this project, especially Crown
Point where the water is going to
get up against this structure,
and it's pretty impressing. It's
a real nice -- I mean, who
wouldn't like this. You would
have to be crazy not to like it.
It's very impressive, cost a lot
of money, but anything south of
that the water is going to back
up against it and the potential
for flooding in that area where
the structure is is going to be
greater, maybe not just in a
quarter of a mile, we are talking
about three or four miles back,
Page 38
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that is Crown Point, and beyond
that is Lafitte, where the mayor
is, and beyond that is where I
live. I flood regardless, but I
have been lucky. I'm above the
ground and a lot of the other
people is putting their houses
up. But, like I said, I would
like to introduce this if it's
possible and we hope that the
Corps would consider it, and I
thank you for the time.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for your comments.
Dr. Barry Kohl.
DR. KOHL:
My name is Barry Kohl. I'm
here representing the Louisiana
Audubon Council and we thank the
Corps and EPA for holding this
hearing tonight, especially on
the SPA side protecting and
trying to continue the protection
of the 404 (c) area. The John
Lafitte National Historical Park
Page 39
TORRES REPORTING SB ASSOCIATES,
INC,
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.eom
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
22S.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
JL866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and Preserve and the Bayou aux
Carpes wetlands will provide
non-structural protection and
reduce the hurricane tidal surges
before they reach the westbank
levee, and they have been
documented -- the forested
wetlands and non-forested
wetlands have been documented as
reducing the height of tidal
surges during hurricanes Rita,
Gustav and Ike, so the
non-structural protection that
the 404 (c) gives, the westbank
levee and Lafitte National Park,
which protects almost the entire
portion of the westbank of
Jefferson Parish from tidal
storms is very important. We
thank the Corps for reducing the
impacts to the 404 (c). Wetlands
from the 404 (c) wetlands from
its original plans which would
take -- which would have taken
almost 600 acres of the 404 (c)
Page 40
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
area. One way to avoid impacts,
further impacts is to modify
Alternative A by moving the flood
wall one hundred feet into the
waterway along the eastern
perimeter of the 404 (c) area.
We don't suggest that the wall be
moved into the navigation channel
as was alluded in the IER, but to
the edge of the waterway which is
600 feet wide. The channel is --
barge channel is only 125 feet in
width authorized by congress. We
don't need a wider channel or
congress would have authorized
it, a larger channel. We request
the Corps staff to consider in
its engineering analysis and
include in the amended IER the
engineering analysis since it has
environmental significance. We
have been interested in all of
the data gaps listed in the IER
of which we find many. In fact,
the section on data gaps and
Page 41
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting, com
www.torresreportmg.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
uncertainties list the data note
included in the draft IER as,
one, source of levee material
that has not been identified.
Environmental surveys are not
complete. Cumulative impact data
are not complete. Impacts on
transportation remain unknown,
and one of the more important
omissions is the engineering
analysis that's based on a
concept level design and is not
complete. The last one indicates
there is still time to consider
some other engineering
alternatives. There are many
other inadeguacies in the
document. It appears the
document was prepared in haste
and that the Corps should have
waited before circulating the
Draft IER for public and agency
comments. There are many
guestions to be answered and they
are raised in our more detailed
Page 42
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments. The record is also not
complete. Letters from EPA, the
Fish and Wildlife Service sent in
January were not posted on the
website. There should have been
a complete record of documents
somewhere so the public could
review the agency documents
before public comment period
closes at midnight tonight.
Technical reports were posted
during the public review period
and have not been summarized in
the Draft IER nor was there extra
time to review them. Because of
this, we ask the Corps extend the
comment period for another two
weeks. That will give the NGO's
the opportunity to communicate
with the resource agencies and
get a copy of their comments and
to review any new technical
reports posted on the web.
We also ask the amended
IER-12 be prepared and that it be
Page 43
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
circulated for a 30 day public
review period as per the
alternative arrangements. This
document should include critical
data needed for both the Corps
and EPA decision making.
Regarding EPA's involvement, we
want to thank EPA and other
resource agencies for
recommending to the Corps a
change in the original preferred
alternative which would have
taken -- impacted over 600 acres
of this nationally significant
wetland. EPA has been a real
leader over the last 35 years in
protecting important wetland in
Jefferson Parish.
MR. BARRA:
One more minute.
DR. KOHL:
Much of the land in the
Barataria Preserve of the Lafitte
National Park was protected
through NGO and EPA's vision that
Page 44
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these wetlands were an important
natural resource and shouldn't be
destroyed. They are now
protected in the National Park,
and legislation will be
transferring the 404 (c) Bayou
aux Carpes area into the National
Park later this year. We're
asking EPA to require a fully
funded multi-year baseline study
to be undertaken to evaluate any
modifications to the 404 (c) area
to improve the water quality and
hydrology. We're told that a one
year baseline study is not enough
to understand the complex
hydrodynamics in a man-altered
wetland system. Additional
issues are addressed in our
detail comments. We request that
EPA require the Corps to do a
thorough engineering analysis to
avoid any of the 404 (c) wetland.
A relocation of the T-wall one
hundred feet would avoid all
Page 45
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impacts to Bayou aux Carpes.
This analysis must be completed
before EPA makes a decision on
whether to grant the Corps's
request for modification of its
404 (c) determination. In the
absence of that study, we ask EPA
to deny the Corps's request for
modification of the 404 (c)
determination. Thank you.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you. Felicia Kahn.
MS. KAHN:
Okay. Felicia Kahn, member
of the League of Women Voters of
New Orleans. The League of Women
Voters will submit comments to
the EPA regarding the protection
of wetlands and the park. We
have worked — we have worked for
many, many years in this area and
have extensive knowledge about
it, and our statement will be
submitted before February 13. Is
that the correct date?
Page 46
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BARRA:
Yes.
MS. KAHN:
So we thank you very much for
allowing us to appear.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for coming. Allen
Hero.
MR. HERO:
I'm Allen Hero. I represent
some landowners on the
Mississippi River side of this
complex, and I would like to
commend the Corps, this idea was
first presented about 15 years
ago about putting the super -- at
that time I don't know what they
called it, the super pump, and
was denied because of the cost
benefit ratio I think was the
criteria in that time. And so I
think, you know, the Corps is
trying to get -- solve this
problem. There are a few issues
that we are concerned about along
Page 47
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Harvey Canal that I brought
up in another one of these
hearings is -- that was talked
about briefly in this
presentation on the tension area
on the protected side of this
flood structure, there is still
some issues along the eastbank of
Harvey Canal that have not been
resolved and that those
businesses there, even though
they may have some protection,
that funding and that protection
has not been -- has not been
taken into by the local Levee
District. There is some conflict
as to how those businesses are
going to have protection when
this is completed. Right now
there is a temporary protection
on the east side of Harvey Canal
and there is no plan that I have
heard as to how that is going to
be maintained in the sense that
we are supposed to be having one
Page 4!
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 49
hundred year protection. I don't
think we are going to have that
at that location, so I think that
needs to be -- the Corps and the
EPA or whoever altogether need ro
look at those issues ongoing
because once this is built, I
think everybody is going to think
it's all taken care of but there
is some issues there that have
not been addressed in the view of
myself and some other landowners
along Harvey Canal.
The other issue that I don't
know has been addressed, they
talk about all of this dredging
material coming out of the
intracoastal waterway and moving
that material some distance and
redepositing it, I think it's
most probably a more cost
effective way of moving that
material into some of the fast
land adjoining intracoastal
waterway rather than moving all
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreportmg.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.7S1.O732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1,866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of that material ten miles away
or wherever they are going to
take it. And those are my
comments. Thank you.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for your comments.
Jerry Huffman.
MR. HUFFMAN:
Good evening. I'm Jerry
Huffman, President of the Harvey
Canal Industrial Association. We
represent 200 businesses along
the Harvey Canal which are
greatly affected by the decisions
the Corps and the EPA will make
today. For many, many years we
have been seeking meaningful
flood protection along the
westbank. We think this proposal
will give us the best shot at
that. We understand there are
very difficult environmental
concerns. We are very much
impressed by the interagency
collaboration that has taken
Page 50
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
place in order to address those
concerns. We support the Corps
request to the EPA to modify the
1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean Water
Act Section 404 (c) Final
Determination and we support the
current plan for the West Closure
Complex as outlined in the IER-12
report. We feel that this
alignment will provide a much
needed and long waited storm
protection for the westbank of
Jefferson Parish. Now, the HCIA,
in cooperation with the other
business organizations,
commissioned an economic impact
study in late 2007. That study
included all of the businesses
from LaPalco Boulevard south of
the Hero Pumping Station. The
study revealed a total employment
of 1619 employees with an
aggregate payroll of more than
$67.5 million and showed a direct
and indirect spending of over
Page 51
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$1.1 billion. This study
excluded companies along the
upper portion of Peters Road, the
Destrehan corridor or Engineers
Road. The potential for economic
loss in this area, a direct hit
for a storm of Katrina like
proportions is catastrophic. We
applaud what you are doing, we
support your effort. We have
additional comments that we have
already submitted into the
record. Thank you for letting us
come and to speak.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you for coming. Tom
Halko.
MR. HALKO:
Good evening. My name is
Thomas Halko and I live in lower
Jefferson Parish, lower Lafitte,
which is beyond the cone of Jean
Lafitte, and, for the record, I
have experience in less than four
years -- four one hundred year
Page 52
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
storms. With that being said, I
would like to concur with what
Mayor Kerner has stated as well
as Mr. Champagne, and I think,
first of all and far most that I
extend my appreciation to the
Corps of Engineers for all of the
hard work that they have done in
this region, for the EPA and for
federal involvement because I
think that it has made a
difference as it relates to our
lives and livelihood.
I think it's important, with
that being said, with all due
respect, I think that this
proposal is somewhat
shortsighted. I do believe that
there should be consideration
given to the concept that is in
and on the board as it relates to
the Donaldsonville to the Gulf
levee protection. I think it's
important to think about coastal
restoration going hand in hand
Page 53
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with levee protection, and I
think that this project does not
perfectly address that. This is
-- is advertised as the primary
protection for the New Orleans
westbank area. When I think that
-- it is important to think of a
line of defense that is further
south that perhaps is less
intrusive environmentally, I
think it's important to think of
all of the Barataria estuary, but
it is also important to note that
lower Lafitte is the staging area
for an offshore oil industry and
represents substantial jobs and
is very, very important to the
infrastructure of all of the
south and all of the nation, and
I am personally as a property
owner of Lafitte and I own
property in Algiers Point, that I
feel as if I am going to be
adversely affected by this
proposal because it's the
Page 54
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
backwash that we will experience
and for attempting to protect a
few hundred or a few thousand
acres of pristine wetland, it may
compromise everything that is
pristine and wonderful south of
this area all of the way to Grand
Isle, and I think it's important
that -- to take note of that, and
I think sort of in a rush to
attempt to provide levee
protection and answers to people
that the totality of flood
protection is being minimized,
and I think that we need to turn
to the Dutch and look to see what
they have done and we -- they
have been able to both protect
their nation, not one hundred
year storms or five hundred year
storms, but a thousand year
storms, and have done so in
protecting the population as well
as their environment. Thank you.
MR. BARRA:
Page 55
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you for your comment.
Okay. I believe we have heard
from all of the people who signed
up to speak. Okay.
Is there anyone who has not
signed up who want to sign up and
speak? Before we conclude, would
anyone who has spoken like to add
to their testimony? Yes, sir.
DR. KOHL:
I'm Barry Kohl with the
Louisiana Audubon Council. There
are a couple of items that I
skipped over before. One is the
dredging of the Algiers Canal.
We're very concerned about the
possibility of using dredge
material from the canal and
barging it to the Barataria
preserve. Their preliminary
information has shown that the
sediments in the bottom of the
canal are contaminated with
several toxics that could harm
the Lafitte National Park, the
Page 56
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ecosystem. One of the problems
with the Corps is they analyze
toxic sediments and its effect on
humans and they use screening
standards that is protective of
human life, not aquatic life, and
they intend to use this dredge
material and put it in the
National Park for erosion
control, which is good but it
should be clean sediments, and we
are just concerned about the
degradation of water quality in
the park and the fact that the
Corps has habitually done a very
poor job of analyzing
contaminated sediments and
placing them in areas that would
protect them from getting into
open water. Thank you.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you. Anyone else? Yes,
sir.
MR. CHAMPAGNE:
Realizing that Lafitte and
Page 57
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Barataria is the frontline, I
would ask this audience and the
Corps of Engineers to wish us
well. Thank you.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you. Anyone else? Yes,
sir.
MR. POURCIAU:
Lawrence Pourciau. I wanted
to kind of expand on one of the
comments that was made earlier
about the hundred one year level
of protection. It's my
understanding, and please correct
me if I am wrong, that that --
this came about from a one
percent chance in any given year
that we could be flooded; is that
correct?
MR. BARRA:
We'll have -- someone will
have to talk to you about that
during the open house after this
hearing.
MR. POURCIAU:
Page 58
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Okay. Well, that is my
understanding of it, and if it is
in fact the case, it probably
does the Corps more of a
disservice to anyone, of course
the citizens of New Orleans, you
know, for not benefitting from
this because mathematically the
way that works out is, you know,
in 30 years there is a 30 percent
chance that in any given one of
those 30 years that you could
experience a flood. Now, that
means there is a 70 percent
chance that you would not, but
almost one in three chance that
you would in fact experience a
flooding situation is kind of
scary, I think, and what this
does is it makes the people feel
safe and when a storm that is too
big comes, it will flood and then
of course the Corps will be
blamed; when in fact congress
didn't authorize enough funding
Page 59
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the Corps to build a wall
that was high enough, and it
won't be the Corps fault but they
will be the one that the finger
was pointed at and by using this
terminology it does kind of make
most people feel safe, but, in
fact, you know, at some point
down the road, hopefully never,
but at some point down the road
guess who is going to get the
blame, the Corps, and I would
like to see the Corps adopt
something that puts pressure on
congress to maybe help authorize
a little more funding because I
see funding given out everywhere
lately to all areas of the
country yet I do still see, you
know, why can't funding be
approved for, you know, one of
the oldest cities and most
historic cities in America.
Thank you for letting me speak.
MR. BARRA:
Page 60
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 61
Thank you. Yes, sir.
MR. MONDINO:
Gabriel Mondino. I would
like to add to my comment one
thing which I had recalled that I
failed to mention.
The EPA mentioned in the
presentation that the -- when the
404 (c) or 404 legislation was
enacted and the regulations were
enacted that they did not foresee
the need to -- they did not
include a mechanism for making
modifications to 404 (c) wetland,
and I think that that is very,
very pertinent because in
crafting legislation and crafting
legislation about especially
environmentally affected areas,
we know avenues made to make
those modifications, the
regulations and the statutes that
fail to include those are clear
and that if those modifications
aren't envisioned then those
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
modifications should not be made,
so my addition to my entire
comment is that with respect to
the floodwall affecting the 404
(c) area, I think that that
portion of the plan needs to be
roundly denied because of the
logic that went into creating the
404 impact in and of itself.
That's the only additional
comment.
MR. BARRA:
Thank you. Anyone else?
Okay. If there are no further
comments or issues to be
addressed, I will conclude this
public hearing. Representatives
of EPA and the Corps of Engineers
will remain in this room to
informally answer questions after
the conclusion of this hearing.
It is now approximately 7:57 p.m.
on February 11, 2009 and this
public hearing is hereby closed.
Thank you for coming.
Page 62
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 63
(Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 7:57
p.m. )
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 64
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, RACHEL Y. TORRES, a Certified
Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the within
witness, after having been first duly sworn to
testify to the truth, did testify as hereinabove
set forth.
That the testimony was reported by
me in shorthand and transcribed under my personal
direction and supervision, and is a true and
correct transcript, to the best of my ability and
understanding; that I am not of counsel, not
related to counsel or the parties hereto, and in
no way interested in the outcome of this event.
RACHEL Y. TORRES, CCR, RPR
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
.*£-.
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 1
A
ability 64:12
oKio 1 n-i 1 c -1 ^
unie lu.z IO.ID
OC./l CC.1 «
ZJ.^4- JJ.lO
absence 46:7
accept 11:8,13
accurately 10:3
acres 29:8 31:19
40:25 44:13
55:4
Act 2:16 3:10
6:67:108:4,10
11:1051:5
action 3:25 5:20
22:21 25:15,24
actions 2: 11
3:15
add 11:4 31:4,14
56:861:4
addition 4:3
6:17 62:2
additional 11:5
27:9 29:6
31:25 32:14
45:1852:11
62:10
address 5 1:1
54:3
addressed 12: 10
16:9,11 19:24
45:1949:11,15
62:16
adequate 18:9
18:11 24:4,10
30:732:834:8
adjacent 16:4
adjoining 16:22
49:24
admitting 3:3
adopt 60: 13
ads 5:21
adversely 54:24
advertised 54:4
affiliated 9:18
23:8
affiliation 23:5
afforded 27:2
agencies 26: 9
33:1443:20
44:9
agency 42:22
43:8
aggregate 5 1:23
aggressive 31:15
ago 47: 16
Algiers 54:22
56:15
alignment 13:1
13:17,18 19:2
33:2251:10
Allen 47:7,10
allow 7:5 25: 9
27:9
allowing 47:5
alluded 41:9
alternative
24:2331:18
32:433:21
37:2041:3
44:3,12
alternatives
20:1921:1,5,7
22:642:16
altogether 49:5
amended 25: 18
33:16,2441:19
43:24
America 60:23
analysis 19:7,15
19:21 20:7
22:5 41:18,20
42:1145:22
46:2
analyze 57:2
analyzed 19:14
analyzing 57:16
Ann 4: 10
answer 24: 10
62:20
answered 42:24
answers 8: 18
55:12
anybody 12:7
14:17,19
appear 47:5
appears 32:8
33:542:18
applaud 29:4
52:9
appreciate
26:25 28:4
appreciation
53:6
appropriate 7:8
25:15 30:4
approved 32:18
33:7 60:21
approximately
2:4 62:22
aquatic 4:7 57:6
area 16:18 18:22
20:24 21:13,21
23:21 24:1,6
24:25 26:15
28:6,8,16,23
29:431:10
32:1938:21
39:2441:1,6
45:7,1246:21
48:5 52:6 54:6
54:1455:7
62:5
areas 16:16,21
21:1857:18
60:1861:19
argumentative
7:23
Army 1:9 4:23
23:24
arrangements
44:3
ashamed 15:7
asked 6: 14,21
asking 45: 9
aspects 17: 19
assess 36:2
Association 37:8
50:11
assumed 20:21
attempt 55: 11
attempting 55:2
attend 6:8
attending 16:3
attention 27:24
audience 58:2
Audubon39:19
56:12
authority 14:22
24:3
authorize 59:25
60:15
authorized
29:1941:13,15
aux 1:8 2:15
3:106:57:10
8:3,911:9
18:21 19:4
34:440:145:7
46:151:4
available 33:6
AVENUE 1:10
avenues 61:20
avoid 32:3,5, 11
41:145:23,25
avoidance 18:21
avoiding 18:25
B
BAC31:1932:4
32:19
back 13:10 14:3
14:8 16:24
17:1 24:25
36:1838:19,25
backwash 55:1
baked 24: 14
Baratarial2:13
12:24 15:5
37:1338:3
44:23 54:12
56:1958:1
Barbara 4: 15
17:16
barge 41: 12
barging 56: 19
Barra2:l,20
15:10 17:4
22:2426:17
30:15 36:21
37:139:13
44:1946:11
47:1,650:5
52:15 55:25
57:21 58:5,20
60:25 62:12
barriers 31: 15
Barry 39:15, 17
56:11
based 24:7
26:2436:18
42:11
baseline 32: 16
45:10,15
basically 19:25
20:21 22:10
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
Page 2
30:1
Bayou 2:15 3:10
6:57:108:3,9
11:915:16
16:14 18:21
19:3 34:440:1
45:646:151:4
beg 35:25
beginning 11:19
believe 53:18
56:2
Belle 12:21
belongs 12:8
benefit 25:8
26:1047:20
benefitting59:7
berm29:15
best 20: 10 50:20
64:12
better 19: 15
31:2536:13
beyond 27: 12
39:1,3 52:22
big 13:8 59:22
billion 52:1
bisecting 19:3
bit 15:21 22:12
blame 60: 12
blamed 59:24
board 12:5,10
12:11 14:19
53:21
bottom 56:22
Boulevard 5 1:1 9
Branch 4:8,13
Brian 4:5
briefly 48:4
brought 48:1
buffer 19: 12
build 60:1
built 49:7
business 5 1:15
businesses 48: 11
48:1750:12
51:18
C
c 2:16 3:11,23
6:67:118:4,10
11:11 18:22
23:13,25 24:25
25:8 28:3,6,11
28:16,23 29:4
32:7 34:4
39:2440:14,21
40:22,25 41:6
45:6,12,23
46:6,9 51:5
61:9,14 62:5
call 9:6,15
called 47: 18
Campbell 4: 10
canal 48:1,9,21
49:1350:11,13
56:15,18,23
care 49:9
caring 15:4
Carpesl:82:15
3:106:57:10
8:3,911:10
18:21 19:4
34:4 40:2 45:7
46:1 51:4
case 26:12 59:3
catastrophic
52:8
CCR 1:16 64:19
center29:16,17
29:18
certainly 22: 19
27:15,21 34:25
CERTIFICA...
64:2
Certified 1:17
64:4,20
certify 64:5
chair 30-23
v>llull. ^J\J . LJ-*J
34-11
..J" • -L -L
challenges 25:3
Champagne
37:3,4,6 53:4
57:24
chance 35: 13
58:1759:11,15
59:16
change 44: 11
changes 32:1
channel 19:18
22:14 29:16,17
29:17,2241:8
41:11,12,14,16
Chapter 30: 11
30:21,2431:8
Chasse 12:21
Chief4:6,12,24
chosen 13:17,18
circulated 33: 13
44:1
circulating
42:21
circumstances
10:8
cities 60:22,23
citizen 23: 6
citizens 59:6
civil 26:8
clarification
7:19
Clay 4:11
clean 2: 16 3: 10
6:57:108:3,9
11:10 14:5
51:457:11
clear 9:22 61:23
closed 62:24
closes 11:6
43:10
closure 1 -8 9-1 3
\w,HJij Ul t 1 . O £j. _L^J
3-17 32-2 51 -7
•J • -L / ^J £j, £* ^j _L f /
Club 26:24
27:15 28:14
30:21,25 31:3
31:734:12
coastal 4: 15
28:253:24
collaboration
50:25
Colonel 4:20
come 32:16 38:5
52:14
comes 59:22
coming 2: 19
13:7 14:15
15:3 16:3 47:7
49:1752:16
62:25
Commander
4:22
commences 33:8
COMMENCL..
1:12
commend 47: 14
comment 15:20
17:2 18:2,8,10
22:23 25:13
26:18 27:4,8
30:22 34:6
43:9,1756:1
61:4 62:3,11
commenting
22:25
comments 6:7
6:18,20 11:8
11:1415:11
17:5,11,14
22:1 26:16
27:1230:16
31:1,633:19
34-1 0 10 36-24
^T'.-LU^IW *J\Jt 4-1^
39-14 47-23
— ' J7 . j_ T- l~r^, I* *j
43:1,21 45:20
46:1750:4,6
52:1158:11
62:15
commissioned
51:16
communicate
43:19
community 27:3
27:19
compacts 32:2
companies 52:2
complete 9: 14
10:13 42:6,7
42:1343:2,6
completed 32:23
46:248:19
completely
21:16
complex 2: 13
3:1745:16
47:1351:8 |
COMPLEX/B...
1:8
compliment
15:23 ;
comprehensive i
21:15 25:21 :
27:1632:24
compromise
55:5
concept 35: 10
35:2036:4
42:1253:20
concern 28:4
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
Page 3
concerned 32: 14
47:25 56:16
57:12
concerning 2:6
2:143:8,228:8
8:15
concerns 50:23
51:2
conclude 56:7
62:16
concluded 63:2
concludes 9:6
conclusion
21:2233:20
62:21
concur 53:2
conducted 7:4
9:5
cone 52:22
conflict 48: 16
congratulate
37:10
congress 41: 13
41:15 59:24
60:15
conjunction
21:6
consider 3:6,12
10:1129:11,23
39:1141:17
42:14
consideration
37:1853:19
considering 8:21
construction
33:8
contain 33:1
containing
33:24
contaminated
56:2357:17
continue 11:7,13
28:9,20 29:9
35:1939:23
continues 36: 10
continuing
14:22
control 57: 10
cooking 24: 15
cooperation
51:14
coordinator
4:1631:3
copies 6: 2, 11
17:18
copy 43:21
Corps 1:9 2:7,14
3:8,12,244:18
4:23 5:2,7,14
5:197:68:8,13
8:2311:12
12:1713:10
14:14,20 15:23
16:2 18:2,10
19:1 20:3 22:3
23:24 27:2
29:1,8 30:6
31:2532:4
33:23 34:2,25
35:6,7,18,25
36:9,1937:17
39:11,20 40:20
41:1742:20
43:1644:5,10
45:2147:14,22
49:450:15
51:253:757:2
57:1558:3
59:4,23 60:1,3
60:12,13 62:18
Corps's 46:4,8
correct 46:25
58:14,1964:12
corrected 35: 18
corridor 52:4
cost 38:17 47:19
49:21
council 14:17
39:1956:12
counsel 64:13, 14
country 60: 19
couple 13:2
34:1256:13
course 25 :24
28:1759:5,23
court 1:17 6: 14
6:22 10:2 64:5
64:20
crafting 61: 17
61:17
crazy 38:16
creating 62:8
credibility 35:9
36:8
credible 36: 15
criteria 47:21
critical 33:5
44:4
cross 7: 16
Crown 12:24
15:637:12
38:1039:1
cumulative
19:23 20:6,11
42:6
current 5 1:7
currently 29:18
CWA34:4
D
Dallas 2:22 4:12
data 3:3 7:25
30:733:3,10
33:25 41:23,25
42:1,644:5
date 46:25
day 1:11 44:1
deadline 27: 14
debate 7:23
decision 3:8, 15
3:22,24 22:8
22:18,2044:6
46:3
decisions 36: 17
36:1950:14
decrease 3 1:22
defense 54:8
degradation
57:13
delegation 12:22
Delta 30: 11, 21
30:2431:7
denied 47: 19
62:7
deny 34:2 46:8
Deputy 4:21
described 3: 18
3:25
design 32:20
42:12
designated 2:23
24:1,25 28:3
designation 2: 17
3:11,236:7
7:11 8:4,11
11:1123:13
25:9
designs 33:25
desires 9:7
Destrehan 52-4
M-f VOU. VlldlA *J£^,~
destroyed 45:3
detail 45:20
detailed 42:25
details 2: 10
25:20,25
determination
23:1634:3
46:6,10 51:6
devastated
12:15
developed 20:4
developing 3:1
DIER 32:23
DIER-12 33:19
33:23
difference 53: 12
different 36:2
difficult 50:22
digest 18:7,15
dime 14:13
direct 7: 15 32:6
51:2452:6
direction 64: 11
directly 15: 16
16:12
discuss 14:13
discussion 19:6
dismissing 21: 17
disservice 59:5
distance 29: 6
49:19
District 1:10
4:21,22 5:2
48:16
Division 4:14
document 2:9
32:25 33:11
42:18,1944:4
documented
40:7,9
Hoonmpnts; A.'\'f\
U \S\_-U111 V 11 lij t^s*\J
43:8
doing 14:9,25
25:23,23 38:3
52:9
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 4
dollar 15:2
dollars 13:20
Donald 15:12,14
Donaldsonville
12:18 13:14
14:23 37:22
53:22
Dr 39:15, 16
44:21 56:10
draft 32:24
33:1042:2,22
43:14
dredge 56:17
57:7
dredged 19:9,10
dredging 49: 16
56:15
due53:15
duly 64:6
Durnigan 4:21
Dutch 55: 16
E
earlier 32: 12
58:11
east 48:21
eastbank48:8
eastern 32:1
41:5
echo 27:5 30:9
Ecological 4:25
economic 51:16
52:5
economically
21:19
ecosystem 57:1
Ecosystems 4: 13
edge 41: 10
effect 57:3
effective 27: 16
49:22
effects 25:2
effort 52: 10
elaborate 3 1:6
eleven 10:16
emailed 17:15
employees 5 1:22
employment
51:21
enacted 61:10
61:11
encourage 28:24
engage 26: 8
engineering
25:3 29:23
32:2041:18,20
42:10,15 45:22
Engineers 1:10
2:73:9,124:19
4:235:3,88:13
8:2311:13
14:15,2023:25
52:453:758:3
62:18
enjoyed 28:9
enter 10: 13
entered 6:10
entering 6: 20
entire 20: 13,24
26:6 31:9
40:1662:2
entirety 23: 18
environment 2:8
26:11 55:24
environmental
2:93:194:1
6:37:128:5,16
11:15 24:22
25:21 26:5
32:2541:21
42:5 50:22
environmenta...
54:1061:19
envisioned
61:25
EPA 2: 15, 22 3:5
4:4,8,11 5:4
6:4 7:6 8:6,22
11:7 18:12
19:222:7,17
23:19 24:2
25:1127:1
28:13,1934:1
39:20,2243:2
44:6,8,15 45:9
45:21 46:3,7
46:1849:5
50:15 51:3
53:961:7
62:18
EPA' s 3:21
27:1428:4
44:7,25
erosion 57:9
especially 38: 10
39:2161:18
estuary 54: 12
evaluate 45 : 1 1
evening 2: 18 4:5
4:196:109:1
11:7,2223:3
26:21 27:3
30:1950:9
52:19
event 64: 15
events 35:5
everybody 18:5
20:921:12
49:8
evidence 3:5
22:15
evidentiary 7:14
exactly 23: 19
examination
7:16
example 28: 18
excerpts 3 1:4
exchanges 7:24
excluded 52:2
Exhibits 6: 16,23
exist 29:9
expand 58: 10
experience
52:2455:1
59:13,17
explain 35: 1,23
36:14
explore 28:20
29:8,25
explored 29: 12
expressed 32: 12
extend 43: 16
53:6
extended 27:8
34:6
extensive 24:2
46:22
extra 43: 14
F
face 14:1,11
26:1
facilities 16:24
fact 20: 18 25:22
30:25 41:24
57:1459:3,17
59:24 60:8
facts 7:25
fail 61:23
failed 61:6
fall 16:15,18
far 53:5
farther 29: 15
fashioning 24:4
fast 36: 149:23
fault 60:3
feasibility 37:22
February 1:12
2:55:12,13,22 ;
5:23 11:12 ;
46:24 62:23
federal 5:6
53:10
feel 18:20 20:7
21:2422:4,14
24:11,1829:5 <
29:1231:17
38:5,751:9
54:23 59:20
60:7 '
feet 13:24 16:17
19:1129:18,19
41:4,11,12
45:25
Felicia 46:12,14
field 26:23 31:2
fifty 13:19
figure 18:7
filling 25: 19,24
final 3-7 14 21
J.MMJ.CIM _* • / ._LT^.^_L
3:2423:15
34:3 51:5
Finally 20: 15
find 36: 141:24
finger 60:4
finish 13: 15
first 15:21 17:21
17:24 19:1
22:20 26:3,5
34:1547:15
53:5 64:6
Fish 43:3
five 10:24 13: 19
15:1 34:23
36:1255:20
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 5
flash 5:21
Hood 13:5 21:22
35:2236:4,7
36:11 39:4
41:348:7
50:1855:13
59:13,22
flooded 58: 18
floodgate 12: 15
13:4,2214:12
15:2
flooding 35:4
37:15 38:21
59:18
floodwall 19:8
19:1622:11
24:24 62:4
floodwalls21:8
21:10 32:22
flushed 22:2
folks 32: 13
followed 10:12
foresee 22:21
61:11
forested 31: 13
40:7
form 9:12,14
27:19
formally 33: 15
forms 9:9
forth 64:8
forthcoming
30:10
forum 7:22 18:1
foster 26:4
four 38:25 52:24
52:25
Frazer4:6
Friday 18:13
27:13
frontline 58:1
full 18:6,20 22:4
33:17
fully 3: 18:21
19:14 29:12,25
45:9
funded 37: 10
45:10
funding 48: 13
59:25 60:16,17
60:20
further 18:19
19:8,16,19
32:1041:2
54:8 62:14
Furthermore
34:5
G
Gabriel 23:1,4
61:3
Gambit 5 .13
gaps 41:23,25
gates 32:21
gathered 32: 15
gathering 7:25
Gazette 5: 10
general 16: 19
gentlemen 2:3
getting 57:19
Gib 4:24 17: 15
give 9: 16 10:17
10:22,23 11:3
20:924:15
43:1850:20
given 18:23
20:20 24:2
27:2428:7,12
35:13 53:20
58:1759:11
60:17
gives 40: 14
giving 7:21 9:24
14:13 18:5
GIWW1:7
13:16,16
go 2:2 18:4
goes 16:20
going 11:24
12:14,20 13:1
13:3,11,21,23
15:17,24 16:6
16:10,21 18:4
19:25 20:12,24
26:1037:13
38:11,19,22
48:18,2349:2
49:850:2
53:25 54:23
60:11
good 2:18 11:22
14:21 23:3
26:21 28:18
30:1950:9
52:1957:10
government
12:4
Grand 55:7
grant 46:4
graves 38:4
great 14:25
greater 21: 13
38:23
greatly 50: 14
ground 29:3
39:6
Grounds 15:15
group 30: 13
guess 23:9 60:11
Gulf 2:12 3:16
12:1813:14
14:24 17:9
27:7 53:22
Gustav40:12
gutted 14:5
guys 14:24
H
habitually 57: 15
half 13:24 24:14
Halko52:17,18
52:20
hall 14:16
hand 23:17
53:25,25
handle 19:10
hard 17: 17
28:1553:8
harm 56:24
Harvey 30: 17,20
48:1,9,21
49:13 50:10,13
haste 42: 19
hasty 22: 18,20
Haywood 30:23
HCIA51:13
headquarters
4:8
hear 10:3
heard 12:17
31:232:12
34:7,15 48:23
56:2
hearing 1:7 2:6
2:19,24,25 3:2
3:4,6,13 5:6,9
5:166:9,13,13
6:197:1,2,4,13
7:14,17,19
8:12,18,20,25
9:3,5,23 10:5,6
10:1411:6
14:18 17:13
39:21 58:24
62:17,21,24
63:2
hearings 26:3
48:3
height 40: 10
held 1:7 6:9
Hello 17:8
help 60:15
hereinabove
64:7
hereto 64: 14
Hero 47:8,9,10
51:20
high 13:24 15:15
38:460:2
highlight 20: 17
historic 25: 12
28:23 60:23
Historical 39:25
hit 24:17 52:6
holding 39:20
homes 14:3,9
hope 39:10
hopefully 60:9
hours 18:6
house 9:4 20:23
21:21 58:23
houses 21:1,2,17
21:1839:7
Huffman 50:7,8
50:10
human 57:6
humans 57:4
hundred 13:20
15:1 20:13
34:19,22,23
35:10,11,20,21
36:3,11,12
41:445:25
49:1 52:25
55:3,19,20
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
CIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 6
58:12
hurricane 14:7
21:1624:4
27:17,2231:8
40:4
hurricanes
40:11
hydrodynamics
45:17
hydrological
25:2
hydrology 45: 14
idea 17:22 20: 10
35:11 47:14
identified 42:4
identify 9:20
IER 19: 13 20:22
24:1225:18
29:13,2433:2
33:7,12,24
41:9,19,23
42:2,2243:14
lER's 20:2,9
IER- 12 18:24
20:22 22:1
33:1643:25
51:8
Ike 40: 12
impact 16:9
20:6 23:20
24:2225:10
26:7 42:6
51:1662:9
impacted 44: 13
impacting 22: 13
impacts 2:10
19:22,2320:11
29:2,9 32:6,19
40:21 41:1,2
42:746:1
importance
21:1427:25
28:5,11,21
important 33:9
40:1942:9
44:1745:1
53:14,2454:7
54:11,13,17
55:8
Importantly
28:10
impose 10:6
imposing 10: 19
impressed 50:24
impressing
37:2538:13
impressive
38:17
improve 45: 13
inadequacies
42:17
include 33:16
41:19 44:4
61:13,23
included 20:8
42:251:18
includes 3:1
32:18
including 4:5,20
28:21,2231:10
incomplete 33: 2
indicates 42: 13
indirect 32:6
51:25
individual 2:7
3:184:16:3
7:128:5,15
11:14
Industrial 50: 11
industry 54: 15
infeasible 21:20
informal 7:3 9:2
informally
62:20
information 3:4
6:27:88:1
22:9 24:20
32:15 33:1,6
33:1756:21
informed 5:25
16:6 22:8
informing 15:23
infrastructure
54:18
innovative 29: 14
input 12:3
intend 57:7
intends 35: 18
intent 34: 17
interagency
50:24
interested 34:8
41:2264:15
interfering
19:17
intracoastal
2:123:16
49:18,24
introduce 39:9
intrusive 54: 10
involved 37: 11
involvement
44:7 53:10
Isle 55:8
issue 35:8 49: 14
issues 8:7,14,22
12:1245:19
47:24 48:8
49:6,1062:15
items 56: 13
J
Jane 4: 12
January 5:7, 10
** »/ 7
5:1243:4
Jean 28:23
52:22
Jefferson 31:11
37:1940:18
44:1851:13
52:21
Jerry 50:7,9
Jill 26:19,21
31:2,1734:7
job 57:16
jobs 54: 16
John 39:24
ioint2-5
IlJUti. JLft^J
Judicial 2:21
K
Kahn 46: 12,13
46:14 47:3
Katrina35:l
52:7
Keeler4:15
17:16
keeping 16:5
Kerner 11:20,21
53:3
kind 20:5,11
35:258:10
59:1860:6
know 10:24 12:2
14:6 24:21
47:17,2249:15
59:7,9 60:8,20
60:21 61:20
knowledge
46:22
Kohl 39:15,16
39:1744:21
56:10,11
.
labeled 23: 15
Ladies 2:3
Lafitte 11:20
12:6,13,23 ]
13:5,22 14:2
14:16,19 15:4
15:5 28:23
37:6,13 38:2
39:2,25 40:15
44:23 52:21,23
54:14,2156:25 ;
57:25
Lafourche 12:20
land 44:22 49:24
landowners
47:1149:12
LaPalco 51:19
large 3 1:22 :
larger 41: 16
late 51:17
lately 60: 18 j
Lawrence 58:9
leader 44: 16
League 46:15, 16
LEAKE1:10
learned 27:10 >
learning 17:25 :
18:16
leave 38:1
left 37:14 38:7
legislation 26:5
45:5 61:9,17
61:18
lengthy 10: 10
letter 12:23 31:5 i
Letters 43:2
letting 52: 13
60:24 ;
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, me.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392,4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2009
Page 7
Let's 2:2
levee 12:4,9,11
12:19,25 14:19
23:1831:9
32:240:6,15
42:3 48:15
53:23 54:1
55:11
levees 21:8,10
21:15 27:20
level 34: 19,22,23
35:3,20,21
36:3,4,11,12
42:1258:12
Lieutenant 4:20
life 36:17 57:6,6
limit 10:20
limits 10:7
line 54:8
lip 20:20
list 5:20 42:1
listed 41:23
little 15:21
18:2322:12
38:760:16
live 26:15 36:17
39:4 52:20
livelihood 53: 13
lives 36:15 53:13
local 12:4 48:15
located 2:22
location 30:3
49:3
logic 21:22 26:2
26:4,6 62:8
Iong36:9 51:11
longer 18: 12
look 14:20 16:11
19:7 20:25
49:655:16
looked 18:22
19:1920:1
21:6
looking 20: 12
23:10
loss 32:3 52:6
lost 16:22
lot 12:3 16:23
17:24 19:11
38:1739:6
Louisiana 1:11
27:1830:11
39:1856:12
lower 37:19
52:20,21 54:14
lucky 39:5
M
mailing 5: 20
mailings 5:17
maintained
48:24
maintaining
28:1
making 3:7,14
3:2136:16
44:6 61:13
manager 26: 23
manner 7:5
mantra 34:24
man-altered
45:17
map 16:12
Mark 4:20
Martin 30:23
Mastrototano
26:19,20,22
material 42:3
49:17,19,23
50:156:18
57:8
materials 23: 12
mathematically
59:8
Matt 17:6,8 27:6
MATTER 1:7
mayor 11:19
12:5 37:21
38:639:253:3
mean 13:19
18:11 38:14
meaningful
27:1750:17
means 59: 14
mechanism
61:13
meeting 17:23
35:6
meetings 16:1
20:2
member 37:7
46:14
members 5: 18
5:25 30:12
mention 18:17
61:6
mentioned
31:1761:7
met 29:7
metro 21: 13,21
26:15
midnight 11:16
18:327:13
43:10
Mike 2:20
mile 38:24
miles 38:25 50:1
Miller 4: 11
million 13:4,20
15:251:24
mind 36:6
minimized
55:14
minute 9: 13
36:22 44:20
minutes 10:20
24:16
misguided 35: 14
misleading
35:14
Mississippi
47:12
modification 1:9
46:5,9
modifications
45:1261:14,21
61:2462:1
modified 32:5
modify 2: 15 3:9
3:23 6:5 7:9
8:2,911:934:3
41:251:3
modifying 19:2
29:2
Mondino23:l,2
23:4 61:2,3
money 38:8,18
months 13:2
move 29: 13 32:9
36:18
moved 41:8
movement 30: 3
moving 19:8,16
22:11 41:3
49:18,22,25
multi-year
45:10
N
name 2:20 9: 17
17:823:3
30:1937:5
39:1752:19
nation 54: 19
55:19
national 25: 11
28:2431:23
39:2540:15
44:24 45:4,7
56:25 57:9
nationally 44:14
natural 26: 11
31:1245:2
navigation 41:8
necessary 25:25
necessity 28:22
need 21:9 41:14
49:555:15
61:12
needed 35:25
44:551:11
needs 31:20
35:1549:4
62:6
NEPA26:6
Network 17: 10
27:7
never 60:9
new 1:10 4:22
5:1 21:1123:6
24:5 26:24
30:1331:10
33:24 43:22
46:1654:5
59:6
NGO 44:25
NGO's 43:18
nice 28:12 38:14
nine 29:8
nola.com 5:23
non-forested
31:1440:8
non-structural
20:18,2521:5
27:2040:3,13
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 8
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
north 13:5 14:12
note 3:20 6: 11
42:1 54:13
55:9
noted 25:11
notes 17:1
notice 5:5, 8
noticed 23: 10
notices 5:1 6,24
6:12
notified 5: 14
number 4: 17
6:15,22
numerous 16:1
observations
O A .1 >-\
34:13
obsolete 35: 15
obtain 6:2 7:6
9:13,21
Office 1:10 4:9
officer 2:21,24
7:17 10:5
official 35:7
offshore 54: 15
oil 54:15
Okay 2:2 37:2
46:1456:2,4
59:1 62:14
oldest 60:22
omissions 42: 10
omitted 33: 10
O O "1 ^7
33:17
once 34:16 49:7
ones 12:14 25:7
one-year 32: 16
ongoing 49:6
open 9:4 57:20
58:23
opinions 8:1
opportunities
29:22
opportunity 6:1
10:18,2211:3
17:11 22:22
26:827:1
43:19
oppose 15:9
33:20
opposed 25: 19
31:20
order 9:8 10:1
10:1751:1
orderly 7:5
organization
9:19,21 23:7
organizations
51:15
organizing
26:23
original 40:23
44:11
originally 19:4
Orleans 1:11
4:225:221:11
23:624:5
26:25 30:13
31:1046:16
54:559:6
ought 15:7
24:14
outcome 64: 15
outline 6:24
outlined 21:25
51:8
outside 9:3
oversight 24:3
Owen 4: 24
17:15
owner 54:21
o'clock 18:5
P
pages 15:19
paper 29:10
Parish 31:11
37:2040:18
44:1851:13
52:21
park 28:24
39:2540:15
44:24 45:4,8
46:1956:25
57:9,14
part 2:11 3:16
37:20
participate 3:21
6:8
particular 23:21
35:24
parties 34:8
64:14
payroll 5 1:23
people 6:17
10:16 12:16
13:12 14:2
15:3,5 16:2
17:24 18:15
26:13 36:16
37:11,2438:2
39:7 55:12
56:3 59:20
60:7
people's 36:6, 15
percent 14:4
35:1358:17
59:10,14
perfectly 54:3
perimeter 41:6
period 5 .22 18.3
18:1027:8
34:6 43:9,12
43:17 44:2
j.'.j — -_.j.. a.. .,
permits 11:1
person 10:1
personal 34: 13
64:10
personally 54:20
personnel 8:23
persons 4:9 7:20
11:3,18
pertinent 61: 16
Peters 52:3
phrase 23:23
Picayune 5: 11
pick 13:1
place 14:5 26:3
34:1551:1
placing 24:23
57:18
plan 10:9 24: 12
24:19 48:22
51:762:6
Planning 4: 16
4:25
plans 40:23
Plaquemines
5:10
please 2:3 3:20
9:12,17,20,23
58:14
point 12:24 15:6
15:15 17:2
24:12,17,18
37:1238:11
39:1 54:22
60:8,10
pointed 60:5
poor57:16
population
55:23
portion 40: 17
52:3 62:6
possibility 56:17
..—L-»-lu|J 1-UJIU..JJ1-I -T
possible 39:10
postcard 5: 17
posted 33:4 43:4
43:11,23
potential 2: 10
38:2052:5
potentially 33:5
Pourciau 58:8,9
58:25
preferred 33:21
44:11
preliminary i
56:20 1
prepare 34:9
prepared 5. 4
8:1933:12
42:1943:25 :
present 4:4,19
10:15 25:17
presentation
12:123:11
24:828:12
34:1748:5
61:8
presented 9:2,8
22:433:22
47:15
preserve 40:1
44:23 56:20
President 12:9
50:10
pressure 60: 14
pretty 37:25
38:13
primary 54:4
prior 6:19
pristine 55:4,6
probably 17:23
18:421:12
49:21 59:3
problem 47:24
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 9
problems 57:1
procedures 6:25
7:1
process 3: 14
programs 14:23
Progress 37:8
project 2:13
3:18 14:24
17:25 25:18,25
27:5,1129:3
32:1734:14,18
35:23 36:20
37:9 38:9,10
54:2
projects 35: 24
properties 16:23
property 16:4,5
16:1354:20,22
proportions
52:8
nvnvmcol "^O'C
proposal Ju.o
T'7.1 o cn.i n
J /.lo jU.iy
53:1754:25
proposed 2: 11
3:15,25 19:5
31:1835:22
protect 13: 12
16:1926:12
55:2,1857:19
protected 16:18
44:2445:4
48:6
protecting 27:25
28:1639:22
44:1755:23
protection 4: 13
14:1420:14
24:527:18,21
28:8 31:9
34:20,22,24
35:2,22 36:4
39:23 40:3,13
46:1848:12,13
48:18,2049:1
50:1851:12
53:23 54:1,5
55:12,1458:13
protective 57:5
protects 40: 16
provide 9:7 30:7
34:1840:2
51:1055:11
provided 9:9,14
10:428:13
providing 10:7
public 1:7 2:6
2:19,24 3:2,6
3:135:4,5,5,9
5:15,15,18,24
6:1,9,11,12,13
6:19,25 7:2,13
8.1010 on o<
.lZ,lo,ZU,Zj
1 (\-f. 1 1 -f.
1U.O 11. 0
14:18 16:19
17:118:1,2
20:2 24:21
25:5,7,17 26:2
26:7,727:10
33:4,13 35:2,6
35:23 36:14
42:22 43:7,9
43:1244:1
62:17,24
public/agency
33:18
published 5:8
pump 13:8
47:18
Pumping 5 1:20
Pumps 28: 18
put 27: 11 37:24
57:8
puts 60: 14
putting 13:8
17:1239:7
47:16
p.m 1:12 2:4
62:22 63:3
0
quality 4: 14
45:1357:13
quarter 38:24
question 23:9,16
23:2224:11
questions 7: 18
8:7,14,22,24
9:2 11:25
42:24 62:20
quicker 13:6
quote 34:18,21
35:19
RACHEL 1:16
£ A A 1 C\
64:4,19
rain 35:4
• <^f~\ /~\ *">
raise 20:23
21:20
• J Q 1 1 "I ^7
raised 8:11, 17
8:2235:8
A /-\ S^ C
42:25
raising 21:1, 17
ratio 47:20
Ray 37:2,5
• A f\ C
reach 40:5
reading 15:18
16:7 23:11
real 22:8 38:14
A A 1C
44. 15
realizing 37. 9
£ '^7 O £
57:25
II 1 /"" O
really 16:8
20:1923:17
24:13,1725:16
26:1
reasonable
10:1923:24
reassessed 35: 16
recalled 61:5
rprnpniyp 9X-1 D
I l*\*\J c^lll£jV> 4-i\J , _LV_/
28 -25
j-^{j * j-s^>
recommend
10:1034:1
recommending
44:10
record 2:2 3:2,5
3:7,13 6:14,21
7:7,208:11,17
9:3,22 10:3,15
17:1827:12
38:143:1,6
52:13,23
redepositing
A o-or\
4V:ZU
J A f\ A
reduce 4U:4
reducing 36:7
40:10,20
reevaluated
31:21
referred 34: 16
reflect 16: 10
30:25
refute 30:7
regarding 8:2
44:746:18
regardless 39:4
region 2:22 4: 11
53:9
Regional 2:21
Register 5:6
registration
9:10,11,15
regulations
61:10,22
Regulatory 4:7
related 7. 8
64:14
relates 53:12,21
relevant 7:7
23:9
relocation 4S*94
• V<.1 vfv-cHlvf.il ".J . £*T
remain 4-9'R
1 VlllClIll "^.(J
62:19
report 2:8 3:19
4:26:37:12
8:6,16 11:15
15:19 16:7
32:21 51:9
reported 1:16
64:9
reporter 1:17
6:15,22 10:2
64:5,20
REPORTER'S
/r /i .0
o4:Z
_ „- _ A_ A O . "1 "1 OO
reports 43 11,23
r "
represent 47: 10
50:12
representatives
4:4,1862:17
representing
9:1939:18
represents 30: 12
54:16
request 1:8 2: 14
3:9,226:47:9
8:2,8 10:12
11:927:629:7
33:11,23 34:2
34:541:16
45:20 46:5,8
51:3
requested 5: 19
7:22
requesting
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 10
19:1533:15
require 45:9,21
resident 21:11
37:6
residents 34:20
resolved 48: 10
resource 33: 14
43:20 44:9
45:2
resources 4:7
28:2
respect 53: 16
62:3
respond 8:6,1 3
8:24 9:1
responses 33:18
responsibility
2:25
restoration5:l
17:9 27:7
53:25
revealed 5 1:21
review 27:4 33:4
33:1443:8,12
43:15,2244:2
revised/amen...
33:12
revisited 30:6
right 13:4 14:4
14:1248:19
riprap 29: 15
rising 21:2
risk35:3 36:2,7
36:9,11,14,16
Rita 40: 11
River 47: 12
road 15:17
16:1452:3,5
60:9,10
rolling 20:6
room 26: 14
62:19
Rota 17:6,7,8
27:6
roundly 62:7
RPR 1:16 64:19
run 13:15
running 5:21
runs 26:1
rush 55: 10
S
safe 16:15 31:8
59:21 60:7
saying 13: 11
21:930:2
37:1238:6
says 21:4
scary 59:19
scientific 27: 23
screening 57:4
season 27:22
second 18:16
secondary 19:21
19:22
section 2: 16
3:115:1 6:6
7:118:4,10
11:1014:21
32:741:25
51:5
sediments 56:22
57:3,11,17
see 13:13 14:16
19:15,19 22:7
24:1625:6
55:1660:13,17
60:19
seeking 50: 17
senior 26:22
sense 48:24
sent 43:3
sentiments
30:10
servants 26:9
service 20:20
43:3
session 2:17
set 64: 8
shallow 25:1
shallowness
29:20
Shaw 37'23
kJlld. TT *J 1 ,^^J
shooting 15:15
16:16
shorthand 64: 10
shortsighted
53:18
shot 16:18,20
50:20
showed 5 1:24
showing 18:24
shown 56:21
side 29:21 39:22
47:1248:6,21
Sierra 26:24
27:15 28:14
30:21,24 31:3
31:734:11
sign 56:6
signed 9: 11
10:1611:18
12:22 56:3,6
significance
16:931:24
41:21
significant
18:1427:23
29:1 35:4
44:14
simple 7:2
sin 15:6
single 20:23
21:20
sir 56:9 57:23
58:761:1
sitting 13:10
situation 59: 18
six 10:20
sixteen 13:23
Sixth 37:7
skipped 56: 14
slap 14:1,10
GOIVP 47-93
31/1 V t- i / *£**J
somewhat 53: 17
sorry 13:9
sort 25:20 55:10
source 42:3
south 13:22 38:8
38:9,1851:19
54:9,1955:6
space 32:9
speak 10:17,18
11:1952:14
56:4,7 60:24
speaker 9: 11
10:21
spending 13:19
51:25
spent 38:8
spoken 56:8
spreadsheet
20:5
squares 16:13
staff 4: 10 28: 14
41:17
staging 54: 14
stand 35: 17
standards 57:5
state 9: 17
stated 53:3
statement 10: 14
25:2230:1
46:23
states 32:23
station 13:8
51:20
statutes 61:22
Stern 30:17,18
30:20 36:23
storm 31:16
35:1251:11
52:759:21
storms 37: 16
40-1 Q S'Vl
^\J • ,L:s *J^J*±
55:20,21,22
strides 29:2
strongly 34:1
structural 21:7 j
29:2432:1 i
structure 32:9
38:12,2248:7
studies 24:23
study 13:16
32:1637:23
45:10,15 46:7
51:17,17,21
52:1
submit 6:7
46:17
submitted 6: 18
46:24 52:12 i
submitting
17:14,17 ;
substantial 34:9
54:16
suggest 3 1:24 ;
41:7
summarized
43:13
summarizing
10:11
super 47:16,18
supervision
64:11
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES, INC
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 11
support 12:23
22:16 27:24
30:831:12
51:2,652:10
supportive
33:25
supports 27: 16
31:8
suppose 23:4
supposed 12:19
48:25
sure 12:16
surge 13:7
surges 31:16
40:4,11
surveys 42:5
sworn 64:6
system 12:19,25
20:1421:16
23:1845:18
systems 31: 13
T
table 9: 10,15
take 9:13 11:17
25:1631:19
37:1740:24
50:3 55:9
taken 1:9 40:24
44:1348:15
49:9 50:25
talk 9:23 15:3
17:20 20:16
36:1049:16
58:22
talked 48:3
talking 10:1
18:18 35:12
36:637:21
38:24
technical 43: 11
43:22
tell 12:12 13:25
temporary
48:20
ten 50:1
tension 48:5
terminology
60:6
testify 9: 12 64:7
64:7
testimony 3:3
7:21 9:8,16,25
10:4,7,9,12,22
11:4,1756:9
64:9
Texas 2:23
thank2:18
11:22,23 15:8
15:11 17:5,10
17:1219:1
22:22,2526:18
30-14 1636-24
^J\J • J_~5_LVJ ^J\J • £S^
37:239:12,14
39:1940:20
44:846:10,12
47:4,7 50:4,6
52:13,1655:24
56:157:20,22
58:4,6 60:24
61:1 62:13,25
thing 18:16
20:15 29:10
61:5
things 15:21
think 18:9,18
19:6 24:9
25:23 31:5
36:8 47:20,22
49:2,3,8,8,20
50:1953:4,11
53:14,16,23,24
54:2,6,7,11,11
55:8,10,15
59:1961:15
62:5
Thomas 52:20
thorough 45: 22
thousand 16:17
30:1255:3,21
three 18:6 30:12
37:1638:25
59:16
throw 13:9
tidal 13:7 14: 14
40:4,10,18
Tim 11:19
time 10:1,6,15
10:19,20,25
11:1,5 17:2,24
18:14,2325:16
33:3,734:9
38:439:12
42-14 43-15
"^»-L" ^^J • L^s
47:17,21
Times 5: 11
tired 38:3
today 17:20
18:16 20:16
50:16
told 35:7 45: 14
Tom 52:16
tonight 11: 16
23:20 24:9
27:1339:21
43:10
tonight's 5:5, 15
6:127:13
TORRES 64:4
64:19
TORRES-RE...
1:16
total 5 1:21
totality 55: 13
town 11:20 12:6
12:8 14:16,17
toxic 57:3
toxics 56:24
track 36:1
transcribed
64:10
transcript 64: 12
transferring
45:6
transportation
42:8
treasure 25: 12
trial 7: 15
true 64: 11
truly 25:6
truth 64:7
trying 14:3,8
39:23 47:23
turn 55: 15
twn4-Q 1 S-9D 7S
t,Yw\J ^ *y _L,J. £-\J ? £*^}
16:1343:17
T-wall 29:14,15
30:445:24
U
unavailable
33:3
uncertainties
42:1
understand
21:1445:16
50:21
understanding
35:1758:14
59:264:13
undertaken
45:11
unfortunately
24:7
uninterrupted
9:22
unknown 42:8
updated 33:1
uphold 28:5
upper 52:3
use 23:25 31:12
35:19 57:4,7
utilize 16:15
U.S4:23
V
Vallee 15:12,13
15:14
view 49:11
vision 44:25
volunteers 28: 14
Voters 46:15,17
waited 42:21
51:11
wall 41:4,7 60:1
want 11:23
16:25 17:3
18:8 22:17
29:1137:10
44:8 56:6
wanted 15:20
58:9
Ward 37:7
warning 10:23
warrant 10:8
Washington
12:22
watching 12:1
water 2:16 3:10
4:9,146:67:10
8:3,10 11:10
13:919:17
38:5,11,19
45:1351:4
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
GIWW/BAYOU AUX CARPES PUBLIC HEARING
February 11,2009
Page 12
57:13,20
waters 25:1
waterway 2:12
3:1719:9
32:1041:5,10
49:18,25
waterways
22:13
Watson 4: 12
way 23:22 26:10
36:2,1341:1
49:22 55:7
59:964:15
weather 21:2
web 43:23
website 5:17,24
15:1943:5
week 27: 9
weeks 43: 18
went 23: 14 62:8
West 1:8 2: 12
3:1751:7
westbank!3:13
31:11 34:21
40:5,14,17
50:1951:12
54:6
western 29:21
wetland 32:3
44:15,1745:18
45:23 55:4
61:14
wetlands 4:6, 16
19:2328:1,3
31:14,2332:7
32:1140:2,8,9
40:21,2245:1
46:19
We'll 58:21
We're 45:8,14
56:16
wide 19:11
41:11
wider41:14
width 41: 13
Wildlife 43:3
willing 25: 9
wish 9:12 58:3
wishing 11:4
witness 25:5
64:6
witnesses 7:17
Women 46: 15
46:16
wonderful 55:6
wondering
37:17
work 23:14 36:5
53:8
worked 28: 15
46:20,20
works 59:9
wouldn't 14:6
38:15
wrapping 11:1
WRDA21:3
writing 8: 19
written 6: 18
10:1311:8,14
17:1421:25
27:11
wrong 58: 15
wrote 22: 10
Y
Y 64:4,19
Yazoo28:17
year 20:13 34:19
34:22,23 35:10
35:11,13,20,21
36:3,11,12
45:8,1549:1
52:2555:20,20
55:21 58:12,17
years 15:25 28:7
44:1646:21
47:1550:16
52:25 59:10,12
year's 28:17
y'all 11:23
$
$1.152:1
$50 13:3
$500,00014:11
$67.551:24
1
16:16
112:55:13,23
62:23
11TH1:11
122:83:194:2
6:47:138:6,16
11:15,16
12519:1141:12
1311:1246:24
145:7
1547:15
161951:22
17415:19
198551:4
2
25:226:1632:4
33:21
205:10,1224:16
20050:12
2005 27:22
200751:17
20091:122:5
5:711:12
62:23
205 14:22
2528:7
275:11
285:12
3
36:23
3044:159:10,10
59:12
3544:16
4
40029:19
4041:82:16
3:11,236:6
7:118:4,10
11:11 18:22
23:13,25 24:24
25:8 28:3,6,11
28:16,2229:4
32:7 34:4
39:2440:14,21
40:22,2541:6
45:6,12,23
46:6,951:5
61:9,9,1462:4
62:9
404(c)32:ll
5
50029:18
6
62:224:116:23
60031:2040:25
41:1144:13
7
72:45:12
7:001:12
7:5762:2263:2
7014:459:14
701181:11
74001:10 •
1
8 i
85:1418:5
9 ]
9.631:19
!
j
:
:
-
'•
;
:
':
:
\
•
i
i
!
TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
INC.
COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION SERVICES
tra@torresreporting.com
www.torresreporting.com
Baton Rouge, LA
225.751.0732
225.752.7308 FAX
New Orleans, LA
504.392.4791
504.392.4852 FAX
1.866.982.6878 TOLL FREE
-------
2072
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 9/Wednesday, January 14, 2009/Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650; FRL-8398-6]
Petition for Rulemaking Requesting
EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver
Products as Pesticides; Extension of
Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; extension of comment
period.
SUMMARY: KPA issued a notice in the
recleral Rogistor of November 19, 2008.
concerning a petition for rulcmaking
and collateral relief filed by the
International Center for Technology
Assessment (ICTA) and others. In
general, the petition requests that the
Agency classify nanoscale silver as a
pesticide, require formal pesticide
registration of all products containing
nanoscale silver, analyze the potential
human health and environmental risks
of nanoscale silver, take regulatory
actions under ihe Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
against existing products that contain
nanoscale silver, and take other
regulatory actions under FIFRA as
appropriate for nanoscale silver
products. This document extends the
comment period for BO days from
January 20, 2009 to March 20, 2009.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-
OPP-200H-0650, must be received on or
before March 20, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed
instructions as provided under
ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of November 19, 2008 (73 FR
69644).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Natlianael R. Martin, Field and External
Affairs Division [7500PJ, Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Aw., NVV., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: 703-305-6475;
e-mail address:
uiartin.nothannel@Kpa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document extends the public commenl
period established in a notice that was
published in the Federal Register of
November 19, 2008 (73 FR 69644) (FRL-
8386-4). hi that document, the Agency
made the petition submitted by ICTA et
al., available for review and asked for
public comment on the same. On
December 12, 2008, EPA received a
request from ICTA to extend the
comment period on the petition. EPA is
hereby extending the comment period,
which was set to end on January 20,
2009, to March 20, 2009.
To submit comments, or access the
public docket, please follow the detailed
instructions as provided under
ADDRESSES in the November 19, 2008
Federal Register document. If you have
questions, consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
Nanotechnology, Pesticides and pests.
Datinl: January 8, 21)09.
Martha Monell,
Acting Dimctor. Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. li9-622 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-8762-2]
Request for Amendment of
Designation Prohibiting Discharges of
Dredged or Fill Material to the Bayou
aux Carpes Clean Water Act Section
404(c) Site, Louisiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Public Hearing and
Request for Comments.
SUMMARY: In 1985, EPA prohibited the
discharge of dredged or fill material to
wetlands in the Bayou aux Carpes
Swamp pursuant to Section 404(c) of
the Clean Water Act (CVVA). On
November 4, 2008, the New Orleans
District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) requested that EPA
modify that designation to
accommodate discharges to the Bayou
aux Carpes wetlands associated with
post-Katrina upgrades to the West Bank
and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Levee
system in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.
EPA solicits written public comment on
that request and will hold a public
hearing for receipt of comments.
Public Hearing: The public hearing
will be held in the District Assembly
Room at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers New Orleans District office,
7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA
70118. The public hearing will
commence at 6 p.m. on February 11,
2009, and will end when all comments
have been received. During the hearing,
any member of the public may submit
written comments or present comments
verbally.
Public Comments: In addition to
providing comments at the public
hearing, written comments on the CWA
Section 404(c) modification request may
be submitted to EPA for 30 days
following the date of this notice.
Comments should be addressed to Ms.
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC), EPA Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-
2733. All comments should directly
address whether the 1985 Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) EPA Final
Determination should be modified as
requested by the Corps.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information regarding this matter,
contact Ms. Barbara Keeler by phone at
(214) U65-6698 or by e-mail at
keelfir.harbara@epa.gov. Copies of the
modification request and supporting
documentation are available online at:
http://wwiY.nolaenvimninentaI.gov/
n ola_p u blic_du tu/projects/u set ce_le ver./
docs/original/
ModificationLetterToEPA4OcW8.pdf.
Additional project information may be
found at: http://
\vww. nolaenvironniental.gov/projects/
usaco_levee/lER.aspx>'lEHlD=12.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bayou
aux Carpes CWA Section 4()4(c) site is
located approximately ten miles south
of New Orleans, Louisiana, on the West
Bank of Jefferson Parish. The site covers
approximately 3200 acres, including
about 3000 acres of wetlands subject to
federal jurisdiction under the CWA. The
area is bounded on the north by the
east-west Old Estelle Pumping Station
Outfall Canal, on the cast by Bayou
Barataria (Gulf Intracoastal Waterway),
on the south by Bayou Barataria and
Bayou des Families, and on the west by
State Highway 3134 and the "V-Lovce."
Immediately across State Highway 3134
to the west of the site is the Barataria
Unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical
Park and Preserve.
Section 404(c) of the CWA authorizes
EPA to restrict or prohibit the use of a
wetland area as a disposal site for
dredged or fill material if the discharge
will have unacceptable adverse effects
on municipal water supplies, shellfish
beds and fishery areas (including
spawning and breeding areas), wildlife.
or recreational areas. EPA published a
CWA Section 404(c) Final
Determination prohibiting, with three
exceptions, future discharges of dredged
or fill material to wetlands in the Bayou
aux Carpes site at 50 FR 47267
(November 15, 1985). Since then, the
Agency has received two other requests
for modification.
In connection with initial
construction of the West Bank
Hurricane Protection Levee, the Corps
requested that EPA modify its CWA
Section 404(c) designation to allow
QXt"™01''^" of t\ir> t-nr^ nftlnci "V-I nvoo"
KS RiPORi'iso & ASSOCIATES
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 9/Wednesday, January 14, 2009/Notices
2073
into the protected Bayou aux Carpes
area. The Corps stated that such a
modification would result in significant
cost savings to the government and
would affect only a relatively small part
of the area protected by the Section
404(c) designation. EPA summarily
denied that request and in 1988 the
Corps modified the levee alignment to
avoid discharges to the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(o) area.
In 1992, Shell Pipeline Corporation
requested thai EPA amend the
designation to alloiv the discharge of
dredged and fill material to wetlands in
the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) area in connection with
emergency reconstruction of a leaking
pipeline. After notifying interested
parties of the request via Federal
Register publication and coordinating
with the Corps and other agencies, EPA
granted the request, publishing the
decision at 57 FR 3757 (January 31,
1992). EPA concluded that relocating
the pipeline to non-wetlands was
infeasible from (he perspectives of
engineering and public safety, and that
lhe work \vould have only minimal and
temporary effects on the wetlands at
issue.
The request noticed today was
submitted by the Corps and is
associated with proposed improvements
to the West Bank and Vicinity Hurricane
Protection Levee system. By way of a
letter dated November 8, 2008, the
Corps requested that the designation be
modified to allow construction of an
earthen berm and floodwall in an area
disturbed by dredged material
discharges predating the 1985 404(c)
designation. The construction area is
located along the west bank of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, or Bayou
Barataria, from its junction with the Old
Estelle Pumping Station Outfall Canal to
a point at which the Corps proposes to
construct a sector gate across the
Waterway. As described in the
modification request, the berm and
floodwall would be 14 to 16 feet high
and would occupy an area no greater
than 4,200 linear feet by 100 linear feet.
No more than ten acres of wetlands in
lhe Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) site would be affected and other
design and construction features have
been incorporated to minimize impacts
to the wetlands.
The Corps is currently gathering
baseline data to evaluate potential
wetland mitigation options and other
project features to improve the existing
hydrology of the Bayou aux Carpes site.
The Corps has committed to
constructing those features if the
analyses indicate that they would be
ecologically beneficial. Discharges of
dredged or fill material associated with
such construction would require no
additional modification to the CWA
Section 404(c) designation, which
contains an exception for approved
habitat enhancement projects.
Additional information on the Corps
project and its relationship to the Bayou
aux Carpes site may he found in the
alternative National Environmental
Policy Act document, known as
Individual Environmental Report #12
(1ER #12), which is posted online at:
http://www.nolaenvii-onnicntal.gov/
projects/usace^levcc/
IER.aspx?IERID=12.
The public hearing referenced above
will be jointly conducted by EPA Region
6 and the Corps. At the hearing, EPA
will receive comments on the Corps
request to EPA to modify the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) designation
and the Corps will receive comments on
IER#12.
After considering all comments
submitted, EPA Region 6 will transmit
to the EPA Office of Water in
Washington, DC, a written
recommendation on whether the CWA
Section 404(c) modification request
should be granted or denied. The
Assistant Administrator for Water will
make the final decision and publish a
notice of its availability in the Federal
Register.
Dated: January G, 2009.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. K9-690 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Notice of Public Information
Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the
Federal Communications Commission
for Extension Under Delegated
Authority, Comments Requested
January 8, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce papenvork burden
invites the general public and other
Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on the
following information collection(s), as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number. No person shall be subject to
any penalty for failing to comply with
a collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that
does not display a valid control number.
Comments are requested concerning (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) comments should be
submitted on or before March 16, 2009.
If you anticipate that you will be
submitting PRA comments, but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the FCC contact listed below as
soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to
Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget, (202) 395-
5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via
Internet at
Nicholas _A._Fmser@omb. eop.gov and
to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, Federal
Communications Commission, or an e-
mail to PRA@fcc.gov. To view a copy of
this information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web
page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the
Web page called "Currently Under
Review", (3) click on the downward-
pointing arrow in the "Select Agency"
box below the "Currently Under
Review" heading, (4) select "Federal
Communications Commission" from the
list of agencies presented in the "Select
Agency" box, (5) click the "Submit"
button to the right of the "Select
Agency" box, and (6) when the list of
FCC ICRs currently under review
appears, look for the title of this ICR (or
its OMB Control Number, if there is one)
and then click on the ICR Reference
Number to view detailed information
about this ICR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information, contact Judith B.
Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the
Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060-0755.
Title: Sections 59.1 through 59.4,
Infrastructure Sharing.
Form /Vo.:N/A.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-
profit.
-------
US Army Corps
Reducing Risk in
. .
Southeast Louisiana
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, is
hosting a public meeting to discuss environmental compliance
efforts, per the National Environmental Policy Act.
Jan. 28,2009 Plaquemines Parish Non-Federal Levees
Woodland Plantation
21997 Highway 23, Port Sulphur, LA 70083
Open House: 6:00p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Presentation/Discussion: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Meeting presentation will:
• Discuss the plans to upgrade the current Plaquemines Parish
Non-Federal Levees as it will be discussed in the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District is also
hosting a joint public hearing with the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Feb. 11,2009 Gl WW West Closure Complex/
Bayou aux Carpes 404 request for modification
US Army Corps of Engineers
District Office
7400 Leake Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118
Open House: 5:00 - 6:00 p.m.
Presentation/Comments: 6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Meeting will:
• Provide a unique venue to take comments on the Corps' pro-
posed action to reduce risk to communities surrounding the
Harvey and Algiers canals as discussed in IER 12
• Provide a unique venue for the EPA to take comments on the
Corps' proposed action which will require a modification to
the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area, a wetland of national
Contact: Gib Owen (504) 862-1337
mvnenvironmental'« usacc.nrmv.mil
www.nolaenvironmental.gov
TORRES REKJIULVG &,AS
-------
US Army Carps
of Engineers
Reducing Risk in
Southeast Louisiana
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, is hosting a public meeting to discuss
environmental compliance efforts, per the National Environmental Policy Act.
Jan. 28,2009 Plaquemines Parish Non-Federal Levees
Woodland Plantation
21997 Highway 23, Port Sulphur, LA 70083
Open House: 6:00p.m, - 7:00 p.m.
Presentation/Discussion: 7:00-9:00 p.m.
Meeting presentation will:
» Discuss alternatives under consideration to upgrade the current Plaquemines Parish Non-
Federal Levees as they will be discussed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District is also hosting a joint public hearing
with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Feb. 11,2009 GIWW West Closure Complex/Bayou aux Carpes 404 request for modification
US Army Corps of Engineers
District Office
7400 Leake Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118
Open House: 5:30 - 6:00 p.m.
Presentation/Comment-only period: 6:00 p.m.
The Corps has extended the public comment period for 1ER 12 from Feb. 4 to Feb. 11, 2009.
All comments given at the public hearing will be considered as official comments to IER 12.
Meeting will:
• Provide a venue to give comments on the Corps' proposed action to reduce risk to
communities and businesses near the Harvey and Algiers canals as discussed in IER 12
» Provide a venue for the EPA to accept comments on the Corps* proposed action which will
require a modification to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area, a wetland of national
significance under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
Contact: CibOwen (504)862-1337 mvnenviroiimcntalft us.ice.army.uiil
Learn more at www.nolaenvironmental.gov
-------
11
Building Strong
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District is hosting a joint public hearing with
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Feb. 11,2009 GIWW West Closure Complex/Bayou aux Carpes 404 request for modification
US Army Corps of Engineers District Office
7400 Leake Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118
Doors open at 5:30 p.m.
Presentation begins promptly at 6:00 p.m. and is followed by a
comment-only period
The Corps has extended the public comment period for Individual Environmental Report 12 from
Feb. 4 to Feb. 11,2009. All comments given at the public hearing will be considered as official
comments to IER 12.
Meeting will:
« Provide a venue to give comments on the Corps' proposed action to reduce risk to
communities and businesses near the Harvey and Algiers canals as discussed in IER 12
• Provide a venue for the EPA to accept comments on the Corps' proposed action which will
require a modification to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area, a wetland of national
significance under the jurisdiction of the EPA
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, is continuing its series of public
meetings to discuss environmental compliance efforts, per the National Environmental Policy
Act, and project updates on the planned and proposed Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm
Damage Risk Reduction System.
Mar. 3,2009 New Orleans Lakefront Levees west of the Industrial Canal and
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Surge Barrier - Borgne and Pontchartrain
Lindy Boggs International Conference Center
2045 Lakeshore Dr., New Orleans LA 70122
Open house 6 p.m. Presentation and discussion 7 p.m.
Meeting presentation will:
» Provide an overview of the proposed action to improve the New Orleans Lakefront Levee as
discussed in IER 4
» Discuss the status of construction of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Surge Barrier - Lake
Borgne as previously discussed in IER 11 Tier 2 Borgne
» Provide an overview of the alternatives under consideration for reducing risk to the residents
and businesses near the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Surge Barrier - Lake Pontchartrain
as it will be discussed in IER 11 Tier 2 Pontchartrain
Upcoming Public Meetings
Mar. 5, 2009
IER 11 Tier 2 Pontchartrain
Port of New Orleans
1350 Port of New Orleans PI.
New Orleans LA 70160
Open house 8 a.m.
Presentation and discussion 8:30 a.m.
Contact: Gib Owen (504) 862-1337
Mar. 11.2009
IER 8, 9, 10 and borrow
Lynn Oaks School
#1 Lynn Oaks Dr.,
Braithwaite, LA 70040
Open house 6 p.m.
Presentation and discussion
p.m.
mvnenvironinental'ffusace.si rmy.mil
Learn more at www.nolaenvironmental.gov
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Reducing Risk on the
Westbank
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District is hosting a joint
public hearing with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Feb. 11,2009 OlWW West Closure Complex/Bayou aux Carpes 404
request for modification
US Army Corps of Engineers
District Office
7400 Leake Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118
Doors open at 5:30 p.m.
Presentation begins promptly at 6:00 p.m. and is followed
by a comment-only period
The Corps has extended the public comment period for IER 12 from Feb. 4
to Feb. 11,2009. All comments given at the public hearing will be
considered as official comments to IER 12.
Meeting will:
• Provide a venue to give comments on the Corps* proposed action to
reduce risk to communities and businesses near the Harvey and Algiers
canals as discussed in IER 12
« Provide a venue for the EPA to accept comments on the Corps' proposed
action which will require a modification to the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c)
area, a wetland of national significance under the jurisdiction of the EPA
Contact: Gib Owen (504) 862-1337 im neii\ ironnictttnl «f/us«ice.ariny.mil
Learn more sit \vw\v.nolaenvironnientaLgov
-------
Nola.com Feb. 2 - Feb. 11, 2009
A joint public hearing with the Environmental Protection Agency on
W M 31! the GIWW West Closure Complex and request for modification to the
Bayou aux Carpes 404 c site
JU.S.ARHYI
Site Search
www.noiaenviroiimental.gov
Search Local Business Listings
US Army Corps of Engineers [Ms
Tc'A'n, Keyword. Local Businesses. Web ID
Home News Weather Sports Entertainment j Living Interact i Jobs Autos
Brought to you by
Real Estate
Classifieds Place an Ad
Ready to catch some ^ulu coconuts? I Or other crafts?
Mardi Grus pliotos; biun« y..m -; | See: NO LA, TP &. Users' foj
ruii covt-i dtjc; Pfifitu*. T-chsMiiJi. -, , About Mardi Gras | Forum | FAQs
,.iti lilt Times-Picayune
Share
Carnival
tips!
Police identify mother who
threw newborn into lake; say
she will be charged with
first-degree murder -M
» Qualifying opens in for sicite
appeals court posts and tor
Jefferson, Gretiia cmd Vi/estvvego
offices :•:::- :
* Apartment complex approved at
former site of si. Aloysius High
New Orleans Hornets chat live now
Q&A with Times-Picayune
beat reporter John Reid
New Orleans, LA change location
^ 590 4WM| radar &
5-day forecast and more »
Today's v/eather
brought to you by:
Get your New Orleans area weather
Select a town
• '(rent Johnson's LSD Tmers have more
-------
Nola.com Feb. 2 - Feb. 11, 2009
When:
U.S.ARMY
www.nolaenvironmental.gov
... . _ . . . _--_ Doors open 5:30 p.m.
Wed., Feb. 11, 2009 Presentation begins
promptly at 6:00 p.m.
US Army Corps of Engineers JM]
Site Search Search Local Business Listings
Home News Weather Sports Entertainment ! Living j Interact Jobs Autos Real Estate
Brought to you by:
Classifieds
Place an Ad
Qualifying opens in iui .state
appeals court posts und for
Jefferson, Gretna and Westwego
offices ::.:-
Apartment complex Approved at
former site of St. Aloysius High
School - :
Ready to catch some /ulu coconuts? | Or other crafts?
Mtirdi Gffis piiotoi,: siuii^ YIMH v. i See: NOLA. TP & Users' [oj
covt-ifigt": f'oid:u -.ri! j..!. - ; About Mardr Gras | Forum | FAQs
.'.'it~ I he Times-Picayune
Police identify mother who
threw newborn into lake; say
she will be charged with
first-degree murder -1-1
Share
Carnival
tips!
New Orleans Hornets chat live now
Q£A with Times-Picayune
beat reporter John Reid
• Trent Johnson's LSD Tigers have more
important things to worry about than
New Orleans, LA change location
69°
Thunderstorms
radar &
satellite
maps
5-day forecast and more »
Today's weather
brought to you by;
Get your New Orleans area weather
i Select a tcvsn |y|
NOLA.com Is ffi«
the online home of WMi
-------
Nola.com Feb. 2 - Feb. 11, 2009
ere:
New Orleans District Assembly Room
7400 Leake Ave New Orleans LA 70118
UyUmiH] www.nolaenvironmentaLfloy US Afmy COfpS Of EnglnCCrS
Site Search
Search Local Business Listings
Home News Weather Sports Entertainment Living Interact Jobs Autos
Ready to catch sonic Zulu coconuts? | Or other crafts?
Mcirdi Gras photos, hiu.n.' y^ui.-.; I See: NOLA. TP & Users' LGJ
rull L^vcftiyt: t-'ctrmi.- : .in ..ul- About Hard! Gras | forum | FAQs
Share
Carnival
tips!
. it "i The I imes-Picayune
Police identify mother who
threw newborn into lake; say
she will be chdryed with
first-degree murder : -n
New Orleans Hornets chat live now
Q&A with Times-Picayune
beat reporter John Reid
I'll JDOltiOl
Qualifying opens in toi slate
appeals court posts ciua for
Jefferson, Gretna and Westwego
offices ; ;
Apartment complex appioved at
former site of Si. Aloysius High
School ; :
* Trent Johnson s LSU Tigers have more
important things to worry about than
rought to you by;
Real Estate j Classifieds I Place an Ad
_L
New Orleans, LA change location
** 69°
Thunderstorms
radar &
satellite
maps
5-day forecast and more »
Today's i'»eatner
brought to you by:
Get your New Orleans area weather
'Select a tc/vn
MOL4.com is
tfm online; home of
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
646 Cajundome Blvd.
Suite 400
Lafayette, Louisiana 70506
February 9, 2009
Ms. Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Dear Ms. Keeler:
Please reference the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Notice of Public Hearing and
Request for Comments published in the Federal Register (Volume 74, No. 9, pg. 2072) on
January 14, 2009. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), New Orleans District, has
requested an amendment to EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (c) designation which
prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into the Bayou aux Carpes Site in Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana That amendment is requested to allow the Corps to construct the proposed
Westbank and Vicinity of New Orleans (WBV), Harvey to Algiers, 100-year level hurricane
protection project, Individual Environmental Report 12 (IER 12), which is authorized in
accordance with Public Law 109-234, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Supplemental 4). The EPA has
requested comments as to whether the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) EPA Final
Determination should be modified as requested by the Corps. The Service submits the following
comments in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, as
amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (40 Stat. 755, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 etseq.).
The Service recognizes the importance of the Bayou aux Carpes wetland complex to fish and
wildlife resources and believes that the designation is warranted to protect these sensitive areas
from development. In cooperation with Federal and State partners, the Corps has minimized
potential direct and indirect impacts to significant flotant marsh and cypress swamp habitat by
aligning the floodwall along the periphery of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site.
While the preferred alignment has resulted in greater direct impacts to forested wetlands, those
forested wetlands at one time were previously altered by fill material. The preferred alignment
would enclose fewer wetland acres, and avoid the damaging hydrologic consequences associated
with bisecting the Bayou aux Carpes flotant marsh with a structural barrier. Moreover, unlike the
Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria Levee project which was the catalyst for EPA's determination, the
preferred alternative alignment would avoid inclusion of the Bayou aux Carpes flotant and
cypress swamp complex into the flood protection system and subsequently placing the area under
TAKE
-------
pumped drainage.
During the alternatives analysis for IER 12, the Corps considered a series of alternative gate
locations within the project area that would minimize the need for parallel protection. One of
these alternatives included constructing a sector gate across the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404 (c) site and was initially the Corps' preferred alternative. The proposed floodwail alignment
within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site would have, not only directly impacted
high-quality flotant marsh and forested wetlands, but would have isolated approximately 500
acres of flotant marsh by placing them within the flood protection system. Constructing a
floodwail across flotant marsh would disrupt the dynamic hydrologic conditions characteristic of
a flotant marsh and would disrupt the natural hydrologic regimes within the entire Bayou aux
Carpes wetland complex negatively impacting significant fish and wildlife resources. As
proposed, the preferred alternative would minimize impacts by avoiding bisecting the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site and by implementing innovative design and construction
techniques (e.g., floodwail design, construction sequencing).
At this time, the Service is unaware of any threatened or endangered species or their critical
habitat within the proposed hurricane protection system project footprint for IER 12. However,
the project-area forested wetlands provide nesting habitat for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), and a bald eagle nest was documented within the Bayou aux Carpes drainage
area in 2007. This should be considered when designing environmental augmentation features.
The bald eagle was officially removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species on
August 8, 2007. Bald eagles nest in Louisiana from October through mid-May. Eagles typically
nest in mature trees (e.g., bald cypress, sycamore, willow, etc.) near fresh to intermediate
marshes or open water in the southeastern Parishes. Major threats to this species include habitat
alteration, human disturbance, and environmental contaminants (i.e., organochlorine pesticides
and lead). Although the bald eagle has been removed from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Species, it continues to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Service developed the National Bald Eagle
Management (NBEM) Guidelines to provide landowners, land managers, and others with
information and recommendations to minimize potential project impacts to bald eagles,
particularly where such impacts may constitute "disturbance," which is prohibited by the
BGEPA. The Service's Division of Migratory Birds for the Southeast Region (phone: 404/679-
7051, e-mail: SEmigratorybirds@fws.gov) has the lead role in conducting such consultations.
Should you need further assistance interpreting the guidelines or performing an on-line project
evaluation, please contact this office.
Direct impacts to bottomland hardwood and swamp habitat associated with the preferred
alternative were quantified by acreage and habitat quality (i.e., average annual habitat units or
AAHUs). The Service used the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Habitat Assessment
Methodology (HAM) to quantify the impacts of proposed project features on upland and wetland
bottomland hardwood habitat and used the Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) methodology to
quantify the impacts on swamp habitat. The Service determined that direct impacts to
approximately 9.6 acres of forested habitat (i.e., 2.4 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat and
7.2 acres of swamp habitat) within the proposed 100-foot right-of-way of the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404 (c) site would result in the loss of 6.1 AAHUs. Riparian habitat and
-------
associated fish and wildlife resources would be minimally reduced within the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404 (c) site. Mitigation for unavoidable losses of wet and non-wet bottomland
hardwoods and swamp habitat, caused by project features of the entire hurricane protection
system will be evaluated through a complementary comprehensive mitigation IER. However,
should this designation be amended and the Corps' proposed alternative authorized, mitigation
for unavoidable impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area would be provided concurrently
with flood protection features and within the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area.
To ensure that potential impacts resulting from the construction of a flood protection structure do
not compromise the value of this nationally-significant wetland ecosystem and to maintain the
integrity of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site, the Corps is proposing to
incorporate environmental augmentation features into the proposed hurricane protection project.
Stormwater from the Old Estelle Pump Station canal is currently being directed into the GIWW
bypassing the Bayou aux Carpes wetland complex. Because of the invaluable water quality
functions wetlands provide, stormwater will be redirected through the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404 (c) site which would restore the natural process of nutrient cycling and reduce the
risk of eutrophication in the lower basin waterbodies, provided modeling results support that
action. Proposed augmentations could supplement hydrologic exchange within approximately
3,000 acres of flotant marsh, cypress swamp, and wetland scrub-shrub habitat.
Although complete avoidance of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site would be
preferred, it is the Service's opinion that amending the designation as proposed would not have
an unacceptable adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources within the Bayou aux Carpes
wetland complex. The Corps has incorporated proposed environmental augmentation features as
a feature of the proposed project. Provided that hydrologic modeling supports implementation of
those features, the Service believes that those augmentations coupled with long-term monitoring
will ensure that unforeseen impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site are
avoided. On the condition that the Corps moves forward with modeling and design of the
environmental augmentation features concurrently with hurricane protection features, the Service
would not be opposed to EPA modifying the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) EPA
Final Determination.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment and look forward to the
continued coordination with the EPA, the Corps, and other State and Federal resource agencies
with regards to the proposed hurricane protection system project. Should you have any questions
regarding our comments, please give me a call (337/291-3115).
Sincerely,
ames F. Be
Supervisor
Louisiana Field Office
-------
cc: FWS, Atlanta, GA (ES/HC)
Corps, New Orleans, LA
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, New Orleans, LA
NMFS, Baton Rouge, LA
LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA
LDNR, CMD, Baton Rouge, LA
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
646 Cajundome Blvd.
Suite 400
Lafayette, Louisiana 70506
February 9, 2009
Ms. Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Dear Ms. Keeler:
Please reference the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Notice of Public Hearing and
Request for Comments published in the Federal Register (Volume 74, No. 9, pg. 2072) on
January 14, 2009. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), New Orleans District, has
requested an amendment to EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (c) designation which
prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into the Bayou aux Carpes Site in Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana. That amendment is requested to allow the Corps to construct the proposed
Westbank and Vicinity of New Orleans (WBV), Harvey to Algiers, 100-year level hurricane
protection project, Individual Environmental Report 12 (IER 12), which is authorized in
accordance with Public Law 109-234, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Supplemental 4). The EPA has
requested comments as to whether the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) EPA Final
Determination should be modified as requested by the Corps. The Service submits the following
comments in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, as
amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (40 Stat. 755, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended: 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The Service recognizes the importance of the Bayou aux Carpes wetland complex to fish and
wildlife resources and believes that the designation is warranted to protect these sensitive areas
from development. In cooperation with Federal and State partners, the Corps has minimized
potential direct and indirect impacts to significant flotant marsh and cypress swamp habitat by
aligning the floodwall along the periphery of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site.
While the preferred alignment has resulted in greater direct impacts to forested wetlands, those
forested wetlands at one time were previously altered by fill material. The preferred alignment
would enclose fewer wetland acres, and avoid the damaging hydrologic consequences associated
with bisecting the Bayou aux Carpes flotant marsh with a structural barrier. Moreover, unlike the
Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria Levee project which was the catalyst for EPA's determination, the
preferred alternative alignment would avoid inclusion of the Bayou aux Carpes flotant and
cypress swamp complex into the flood protection system and subsequently placing the area under
TAKE
-------
pumped drainage.
During the alternatives analysis for IER 12, the Corps considered a series of alternative gate
locations within the project area that would minimize the need for parallel protection. One of
these alternatives included constructing a sector gate across the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404 (c) site and was initially the Corps' preferred alternative. The proposed floodwall alignment
within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site would have, not only directly impacted
high-quality flotant marsh and forested wetlands, but would have isolated approximately 500
acres of flotant marsh by placing them within the flood protection system. Constructing a
floodwall across flotant marsh would disrupt the dynamic hydrologic conditions characteristic of
a flotant marsh and would disrupt the natural hydrologic regimes within the entire Bayou aux
Carpes wetland complex negatively impacting significant fish and wildlife resources. As
proposed, the preferred alternative would minimize impacts by avoiding bisecting the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site and by implementing innovative design and construction
techniques (e.g., floodwall design, construction sequencing).
At this time, the Service is unaware of any threatened or endangered species or their critical
habitat within the proposed hurricane protection system project footprint for IER 12. However,
the project-area forested wetlands provide nesting habitat for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), and a bald eagle nest was documented within the Bayou aux Carpes drainage
area in 2007. This should be considered when designing environmental augmentation features.
The bald eagle was officially removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species on
August 8, 2007. Bald eagles nest in Louisiana from October through mid-May. Eagles typically
nest in mature trees (e.g., bald cypress, sycamore, willow, etc.) near fresh to intermediate
marshes or open water in the southeastern Parishes. Major threats to this species include habitat
alteration, human disturbance, and environmental contaminants (i.e., organochlorine pesticides
and lead). Although the bald eagle has been removed from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Species, it continues to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Service developed the National Bald Eagle
Management (NBEM) Guidelines to provide landowners, land managers, and others with
information and recommendations to minimize potential project impacts to bald eagles,
particularly where such impacts may constitute "disturbance," which is prohibited by the
BGEPA. The Service's Division of Migratory Birds for the Southeast Region (phone: 404/679-
7051, e-mail: SEmigratorybirds@fws.gov) has the lead role in conducting such consultations.
Should you need further assistance interpreting the guidelines or performing an on-line project
evaluation, please contact this office.
Direct impacts to bottomland hardwood and swamp habitat associated with the preferred
alternative were quantified by acreage and habitat quality (i.e., average annual habitat units or
AAHUs). The Service used the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Habitat Assessment
Methodology (HAM) to quantify the impacts of proposed project features on upland and wetland
bottomland hardwood habitat and used the Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) methodology to
quantify the impacts on swamp habitat. The Service determined that direct impacts to
approximately 9.6 acres of forested habitat (i.e., 2.4 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat and
7.2 acres of swamp habitat) within the proposed 100-foot right-of-way of the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404 (c) site would result in the loss of 6.1 AAHUs. Riparian habitat and
-------
associated fish and wildlife resources would be minimally reduced within the Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404 (c) site. Mitigation for unavoidable losses of wet and non-wet bottomland
hardwoods and swamp habitat, caused by project features of the entire hurricane protection
system will be evaluated through a complementary comprehensive mitigation IER. However,
should this designation be amended and the Corps' proposed alternative authorized, mitigation
for unavoidable impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area would be provided concurrently
with flood protection features and within the Bayou aux Carpes 404 (c) area.
To ensure that potential impacts resulting from the construction of a flood protection structure do
not compromise the value of this nationally-significant wetland ecosystem and to maintain the
integrity of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site, the Corps is proposing to
incorporate environmental augmentation features into the proposed hurricane protection project.
Stormwater from the Old Estelle Pump Station canal is currently being directed into the GIWW
bypassing the Bayou aux Carpes wetland complex. Because of the invaluable water quality
functions wetlands provide, stormwater will be redirected through the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404 (c) site which would restore the natural process of nutrient cycling and reduce the
risk of eutrophication in the lower basin waterbodies, provided modeling results support that
action. Proposed augmentations could supplement hydrologic exchange within approximately
3,000 acres of flotant marsh, cypress swamp, and wetland scrub-shrub habitat.
Although complete avoidance of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site would be
preferred, it is the Service's opinion that amending the designation as proposed would not have
an unacceptable adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources within the Bayou aux Carpes
wetland complex. The Corps has incorporated proposed environmental augmentation features as
a feature of the proposed project. Provided that hydrologic modeling supports implementation of
those features, the Service believes that those augmentations coupled with long-term monitoring
will ensure that unforeseen impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) site are
avoided. On the condition that the Corps moves forward with modeling and design of the
environmental augmentation features concurrently with hurricane protection features, the Service
would not be opposed to EPA modifying the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404 (c) EPA
Final Determination.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment and look forward to the
continued coordination with the EPA, the Corps, and other State and Federal resource agencies
with regards to the proposed hurricane protection system project. Should you have any questions
regarding our comments, please give me a call (337/291-3115).
j,
fames F, Be
Supervisor
Louisiana Field Office
-------
cc: FWS, Atlanta, GA (ES/HC)
Corps, New Orleans, LA
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, New Orleans, LA
NMFS, Baton Rouge, LA
LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA
LDNR, CMD, Baton Rouge, LA
-------
TORRES REPORTING ft As*
Feb. 9, 2009
509 Third Ave.
Harvey, La. 70058
Gib Owen, PM-RS Barbara Keeler (6 WQ-EC)
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers EPA Region 6
P. O. Box 6026 7 1445 Ross A venue
NOLA 70160-0267 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
mvnenvironmental(a)usace.army,mil heeler. barbara(a}-epa.£ov
Dear Sir and Madam:
I am writing today in regard to the GIWW West Closure Complex, the Corps'
Individual Environmental Report 12, and the Corps' request to impact the Bayou
aux Carpes 404© area here in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Common sense
dictates that the 404© area continue to receive full protection, and that the Corps
request be denied.
For my entire adult life, the Corps of Engineers has served as a combination
lap dog/lap dancer/towel girl for the Louisiana Congressional delegation, which
has always ranked at or near the top in terms of corruption and its penchant for
acting in direct contrast to the welfare of its constituents. Admittedly, Alaska
probably kept Louisiana out of the top spot the last few years, but not for lack of
trying. Some of what can only be considered to rank amongst the nation Js
greatest eco-terrorists have been members of the Louisiana delegation: Billy
Tauzin, J. Bennett Johnston, John Breaux, and Bob Livingston, to name a few.
And today's delegation has been guilty of tremendous neglect. Over 20 years after
the creation (against terrific political opposition) of the only National Park in the
State, the park's boundaries have yet to be normalized.
For close to 40 years, I have been active in attempts to stop the Corps from
either destroying or allowing the destruction of Louisiana's wetlands. But the
Corps has routinely either encouraged or allowed the continued destruction of
our wetlands. Thousands upon thousands of needless projects were approved by
or thought up by the Corps with the primary intent of destroying wetlands that
could protect and nurture us all for the sake of some individual's or corporation's
short-term gain. Wherever and whenever possible, the Corps ignored the law and
-------
shirked its duties, dreaming up garbage like Nationwide Permits and delegating
its authority to local programs like that of Jefferson Parish, which has always
tried to destroy as many acres of wetlands as is humanly possible.
Jefferson Parish politicians wanted desperately to destroy the Bayou aux
Carpes area. The Corps desperately wanted to help them do so. Only the
miraculous intervention of EPA stopped that destruction from occurring. The
same people who threw their weight around in those days are still around today.
There may be new people in the Corps with whom I am not acquainted, who may
actually want to obey the law and do what's morally right. I hope so, although I
would note that the Corps has yet to correct the situation in Crown Point, where
Jefferson Parish has been illegally draining wetlands for over 30 years.
If our observations are correct, the talweg of the GlWWis now a few hundred
feet from shore. The project was approved as a 125' by 12' channel, so there
appears to be a tremendous amount of room for constructing a ((T-wall" between
the boundary of the Bayou aux Carpes 404© area and the boundary of the 125'
authorized channel. We find no reason to encroach upon the 404© area to
accomplish the Corps' stated purpose.
I myself live on the West Bank of Jefferson Parish. I need hurricane
protection as much as anyone else. But there never was, and there is no reason to
destroy wetlands to accomplish the completion of a hurricane protection levee
system Certainly, an area like the 404© area at Bayou aux Carpes is ever more
rare, and as such ever more valuable as both habitat and a natural storm buffer.
We cannot allow any of it to be lost. We cannot allow contaminated sediment to
be placed in it. We cannot allow contaminated water to be pumped into it. We
cannot bear to hear the word "mitigation", which has historically been as
pathetic a failure as the Jefferson Parish motto "Jefferson's got to grow."
I hereby ask the Corps to modify its design to move the "T-watt" further in the
direction of the GIWW talweg to spare any and all parts of the 404© area, and I
hereby ask EPA to not allow the destruction of any part of the Bayou aux Carpes
area.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Joseph I. "Jay" Vincent
IER # 12 Appendices Page 201
-------
HARVEY CANAL —J*"-^™*~
INDUSTRIAL
ASSOCIATION
January 19, 2009
Mr, Gib Owen
U. S. Arniy Corps of Engineers
Planning, Programs, and Project Management Division
Environmental Planning and Compliance Branch
CEMVN-PM-RS
P. O. Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
RE: Draft Individual Environmental Report #12 (IER #12
Dear Mr. Owen:
The Harvey Canal Industrial Association (HCIA) is a business organization that represents the
interests of businesses in the Harvey Canal area. We have been a driving force for area
improvements for more than sixty years. We represent the vast majority of companies that will be
impacted by Corps of Engineers flood control efforts on the West Bank of Jefferson Parish.
The HCIA has been working with local, state and federal officials on the levee alignment for the
East of the Harvey Canal Project since 1987. Shortly before Hurricane Katrina, we felt assured that
a final authorized alignment would provide the west bank with the desperately needed hurricane
protection. However, with the levee failure during Katrina, the West Bank and Vicinity Project had
to be redesigned and the project again went to the drawing board. What resulted was the first phase
of the new 100 year protection project, i.e. the flood walls along Peters Road. Businesses between
Lapalco Boulevard and the Hero Pumping Stations are now sandwiched in between the newly
constructed flood wall with no permanent protection.
Since 2005, numerous alternative flood protection options and cost/benefit ratios have been studied
to determine the best option for full risk reduction East of the Harvey Canal. The HCIA supports
the Corps of Engineers proposed West Closure Complex (WCC) as identified in the IER 12
proposal. We will, however, continue to work to provide those affected businesses with a
supplemental protection levee for the smaller storms, tidal surges or rain events that may enter the
canal when the WCC is not needed.
We certainly understand and appreciate the concerns that have been expressed for environmental
impacts to the Bayou aux Carpes Section 404(c) area. It is our understanding that there has been a
tremendous interagency collaboration, especially with EPA, to help identify and adopt a
comprehensive plan to minimize adverse impacts within the 404(c) area during construction and for
P. O. Box 397 • HARVEY, LA • 70059 • PHONE (504) 367-1721 - FAX (504) 367-8927
: hcia@bellsouth.net
-------
Page two
HARVEY CANAL, INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION
Draft Individual Environmental Report (IER 12)
a long term affect once the project is completed. But we feel strongly that much has been sacrificed
by the business community - even to one large employer moving to another part of the State.
The HC1A supports the Corps' request to the EPA to modify the 1985 Bayou aux Carpes Clean
Water Act Section 404 (c) Final Determination and we support the current plan for the WCC as
outlined in the EIR 12 report. We feel the WCC alignment will provide the much needed and long
awaited 100 year storm protection for the West Bank of Jefferson Parish.
The businesses along Peters Road have suffered long enough. Numerous rain events, hurricanes
and tropical storms have flooded our businesses and threatened residential neighborhoods. The
HCIA, in cooperation with other business organizations, commissioned an Economic Impact Study
in late 2007. The study area included all the businesses from Lapalco Boulevard south to the Hero
Pumping Station. The study revealed a total employment of 1,619 employees with an aggregate
payroll of more than $67.5 million and showed a direct and indirect spending of over $1.1 billion.
This study did not include any companies along the upper portion of Peters Road, the Destrehan
corridor or Engineers Road. The potential for economic loss to this area is astronomical and the
HCIA urges the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to approve the final draft of the IER 12 and to
move the West Closure Complex project to completion.
Sincerely,
HARVEY C
Gerald J.
President
DUS7RLAL ASSOCIATION
-------
Louisiana A udubon Council
1522 Lowerline St., New Orleans, LA 70118
(.s
Gib Owen, PM-RS Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC) '
TI „ . _ _ . _,_ . „ . iBEWl TORRES REPORTING & ASSOCIATES,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EPA Region 6
P.O. Box 60267 1445 Ross Avenue.
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267 Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Re: Combined public hearing on the Draft IER-12, on the modification of CWA Sec.
404(c) determination for Bayou aux Carpes; and hearing on GIWW West Closure
Complex.
Dear Ms. Keeler and Mr. Owen,
First, the Louisiana Audubon Council wants to be on record as supporting a safe hurricane
protection levee for the entire New Orleans area including the Westbank of Jefferson Parish. The Jean
Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve (JLNHPP) and Bayou aux Carpes (BAG) wetlands will
provide non-structural protection and reduce the hurricane tidal surges before they reach the westbank
levee system. Non-structural protection is provided by forested and non-forested wetlands and have been
documented as reducing the height of tidal surges during Hurricanes Rita, Gustav and Ike.
We thank EPA and the other resource agencies for recommending to the Corps a change in their
original preferred alternative, which was the Southern Closure option, GIWW-A. This alignment would
have segregated the BAG, Sec. 404(c) area and adversely impacted 600 acres of flotant marsh.
The Corps' new preferred alignment (Alternative 2, G1WW-WWC) would directly take 9.6 acres
of the BAG. While this is a large decrease in the taking of wetlands of national significance, the Corps
should not stop there. Additional structural changes to the eastern levee and closure complex would
avoid any wetland loss to the BAG. The Corps Alternative 2, should be modified to avoid any direct or
indirect impacts to the Sec 404(c) wetlands, (see below).
Alternative 2, GIWW-WWC: (a suggested modification)
It is our opinion that the encroachment into the BAG wetlands can be avoided entirely by moving
the "innovative T-wall", berm and riprap further into the waterway by 100 ft., thereby avoiding the 404(c)
wetlands. Bayou Barataria includes the GIWW barge channel which has a congressionally authorized
width of 125 ft and a depth of 12 ft (USAGE, 1998). The GIWW barge channel is a minor constituent of
the waterway which is now 500-650 ft wide along the eastern side of the BAG project area. Moving the
T-wall 100ft into an area which, based on Corps maps was land prior to 1971, would be a slight
alteration of the preferred alternative.
A waterway with a width of 400 ft was sufficient in 1971 and provided adequate space for a 125
ft barge channel (which then was 31 % of the waterway width). The present width of the waterway, due
to erosion by barge traffic, is now 100- 200 feet wider than in 1971 (USAGE, 1971). This increased
width reduces the portion of the waterway needed for the barge channel to 21 % of the total width. There
are additional opportunities to improve the structural design of the T-wall and gate complex to avoid the
BAG all together. The Corps stated that it intends to reduce the structural impacts on the BAG.
3. Kohl. LAC. 2/11/09
-------
2.
Alternative G-GIWW C: Sec. 2.5.3.4 (p. 49)
This section is a misrepresentation of the facts. It states that this alternative, of moving the
"innovative T-wall" to avoid impacts to the 404(c) wetlands, would be to "construct the eastern
innovative floodwall completely within the GIWW ..." and that "construction of afloodwall within the
heavily used navigation channel . . . would create engineering and construction challenges ..."
The Corps suggests that building the floodwall in the navigation channel is the only other option
to its preferred alternative. The navigation channel is only 125 ft wide in a waterway which is 600 feet in
width. It appears that this misrepresentation is deliberately being used to discredit the practicability of
this alternative.
What should be considered is moving the T-wall into the shallow water area which would still
leave 500 ft to accommodate a 125 ft wide navigation channel. Congress authorized a 125 ft channel for
most of the GIWW. If a wider channel was needed, Congress would have authorized it. Barges moored
along the Harvey and Algiers Canals significantly reduce the waterway width available for barge
navigation. This is evidently not a hazard to navigation. The alternative G-GIWW C was never
presented in stakeholder meetings attended by our organization. Why weren't alternative designs
presented in the DIER-12? Based on the various engineering designs of the sector gates and pumping
station configurations (posted on the Corps' website), surely one could be modified to avoid the 404(c)
wetlands all together. This deficiency should be corrected in the amended IER.
• Appendix K (Figure entitled, "Current Proposed Site Plan"): The description states that the
"orientation of the pump station, gates, bypass channel and levee on east side of GIWW are not final and
could change as design progresses." This means that there is still some flexibility and the final
engineered design could avoid the 404(c) wetlands.
• Diagram I on p. 27 should be drawn to scale. It should also include the present width of the
waterway and the position (centerline) of the 125 ft navigation channel. A scale showing the water depth
should also be added. These figures should not be conceptual in this document.
Contaminated sediments: Appendices L, L(b) and M
The chemical analyses of the Algiers Canal sediments are not included in the Appendix of DIER-
12. Only two contaminants are discussed but there is not a complete listing of COCs in which the bottom
sediments were tested. Additional testing has been recommended but there is very little discussed in the
DIER. A new document, dated Jan. 5, 2009, was posted on the website but not included in the DIER.
Of major concern to our organization is that the Corps intends to use the dredged material from
the bottom of the Algiers Canal and barge it to the JLNHPP. The plan is to use the spoil to plug an
erosional area along Lake Salvador and the Park boundary by placing the dredged material into a Geocrib.
We support the use of clean spoil for beneficial use but oppose the introduction of contaminated material
into the Park's ecosystem.
We request that this section of the IER be rewritten to fully identify the procedures undertaken by
the Corps to determine whether the sediments are safe for open water disposal. The detection limit
chosen does not take into consideration the affects of contaminants on benthic organisms - only the affect
on human health. That update should include the location of sediment cores, chemical analyses of the
sediments and a presentation of all the results in an appendix as part of an amended IER.
It is important that the screening procedure identify the levels of concentration of toxic sediments
that cause chronic affects to benthic organisms as outlined in the NOAA's ER-M, ER-L sediment criteria
for COC. In Appendix M the executive summary was omitted from the report as well.
Appendix L(b) recommends, "more sediment sampling ... to further delineate the contaminated
area." This canal could be contaminated with PAHs and other hydrocarbon derived toxics. The
executive summary dated 1/5/09 for Final Phase II ESAR (and posted on the website) must be included in
the amended IER-12 as well as the sediment data. The detection limit for PAHs was set at 330 ppb which
is too high to detect many PAHs that have a consensus based TEL below this detection limit (Macdonald
et al., 2000). Many states are using the consensus based TEL as a screening level for cleanup of
contaminated sediments to protect aquatic organisms.
B. Kohl. LAC. 2/11/09
-------
The ESAR stated that the toxic review was based on human impacts not impacts to the biota and
used the LDEQ RECAP screening standards which do not consider the broader environmental impacts.
Since these sediments will be deposited in the National Park, they should be tested for impacts to the
biota as the highest priority. Unless this is done we oppose any of the Algiers Canal sediments being
used as fill in the Barataria Preserve.
Enterprise Pipeline Relocation:
We did not find one map that identified the location of the existing Enterprise pipeline nor a
discussion of the impacts of relocation of the pipeline on the BAG wetlands. In Appendix K figure 1 is a
dashed line labeled pipeline relocation. Does this pipeline belong to Shell? It is identified on earlier corps
maps as a Shell pipeline (USAGE, 1971). There should be a full discussion describing how the relocation
will prevent any direct or indirect impacts to the BAG. Will the old pipeline be removed? How old is it?
How much will be relocated? Between what reference points will the work be done? (point A to point B).
Will the pipeline segment reconnect to the old pipeline. We request the amended IER include an
expansion of the discussion section fully explaining the pipeline relocation procedure and impacts to the
BAG.
Data Gaps and Uncertainties: (p. 16)
Of concern to us, is that any additional information gathered over the one-year baseline study will
come after the project has been approved. This includes most of the impacts to the BAG area.
Also, the engineering design report for the gates and floodvvalls has not been completed. On page
16 it states, "At the time of the submission of this report, engineering evaluations have not been
completed for all of the proposed actions and alternatives."
In fact, this section lists the data not included in this D1ER-12 as; 1) sources of levee material
have not been identified, 2) environmental surveys are not complete, 3) cumulative impact data are not
complete, 4) impacts on transportation remain unknown, 5) the engineering analysis is based on a concept
level design and is not complete.
The DIER states that a Draft Comprehensive Environmental Document (CED), "will contain
updated information for any IER that had incomplete or unavailable data at the time it was posted for
public review." (DIER, p. 14). This means that potentially critical information will not be available at the
time the IER is approved and construction commences. The long list of inadequacies admitted by the
Corps shows that this document should have been witheld until the Corps had time to finish its work and
prepare a complete IER prepared for public and agency review.
"Augmentation" issues:
Length of study:
We find the one year baseline study for the BAG too short. For a proper study, several annual
cycles are needed especially for hydrologic information due to changes in rainfall patterns from year to
year.
Monitoring:
The water monitoring should include the measurement of water flow under Highway 3134. The
swamp on the west side of the highway is presently in the JLNHPP. This highway bisected the BAG in
1977. There should be water flow monitoring at the culverts which allow water to pass under the
highway. The conditional permit given to the DOTD and the congressional authorization for the highway
requires that normal water circulation be maintained. It has now been over 30 years since the highway
embankment was completed. How much subsidence has there been? Are all the culverts open to normal
water exchange under the highway? What is the effective culvert cross sectional area available for water
flow? Is there tidal exchange at the culvert locations? If so, can it be measured on both sides of the
highway?
B. Kohl. LAC. 2/11/09
-------
4.
Degrading levees:
We agree that oil and gas drill hole canals should have the spoil banks degraded and in some
instances the canals should be plugged. This should be done carefully since the canals and spoil banks
have been there for over 40 years. A hydrologic study should consider that the swamp may be in
equilibrium with the man-made ponding and drainage. Changes to the system must not harm the
ecosystem of the BAG.
Opening Bayou aux Carpes shell dam:
As with degrading the levees, the opening of the dam to water flow from Bayou Barataria, during
hurricane surges, may harm the swamp. Salinity ranges need to be measured in Bayou Barataria to
assure that flow into the swamp will not harm or raise salinities within the leveed system.
Estelle stormwater diversion:
There is insufficient information on how contaminants in the effluent discharge from the Estelle
Pumping Station will be measured. A complete list of the analytes should be included in the amended
IER. We are concerned that diverting the urban effluent into BAG may not be beneficial for the wetlands.
The effluent of many of the pumping stations, monitored by Jefferson Parish, have been documented to
contain lead, arsenic, chromium and mercury.
How much monitoring will take place to properly document the water quality of the effluent over
decades if the water will be used in the BAG? As urbanization increases in the basin, water quality will
decline as more polluted urban runoff is pumped into the Estelle Canal.
We suggest that the effluent be monitored for chemicals which have shown up in Jefferson Parish
analysis of effluent discharge into the Barataria Preserve (such as the Ames and Crown Point pumping
stations). Water effluent monitoring must be continued over the life of the project.
The Audubon Council requests a meeting with the federal and state resource agencies to review
the results of the "augmentation studies". There must be public input and review before the final decision
is made to modify the BAG 404(c) ecosystem.
Inclusion in the Barataria Preserve:
The Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area will be included within the Jean Lafitte National Historical
Park and Preserve this year. Senate bill S. 22 has passed the US Senate and it is expected to pass the
House soon. There are now two reasons to protect the BAG well into the future as, 1) a 404(c) area and,
2) part of the Barataria Preserve of the National Park.
Revision of the DIER necessary (IER addendum):
Because there are still important data omitted from the draft document, we request that a
revised/amended IER be prepared and circulated to the public and resource agencies for review.
According to the federal register, "an IER addendum responding to comments received will be completed
and published for a 30-day public review period." (USAGE, 2007). We are formally requesting that IER-
12 be amended to include omitted information, and full responses to the public/agency comments on the
DIER-12. The document should include:
1). Design of the sector gate complex with alternative designs presented- not "conceptual
diagrams".
2). Alternative designs for the innovative floodwall to avoid the 404(c) area
3). Review of all dredged sediment data and chemical analyses. Decision whether dredged
sediments can be utilized for beneficial purposes in the JLNHPP, based on acute and
chronic impacts of toxic sediments to benthic organisms.
4). More specifics on the length of time and parameters measured for all studies discussed in the
"augmentation" section of the DIER - including beneficial or adverse impacts to the
404(c) wetlands.
B. Kohl. LAC, 2/11/09
-------
5.
5). Monitoring plan details - include detailed section on rationale for placement of water flow
instruments and hydrologic modeling
6). More details on the relocation of the Enterprise pipeline and its impacts to the 404(c) area.
7). A thorough analysis of the proposed diversion of urban discharges from the Estelle pumping
station into the 404(c) wetlands. Also, include the impacts of pollutants on the 404(c)
area.
All these issues and other data gaps must be thoroughly discussed and presented in the amended
IER.
Summary:
1) In conclusion, we oppose Alternative 2, the preferred alignment, as presented in the DIER-12.
The Corps admits that the engineering designs for the floodwall and gate complex are not complete and
therefore we believe the design can be modified to avoid the 404(c) wetlands entirely. The new designs
and supportive data should be presented in a IER addendum for public review and comment. We will
reconsider our position based on the new document.
2) We also recommend that EPA deny the request by the Corps to modify its final determination
on the Bayou aux Carpes CWA 404(c) since the Corps hasn't finished its alternative engineering designs
for the floodwall and gate complex. It would be premature for any action to be taken by EPA at this time.
3) We oppose a process whereby any deficiencies in this IER will be answered sometime in the
future - as part of a catchall document. The public must be engaged in one single process which comes
to a single conclusion - not a decision process which is segmented and strung out for several years on a
specific IER. It is supposed to be an individual environmental report.
4) It appears that this D1ER was rushed through without the adequate internal review. This is
precisely what we were concerned about with the Alternative Arrangements (USAGE, 2007). It appears
that expediency was the prime factor - not a thorough evaluation of the environmental impacts and
avoidance. It would be a better process if the Corps allowed time for its engineers to carefully design
and check its own proposals and then the public could review and comment on a document that was ready
rather than one which is incomplete.
Sincerely,
' ^
Dr. Barry Kohl
President, LAC
cc:
Delta Chapter Sierra Club
Gulf Restoration Network
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
Horst Greczmiel, CEQ
National Wildlife Federation
National Park Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
La DNR
B. Kohl, LAC. 2/1 1/09
-------
References:
Mac Donald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, T.A. Berger, 2000. Development and Evaluation of consensus -based
sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, v. 39, p.20-21.
USAGE, 1963. Review of reports: Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria Levee, Louisiana. NO District of
USAGE , Sept. 20, 1963. Appendix A
USAGE, 1971. Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria Levee, New Levee Phase 1. As Built Plans. Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Jefferson Parish, LA. (provided by Fred Chatry, Chief Engineering Div., to B.
Kohl, 2/15/77).
USAGE 1977. (Jeff Parish Wetlands) 26, Conditional permit for Lafitte-Larose Highway segment from
Estelle to Wagner Ferry Bridge.
USAGE 1998. Water Resources Development in Louisiana, 1998. USAGE, New Orleans District. 177
pp.
USAGE 2007. Adoption of Alternative arrangements under the National Environmental Policy act for
New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction System. Federal Register, March 13, v. 72, p.
11337-11340.
B. Kohl, LAC. 2/1 1/09
-------
Nl 3
x 1 ~
on tomonosl
f.«p- c puo c »m6"i rj
•V) 'OD3HUS3*
DH.IO TVNOUKJW W
IMH HBVM DO/Bl/n
90/ai/s OOM -^
M«sir
>WN TUJ H3IS50 j lOTi) IfTM W -Afl TW»SM
Cl^fl-B99 (566) :XYJ 9KO/ VI 'VH
yf»r-R99 (5B6) :^MOHd WiyQ NV!SJn3
•NOI1VD01 JOUJ
CD
/_pi
o Nfvn J
3AIJ.VNy3J.1V
%1
t«>VH
!»VV
.70?
i-y*'
,. -*M >
'»€
5 J
t:**w.
<«» ,
i* v
PKo."*; - * '" '
^ >:, »? • ,
l^s^jptr- -
.''•CrfK "i
*sC1'< " -' I "< -*•*%• '
•.'ISv'».»..*. .* y-'-v..^!'*;:
•ppl
r;,
-------
KKSTOR A I ION
Ml \\ORK
UNITED FOR A HEALTHY Gl LE
338 Baronne St., Suite 200, New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone:(504) 525-1528 Fax:(504) 525-0833
www.healthygulf.org
February 11, 2009
Mr. Gib Owen, PM-RS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMVN-PM-RS
PO Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
mvnenvironmental@usace.army.mil
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
keeler.barbara@epa.gov
RE: DRAFT INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 12 AND PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO
404(C) ACTION
Dear Mr. Owen and Ms. Keeler:
I am writing on behalf of the Gulf Restoration Network (CRN), a diverse coalition of
individual citizens and local, regional, and national organizations committed to uniting and
empowering people to protect and restore the resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Please
accept the following comments regarding the Army Corps of Engineers' Draft Individual
Environmental Report: GIWW, Harvey, and Algiers Levees and Floodwalls, Jefferson, Orleans,
and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana (IER #12), and the Proposed Modification to the Bayou
aux Carpes 404(c) Action.
While we recognize that the protection of our coastal resources is urgent, we have some
comments and concerns about several aspects of IER #12 as it is currently written. These
concerns are outlined below:
1. Public Participation is Not Adequate
While the public comment period was extended to at least coincide with the public
hearing, this is still not adequate. If the public hearing lasts until 9:00 pm, this only
allows the public three hours to process and comment upon any information
presented by the Corps or other commenters. Because of this, we request the public
comment period be extended to allow for the public to comment upon new
information gained at the hearing.
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 2 of 6
2. Full A voidance of Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) Must Be Further Analyzed
We would first like to applaud the Corps for working with us and EPA to develop the
proposed alignment, instead of selecting an alignment that would have bisected the
Bayou aux Carpes area. It is important that the Corps continue to recognize the
importance of this ecologically sensitive area.
However, we feel that the 9.6 acres in the Bayou aux Carpes could be further
avoided. On page 49, it is stated that "alternatives that would avoid impacts to that
area were considered...this alternative was eliminated from further consideration
due to constructability and navigation concerns" because it would "create
engineering and construction challenges..." This statement is not supported. The
navigation channel is authorized to be 125 feet wide, while the waterway is 400-500
feet wide. The Corps does not demonstrate in this IER why it is not feasible to place
the T-wall further out into the waterway. Assuming the channel is in the
approximate center of the canal, this would still allow a large buffer between
navigation and hurricane protection. Because of this lack of justification and failure
to demonstrate the necessity of impacting the 9.6 acres of the Bayou aux Carpes, we
request that the moving of the t-wall further out be analyzed in order to further
reduce, or even eliminate the wetland impacts. We request that an analysis be done
examining moving the flood wall different distances out into the water. Since this
would constitute a significant change, the IER should also be re-noticed. Additionally,
EPA should not grant a 404(c) modification until it is shown that the Corps thoroughly
explored all options for the reduction or elimination of impacts to the 404(c) area.
3. Wetland Impacts Must be Considered Fully
While Table 6 on page 63 presents the total direct wetland impacts anticipated,
secondary and indirect impacts are not addressed. With increased storm protection
comes increased development pressure. In fact the Bayou aux Carpes area was
originally going to be drained and developed several years ago. On page 47, the
Corps even admits that rezoning "could minimize future damages from new
development in flood-prone areas," thus implying that the surrounding areas very
well could be developed given current zoning. This secondary effect must be taken
into account. Further, taller and more expansive levees and flood walls have the
potential to disrupt the flow of water through wetlands, potentially impacting these
wetlands.
In order for this IER to fully address its environmental impacts, secondary and
indirect impacts must be accounted for within the report, and slated to be mitigated
for, just as direct impacts are.
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 3 of 6
Additionally, cumulative impacts are not thoroughly addressed. Acknowledging that
cumulative impacts will be discussed fully in the CED, more on cumulative impacts
should be included in this IER. In past meetings with the Corps, they have presented
a spreadsheet that had current impacts and anticipated impacts. This analysis, or
best estimate of cumulative impacts should be included in this and all subsequent
lERs
4. Augmentation Features Must Be Thoroughly Researched and Planned
In order for EPA to make a truly informed decision the "augmentation features" must
be further designed and studies. The impact to the 404(c) area is partially justified
because some augmentation features are being examined, the largest of which
would be the gapping of the canal to the north of the area to allow storm runoff to
flow through the wetland. A baseline study of at least two years should be done to
see if this would indeed augment the area. Given that this water would be urban
runoff, which could potentially be carrying high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus,
metals, and petroleum products, care must be taken to ensure that this "fresh" water
is truly fresh and not too contaminated to cause damage to the wetland over the
short and long term.
The operating plan and funds for the augmentation features are also not discussed in
this IER. On page 39, it is stated that "modifications to the banks and shell plug in the
Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) area would not be expected to require
[operation and maintenance]." However the monitoring and control of flood
structures in the canal would require monitoring, operation, and maintenance for at
least several years after they are put into operation. The operation and management
of the augmentation features must be addressed and guaranteed for years to come.
We also request if this action proceeds, a contingency plan is written into the project.
Specifically if some or all of the augmentation features are not beneficial to the area,
more mitigation should be required within or adjacent to the 404(c) area, since part
of EPA's decision depends on the success of these augmentation features.
5. Beneficial Use
It is stated that dredge material will be used beneficially in the "crib" area to build
wetlands. This must be detailed more in the IER. Specifically, contaminants and
wetland building plans must be further addressed. The dredge materials must be
tested for contaminants to ensure that humans and wildlife will not be acutely or
chronically harmed by any contaminants from industrialized navigation channels.
Additionally if contaminated sediment is identified, and it is landfilled, this sediment
would probably first be de-watered, which could cause large water quality issues.
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 4 of 6
Since this would be an obvious environmental impact, the effects of this dewatering
of contaminated sediment must be addressed fully in the IER.
Further, a specific plan for wetland creation utilizing dredge material should be
detailed in this report. It is not acceptable to defer this to the mitigation IER, as
dredge disposal is an integral part of this project. This plan is vital in order to ensure
that dredge material is not simply dumped in the crib area, but a plan is followed that
will give wetlands the best opportunity for sustainable production.
Also regarding beneficial use, it is stated on page 29 that "overburden
material...would be mulched and used on site or hauled away to a landfill." At a
recent meeting we asked why this overburden cannot be used beneficially in wetland
creation instead of being hauled to a landfill, and our question was not adequately
answered, so we ask again if the Corps looked into this beneficial use of overburden.
If so, this information should be in the IER, if not, we formally request that this be
explored within this IER.
6. Non-Structural
This IER, as well as other IERS that we have reviewed do not adequately address non-
structural options to potential projects for the 100 year protection for metro New
Orleans. On page 47, it stated that "no combination of non-structural tools could
independently achieve the required 100-year level of risk reduction needed to
provide hurricane surge protection on the [West Bank and Vicinity] as intended by
federal statutes." However, the question is not "can non-structural tools eliminate
the need for structural storm protection," but can it be used in combination with
structural components to achieve protection that is sustainable and reduces the
impact on the natural environment. We feel that the Corps is misinterpreting WRDA.
While WRDA states that nonstructural measures can be considered independently or
in combination with structural measures (p. 45 of IER #12), the combination of
structural and nonstructural is completely ignored.
Additionally, when discussing the "raise in place" option, the IER assumes that all
structures would have to be raised, and that each residential structure averages
1,800 square feet. Given that nonstructural and structural can be used together, the
assumption that all buildings would have to be raised is a false assumption.
Additionally, we request evidence to support the assertion that the average home in
this area is 1,800 square feet.
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11, 2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 5 of 6
7. Preliminary Alternatives Screening Table is Not Complete
Table 3 on page 50 has errors in the key, and thus is not correct. In the table there
are checks, dots, and x's, however nowhere in the table is it stated what a check is.
This is a very important table, as it is supposed to summarize how each alternative
was screened. Without knowing what the symbols are, it is impossible to interpret
this table. Given the importance of this table, we request a re-notice of this IER, so
we and EPA can be positive that the best option was truly chosen.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on IER #12 and the 404(c) modification. While
we are pleased that the Corps has worked towards avoiding impacts to the 404(c) area, we
feel that more could potentially be done to protect the area. Given this, we request that
EPA not modify the 404(c) action until IER #12 is truly completed, including the additions
that are suggested above.
We trust that the Corps and EPA will take all of the above comments seriously, as they would
enhance the project. We look forward to a timely written response. Further, we would
welcome the opportunity to meet with the agencies to discuss our concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Rota
Water Resources Program Director
CC:
John Ettinger, US EPA
HorstGreczmiel, USCEQ
Jill Mastrototaro, Sierra Club
Melissa Samet, American Rivers
Barry Kohl, LA Audubon Council
Jill Witkowski, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
Mike Murphy, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
John Lopez, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Carlton Dufrechou, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Mark Davis, Tulane University
Maura Wood, National Wildlife Federation
Juanita Constable, National Wildlife Federation
Natalie Snider, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
-------
Comments RE: IER #12 and Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) modification
February 11,2009
Gulf Restoration Network
Page 6 of 6
Steven Peyronnin, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
Paul Kemp, National Audubon Society
Haywood Martin, Delta Chapter Sierra Club.
-------
SIERRA
CLUB
FOUNDED 1892
Haywood R. Martin, Chair
Sierra Club, Delta Chapter
400 Glynndale Ave.
Lafayette, LA 70506
February 11, 2009
Gib Owen, PM-RS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
Barbara Keeler (6WQ-EC)
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Re: Combined public hearing on the Draft IER-12, on the modification of CWA Sec. 404(c)
determination for Bayou aux Carpes; and hearing on GIWW West Closure Complex.
The Sierra Club Delta Chapter supports a safe hurricane protection levee for the entire New
Orleans area including the west bank of Jefferson Parish. We also support the use of natural
systems such as forested and non-forested wetlands to add progressive barriers to storm surges.
We thank EPA and the other resource agencies for recommending to the Corps a change in their
original preferred alternative, which was the Southern Closure option. It appears that the
proposed alternative would take 9.6 acres of the BAC as opposed the 600 acres of marsh that
would have been impacted by the earlier proposal. While this is a large decrease in the taking of
wetlands of national significance, we suggest that the Corps can do better. Additional structural
changes to the eastern levee and closure complex would avoid any wetland loss to the BAC. The
Corps Alternative 2, should be modified to avoid any direct or indirect impacts to the Sec 404(c)
wetlands. It appears that there is adequate space to move the structure further into the waterway
so as to avoid the 404(c) wetlands.
We are also concerned that any additional information gathered over the one-year baseline study
will come after the project has been approved. This includes most of the impacts to the BAC
area. Also, the engineering design report for the gates and floodwalls has not been completed.
The DIER states that a Draft Comprehensive Environmental Document (CED) "will contain
updated information for any IER that had incomplete or unavailable data at the time it was posted
for public review." It appears that potentially critical information will not be available at the time
the IER is approved and construction commences. The list of inadequacies admitted by the Corps
shows that this document should not have been released until the Corps had time to finish its
work and a complete IER prepared for public and agency review.
-------
We are informed that the Bayou aux Carpes 404(c) area will be included within the Jean Lafitte
National Historical Park and Preserve this year. Senate bill S. 22 has passed the US Senate and it
is expected to pass the House soon. This provides significant additional importance to the
protection of the BAG as, a 404(c) area and as part of the Barataria Preserve of the National Park.
Because there are still important data omitted from the draft document, we request that a
revised/amended IER be prepared and circulated to the public and resource agencies for review.
We are formally requesting that IER-I2 be amended to include omitted information, and full
responses to the public/agency comments on the DIER-12
In conclusion, we oppose Alternative 2, the preferred alignment, as presented in the DIER-12.
We request the Corps do an amended IER containing new designs and supportive data, and we
strongly recommend that EPA deny the request by the Corps to modify its final determination on
the Bayou aux Carpes CWA 404(c). Furthermore we request that the comment period be
extended so that all interested parties have adequate time to prepare substantive comments.
Thank you,
Hay wood Martin, Chair
Sierra Club Delta Chapter
cc: Louisiana Audubon Council
------- |