THE RESETTLEMENT OF ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES
Report on Data Gathering and Engagement Phase
November 2016
Updated May 2017
ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES REPORT ON DATA GATHERING AND ENGAGEMENT PHASE
November, 28th 2016
Prepared by Concordia with Chicago Bridge &
Iron Company (CB&I), directed by Pan American Engineers (PAE), for the State of Louisiana Division of Administration, 2fÀce of Community DeveOopment,
Disaster Recovery Unit (OCD-DRU).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 7he resettOement of IsOe de -ean CharOes wiOO be funded by a . miOOion grant awarded by +UD through their
NationaO Disaster ResiOience Competition.
/RXLVLDQD2IÀFHRI&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW²'LVDVWHU5HFRYHU\8QLW Pat Forbes, Executive Director
0athew Sanders, ResiOience PoOicy & Program Administrator
3DQ$PHULFDQ(QJLQHHUV 7homas David -r., President .yOe RandaOO, ProMect 0anager
&KLFDJR%ULGJHV ,URQ&RPSDQ\
0arN Goodson, ResiOiency SoOutions Director -ames Andermann, ProMect 0anager
&RQFRUGLD//&
Bobbie +iOO, Partner, POanning & Engagement Connor 0c0anus, ProMect 0anager
Executive Summary Introduction & Context Methodology & Process
Land Uses & Island Infrastructure Resident Desire to Resettle
Resident Interviews Summary Resident Concerns
Appendices A1 Appendix A
Community Meeting 1 Summary B1 Appendix B
Community Meeting 2 Summary C1 Appendix C
Resident Survey Responses D1 Appendix D
Land Use Survey 7 abOe
7$%/(2)&217(176
1
4
5
8
11
15
23
26
7his report summari]es Àndings from the Data Gathering and Engagement Phase of the ResettOement of IsOe de -ean CharOes proMect. 7his initiaO phase of worN Oasted from -uOy to October 2016. Louisiana·s OfÀce of Community DeveOopment, Disaster Recovery Unit (OCD-DRU) administered this phase of work with assistance from Pan American Engineers (PAE), Chicago Bridge
& Iron Company (CB&I) and Concordia. 7his phase of work incOuded two community meetings, a Oand use and infrastructure survey of the IsOand, and househoOd interviews with IsOe de -ean CharOes residents.
IsOe de -ean CharOes, once much Oarger, surrounded by miOes of marshOand and home to as many as 0 househoOds, is now a narrow strip of Oand surrounded on aOO sides by open water and protected onOy by artiÀciaO tide Oevees. As of Oct. 26, 2016, there were 26 active residentiaO units inhabited by househoOds comprised of totaO residents. In addition, there are camps or unoccupied units and severaO abandoned homes. Much of the IsOand is vacant and overgrown. 7he IsOand is connected to Pointe-aux- Chenes by IsOand Road, which reguOarOy Áoods in the winter and spring, cutting off access to the mainOand by car.
Current and past residents have struggOed against stronger storms, more freTuent and damaging Áoods, the Ooss of wetOands and wiOdOife around the IsOand, and damage to their homes. Many former residents have Oeft the IsOand over the past haOf century, OargeOy due to hurricane or Áood damage and impeded access to work and schooO due to reguOar Áooding on IsOand Road. Many of these former residents and famiOy now Oive in southern 7errebonne Parish. Many of those who remained have eOevated their homes to protect them from future Áoods, but most know that the IsOand is disappearing.
Over the course of this engagement process, the proMect team surveyed residents to ascertain their desire to resettOe. Some aOtered or reÀned their opinions as the phase progressed. As of this report, 0 percent of IsOand residents desire to resettOe with the community. 7en percent wouOd Oike to resettOe cOoser to their famiOies in southern 7errebonne Parish, separate from a new community settOement. 7wenty-eight percent do not want to resettOe from the IsOand. Seven percent are unsure. 7here is no data for the remaining four percent, who were not present during the team·s visits to the IsOand.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During Community Meeting 1 and subseTuent househoOd interviews,
residents interested in moving to the new settOement described their desired site characteristics. Residents Oove the peace, secOusion and safety the IsOand provides, and want the new site to emuOate these TuaOities. 7hey said that houses shouOd be spread out, with Oarge yards around the houses.
Residents want to Oive in singOe famiOy units ² not condos or townhouses.
Residents want the site to be ruraO, weOO outside the nearest town, but cOoser than they are now to key resources Oike grocery stores, schooOs and doctors. Many said a 1 to 2-minute drive wouOd be ideaO. Residents wouOd Oike homes with more interior space than many of them have now a big kitchen and Oiving area for hosting Oarge famiOy gatherings, a spare bedroom for hobbies or guests, and for some, a shed or other feature. Most are not Oooking for anything extravagant they want a safe home with enough space for their famiOies and easier access to stores, Mobs and other resources.
Some Oook forward to having gardens or areas to grow pOants and trees outside. For some, Àshing and the water is important. Some prefer eOevated homes for the usabOe space beneath and for security reasons.
At Community Meeting 2 and during a subseTuent visit to househoOds who did not attend the meeting, residents recommended generaO site Oocations for the settOement after reviewing a map depicting future Áood risk within 7errebonne Parish. Most residents recommended the safest area avaiOabOe on the map the area around Schriever. Some preferred areas in the south of the Parish, with Bourg being the second-most popuOar Oocation. Some who prefer the southern areas say they wiOO not move further north, and wouOd rather Oive near famiOy in the southern part of the Parish than move with other IsOand residents to a settOement in northern 7errebonne Parish.
7he content in this report is meant to orient potentiaO master pOanning teams to the perspectives and preferences heOd by IsOand residents with regard to the resettOement. +onoring resident vision wiOO be cruciaO to participation and success for the ID-C ResettOement ProMect.
This page is intentionally left blank
On -an. 2, 2016, the U.S. Department of +ousing and Urban DeveOopment awarded the State of Louisiana 2.6 miOOion to impOement two coastaO resiOience- buiOding proMects. One of those proMects, awarded . miOOion, is the resettOement of IsOe de -ean CharOes. 7he grant wiOO be administered by the Louisiana Division of Administration·s OfÀce of Community DeveOopment, Disaster Recovery Unit.
IsOe de -ean CharOes is a smaOO IsOand in the
southernmost fringe of southern Terrebonne Parish.
It has Oost the maMority of its Oand mass over the past century due to coastaO Oand Ooss in southeastern
Louisiana. OOder IsOand residents remember marshOands as far as they couOd see, fuOO of animaOs and wiOdOife.
:ater now surrounds the smaOO strip of Oand, which is buffered by smaOO Oevees to keep homes from Áooding at high tide. Most residents have eOevated their homes, but some have not. Over the past haOf-century, many peopOe have Oeft the IsOand. By some accounts, the IsOand once had between 60 and 80 primary residences. Today, that number is 26.
RecentOy, the IsOe de -ean CharOes Band of BiOoxi- Chitimacha-Choctaw (BCC) Oeadership worked with the LowOander Center, a nonproÀt based in Terrebonne Parish, to deveOop a vision for a resettOed IsOe de -ean CharOes community. OCD-DRU partnered with these two entities in its appOication for the +UD grant. After being awarded the grant, OCD-DRU brought on PAE, CB&I, and Concordia to heOp pOan and coordinate an initiaO information-gathering and engagement phase of the proMect, intended to precede the proMect·s second phase ² Master POanning. This proMect team has heOd weekOy caOOs and severaO meetings with the BCC tribe·s Oeadership.
,1752'8&7,21 &217(;7
Over the course of four months, OCD-DRU worked with PAE, CB&I, and Concordia to gather information and engage with IsOand residents to understand their opinions and desires moving forward. This phase of work incOuded two community meetings, househoOd interviews, a Oand use survey, and muOtipOe visits to IsOe de -ean CharOes to speak with residents, answer Tuestions and invite residents to participate at the community meetings. During this phase, the proMect team conÀrmed Oand use information on the IsOand, residentiaO patterns, and gathered resident information and preferences.
AOO of this work was carried out to buiOd upon the state·s understanding of the proMect·s beneÀciaries and to ensure that the needs of the IsOand·s residents are addressed throughout the resettOement proMect.
Engagement is aOso cruciaO to buiOding trust with IsOand residents, as the state wiOO Oean heaviOy on IsOanders to deÀne many of the attributes of the future resettOed community. Residents have heard rumors about resettOement for years, and many have differing and often inaccurate impressions of what this process wiOO entaiO. As this phase of work proceeded, severaO residents became more open to the idea of resettOement, and more trusting of the proMect team and process. Because there have been faiOed attempts at resettOement in the past, some residents are stiOO skepticaO that the proMect wiOO happen as pOanned.
Continued communication and trust-buiOding throughout the process wiOO be necessary to ensure continued participation and buy-in from IsOand residents.
ONGOING ENGAGEMENT WITH BCC TRIBAL COUNCIL
The proMect team has heOd weekOy caOOs with BCC Oeadership since earOy summer and severaO in-person meetings over the course of the data gathering phase. BCC Oeadership provided the proMect team with preOiminary data and information that heOped to kick off the data gathering and engagement process. The proMect team and BCC coOOaborated on the content and pOanning for Community Meeting 1 and the resident interview questions.
COMMUNITY MEETING 1
On Aug. 6, the proMect team hosted a community meeting to introduce the proMect. Residents reviewed, evaOuated and added to the visioning work done prior to the HUD award.
Forty-six IsOe de -ean CharOes residents and stakehoOders attended the meeting. Twenty-one of these attendees were fuOO-time IsOand residents representing 11 househoOds. Nine other owners of IsOand property attended, as weOO as BCC tribaO Oeadership, the United Houma Nation (UHN), and former residents.
0(7+2'2/2*< 352&(66
This section outOines the data coOOection and engagement process carried out between -uOy and October 2016.
Community members participated in two tabOe activities.
The Àrst activity asked a series of open-ended questions to promote discussion about Oife on the IsOand and generaO reactions to the prospect of resettOement. For the second activity, residents discussed and evaOuated aspects of a resettOement vision deveOoped by the BCC tribe and the LowOander Center. These activity resuOts gave the proMect team a sense of what residents were Oooking for in a new community settOement. At this meeting, IsOand residents signed up for resident interviews to be conducted on Aug. 16 and Aug. 17 at their homes. A fuOO summary of Community Meeting 1 can be found in Appendix A.
LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY
On Aug. 16, Aug. 17, Aug. 18, Aug. 24 and Sept. 21, PAE and CB&I conducted Oand use surveys and a physicaO assessment of the IsOand. AOO data and bits of information were coOOected in a mobiOe device appOication that CB&I deveOoped to organi]e survey data. Data was entered from drop-down menus in the web appOication of the assessment tooO from previousOy identiÀed questions.
At every point of interest, the structures and conditions were evaOuated based on observation and a site photo was captured. CB&I aOso conÀrmed the eOectricaO status of each address through on-site observations and the OocaO energy provider·s records. One of the most
Community Meeting 1.
important metrics determined through the Land Use Survey was the occupancy status. This was determined for each address through previous documents
provided by the tribe, as weOO as by observations and resident-interview comparisons. To ensure compOete transparency, the data coOOected is avaiOabOe to the pubOic at the foOOowing secure website
httpcbigim.maps.arcgis.comappswebappviewer index.htmO"id 8d4fc80e04eadbcc8e0b7cd671 The content of this data incOudes structure count, use anaOysis, utiOities observations, and other aspects of physicaO quaOities and quantities on the IsOand.
RESIDENT INTERVIEWS
On Aug. 16, Aug. 17, Aug. 18, and Aug. 24, Concordia conducted interviews with IsOe de -ean CharOes residents.
The team returned on Sept. 21 to conÀrm and reÀne data previousOy coOOected.
At the end of Community Meeting 1, IsOand residents signed up for one-on-one interviews to take pOace on Aug. 16 and Aug. 17. Concordia Oed the interview process structured around a series of prepared interview questions. After interviewing residents who signed up, the team visited aOO other residentiaO househoOds on Aug.
18 and Aug. 24. Residents from 25 of 26 housing units spoke with the team one househoOd was never present when the team visited.
Residents from 10 of 26 housing units signed up for the Aug. 16 and Aug. 17 interviews. These interviews incOuded the fuOO set of interview questions and Oasted between 60-0 minutes. Over the course of the interviews, some questions were consoOidated to avoid redundancy. In many cases, residents provided vaOuabOe information outside the bounds of the prescribed questions these responses were captured as additionaO notes and contribute to the content of this report. AOO of those interviewed on Aug. 16 and Aug. 17 are in favor of resettOing with the community.
on having visitors, many onOy wanted to speak for a short time or sometimes not at aOO. A Oarger proportion of these residents didn·t know about the proMect or had onOy heard rumors. In these interviews, the proMect team prioritized understanding what these residents knew about the proMect, how many peopOe Oive in the home and whether they want to resettOe with the community. :e answered any questions and informed them there wouOd be another community meeting for aOO IsOand residents to Oearn more and participate in the pOanning process.
SeveraO of these residents were unsure about whether they wanted to resettOe and some were staunchOy opposed.
AdditionaOOy, the team spoke with severaO camp owners, as weOO as the onOy business owner on the IsOand ² the marina. Conversations with the camp-owners and the business owner are not represented in the data of this report. However, there is a paragraph at the end of the report that summarizes what the proMect team heard from them. On each visit, Concordia answered any questions residents had, or documented those questions so that OCD-DRU couOd address them at the second community meeting.
A key goaO of this interview process was to make contact with residents and begin to buiOd trust and reOationships with those on the IsOand. Because some conversations were shorter than others, the team was not abOe to ask every resident aOO of the survey questions. :e did not press residents to speak with us Oonger than they wanted to speak. ConsequentOy, for many survey questions and the corresponding data presented in the Interviews Summary section of this document, there is a “no data”
category. In generaO, those interviewed on Aug. 18 and Aug. 24 responded to the fewest questions.
COMMUNITY MEETING 2
On Oct. 8, the proMect team heOd Community Meeting 2 on the IsOand, under a resident·s home. At this meeting, the proMect team shared summaries of the Oand use and interview data coOOected, and answered questions residents asked the proMect team during the interviews.
the SeOection Committee for the ID-C Master POanning Group, which wiOO evaOuate and seOect the master pOanning team that wiOO carry out the proMect.
Thirty-one members of the generaO IsOe de -ean CharOes community attended the meeting. Nineteen of these attendees were fuOO-time IsOand residents, representing 12 housing units. Two other attendees owned camps on the IsOand. Others incOude former residents and guests.
The meeting activity focused on site seOection and preferences, a topic residents were very interested in during the interview process. In tabOe groups, community members identiÀed potentiaO sites on a map for the new settOement. The map presented important Áood risk information that the proMect team asked residents to consider before recommending their preferred site Oocation. Most residents recommended the safest area on the map, which is near Schriever. A graphic that summarizes site suggestions from the meeting, as weOO as suggestions we heard in a foOOow-up visit to the IsOand, is incOuded on page 15.
A fuOO summary of Community Meeting 2 can be found in Appendix B.
FINAL VISIT & DATA CONFIRMATION
On Oct. 20, the proMect team visited househoOds who did not attend the meeting to get their input on site seOection, and to share the meeting content and resuOts.
During this ÀnaO visit, the proMect team aOso cOariÀed resident data and househoOd desire to resettOe with those residents who were previousOy unsure or needed more information. In some cases, residents who previousOy did not want to speak to the proMect team shared more information about their househoOd and their opinions about resettOing.
The data in this report reOated to popuOation and desire to resettOe has been updated to reÁect the information gathered on this ÀnaO visit to the IsOand.
Community members discussed potential site location in table groups at Community Meeting 2.
/$1'86(6 ,6/$1',1)5$6758&785(
OCCUPANCY
The proMect team surveyed 141 addresses, or points of interest, on the IsOand. Of those, 67 are vacant Oand and eight contain cOearOy abandoned or unmaintained structures.
:e identiÀed 5 housing units as camps, aOthough it is possibOe that some of these are aOso unoccupied. Housing units cOassiÀed as campsunoccupied do not serve as primary residences. The maMority of houses we identiÀed as camps were empty on aOO days that the proMect team was on the IsOand the proMect team veriÀed the status of these houses with neighbors and other residents on the IsOand. If a house appeared to be in serviceabOe condition and there were no overt signs of abandonment, we cOassiÀed it as a camp.
:e identiÀed 26 housing units as active, primary residences. “Other”
addresses incOude the marina, the Àre station, the Oevee pump station, a parceO with an orange Áoatation pod on it, and the home of an IsOand resident who recentOy passed away.
PRIMARY RESIDENCE CAMP / UNOCCUPIED ABANDONED STRUCTURE VACANT LAND
OTHER
26 35 8 67 5
LAND USE ON ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES
Primary Residence 26
Camp Unoccupied 35
Abandoned Structure 8
Vacant Land 67
Other 5
STRUCTURE TYPE
The vast maMority of structures on the IsOand are non- movabOe. :e found onOy one occasion where househoOds were activeOy inhabiting movabOe traiOers (there were two traiOers on the singOe property). There is aOso one active camp in a movabOe traiOer. There is one other traiOer on the side of the road, but it appears to be abandoned.
The information above is documented by each address within the web appOication.
DISTRIBUTION ON ISLAND
AOO IsOand addresses are aOong the singOe road that stretches 1.6 miOes from 300 IsOand Road to 600 IsOand Rd. Land use on the IsOand is not uniformOy arranged among IsOand addresses. There are cOusters of residences interspersed with cOusters of vacant Oand.
However, there are some generaO Oand use patterns.
AOmost aOO of the camps are on the southern third of the IsOand whiOe most residents are on northern haOf. The west side of the road has more vacant Oand than the east side.
The map to the right shows the generaO Oand use patterns on the IsOand. The boundaries shown are not exact property Oines this is for generaO diagrammatic purposes onOy.
The information above is documented by each address within the web appOication.
ELECTRICITY ON THE ISLAND
Of the 141 points of interest on the IsOand, the proMect team identiÀed 52 with eOectricity and 8 without.
Of the 52 with eOectricity, 20 are residences, 24 are camps, four are abandoned structures, and four are other property types.
Of the 8 points of interest without eOectricity, six are residences, 11 are camps, four are abandoned structures, 67 are vacant Oand, and one is an ¶other·
property type.
The information above is documented by each address within the web appOication.
Primary Residence 20
Camp Unoccupied 24
Abandoned Structure
4
Vacant Land, 0 Other 4
Primary Residence 6
Camp Unoccupied 11
Abandoned Structure
4
Vacant Land 67 Other
1
EOectricity 52
No EOectricity 8
POINTS OF INTEREST WITH ELECTRICITY, 52 TOTAL
POINTS OF INTEREST WITH NO ELECTRICITY, 89 TOTAL TOTAL POINTS OF INTEREST
141 TOTAL
RESIDENT DESIRE TO RESETTLE
SURVEY SAMPLE
The proMect team identiÀed 26 housing units that are occupied as primary residences. On the IsOand, many housing units house muOtipOe househoOds, often severaO generations of a famiOy or muOtipOe nucOear famiOies. In this report, a househoOd is deÀned as a famiOy unit that wouOd Oive in a separate house in the new settOement if they were to move. Based on our interviews with residents over the course of this phase of work, we count 37 househoOds and individuaO residents sharing these 26 units.
HousehoOds and residents are organized into four categories with regard to desire to resettOe ¶Yes - with community·,
¶Yes but separate from community (South Terrebonne Parish)·, ¶Unsure·, and ¶No.· In two cases, househoOds within the same unit had different opinions about resettOement ² shown in this chart as “Mixed.” :e were not abOe to speak with aOO househoOds these are cOassiÀed as “No Data”. Because this proMect wiOO be primariOy concerned with househoOds moving forward, the text and graphics within this section emphasize househoOds rather than housing units.
'HVLUHWRUHORFDWH # Housing Units # Households # Residents
Yes - with community
Yes, but separate from community Unsure
No Mixed No data Total
13 1 3 6 2 1 26
20 3 3 8
3 37
49 11 7 28
4 99
Yes - with community 20
Yes, but separate from community 3
No 8
Unsure 3
No data
3 Yes - with community
4
Yes, but separate from community 11
No 28
Unsure 7
No data 4
DESIRE TO RESETTLE BY HOUSEHOLD, 37 TOTAL
DESIRE TO RESETTLE
BY RESIDENT, 99 TOTAL
DESCRIPTION OF RESETTLEMENT PREFERENCES
<HV²:LWK&RPPXQLW\ Of the 26 housing units, 13 desire to resettOe with the community. These 13 homes incOude 20 househoOds and 4 residents (50 percent of IsOand popuOation). GeneraOOy, those in favor of resettOing are the most weOO-informed about the proMect. AOO of these residences were represented at the community meetings.
Residents we interviewed in this group want to resettOe as a community for simiOar reasons safety, more space (or muOtipOe houses for extended famiOies), easier access to town, work and schooO, preservation of reOationships with neighbors and, in some cases, the opportunity to reunite with former neighbors and extended famiOy who moved off the IsOand years ago.
Many residents in this category aOso attended Community Meeting 2. At the meeting, residents indicated their preferred site Oocation after taking into account expected future Áood risk throughout the Parish. The maMority of residents seOected the area around Schriever, the northernmost area of Terrebonne Parish.
<HVEXWVHSDUDWHIURPFRPPXQLW\VRXWK7HUUHERQQH3DULVK Residents from 3 househoOds, incOuding 11 peopOe (11 percent of IsOand popuOation), said they want to resettOe but wiOO onOy go as far as a few pOaces in southern Terrebonne Parish. One resident in this group attended Community Meeting 2 and, after seeing that most of her neighbors suggested Schriever, toOd the proMect team that she wouOd rather move separateOy from the community to the south of the Parish, where she has famiOy. Likewise, residents that we visited after the meeting said something simiOar. They wouOd move to Bourg, Houma, or Chauvin, but not Schriever. They said they wouOd rather move separateOy from the community if the settOement wouOd be any further north than Houma.
8QVXUH Residents from 3 housing units, incOuding 3 househoOds and 7 residents (7 percent of IsOand popuOation) are stiOO unsure whether they wiOO resettOe or not. One househoOd is unsure whether they wiOO Oeave the IsOand, but if they do, wouOd most OikeOy move separateOy from the rest of the community. At another ¶unsure· househoOd, the head of house has been struggOing with medicaO issues we spoke to his son, whose most important factor in moving is taking care of his father. He didn·t know what his father wouOd want to do. In the third househoOd, the residents are not capabOe of conÀrming what they wiOO do. Further engagement with their chiOdren who visit them, or other caretakers wiOO be necessary.
1REight househoOds, incOuding 28 residents (28 percent of IsOand popuOation), do not want to resettOe. Some of these homes are geographicaOOy cOustered on the IsOand and incOude residents who are cOose reOatives or friends to others in the “No” category. Some of these expressed a Oack of connection to the community outside their smaOO cOuster of homes. Two do not beOieve the IsOand is in signiÀcant danger of eroding, aOthough that is not their main reason for wanting to stay. Another said they wouOd move in with famiOy if a storm were to come. One resident said he wants to die on the IsOand.
1R'DWDThe proMect team was unabOe to interview residents from one housing unit during the interview process.
Prior to the Àrst community meeting, however, we did speak to them brieÁy. They said that they have a second residence further inOand, but their IsOand residence is their primary residence. They didn·t think the resettOement proMect was for them and didn·t indicate whether they wouOd go if they had the option. Another house is shared by three aduOt sibOings who were not present during our visits. One sibOing, with his partner and chiOdren, is out of state at the moment for work, but he toOd the New York Times in an interview that yes, they wouOd resettOe. :e have not made any contact with the other two sibOings we cOassiÀed each as a househoOd and pOaced them in the ¶No data·
category. :e gathered what information we couOd about this housing unit from their fourth sibOing who Oives in another house on the IsOand.
Site Characteristics were a centraO topic of Community Meeting 1 and resident interviews. At the meeting, many residents broadOy agreed with the basic concept of previous visioning efforts a secOuded community with pOenty of naturaO resources and open space. Residents requested that the pOan incOude pOenty of open space, many trees and areas for gardens. It shouOd be secure and safe, whiOe having better access to heaOthcare, stores, gas stations and church. The residents desire spaces for gathering; many said they wanted this gathering space under eOevated homes. Homes shouOd be affordabOe, durabOe and Oow maintenance. :hen asked what the most important environmentaO eOements of the pOan were, they said community, sustainabiOity, security and water. Some desire water on-site or cOose by for Àshing, whiOe others wouOd rather be far from water if it means higher risk. Access to work and the economy is important; residents wouOd Oike better transportation access to Mob opportunities. Many wouOd Oike to capitaOize on on-site resources by growing or catching food to seOO.
During the interview process, which incOuded onOy current IsOand residents, residents unanimousOy wanted the site to emuOate the Oand use pattern on IsOe de -ean CharOes in terms of house spacing and yard size.
Many residents mentioned having grass to cut or space for pOanting gardens. :hen house typoOogy came up, residents generaOOy Oiked the idea of eOevated homes for the view, the sense of safety and the opportunity to use
the space underneath for group gatherings. However, many residents wouOd need eOevators or ramps to access an eOevated house. Residents cherish their secOusion from the outside worOd. They aOso enMoy the famiOiarity of those on the IsOand. Residents in favor of resettOement generaOOy did not prioritize access to water as a site characteristic, aOthough severaO residents unsure about moving cited their existing access to water as a reason they want to stay.
See Appendix A and the Resident Interviews section for more detaiOs reOated to site characteristics.
SITE LOCATION PREFERENCES
During the interview process prior to Meeting 2, many residents said they wanted to be a OittOe cOoser to town, but stiOO in a secOuded, spacious area simiOar to the IsOand. Many residents mentioned Houma, Bourg, Pointe- aux-Chenes and Bayou BOue Road as ideaO Oocations for the resettOement. Some residents, especiaOOy those who are unsure whether they want to resettOe with the community, do not want to move far from where they are now. FamiOies with chiOdren and residents who work are connected to schooOs and Mobs in the area and are more sensitive to the Oocation decision. For those who work, most seem to work in Houma ² a 40 minute drive. Many residents aOso have famiOy in Houma.
A cropped view of the Community Meeting 2 site preferences activity. See Appendix B for full sheet.
COMMENTS ON SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A summary map of sites suggested by community members at the second community meeting.
Additional site sugges- tions were recorded on
$PODPSEJBTmOBMWJTJUUP Isle de Jean Charles on 10/20/16.
However, generaO preference for a southern Oocation was not more powerfuO than the desire to settOe in a safe and sustainabOe Oocation. At Meeting 2, the proMect team provided a map of the Parish with proMected future Áood depths and asked residents to consider this risk before suggesting possibOe site Oocations by pOacing dots on the map. Some areas of the map were bOacked out because they are in zones too unsafe to buiOd, or because the funds for the proMect are not OegaOOy aOOowed to be expended there. The maMority of residents pOaced their dots in the northernmost area around Schriever, which was the safest area avaiOabOe on the map. Some dissented and pOaced their vote further south, in areas Oike Bourg.
The graphic beOow shows the resuOts of the site
preferences activity. Meeting attendees pOaced dots on the map to indicate their site preferences.
There were 14 housing units not represented at the community meeting. Subsequent to the meeting, the proMect team visited these residents to get their perspective on site preferences. The team showed them the site seOection preferences that their neighbors indicated at the meeting and asked them to contribute their thoughts.
Preferences of IsOand residents at the meeting are shown in purpOe. The resident responses from the subsequent visit to the isOand are shown in orange. The site
preferences for meeting attendees who are not current IsOand residents are shown in white.
Residents from severaO of the 14 housing units do not want to resettOe, so they did not participate. Residents who did participate often gave muOtipOe options, most commonOy in southern Terrebonne Parish. This visit was when some residents said they wouOd rather move separateOy from the community and stay cOose to famiOy or other connections in the southern area of the Parish. At Oeast three househoOds say they wouOd rather resettOe separateOy from the
community if the community site is further north, and one additionaO househoOd that is unsure about resettOing says they wouOd resettOe separateOy if they do decide to move.
OveraOO, 18 resident dots were pOaced on the Schriever area and seven on Bourg, foOOowed by other Oocations in the southern area of the Parish. This indicates that the maMority of residents desire to Oive in the safest area possibOe. Those residents with strong ties to reOatives off the isOand and reOativeOy weak ties to other IsOand residents wouOd prefer to resettOe separateOy from the community in a southern Oocation.
5(6,'(17,17(59,(:66800$5<
KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM INTERVIEWS
• Residents want the new settOement to maintain the quaOities of SHDFHTXLHWVHFOXVLRQDQGVDIHW\ that they associate with IsOe de -ean CharOes.
• Residents wouOd Oike to be FORVHUWRZRUNVFKRRODQGDJURFHU\VWRUH, whiOe VWLOORXWVLGHRIWRZQ.
• Many residents want to use their current homes on IsOe de -ean CharOes as camps after the reOocation.
• Most residents are DZDUHRIWKHLQFUHDVLQJULVN of Áooding on the IsOand, but a smaOO minority are not.
• Many residents wouOd Oike elevated homes, for safety and other reasons.
• Most residents did not directOy participate in or provide signiÀcant input toward the visioning efforts conducted prior to the awarding of the HUD grant.
• The maMority of residents have positive impressions of their current quaOity of Oife on the IsOand; severaO residents are nostaOgic for a time when there was more community interaction on the IsOand.
• For those unsure whether they wiOO resettOe with the community, staying cOose to their Mobs, schooOs, and famiOies in south Terrebonne Parish is a top priority.
This section is based on information gathered through resident interviews between Aug. 16-24 on the IsOand. Not aOO residents responded to aOO questions. Where data is shown, the denominator is aOways 26 housing units unOess otherwise noted. When we were not abOe to ask a question, or if residents did not answer it, that non-response is shown as “no data.” AOO responses are summarized and organized into generaO response categories. AOO personaOOy identiÀabOe information about the residents has been removed. Raw data and documentation are in the appendix.
RESIDENTS’ HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS TO THE ISLAND
4+RZORQJKDYH\RXOLYHGRQWKH,VODQG"
AOmost every resident we spoke with has either Oived on the IsOand their whoOe Oife or has returned to the IsOand after Oiving and working eOsewhere for some period of time. There are two exceptions. One exception is a man who bought a house seven years ago on Oand that he Oeases.
He had visited the IsOand reguOarOy for nearOy 40 years before purchasing the home. Residents from one other home, who we did not interview, sometimes Oive at a camp house owned by the grandmother of one of the residents.
4+LVWRULFDOFRQQHFWLRQWR,VODQG
Because the vast maMority of permanent residents have a muOti-generationaO famiOy connection to the IsOand, Oand and property is often owned MointOy by sibOings, or nieces, nephews and cousins. Many homeowners we spoke to had Àve or more sibOings who shared Oand, a house, or muOtipOe houses on a singOe parceO. It was common that
Note: Some residents gave multiple responses, which is why there are more than 26 responses shown. Residents from eight housing units did not answer this question be- cause they were either not present for an interview or only wanted to speak for a short time. This condition is typical for all following graphics with a “no data” category.
Yes 24 No
1
No data 1
HISTORICAL CONNECTION
TO ISLAND (Y/N)
LIFE AND COMMUNITY
4:KDWGR\RXOLNHPRVWDERXWZKHUH\RXOLYH"
Residents who responded to this question frequentOy mentioned the IsOand·s peace and quiet. ReOated to that is the sense of safety and security that comes from being separate from towns and busy streets.
Many on the IsOand Àsh reguOarOy and share the surpOus from their catch with neighbors. Some who are unsure about moving or who don·t want to move mentioned the abiOity to catch Àsh, shrimp and oysters in their backyards. For some residents, Àshing is both a pastime and a way to subsist.
Others said Àshing and the water is something they wiOO miss, but couOd Oive without. And some were cOear that they do not want to Oive near water anymore ² they want to be high, dry and safe. AOong with site seOection, access and proximity to water couOd be inÁuentiaO for residents who are on the fence about the resettOement.
4,I\RXGHFLGHWROHDYHWKH,VODQGZKDWZLOO\RX PLVVWKHPRVW"
Residents gave mixed responses to this question.
Out of 14 respondents, four did not indicate what they wouOd miss - saying they do not know, nothing, or saying that they wiOO enMoy a shorter trip to work.
Of the others, peace and quiet, water and Àshing, and their memories are what they said they wouOd miss most.
4:KDWLVLPSRUWDQWDERXWTXDOLW\RIOLIHIRU\RXDQG\RXUIDPLO\"
Residents· quaOity of Oife on the IsOand is associated with famiOy weOObeing, peace and quiet, amenities for daiOy Oife, and access to work and schooO. Residents have positive associations with the environment of the IsOand ² the space, privacy and quiet. FOood risk, water encroachment and past Áoods have diminished the quaOity of Oife for residents, in part because of damage to their property, and in part because numerous famiOy members and neighbors have Oeft the IsOand in response. Residents want a new settOement with simiOar density characteristics to IsOe de -ean CharOes, but with the community back together in a dryer, safer pOace.
4+RZZRXOG\RXOLNHWRFHOHEUDWH\RXUFXOWXUHZKHQWKH,VODQGLVQRORQJHUDFFHVVLEOHE\ODQG"
Some residents Oook forward to rekindOing the stronger sense of community at the new settOement that they once enMoyed on IsOe de -ean CharOes. Of the six residents who taOked about ceOebrating cuOture, two spoke about enMoying tribaO meetings and pow-wows, which have become infrequent. They hope to participate in more events of that nature. Two residents taOked about remembrance, honoring ancestors and creating a ceOebration that
WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT WHERE YOU LIVE?
Peace and Quiet 12
No data 8
Safety &
Security 4 Water, Fishing, Shrimping, & Oysters
8 Growing POants
& Nature 4 PeopOe &
FamiOy 5
WHAT WILL YOU MISS THE MOST?
Nothing Doesn·t .now No data 4
6 Water & Fishing
3 Peace &
Quiet 2 Memories Space 2
The View 2 2 FamiOy
Connection 1 Not
Leaving 6
4+RZZRXOG\RXGHVFULEHWKHEHVWSRVVLEOHQHZKRPHIRU\RXDQG\RXUIDPLO\"
Residents generaOOy wanted more space for their famiOies, incOuding a separate home for each famiOy currentOy sharing space. Residents want homes to be spaced simiOarOy to how they are now ² meaning Oarge yards. One resident speciÀcaOOy said townhouses or muOtifamiOy units are a bad idea for this community. When asked about height, they said they wanted their new homes eOevated for the view, the safety and the usefuO space underneath.
AOthough many residents raised their homes strictOy for Áood protection, the raised homes have since taken on cuOturaO signiÀcance and other positive associations. If eOevated, many residents wiOO need ramps or eOevators to access their homes. Cooking for big famiOies is a part of Oife here; severaO residents said they wouOd Oove a big kitchen and a Oarge Oiving room for famiOy gatherings. Many residents aOso requested a spare bedroom. One resident said the most important thing is reuniting the community, many of whom have moved to Houma and Thibodaux.
4:KDWVHUYLFHVZLOO\RXQHHGLQ\RXUQHZORFDWLRQ"
Residents most commonOy mentioned being cOoser to a grocery store, work and schooO. Some residents aOso mentioned cOoser access to a hospitaO or medicaO cOinic.
4+RZZRXOG\RXGHÀQH\RXUFRPPXQLW\"
Five residents deÀned their community as their cOose famiOy, which incOuded others in their housing unit or famiOy members who Oive cOose by. SeveraO residents mentioned immediate famiOy who Oive further inOand, typicaOOy in the Houma area. Another Àve residents said their community consisted of both famiOy and neighbors. Some residents described the sense of famiOiarity on the IsOand, saying “everyone knows each other” and “we·re aOO reOated.” SeveraO residents spend time outside under their houses or cutting the grass, where they wave to one another and chat.
“Best possible new home”
word cloud (larger words were mentioned most often by residents).
“Quality of life” word cloud (larger words were mentioned most often by residents).
Three additionaO residents mentioned that the sense of community has diminished over time. They remember a time when there were fewer camps. Some residents maintain a sense of community at the Marina, where they sit on the deck and chat. Two residents identiÀed muOtipOe communities or groups they are a part of, incOuding church and the .nights of CoOumbus.
In more generaO terms, residents in 10 houses indicated that they enMoyed positive reOationships with neighbors and other residents, and cared about being near them.
This group incOuded mostOy residents in favor of moving together, but aOso those unsure about resettOing and one who is against resettOement. The enthusiasm in this group ranges from a strong desire to reunite the entire community to a desire onOy to preserve ties with a few cOose friends and reOatives from the IsOand. Two oOder residents spoke fondOy of past times with the community, but said that they now keep mostOy to themseOves. Two other residents expressed mixed feeOings, saying they spent most of their time with famiOy, but stiOO interacted reguOarOy with some other residents on the IsOand.
OnOy four residents we spoke with said that they keep compOeteOy to themseOves and care OittOe about the IsOand community as a whoOe.
It is important to emphasize that many residents cherish the peace, quiet and privacy the IsOand affords them.
AOthough residents did not address this directOy through the survey, most seem to appreciate how other IsOand residents respect each other·s privacy. “Community” on the IsOand may be as rooted in a shared sense of privacy as it is in reguOar interaction.
According to one account, IsOand residents had become members of the UHN for years before ancestraO research corroborated verbaO history indicating that their Oineage was actuaOOy BiOoxi, Chitimacha and Choctaw. As a resuOt of this discovery, many of the IsOand·s residents broke off from the UHN and formed the IsOe de -ean CharOes Band of BiOoxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw (BCC). However, some residents maintain UHN membership. At Oeast two residents are unsure about which organization they beOong to. During our interviews, residents did not bring up tribaO distinctions and more often noted that everyone on the IsOand is reOated. HistoricaO data can provide suppOementaO information about IsOand ancestry.
DEFINING COMMUNITY
FamiOy OnOy 5
FamiOy &
Neighbors 5 Neighbors interact Oess now
3 FamiOy &
Marina 2 FamiOy & Other
(Church, KOC) 2 No Data
ENJOY COMMUNITY ON THE ISLAND
Yes 20
Used to, but cOose friends and famiOy have passed or
moved away 3 Mixed
2 No - doesn·t
matter much to me
4 No Data
7
4+RZGR\RXLQWHUDFWZLWK\RXUQHLJKERUV"
Fifteen residents responded to this question.
Seven described different positive ways they interact with their neighbors. Three gave mixed responses or indicated that they interact reguOarOy with onOy a seOect group of neighbors. Three said their interaction with the community has diminished since their immediate neighbors Oeft the IsOand. Two residents said they keep to themseOves compOeteOy. Of the seven residents who indicated positive interactions, most said they taOk to each other outside, severaO described heOping one another and two mentioned sharing food with each other. SeveraO residents aOso mentioned hoOidays on the IsOand ² one resident described waOking up the road and singing on Christmas.
4'R\RXVHHWKLVLQWHUDFWLRQFKDQJLQJLQDQ\
ZD\LQDQHZKRPH"+RZZRXOGLWFKDQJH"
Five residents do not anticipate a change in their interaction with the community after resettOement. One of these Àve said as Oong as the community remains together, it wiOO not change. Another one of these Àve advocated for singOe famiOy homes, saying that condos and increased density wouOd not be good for famiOies and chiOdren. The one resident who expected community interaction to change said that it wouOd change for the better, as more peopOe in the community wiOO be together again.
RISK, FLOODING, AND SERVICES
4'R\RXXQGHUVWDQGWKHULVNRIFRQWLQXLQJWROLYHRQWKH,VODQGORQJWHUPLQOLJKWRIFXUUHQWDQGIXWXUHÁRRGLQJ GLVDVWHUULVNV"
Most residents understand the risk of remaining on the IsOand. AOO of the residents who are in favor of resettOement are aware that the IsOand is disappearing. Out of 12 who responded, onOy one denied that the IsOand was in danger of disappearing. Another said they were not afraid of storms.
4:KDWVHUYLFHVKDYH\RXORVWDQGZKDWLPSDFWKDVLWKDGRQ\RX"+RZKDVWKHÁRRGLQJURDGLPSDFWHG\RX"
Over the years, residents have Oost severaO services and assets that have contributed to peopOe Oeaving. In addition to naturaO gas connections, residents taOked about water on the road preventing them from getting to work or schooO.
This is a reguOar source of stress for some residents. OOder residents taOked about the store and dance haOO that used to be on the IsOand. That was where monthOy church services were heOd, in addition to dances and other community functions. FOooding has impacted nearOy every resident over the years ² one resident Oost a truck, others Oost their homes. SeveraO residents eOevated their homes after being Áooded muOtipOe times. Some residents occupy damaged or Oeaky homes and others Oive in traiOers where their homes once stood. Residents who remember the grocery store on the IsOand described how when they Oost the grocery, they aOso Oost their bartering system, which many of them used to trade what they grew, trapped and Àshed in exchange for other goods and necessities.
INTERACTION WITH NEIGHBORS
Yes - Positive comments about neighborOy
interaction 7
Some interaction with particuOar neighbors andor
tribechief 3 Some, but not as much anymore; cOoser friends and
neighbors moved away 3
No, keep to themseOves
2 No Data
10
FUTURE OF COMMUNITY AND ISLAND
4$VUHVHWWOHPHQWWDNHVSODFHKRZGR\RXVHH\RXUOLIHFKDQJLQJ"
Residents in favor of resettOing aOO said they expected the change to be for the better.
Some cited being cOoser to schooO and work as an improvement. Two mentioned being safe and dry. One resident is Oooking forward to being surrounded by reOatives
² some of whom have Oeft the IsOand.
Residents who do not want to resettOe, camp-owners, and the IsOand·s business owner are uncertain about what wiOO happen to them when other residents resettOe.
Some are worried about Oosing utiOities, garbage coOOection and road access. Others are frustrated that the IsOand won·t be preserved, or are wary about what this means for their property vaOue and their business. A smaOO minority of residents indicated that their Oife wouOdn·t change, saying they don·t care
about the other IsOand residents.
4:KDWUHVRXUFHVRQWKH,VODQGZRXOG\RXOLNHWR FRQWLQXHWRKDYHDFFHVVWR"
Many residents in favor of resettOement want to continue to have access to the IsOand so they can use their homes as camps. Of the 10 respondents who want to reOocate, onOy one said she did not care about maintaining access to her current home. For many, this option affects their wiOOingness to move. They understand that it is OikeOy the IsOand wiOO disappear or be cut off in their Oifetime, but they want to maintain access to it for as Oong as possibOe.
4$UHWKHUHSK\VLFDOWKLQJV\RXZRXOGZDQWWRWDNHZLWK
\RXIURPWKH,VODQG":KDWZRXOGWKH\EH"
Five residents said there is nothing speciaO they wouOd Oike to take with them. Five said they want to take their househoOd beOongings, essentiaO necessities and pets with them. Some residents said they wouOd Oike to bring some pOants with them as weOO, or to pOant simiOar pOants and trees at the new settOement, incOuding pine trees, oak trees and paOmettos.
4:KDWLV\RXUYLVLRQIRUWKHIXWXUHRIWKH,VODQG"
Residents had questions about what wouOd happen to the IsOand with regards to Oand ownership when the resettOement takes pOace. Some expected that at some point the road wiOO become impassabOe and the IsOand wiOO onOy be accessibOe by boat. SeveraO gave the impression that they think the IsOand is one bad storm away from being destroyed. One resident thought a memoriaO wouOd be nice. One resident, who is not resettOing, said he onOy cares about his own house and the marina.
ACCESS TO THE ISLAND
Want access to Oand and house
Don·t care about accessing
Oandhouse Not Oeaving 1
6 No Data
10
4'R\RXFXUUHQWO\RZQRUUHQW\RXUKRPH"
Most residents we spoke with said they own their home. In some cases, residents· homes are owned by other cOose reOatives who aOso Oive on the IsOand. We did not ask this question to Àve residents who onOy wanted to speak brieÁy.
More investigation is necessary to verify Oand
ownership. We have reports that in many cases, Oand is Oeased from the Apache Corporation or other entities, whiOe the homes beOong to residents.
PARTICIPATION IN PREVIOUS VISIONING EFFORTS
4$UH\RXDZDUHRISUHYLRXVYLVLRQLQJHIIRUWVIRUUHORFDWLQJWKH,'-&FRPPXQLW\":HUH\RXLQYROYHGLQDQ\RIWKH SUHYLRXVYLVLRQLQJHIIRUWV"
Of the 20 residents who responded, 16 had heard about the previous visioning efforts. Of the 16 who heard about it, four said they attended a community meeting. Of these four, two indicated that they were observers and not participants in the work (the other two did not indicate one way or the other). Of the 12 who heard about previous visioning efforts but did not participate, 10 heard about it from other community members and two heard about it from Chief AObert. Those four residents that attended the meetings said they Oiked what they saw. No one said they disagreed with the previous vision, aOthough some residents said they didn·t care about having a community center and were more concerned about what their own Oand and house wouOd be Oike and where the site wouOd be.
,QQHUULQJ
Aware of previous visioning Unaware of previous visioning No data
2XWHUULQJ
Attended meetings
Heard about it from Chief AObert Heard about it from other neighbors Unaware of previous visioning No data
16 4 6
4 2 10 4 6
OWNERSHIP
HOME OWNERSHIP
Said they Own Said FamiOy 18
Member Owns
3
No data 5
PARTICIPATION IN PREVIOUS
VISIONING EFFORTS
AOthough no question prompted direct discussion about tribaO afÀOiation, this question did touch on the previous visioning work done with BCC Oeadership.
In our conversations, few residents mentioned tribaO afÀOiation. Six residents mentioned Chief AObert.
IsOand residents indicated that everyone on the IsOand is reOated, and one resident described how tribaO membership is based on choices residents made with regards to staying with UHN or separating to form the BCC. Two residents said they didn·t know which tribe they were supposed to be in. In generaO, residents did not seem to distinguish between those associated with UHN and those associated with BCC. It is possibOe that residents did not want to taOk about tribaO issues with outsiders and it is aOso OikeOy that references to tribe, famiOy, and community aOO identify the same group of peopOe, making references to any of them somewhat interchangeabOe. In our presence, though, residents spoke Àrst and foremost about each other as famiOy and neighbors. AOthough a few residents expressed frustration with tribaO Oeadership, these frustrations did not seem to extend to their neighbors on the IsOand.
4&DQ\RXGHVFULEHKRZ\RXIHHODERXWZKDW\RX·YH VHHQXSWRWKLVSRLQW"
Residents generaOOy feeO good about what they·ve seen.
Of the eight residents who answered this question directOy, six said they are feeOing good about the resettOement proMect. Two expressed skepticism or distrust about the proMect.
RESIDENT CONCERNS
During the interview process, residents had many questions about how the proMect wouOd work moving forward.
Questions touched on proMect Oogistics, timeOine, funding, and many issues reOated to their own possibOe beneÀt and costs associated with the proMect. Many IsOand residents are on a Àxed income and they expressed concerns about the potentiaO ÀnanciaO burdens that resettOement might incur. These ranged from materiaO things, Oike having to purchase new appOiances, to more compOicated issues of property ownership and mortgages. Any additionaO or unanticipated expense, even a smaOO one, wouOd be a burden on many residents. Questions that the proMect team couOd not answer on the IsOand were forwarded to OCD-DRU to address. Resident questions and OCD-DRU·s responses are shown beOow. These answers were shared with residents during Community Meeting 2 and during the Oct. 20 visit to househoOds who did not attend the meeting.
OWNERSHIP
4+RZZLOOKRXVHDVVLJQPHQWVEHGHWHUPLQHGLQWKH QHZFRPPXQLW\"
A1. As with aOO aspects of design and pOanning in the new community, YOU ² the IsOanders ² wiOO pOay an essentiaO roOe in determining how the new community Oooks, feeOs and functions in a manner consistent with your vaOues.
Therefore, as the community is designed, the State and its partners wiOO reOy on you to teOO us what makes the most sense in determining housing assignments.
4:LOOWKH6WDWHOLPLWQHZXQLWHOLJLELOLW\WRRQHSHU UHVLGHQFH":KDWDERXWUHVLGHQFHVRQWKH,VODQGZKR FXUUHQWO\KRXVHPXOWLSOHKRXVHKROGVXQGHURQHURRI"
A2. Each househoOd, or famiOy unit, wiOO be pOaced in one newOy-deveOoped housing unit in the new community.
For those residences currentOy housing more than one househoOd under one roof, each househoOd wiOO be eOigibOe to be pOaced in a new housing unit.
Questions 3-6 are answered as a group
4:LOOFXUUHQWKRPHRZQHUVRZQWKHLURZQLQGLYLGXDO SDUFHOVLQWKHQHZFRPPXQLW\"
4,IDQHZKRXVHKROGPRYHVWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DWD ODWHUGDWHZLOOWKH\RZQWKHLURZQSDUFHOWRRRUZLOO WKHUHEHVRPHRWKHUDUUDQJHPHQW"
4:LOOKRXVHKROGVLQWKHQHZFRPPXQLW\EHDEOHWR VHOOWKHLUSURSHUWLHVLQWKHQHZFRPPXQLW\"
4:LOOKRXVHKROGVLQWKHQHZFRPPXQLW\EH H[SHFWHGWRWDNHRQDPRUWJDJH"
A3-6. Determining an appropriate ownership structure for the new community wiOO be an essentiaO component of the second phase of the resettOement proMect, master pOanning. The State and its consuOtant partners wiOO deveOop a set of viabOe ownership structures, from which you, the IsOanders, wiOO determine the best modeOs and structures for your future community.
4:KDWDERXWSURSHUW\RZQHGLQKHULWHGE\PXOWLSOH VLEOLQJV"+RZZLOORZQHUVKLSEHGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHQHZ FRPPXQLW\"
A7. Through the resettOement proMect, the State wiOO prioritize pOacement of two groups of househoOds into new housing units within the new community (1) current IsOand residents; (2) residents dispOaced from the IsOand after Hurricane Isaac (8212).
PROPERTY TAXES
4+RPHVWHDG([HPSWLRQV²:LOOWKH\KDYHWRSD\
KLJKHUWD[HVRQWKHLU,'-&SURSHUW\RQFHWKH\PRYH WKHLUKRPHVWHDGH[HPSWLRQWRWKHQHZFRPPXQLW\RU ZLOOWKHUHEHVRPHVSHFLDOH[HPSWLRQEHFDXVHWKHODQG LVEHLQJUHVHWWOHG"
A8. This wiOO depend on the ownership modeO uOtimateOy seOected by you for the new community. It is possibOe househoOds who move to the new community ² whiOe aOso retaining ownership of an IsOand parceO ² wiOO incur an increased tax OiabiOity.
4,VWKHUHDQ\ZD\WRVXEVLGL]HRUDVVLVWZLWK
SURSHUW\WD[HVWKDWZLOOOLNHO\LQFUHDVHDIWHUWKHPRYH"
A. Such a subsidy is not anticipated at this time, but it is a topic that can be discussed further once potentiaO ownership modeOs are deveOoped and presented during the upcoming master pOanning phase.
ADDITIONAL EXPENSES
4:LOOUHVLGHQWVEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUPRYLQJRU SD\LQJWRPRYHWKHLUEHORQJLQJVWRWKHQHZSODFH"
A10. ReOocation expenses are an eOigibOe use for these funds, shouOd you indicate this is a priority.
4:LOOKRPHVFRPHIXUQLVKHGZLWKDSSOLDQFHV"
A11. Yes.
4$'$UHTXLUHPHQWVZLOOWKRVHZKRUHTXLUHUDPSV or elevators or ADA bathrooms have to forgo other KRXVHKROGDPHQLWLHVDVWKRXJKWKHUHLVDEXGJHWSHU KRXVH"
A12. No. There is no Àxed per-unit budget. AOO aspects of the new deveOopment wiOO be ADA-compOiant.
OTHER CONCERNS
4:LOOWKHUHEHWUDQVLWLRQDOWHPSRUDU\KRXVLQJIRU IDPLOLHVZLWKPRUHLPPHGLDWHQHHGVWRPRYH"
A13. At this time, transitionaOtemporary rentaO housing assistance is not contempOated as part of the resettOement·s activities, but if there is a cOear need for such activities now or in the course of the proMect·s deveOopment, this can be a possibiOity. As of now, the State has not been approached by any speciÀc IsOand resident with such a request.
Q14. Can the next meeting be held on the Island to HQVXUHHYHU\RQHRQWKH,VODQGFDQHDVLO\DWWHQG"
A14. If possibOe, the State wouOd Oike to hoOd aOO future pubOic meetings on the IsOand.
4:KDWLVWKHZLQGRZIRUUHVLGHQWVWRGHFLGH ZKHWKHUWKH\ZDQWWRPRYHRUQRW"
A15. The State wiOO not impose a speciÀc deadOine for IsOand residents to make this very difÀcuOt decision.
However, during the second phase of the proMect, master pOanning, the State wiOO have to determine how many housing units it intends to deveOop in the new community. If residents decide not to move into the new community during this portion of the new community·s deveOopment, keeping in mind further deveOopment may occur with other resources after the State expends its
$48.3M award, the State cannot guarantee any units deveOoped at a Oater date wiOO be subsidized.
4:LOOWKHUHEHDVVLVWDQFHDYDLODEOHIRUFXUUHQW ,VODQGUHVLGHQWVZKRZLVKWROHDYHWKH,VODQGEXWZKR GRQRWZDQWWREHDSDUWRIWKHQHZFRPPXQLW\"
A16. Yes. The State has made it a priority of the proMect to ensure aOO IsOand residents have the option to move to higher ground, regardOess of whether they want to be a part of the new community.
NON-RESIDENT CONCERNS
We spoke with Àve non-residents who have camps on the IsOand and an IsOand business owner who does not Oive on the IsOand. These stakehoOders have different concerns than many residents. They wanted to know what the resettOement wouOd mean for their property, utiOities, trash coOOection and future access via IsOand Road. No one that we spoke to expressed interest in beneÀtting directOy from the resettOement, but some were concerned that the resettOement might negativeOy impact their abiOity to enMoy their camp and decrease property vaOue if the IsOand ceases to be serviced or maintained.
Likewise, the business owner we spoke with wants to know what the resettOement wiOO mean for him and his business. He and famiOy members own Oand that they Oease to campers. AOthough he no Oonger Oives on the IsOand, he and his famiOy aOso go back generations on the IsOand, and he is reOated to other IsOand residents.
If and when other residents Oeave the IsOand, he wiOO
resettOement resuOts in decreased maintenance to the road and utiOities, he may Oose income from campers and others who use his boat Oaunch. He wants to know how, if at aOO, he wiOO be compensated for economic Oosses due to the resettOement of IsOand residents.
ADDITIONAL TEAM OBSERVATIONS
During the data gathering and engagement process, the proMect team identiÀed possibOe chaOOenges to be soOved moving forward.
Some isOand residents may need case managers to assist with the transition. AOthough we do not have a compOete data set on the ages of residents, many residents are oOder and some reOy on assistance from famiOy andor pubOic support services. HousehoOds have unique characteristics and conditions that wiOO be sensitive to different aspects of the resettOement pOan, be it site seOection, home design, empOoyment opportunities, heaOth care, or pOanning for a successfuO transition.
The primary beneÀciaries of this proMect are isOand residents. For some residents, a goaO of this proMect is to reunite current residents with those friends and famiOy members who have Oeft the isOand over the Oast haOf century and to rekindOe some cuOturaO traditions that they enMoyed more often in previous decades. A continued effort shouOd be made to accommodate the needs of isOand residents and the goaO of maintaining and fostering community growth and reuniÀcation. SpeciÀc efforts to strengthen community couOd be expOored, deveOoped and impOemented by those who desire to rebuiOd a thriving and sustainabOe community.
Photos of Isle de Jean Charles.
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY MEETING 1 SUMMARY
Isle de Jean Charles
Resettlement Engagement
- Community Meeting 1 -
August 6th, 2016
ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES RESETTLEMENT PLANNING | COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY 08/06/16 2 BACKGROUND
In early 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded Louisiana’s OfÀce of Community Development (OCD) $2.6 million as part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition. $48.3 million of this grant is for resettlement of Isle de -ean Charles to a resilient and historically-contextual new community.
WHAT HAPPENED AT MEETING 1?
On August 6th 2016, OCD, with help from
Concordia, LLC, Pan American Engineers (PAE), and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (CB&I), hosted a community meeting at the Montegut Recreation Center. The purpose of this meeting was to meet and engage with current and historical Island residents to understand their wants, needs, and perspectives.
The meeting was attended by chiefs and members of the Isle de -ean Charles Band of Biloxi-
Chitimacha-Choctaw (BCC), the United Houma Nation (UHN), and current Island residents not associated with either tribe. In all, 46 participants attended and contributed. Of those, 30 currently live on the island; many others are former
residents, and a few are business owners or other interested parties.
Pat Forbes, Executive Director of the state’s OfÀce of Community Development, spoke at the meeting, giving an overview of the proMect and its status. Currently, the proMect is in its Àrst phase,
Community Outreach and an Assessment of Needs. Master Planning and DevelopmentConstruction phases will follow.
Participants sat at tables, each hosted by a table host and a scribe who recorded their conversations and responses to two activities. Participants described their lifestyles and needs, and they expanded on previous visioning work, making recommendations for the new community.
This document presents their responses in a summarized form followed by complete verbatim responses recorded on table sheets and individual meeting evaluations.
Photos from the Meeting
COMMUNITY MEETING 1 SUMMARY
ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES RESETTLEMENT PLANNING | COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY 08/06/16 3 ACTIVITY 1: Small Group Conversations
The Àrst activity was a general discussion about life on the island and general reactions to the prospect of resettlement. Each table had a large sheet with Àve question prompts. At each table there was a “table host,” who helped to facilitate the conversation, and a “scribe,” who recorded what people said on the table sheets.
Many table groups gave similar feedback. Residents highly value their sense of community, the ability to live off the land and water, particularly crabbing, Àshing, and shrimping, and relative seclusion and sense of safety from the outside world. Most residents understand that water is coming and are looking forward to relocating to safety and rekindling a stronger sense of community that has been gradually eroded as residents have left the island.
The next page shows common themes that came up from each of the 5 prompts. Full responses are in the appendix.
Activity 1 table sheet
COMMUNITY MEETING 1 SUMMARY
ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES RESETTLEMENT PLANNING | COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY 08/06/16 4 What do you like about Isle de Jean Charles and
your community?
• Close family and community
• Crabbing, Àshing, shrimping
• The peace and quiet
• The land and landscape
• Safety and seclusion
• Walkability
Several residents described how life was before island land loss. Some things that have been lost:
• Hunting, trapping
• Dances & cultural activities
• Stronger sense of community
What is most important to your quality of life?
Top listed priorities:
• Sense of community
• Culture
• Family
• -obs & Work
• Safety
• Seafood shrimp, crab, Àshing Other common themes:
• Gardening
• Education
• Easy access to amenities, services, Mobs
How do you celebrate your culture on Isle de Jean Charles?
In order of how commonly mentioned:
• Familycommunity get-togethers & gatherings
• Pow-wows
• Holiday events - Christmas & Mardi Gras
• Tribal meetings
• Living with water
• Afternoon coffee
• Gardening, basket-weaving
If and when you decide to leave the island, what will you miss the most?
• Historical signiÀcance and connection to the island
• Friends, family, neighbors
• Homes and boats
• Walking up road to cast - Àshing with family
• Peacefulness and seclusion
• Accessibility to water
• Memories
• *one group’s response says they’re not leaving
What do you see for the future of the island?
Some residents see the island inevitably going away:
• Water. All water.
• Services leaving 1 by 1
• Really no future - preserve culture and community in a new place
• “It’ll be sunk, it’ll be gone”
3 of the 9 tables gave feedback that resists the notion that the island is going away:
• Elevate homes, build levee to stop erosion - future same as past
• We still have time -“Getting pushed out is hard”
• Feeling “pushed out” - Island is home
