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

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 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.

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