The purpose of this web site is to simplify comments and reviews of the 2002 I-49 Lafayette Connector Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Please enter comments under the relevant chapter or topic post.
Vol. 2, Appendix H - LCG Resolution of Locally Preferred Alternative
This resolution was adopted in February 2001. Are there aspects of the agreement that have changed or should have changed since that time?
Vol. 2, Appendix G - Joint Cooperative Endeavor Agreement (JCEA) -LCG Corridor Preservation and Management Action Plan to Preserve the I-49 Alignment
Joint Cooperative Endeavor Agreement (JCEA) -LCG Corridor Preservation and Management Action Plan to Preserve the I-49 Alignment
Have the proposedPhase I studies been completed, and if yes, where is the report? Is this plan and agreement complete? How should plans presented here be updated? How must it be changed if alignment is altered?
CONTENTS
- Plan of Archaeological Investigations for the Selected Alternative of the I-49 Connector, Lafayette, Louisiana
- Unmarked Human Burial Recovery Plan
- Information Management System
- Joint Cooperative Endeavor Agreement
Vol. 2, Appendix F - Memorandum of Agreement
This agreement is between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD), the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. It references the 106 report in EIS Appendix E, and gives stipulations to be followed.
Paragraph 12 states
Paragraph 12 states
This agreement will be null and void if its terms are not carried out within fifteen years from the date of its execution. Prior to such time, LaDOTD and FHW A may consult with the other signatories to reconsider the terms of the agreement if a lapse in right-of-way acquisition occurs for a period exceeding three years at any time during the course of the corridor preservation program and amend the agreement in accordance with Stipulation15 (Amendments and Noncompliance) below.
The last signature on the agreement is July 31, 2002. Therefore, it appears that this agreement ends at the end of July, 2017.
Are there changes that should now be considered that were not in the agreement?
Vol. 2, Appendix E - I-49 Connector Section 106 Report
Section 106 process requires Federal, Federally assisted, and Federally licensed undertakings to take into account the proposed effects of the undertaking (as referred to in 36 CFR 800.9), including noise and visual impacts, on properties listed on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), it was necessary to identify the area of potential effect for the 1-49 Connector. Through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and LaDOTD it was determined that the area of potential effect would include all that area within 1/4 mile (0.4 kilometer) of the outer limits of all alignments-resulting in a standing structure survey corridor measuring approximately 314-mile (1.2-kilometer) wide. However, as the area between the Union Pacific Railroad and the I-10/I-49 interchange was developed after World War II, that area was excepted from the standing structure survey by the SHPO (Appendix A).
After the long delay since the July 2000 publication, are parts of the exempted area still ineligible? What property has been added to the NRHP database since this report studied the area?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of the Undertaking .......................................................................... 5
B. Description of the Steps Taken to Identify Historic Properties .......................... 9
C. Description of the Affected Historic Properties ............................................... 11
C.l. Sterling Grove Historic District ................................................................. 11
C.Z. Trappey's Plant Complex........................................................................... 12
C.3. The Wallis Estate ....................................................................................... 14
D. Description of the Undertaking's Effects on Historic Properties ....................... 17
D .1. Sterling Grove Historic District ............ ..... ..... .......... .. ... . ... ........................ 17
D.2. Trappey's Plant Complex ........................................................................... 26
D.3. The Wallis Estate ....................................................................................... 33
E. Explanation of Why the Criteria of Adverse Effect Were Found
Applicable or Inapplicable, Including Any Efforts for Mitigation ..................... 42
E.l. Sterling Grove Historic District .... ...... ..... .. ..... ............... .. ... ..... ........ .......... 42
E.2. Trappey's Plant Complex ........................................................................... 43
E.3. The Wallis Estate ....................................................................................... 44
F. Copies of Any Views Provided by Consulting Parties or the Public ................. 45
References .................... ... ... .. ...... ... ......... .............. ....... ......... ......... ..... ....................... 57
Appendix A .......... ..... .. ........ ... ... ... ... ...... ... ........... .. ..... ... .. ........ ............... ................... 59
Vol 2, Appendix D - Gateway Lafayette Joint Use Agreement, and Project Permit at Beaver Park
This joint agreement applies to the Tourist Information Center and Landscaping in the median of Evangeline Throughway, US Highway 167. It provides for the Parish of Lafayette to remove buildings and landscaping when the lease is terminated.
The permit from DOTD allows the installation of a sidewalk along the right-of-way of Highway 90.
Appendix D Contents
- GATEWAY LAFAYETTE JOINT USE AGREEMENT .......................................... D-1 to D-16
- PROJECT PERMIT ..................................................................................................... D-17 to D-18
Vol 2, Appendix C - Documentation of Public Participation Program
This long appendix contains a large number of items. It is attempting to document public participation and comments on the project. We are now told of the strong public support given to the project prior to alternative selection in the early 2000's. Do the comments published in this appendix support that contention? What fraction of public officials and others that were contacted expressed support for the project? What fraction of public comments supported the project?
One possible example of complete disclosure in this appendix is in the failure to fully document all public meetings and comments. Why are the meeting reports cited under "Other Elements" (page C-ii) not incorporated in the appendix? Are these reports still available?
- List of recipients with indication of those for which comments were received
- Newspaper advertisement- Published in The Times of Acadiana (Lafayette) on 6/17/98
- Summary ofMIS/Mode Meeting
- Newspaper advertisement- Published in The Times of Acadiana (Lafayette) on 6/15/98 & 6/22/98
- Comments Received Post Public Hearing Report
- Agency Comments and Responses Regarding DEIS
One possible example of complete disclosure in this appendix is in the failure to fully document all public meetings and comments. Why are the meeting reports cited under "Other Elements" (page C-ii) not incorporated in the appendix? Are these reports still available?
APPENDIX C Contents:
OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
NOTICE OF INTENT ................................................................................................... C-1 to C-2
Published by office of the Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 711Tuesday, April 14, 1998
- SOLICITATION OF VIEWS AND RESPONSES RECEIVED ................................ C-3 to C-18
- List of recipients with indication of those for which comments were received
- 23 RESPONSES RECEIVED TO SOLICITATION OF VIEWS ............................... C-19 to C-87
- 3 ADDITIONAL LETTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOLICITATION OF VIEWS ............. C-89 to C-96
- MIS/MODE PUBLIC MEETING ................................................................................ C-97 to C-98
- Newspaper advertisement- Published in The Times of Acadiana (Lafayette) on 6/17/98
- Summary ofMIS/Mode Meeting
- PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE ...................................................................................... C-99
- Newspaper advertisement- Published in The Times of Acadiana (Lafayette) on 6/15/98 & 6/22/98
- MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE ..................................... C-101 to C-186
- DOCUMENTATION FOR DECEMBER 14, 2000, PUBLIC HEARING AND DEIS AGENCY COMMENTS .......................................................................... C-187 to C-214
- Comments Received Post Public Hearing Report
- Agency Comments and Responses Regarding DEIS
Vol 2, Appendix B - Technical Data
This appendix provides more information on noise, traffic, potential waste sites in the area, and water wells. Have important changes happened since this information was collected? Does this information support conclusions in Volume 1? Are there important conclusions that should have been drawn from this that were not included in Volume 1?
- ACOUSTICAL BACKGROUND AND TERMINOLOGY ............................................ B-1
- TABLE B-l: NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ........................................................... B-3
- TABLE B-2: WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS ...................................................... B-4
- TABLE B-3: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SOUND LEVELS .............................. B-5
- LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................................................................................. B-7 to B-8
- TABLE B-4: POTENTIAL AND CONFIRMED WASTE SITES AND STORAGE TANK FACILITIES WITHIN PROJECT AREA ................. B-9 to B-18
- TABLE B-5: WATER WELLS IN THE LAFAYETTE AREA ..................................... B-19toB-22
- TABLES B-6 thru B-11: ACOUSTICAL MITIGATION, NOISE BARRIERS ..........B-23 to B-28
Vol 2: Appendix A - Plan & Profile Plates
The scanned EIS plates are in the Volume 2 downloadable file from the link on the home page of this site. You may find better/ clearer maps at the official Connector government web site
http://lafayetteconnector.com/the-project/maps/
However, the original 2002 plates are the current final documents for review. If you find discrepancies with current conditions or online maps, please post a description of the discrepancy in the comments for this post.
http://lafayetteconnector.com/the-project/maps/
However, the original 2002 plates are the current final documents for review. If you find discrepancies with current conditions or online maps, please post a description of the discrepancy in the comments for this post.
7 REFERENCES
Are there new references that must now be considered in a revised EIS?
CHAPTER 7 - REFERENCES
6 LIST OF PREPARERS
Is this list appropriate still relevant? Who should now have participated that were not included in the 2002 EIS preparation?
CHAPTER 6 - LIST OF PREPARERS
5 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Chapter 5 details comments and coordination with other agencies and organizations. Were the comments properly addressed? Were there comments that were not included, and can those not included still be provided by the DOTD? Do the comments demonstrate support or opposition to the selected alternative?
CHAPTER 5 - COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
5.1 EARLY COORDINATION PROCESS
5.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM
5.3 AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE & MEETINGS
5.4 DISTRIBUTION OF FINAL EIS
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Chapter 4 presents the central information on impacts and consequences.
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 GENERAL EVALUA TION PROCEDURES
4.2 IMPACTS ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Land Use and Transportation.
a Land Use
b Transportation
4.2.2 Socioeconomics
a Neighborhoods
b Population
c Displacements and Right-of-Way
d Corridor Preservation
e Last Resort Housing Plan
f Economic Impacts. 4-34
4.2.3 Public Facilities and Services
4.2.4 Cultural Resources
4.2.5 Section 106 Statement
4.2.6 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Statements
4.2.7 Aesthetics and Joint Development
a Highway Design and Visual Qualities
b Joint Development and Corridor Opportunities
4.2.8 Community Design Workshop
4.2.9 Effects of Different Grade-Type Freeways
4.2.10 Noise Impacts 4-61
a. Noise Impact Prediction
b. Noise Abatement Measures
c Construction Noise
d Conclusions
4.2.11 Waste Sites
4.2.12 Lafayette Regional Airport
a Runway/Taxiway Displacement and Related Actions
b Airport Master Plan
c Right-of-way Requirements
d Access and Circulation
e Noise
f Air Quality
g Compatible Land Use
h Light Emissions
i Solid Waste
j Cultural Resources
k Floodplain and Wetlands
l Water Quality
m Environmental Justice
n Other Impact Categories
o Other Alternatives
p Cumulative Impacts
4.3 IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3.1 Water Resources and Hydraulics
a Water Resources
b Drainage and Hydraulics
4.3.2 Soils
4.3.3 Flora, Fauna, Wetlands, and Endangered Species
a Flora and Fauna
b Wetlands
c Prime Farmland
d Threatened and Endangered Species
4.3.4 Air Quality Impacts
a Air Quality Modeling Methods
b Results
c Air Quality Construction Impacts
d Summary
4.4 GENERAL IMP ACTS AND OTHER CONCERNS
4.4.1 Construction Impacts.
a Maintenance of Traffic
b Water Resources
c Landfill and Borrow Operations
d Vegetation
e Wildlife
4.4.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
4.4.3 Potential Permits
4.5 IMPACTS OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
4.5.1 Live Oak Trees Near Sterling Grove Historic District
4.5.2 Transportation
a Traffic Operations
b Access and Circulation to Area Businesses
c Access and Circulation to St. Genevieve Church and School
d Geometric Features
4.5.3 Pumping Stations
4.5.4 Right-of-Way and Displacements
a Simcoe Street
b Jefferson Street
4.5.5 Opportunities for Use of Under Bridge Areas and Right-of-Way
a Sterling Grove Historic District Visual Mitigation
b Linear Parks, Path Systems or Other Uses
4.5.6 Constrnction Costs
4.6 STERLING GROVE HISTORIC DISTRICT MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
4.7 MEMORANDUMOFAGREEMENT
4.8 LAST RESORT HOUSING PLAN
4.9 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS (FOR SELECTED ALTERNATIVE)
4.10 STUDY OF OAK TREE NEAR CASTILLE/THRUWAY INTERSECTION
REFERENCES
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
How have changes since 2002 affected these analyses. What new facilities are now impacted?
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS AREAS
3.2 HUMANENVIRONMENT
3.2.1 Land Use and Transportation
a Existing Land Use
b Transportation
3.2.2 Socioeconomics
a Neighborhoods
b Population Characteristics and Trends
c Housing and Household Characteristics
d Economic Characteristics
3.2.3 Public Facilities and Services
3.2.4 Recreational Facilities
3.2.5 Cultural Resources
a Archaeological Sites
b Standing Structures
3.2.6 Section 4(t), 106 and 6(t) Properties
3.2.7 Noise
a Existing Noise Levels
b Model Calibration
3.2.8 Waste Sites
a Introduction and Methodology
b Storage Tanks
c Hazardous Wastes
3.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
3.3.1 Water Resources and Hydraulics
a Water Resources
b Drainage and Hydraulics
3.3.2 Soils and Geology
a Surface Geology
b Soils
3.3.3 Flora, Fauna, Wetlands, and Endangered Species
a Flora (plants)
b Fauna (wildlife)
c Wetlands
d Threatened and Endangered Species
3.3.4 Air Quality
a Existing Air Quality
REFERENCES
2 ALTERNATIVES
How have the conditions changed that led to selection of the preferred alternative?
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES
2.1 SELECTION OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
2.2.1 Types of Improvements
a No-Build
b Full Freeway
2.2.2 Alignment and Interchange Alternatives
a EA-1 Elevated
b EA-1 Selected Overpasses
c General Discussion of The RR Alternatives
d RR-3 Elevated
e RR-3 Selected Overpasses
f RR-4 Elevated
g RR-5 Elevated
2.2.3 Basic Laneage and Traffic Operations
a Basic Laneage
b Traffic Operations
2.2.4 Costs
2.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY
2.3.1 Rejected Conceptual Highway Types
2.3.2 Rejected Alignment and Interchange Alternatives
2.4 LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.4.1 Alignment and Subaltematives
2.4.2 Description of Subaltemative F Modified (MPO Subaltemative)
2.5 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
This chapter deals first with the connection of this project to plans at all levels of government. How have changes since 2002 made the conclusions in this chapter suspect or wrong?
It also deals with impacts on traffic and land use. We need to ask how changes in affect the conclusions here. This chapter also deals with land use plans. As an example, the impact of the urban connector on sprawl and development of commuter subdivisions south in Iberia Parish should be considered. This would also be a place to comment on how financing as a toll road which is now being considered would impact traffic projections and future land use impacts.
Finally, this is the chapter that addresses the Airport runway extension. We need to look at deficiencies in the EIS, and significant changes since 2002.
CHAPTER 1 -PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1.2 DESCRJPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
1.3 NEED FOR PROJECT
1.3.1 System Linkage
a National Plans
b State Plans
c Regional Plans
d Local Plans
1.3.2 Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions
1.3.3 Regional Transportation and Land Use Plans
1.3.4 Legislation and Governmental Support
1.3.5 Modal Interrelationships
1.3.6 Safety
1.3.7 Hurricane Evacuation
1.3.8 Economic Factors
a Port Facility Access
b Increased Mobility
c Reduced Vehicle Operating Costs
d Joint Development
1.3.9 Lafayette Regional Airport Runway Extension
REFERENCES
SUMMARY
The summary chapter is most important because it is the only section many readers will have time to read. As other chapters and appendices are reviewed, we need to also review the related sections of the summary to confirm that it faithfully represents the information found in the bulk of the EIS report. The summary chapter contains the following sections and sub sections.
Enter your review input as comments. Comments related to specific sections should list that/those sections from the list above. The Summary Chapter review is also the place to leave reviews which do not fit under other chapters.
S.l DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
S.2 OTHER MAJOR ACTIONS PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
S.3 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
S.3.1 Types ofImprovements
S.3.2 Freeway Alternatives
S.3.3 Typical Sections
S.4 MAJOR IMP ACTS OF PROJECT
S.4.1 Areas o f Concern
S.4.2 Adverse Impacts
S.4.3 Positive Impacts
S.5 SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
S.5.1 Summary Matrix
S.5.2 Locally Preferred Alternative
S.5.3 Selected Alternative
S.5.4 Basis For Record ofDecision
S.6 COMMITMENTS, MITIGATION, AND ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT
S.6.1 Commitments and Mitigation Measures
S.6.2 Other Federal Actions RequiredEnter your review input as comments. Comments related to specific sections should list that/those sections from the list above. The Summary Chapter review is also the place to leave reviews which do not fit under other chapters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)