1. A. The Evaluation Committee will compile a priority ranked list for the projects in each rural district and projects within urban areas each funding year. For evaluation purposes, the project classifications concern the characteristics of the benefitted area, not the design criteria or the contributing drainage area. The two project classifications are urban and rural. The urban category includes projects located in the Shreveport, Monroe, Alexandria, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Baton Rouge, Houma, Hammond, New Orleans, Mandeville-Covington, and Slidell urban areas as shown in Figure 1 above. The rural category includes every other project that is not within a classified urban area. The evaluation will be based on a combination of rating procedures described hereinafter.
2. B. The priority ranking of each project will be based on multiplying the scores of Parts A and B of the Application Evaluation Forms. Using the combined scores, the Evaluation Committee will produce a program priority list. The priority list will be forwarded to the Joint Legislative Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works.

3. C. Procedure for Application Evaluation Form—Part A

   1. 1. The Evaluation Committee will review each application and score it according to the following categories and maximum points.

      1. a. Documentation of Flood Problem—20 maximum points
      2. b. Local Support—5 maximum points
      3. c. Technical Feasibility—45 maximum points
      4. d. Prevention of Loss of Life and Improved Public Safety—5 maximum points
      5. e. Environmental Effects and Impact on Development—15 maximum points
      6. f. Projects Recommended but not Funded—10 maximum points

   2. 2. The following guidelines will be used by the Evaluation Committee to rate applications to the Statewide Flood Control Program. This scoring procedure pertains to projects which meet the legislative intent of the program. Projects which are technically unsound, cause unreasonable flooding in other areas, cause unacceptable or unmitigable environmental damages or otherwise do not meet the objectives of the program will not be scored.

      1. a. Documentation of Flood Problem (20-point maximum). This category takes into consideration the adequacy of documentation which demonstrates the existence and severity of flood damages.

      2. b. Local Support (5-point maximum). This category takes into consideration the following:

         1. i. letters of support on file from the respective legislative delegation;
         2. ii. no letters of objection from public officials, neighboring authorities, citizens’ groups, etc.;
         3. iii. multiple sponsorship.

      3. c. Technical Feasibility (45-point maximum). This category takes into consideration the following:

         1. i. completeness of project design;
         2. ii. due consideration of alternatives (structural and nonstructural);
         3. iii. compatibility of the project to other federal, state, and local projects;
         4. iv. impact on flooding in areas upstream, downstream, and adjacent to the benefitted area.

      4. d. Prevention of Loss of Life (5-point maximum). This category takes into consideration the following:

         1. i. historical losses of life that may have been prevented by the project;
         2. ii. the degree of success of the project at maintaining access to vital services (e.g., hospitals) and protection of evacuation routes.

      5. e. Environmental Effects and Impact on Development (15-point maximum). This category takes into consideration the following:

         1. i. no letters of objection from public agencies;
         2. ii. no impact on special historical, archeological, geological features, or environmentally sensitive areas;
         3. iii. not in a wetlands area;
         4. iv. effectiveness of the project in relation to encroachment into flood prone area (i.e., 100-year flood plain).
      6. f. Projects Recommended but Not Funded (10-point maximum). Add points for each year (up to a four-year maximum) that the proposed project has been on the list of recommended projects but has not received funding.

4. D. Procedure for Application Evaluation Form—Part B

   1. 1. Ratings are computed on the basis of potential damage reductions associated with the design flood and do not include efforts to annualize benefits and costs. The same formula is to be used for rural and urban projects, and appears below.

      where PLM = percent local match

      *Total damages are any damages from the design storm which will be prevented by the flood control project including: agricultural crop and land damages; agricultural building damages; damages to residential, commercial, public, and other buildings; damages to roads; damages to buildings; and damages to industries.

   2. 2. For applications to the Rural Grant Opportunity Program, the following formula is used.
   3. 3. In the Part B scoring process, projects are separated into their appropriate categories (i.e., rural or urban).

5. E. Example of Evaluations. The Evaluation Committee will calculate the scores from Parts A and B to derive the total score for each project. The priority ranking will be determined by multiplying the scores from Parts A and B for each project. In the following example hypothetical information is used to compare three projects.

   1. 1. Part A. The three projects are first scored using the Application Evaluation Form—Part A. Results for the three projects are summarized in the following table. Projects are given both a raw score and a final score. The project with the highest raw score is awarded 100 points and competing projects are awarded points based on the ratio of their raw scores to the raw score of the highest scored project multiplied by 100.

   2. 2. Part B

      1. a. The following tables demonstrate the Part B evaluation procedure for the same three projects (assumed to be in the same rural district). The benefits data presented in the first table would be taken from the applications.

      2. b. The damage reductions and cost data for each category shown in the following table are used to compute the raw scores shown in the table for Part B scoring. The Part B scores will then be used to obtain a final score.

         Tabulation of Project Points Credited for Part A
         Category	Maximum Points	Project Points Credited
         		Flat River	Danville	Sunnyvale
         Documentation of Flood Problem	20	12	17	13
         Local Support	5	4	5	4
         Technical Feasibility	45	36	40	27
         Prevention of Loss of Life and Improved Public Safety	5	3	3	2
         Environmental Effects and Impact on Development	15	1	3	2
         Projects Recommended but not Funded	10	2.5	0	0
         RAW SCORE	100	58.5	68	48
         FINAL SCORE*		86	100	71
         *The project with the highest raw score receives 100 points. The other projects receive a percentage of 100 based on their raw score relative to the project with the highest raw score.

         Tabulation of Costs and Benefits
         Category	Project Damage Reduction (Dollars)
         	Flat River	Danville	Sunnydale
         Agricultural Acres	118,746	600,000	40,000
         Residences	4,797,000	1,000,000	350,000
         C and I Buildings	_	50,000	1,100,000
         Other Buildings	_	100,000	700,000
         Farm Structures	_	200,000	100,000
         TOTAL DAMAGE REDUCTION	4,915,746	1,950,000	2,290,000
         CONSTRUCTION COST	1,300,000	550,000	700,000

         Part B Scoring
         Scoring Category	Flat River	Danville	Sunnydale
         Raw Score
         Total Damages__ = Construction Cost	$4,915,746 $1,300,000	$1,950,000 $ 550,000	$2,290,000 $ 700,000
         or	3.78	3.55	3.27
         Additional Funding Adjustment =
         90 90 - (PLM -10)	90 90 - (40 - 10)	90 90 - (10 - 10)	90 90 - (10 - 10)
         or	1.50	1.00	1.00
         Adjusted Score = Raw Score x Additional Funding Adjustment	5.67	3.55	3.27
         *In this case Flat River contributed 40% (greater than the minimum) local match and therefore receives a higher score.

   3. 3. Priority Score

      1. a. The point totals from Parts A and B are multiplied in the following table to establish scores for the priority ranking of projects to be recommended for funding.

         Final Priority Scores
         Form	Project
         	Flat River	Danville	Sunnydale
         Part A	86	100	71
         Part B	5.67	3.55	3.27
         Total	488	355	232
         Rank	1	2	3

      2. b. If these three applications were in the same district, the Evaluation Committee would recommend them for funding in the following order:

         1. i. Flat River;
         2. ii. Danville; and
         3. iii. Sunnydale.

Authority Note

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 38:90 et seq.

Historical Note

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Transportation and Development, Office of Public Works, LR 5:574 (May 1985), repromulgated by the Department of Transportation and Development, Office of Public Works, LR 31:942 (April 2005), amended LR 35:2852 (December 2009), LR 46:1237 (September 2020).