Category: Chicot Aquifer

Finally, A Fresh Connector Update: Tier III Studies Now Underway; LFT Airport Runway Issues Resolved; New Design For University/Surrey & Kaliste Saloom Interchanges, And More

Well..after three months of what seemed to be inaction, the I-49 Connector Concept Refinement Process/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/CSS Design processes seem to be back in action now.

On Wednesday and Thursday, two of the Connector CSS Committees – Community Work Group on Wednesday and Technical Advisory Committee on Thursday – had their first meetings in three months to get an update from the Lafayette Connector Partners consultant team on progress with the project. In case you have missed it, the LCP team recently got their contract extended for another 2-1/2 years in order to complete the Supplemental EIS and produce a new revised alternative to the freeway design approved in 2003.

The main points that came across from the meetings can be summarized below.

First, some major design tweaking was finalized on the southern section near Lafayette Regional Airport, in response to some major issues that had to be resolved.

The original concept passed by the 2003 ROD assumed that one of the LFT runways (Runway 11-29) would have to be displaced by 350 feet to allow for a regulation design for the University Avenue/Surrey Street overpass of the Connector mainline to avoid violating that runway’s flight path. In October of last year, however, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposed new rules requiring airports to install Emergency Materials Arrestor Systems (EMAS) runway extensions to prevent overruns of aircraft; this would have potentially added an additional 300 feet of runway extension to the already planned 350 feet displacement that would have been required for the Connector freeway.

Given that such an addition would have required taking far more wetlands than would have been proposed, the FHWA and the LCP was forced to reassess the design for the University/Surrey interchange and develop alternatives that would not require the runway displacement. This is required because Section 404 regulations are pretty tough on displacing wetlands.

The alternatives discussed included:

— Lowering the profile of the Connector freeway overpass over University/Surrey so that the existing flight path (without the 350′ runway displacement) would be retained. This would be accompanied by lowering the grade of University/Surrey to allow standard vertical clearance below the underpass.

— Shifting the design of the University/Surrey interchange so that University/Surrey would pass over the Connector freeway on a partially elevated structure, while the Connector mainline would be partially depressed to cross underneath University/Surrey.

— Shifting the alignment of University/Surrey sightly to the north to move the interchange further away from the glide path of Runway 11-29. This would, however, come with some major issues of taking land from Beaver Park, which is a Section 4(f) property, and potentially taking access from a boat launching facility for Beaver Lake, which would be a potential Section 6(f) violation. Both 4(f) and 6(f) regulations require that alternatives be taken to prevent taking of protected resources.

Ultimately, it was decided that the best and most cost efficient course was Option #1: reduce the profile of the Connector overpass and lower University/Surrey. This effectively removes the risk to Runway 11-29’s glide path and allows for the EMAS extensions to be implemented.

Another significant change was the revision of the design for the proposed Kaliste Saloom Road interchange. The original design approved by the 2003 ROD called for a 3-way fully directional interchange with flyover ramps over the Connector mainline and BNSF/UP railroad mainline. The highest ramp (from northbound Kaliste Saloom to the northbound frontage road and northbound Connector mainline) would be up to 40 feet high. Here’s an illustration graphic of the original proposal (from the presentation given at the latest meetings, via the Lafayette Connector website):

Also notice how the original design had the southbound frontage road wrap around the back of the Acadiana Dodge car dealership, and how the original ramps and access road connecting Kaliste Saloom Road and Hugh Wallis Road conflict with a hotel establishment that was recently built.

In its place, the LCP design team created an interesting alternative design which reduced both the ROW required and the height of the interchange. The flyover ramps are replaced by a single structure where the left turning movements (from east bound Kaliste Saloom Road to northbound Evangeline Thruway/I-49 and from northbound I-49 frontage road to westbound Kaliste Saloom) meet and cross each other at grade, similar to a Single Point interchange. In addition, the connecting access road between Kaliste Saloom and Hugh Wallis is shifted south to parallel the new Kaliste Saloom overpass structure, and split into two roadways which connect to Kaliste Saloom Rd. via RIRO (Right-In-Right-Out) connections just east of the Episcopal School of Acadiana entrance.

The new design also shifts the southbound frontage road to flank the Connector mainline, passing in front of Acadiana Dodge rather than behind it. There was some concern that such a design would require taking the showroom of the dealership, but apparently that has been resolved.

In addition to these changes, the LCP team also addressed which Potential Design Modifications (PDMs) would advance into the Tier III process. The page below lists all the PDMs considered. The ones highlighted in black are the ones that advanced into Tier III and will be incorporated into the End-to-End Alternatives to be studied in the SEIS; the red highlighted ones are those that were totally rejected; and the blue highlighted ones were to be further negotiated and discussed.

The most striking aspect about this list is that the blue highlighted PDMs that remain to be resolved all have to do with enhancements desired by Lafayette Consolidated Government to mitigate the impact of the Connector through the central core of Lafayette, but which by law the Federal and state government couldn’t fund directly as part of the project. This means that if LCG wants to have a signature bridge or pedestrian walkways or a higher clearance for the elevated structures, they would have to find the revenue to pay for it. That may be a significant sticking point, considering the paucity of funding and the general attitude against taxation.

Another real sticking point comes around the rejection of PDM #23-7, a proposed “dogbone roundabout” design for the Willow Street interchange.  The Evangeline Corridor Initiative, a project of the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team that was paid for by a Federal TIGER Grant, had proposed a different interchange design for Willow: a large rotary circle interchange in which an arch-like structure would straddle the elevated mainline to serve as a gateway for North Lafayette.

The LCP design team, though, had blown off the ECI’s proposal in favor of studying the “dogbone roundabout” design, which they have developed and implemented in other areas. Their traffic studies found that such a design would not work for Willow Street due to heavy turning volumes between Willow Street and the Evangeline Thruway/Connector, and pretty much recommended the original “slip ramp” diamond interchange design approved by the 2003 ROD.

Obviously, representatives of the ECI were not too happy, as seen in this snippage of coverage of the meetings from the Lafayette Advertiser:

Kevin Blanchard, who sits on the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team working for the city to improve the Evangeline Thruway area in conjunction with the I-49 project, was surprised to learn the ETRT’s plan for a rotary circle with signature feature at Willow Street has been scrapped by the I-49 planners.

The I-49 Connector will be elevated as it crosses Willow Street, a gateway into the city. Blanchard said the ETRT team proposed a large rotary circle with a gateway feature such as an arch that would add value to the urban space.

Blanchard asked for a comparison of traffic volumes expected in a roundabout versus a rotary circle.

“We’re talked in this process about partnering with locals,” he said. “Let’s look at what was proposed locally, which was not a roundabout. It is one of the priorities of the ETRT.”

This isn’t the first time that the ETRT has clashed directly with the Connector planners; it took the ECI to force the LCP and LADOTD to even consider the Partially Depressed/Cut and Cover options for Tier II, only to have it removed from further consideration with great consternation in Feburary.

The next steps for the LCP will be to finalize and introduce to the public the End-to-End Alternatives, that will then be refined and reduced to two finalist Supplemental Alternatives, which will then be fully vetted through the Supplemental EIS process. The original 2003 EIS/ROD Selected Alternative will also be included, but only as a control for comparison to the others. It’s assumed that a Supplemental Preferred Alternative would be presented prior to the release of the Draft SEIS, probably by spring of next year, with a Final SEIS/Supplemental ROD approved by fall of 2018, and the remainder of the Corridor Functional Plan process involving finalization of the CSS design elements finished by October of 2019.

Unless, of course, the Sierra Club and Citizens for Good Government decide to intervene with their inevitable lawsuit challenging the SEIS/SROD for threatening the Chicot Aquifer and pushing for their favored Teche Ridge Bypass.

As always, I’ll break in this space here with any further developments.

How Little Lies Grow Big (Or…Nope, The Connector Is NOT Going To Poison Lafayette’s Drinking Water)

My last post pretty much detailed the latest attempt by opponents of the Connector freeway project to exploit legitimate concern over the former Southern Pacific rail yard and potential possible contamination of the Chicot Aquifer, which provides Lafayette’s drinking water.

Well…further investigation confirms my initial belief that this is more blown up hype than actual threat. I’m not saying that clean water isn’t important, just that the screams from Connector opponents using this as a wedge to divert the project away are not as justified as they think.

The trigger of all this was a presentation on April 3rd given by the main anti-Connector group Concerned Citizens for Good Government (CCGG). They were the official group that sponsored the lawsuit in 2003-2004 which attempted to void the Record of Decision (ROD) issued in Feburary of that year, citing deliberate distortion and underreporting of harms to the neighborhoods affected by the freeway project through Lafayette. That lawsuit was dismissed by District Judge Tucker Melancon in August of 2004; whence he ruled that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had followed correctly all its guidelines and protocols in their approval processes concerning the Connector. The ruling was appealed to the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but was upheld.

The CCGG then went a bit dormant until last year, when the LADOTD, FHWA, and Lafayette Consolidated Government decided to revive the Connector design and engineering study process with their Conceptual Design/CSS Study and preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Reviving their opposition to the Connector project as destructive to the “heart of Lafayette”; the CCGG were backing as an alternative an eastern bypass through St. Martin Parish along the Teche-Coteau Ridge above, refered to as the Teche Ridge Bypass.

While the main opposition from the CCGG in the original lawsuit was due to the possible impacts on the Sterling Grove Historical District which lies just to the east of the Connector right-of-way; an increasing point of opposition has become the direct impact of the elevated freeway on the property formerly used by Southern Pacific Railroad up to the 1950’s for their major classification and maintenance rail yard. The Connector ROW would transverse through the former rail yard property, which stands between the current Evangeline Thruway and the existing main rail line now used by BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad.

Map of old Southern Pacific rail yard in Lafayette, circa 1940’s.
Google Earth overview of former SP Rail Yard property boundary over existing Lafayette, with location of nearby Lafayette Utility System water wells. (From CCGG slideshow presentation)
Proposed Concept 4-2 (Elevated with Grand Boulevard) for I-49 Lafayette Connector freeway; showing relationship to former SP rail yard between Johnston and Taft streets. (from LafayetteConnector.com)

The concern of a major project such as the Connector affecting the drinking water of a major city is most certainly legitimate, and I’m most certainly not going to cast aspersions on those who do fear the worst. However, as has been the case for much of the main opponents of this project, further research shows that this concern has been blown up so far out of proportion into a scare campaign long on propaganda and rage, and short on actual facts. That is, when they don’t twist them to suit their agenda.

Some background here: a new lawsuit is now undergoing litigation that seeks to force the original owners of the Southern Pacific rail yard property, now UPRR, to pay the full costs of cleaning up the contamination of the site; and also seeks to force the federal EPA, state Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ), and Lafayette Utility Services (LUS) to declare the site and all water wells drawing water from the vicinity to be declared hazardous areas to be cordoned off and removed. LUS is involved in this because the main legal counsel for the lawsuit, William Goodell, Jr., had a very public press conference last December where he revealed that some contamination had been found in some LUS water wells surrounding the rail yard site, including trace elements of benzene, arsenic, and other pollutants. It is only a mere coincidence that Goodell was surrounded at his presser by representatives of the Greater Lafayette Sierra Club and by “activist” Michael Waldon. It is also just coincidence that the Sierra Club has been the principal opponent to the Connector project, and that Waldon is passionately opposed to the project enough to have a whole blog dedicated to trashing…ahhh, I mean, opposing it.

[Update (4-21-17): Michael Waldon has posted a comment to this post clarifying that he is NOT a plaintiff in the Goddell lawsuit; the correction is noted here. Also, much gratitude to Mr. Waldon for his graciousness, even if we disagree on the fundamentals regarding the Connector project.)

Which brings us to that April 3rd CCGG meeting, where Goodell, Waldon, and other Connector opponents and eco-worriers expressed their shock and horror that such a project would threaten to poison the people of Lafayette.

As we shall see, though, it’s more hype than real.

Part of the meeting was a slideshow presentation by Mr. Waldon where he attempted to make the case as to why the Connector was a dire threat to Chicot Aquifer and the water supply of Lafayette. The full slideshow is available here (via Google Drive); the group has also posted a video of the full meeting on YouTube.

For the record, Mr. Waldon’s credentials for this debate rests on his experience as a former hydrologist for the US Fish & Wildlife Service and his degrees in Environmental Engineering; he also teached at the local university in Lafayette transitioning between USL (Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana) and UL(L) (Univ. of Louisiana (Lafayette)).

Waldon starts with a history of the SP rail yard; serving freight and passenger rail traffic between Houston and New Orleans from as far back as the 1880’s up until 1959, when SP built an updated classification yard west of Lafayette near Walker Road.  Strangely enough, he does not go into what happened with the property for the nearly 60 years after the rail yard was abandoned. In a previous post here, I filled in those blanks:

It should be noted, of course, that the SPRR railyard has been inoperationable since the 1950’s, and that the property has been very much inactive save for the Consolidated Companies (“Conco”) distribution warehouse located at the intersection of the southbound Evangeline Thruway and Taft Street. There were earlier lawsuits that sought to mitigate the cleanup of the site by having Union Pacific pay for the full costs, but they were settled privately out of court.

A full article with details of the etology of the Goodell lawsuit appears here.

The Conco distribution plant is the only remaining active parcel left on the rail yard property, save for a gas station located on Johnston Street between the BNSF/UP RR crossing and southbound Evangeline Thruway. The remainder of the property appears to be abandoned.

Waldon’s presentation then goes into a geological description of the Chicot Aquifer itself:

Description of Chicot Aquifer geology (from CCGG presentation)

If anything, this graph actually understates the protection that the current aquifer has underneath Lafayette, because the clay layer protecting the water-laden sand is actually pretty thick in itself (15 to 20 feet), below the 30-40 foot surface soil. Considering that pilings for the Connector’s elevated structures would be dug generally to a depth of 30 feet, that should insure that the clay protective layer would not even be touched, let alone penetrated to the extent that the aquifer would be breached. Detailed soil borings that are required during the design and preliminary engineering process now ongoing would verify a lot of things.

Indeed, even if it was possible that the aquifer could be even remotely breached, it’s not as if LADOTD engineers and consultants aren’t aware of the issue and don’t have procedures and protocols available. This is straight from the 2003 Record of Decision, concerning possible impact of the Connector on the Chicot Aquifer:

In addition to all that, a Level 2 Site Assessment is now ongoing explicitly for the former railyard site as part of the Supplemental EIS, and an understanding has been reached with LADOTD where any cleanup of that site will be paid for through billing the original owners…which would be UPRR. LADOTD would be responsible for any costs of cleanup involving excavation for the pilings and direct ROW impacts.

Nevertheless, this probably won’t prevent Waldon from pushing on with his real agenda of stopping the Connector, since he apparently knows more than even the LADEQ hydrologists about the harms done by evil elevated freeways.

Moving on…we skip to this board where MW lists the contaminants that have been verified and are suspected to be found in the soils of the rail yard.

List of known and suspected contaminants found at former SP railyard (from CCGG presentation)

Now, that list does include some very bad dudes indeed. Arsenic can kill you in one drop. Creosote, used as a preservative for rail ties, is very toxic. No one will say that a site loaded up with that much waste shouldn’t be cleaned up, especially with a major freeway going through it. If this was Times Beach-level contamination, the hype would be worth it.

Problem is, though, the actual evidence defuses the screams of a potential toxic nightmare.

Lafayette Utilities Systems (LUS) is the local agency that regulates the quality of Lafayette’s water supply, and they are stringently regulated by LADEQ and the EPA to enforce the highest quality water standards. To that effect they are required to give an annual report on the quality of Lafayette’s drinking water using benchmark standards provided by the EPA. The last report covers inspections from 2015, and it gave Lafayette a solid, clean, bill of health regarding their drinking water supply. Remember, this covers Lafayette’s overall water quality, not just the area surrounding the rail yard. This chart from the report shows the prerequisite stats and values for the usual contaminants:

Lafayette Utilities System’s Water Quality Report for 2015 chart for contaminants (via LUS website, highlights added by me)

I’ve highlighted the values for some contaminants for a reason: those happen to be the very contaminants that Waldon, Goddell, and the Sierra Club plantiffs exploit the most to fuel the hyped dangers of the Chicot Aquifer being breached and polluted by the Connector freeway.

Take for example, arsenic. Waldon attempts in his presentation to magnify the threat by claiming that even a little bit of arsenic can be deadly to anyone’s water supply. What he conveniently ignores, though, is that the percentage of contamination of arsenic in Lafayette’s water is actually one-fifth of the value that the EPA declares as the benchmark for dangerous (2 parts per billion for Lafayette as compared to the 10 ppb standard). Zero, of course, would be the preferred standard, but considering that Lafayette is a huge city and that the rail yard has been inactive for nearly 60 years, there really is no danger of mass arsenic poisoning.

The same could be said of dichlorobenzene (DCB) which is a proven contaminant. The CCGG presentation (backed by a Goodell presser in January) makes major noises about how DCB has been found in the presence of water wells in north Lafayette since 2008 up to the latest 2015 report, and how that most definitely indicts and convicts the rail yard as THE source of contamination.

CCGG Presentation of alleged documented contamination of water wells in Lafayette by dichlorobenzene (DCB).

A look at the actual LUS 2015 report chart, though, says otherwise: the maximum rate for DCB was 0.25 ppb, as compared to the contamination benchmark set by the EPA of 75 ppb.

So…60 years of dormancy for a former rail yard has produced levels of contamination of Lafayette’s drinking water that don’t even begin to approach rudimentary levels of danger by EPA’s own standards?

Funny thing is, why wasn’t there that much concern about the railyard and its environmental after effects from these folks before the Connector freeway was envisioned? Oh, I know, the original plan was for the freeway to follow the Evangeline Thruway and avoid cutting through the rail yard site, but that would have devastated residents fronting the Thruway and McComb-Veazay. Is this newly found concern about the purity of Lafayette’s drinking water really just a ruse to find a new base for the next set of lawsuits forthcoming to halt the Connector and impose the more friendly to some people’s interest Teche Ridge Bypass?

My latter suspicion is confirmed by what Waldon does next in his presentation. He does actually acknowledge that the current Connector SEIS process now includes the Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment for the rail yard that he originally said LADOTD would never, ever do; but then he muses that none of this is available to the public. (This is a standard grip that Waldon and the Teche Ridge lobbyists have for the Connector process overall.) Indeed, Waldon, in concluding his presentation, makes the same old tired accusations that the Connector public input process is corrupted because no one from his side was allowed to add feedback.

CCGG presentation board of alleged “deficiencies” of Lafayette Connector Stage 2 ESA and entire CSS process.

Of course, “no public involvement” means that Waldon and his Teche Ridge lobbyists weren’t able to dominate the Connector CSS meetings with hordes of “citizens” jumping to the mic to condemn this “evil monstrosity” and impose their “common sense” bypass route. Even though Waldon was able to literally cut and paste his entire blog into the record for the November public meeting before the Tier II process concluded. Even though Connector opponents were able to invade the Community Work Group and made an effort to impose their desired solution of Teche Ridge plus a “high speed boulevard” before they were found out and called out by Transportation Secretary Shawn Wilson. But no, the “public is being denied!!”

The best response to hyperbole is still to give out the facts and let reasonable people judge them by their merits. The process will tell the tale of whether the I-49 Lafayette Connector will be a net positive for the city or not…but in the meantime, beware of fearmongers selling nonsense in the name of “protection”. The only thing they are really protecting is their privilege.

The Connector And The Chicot Aquifer: A Threat Or A Ruse?

Now that it is more likely that the I-49 Connector freeway through Lafayette, if it is ultimately built, will be elevated through Lafayette, the battle lines are now more being more clearly drawn….especially by those who oppose the project and would rather it diverted east through the Teche Ridge Bypass.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the issue in which Connector opponents will hitch their battle on for defeating the project will be the possible impact on Lafayette’s Chicot Aquifer, which serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city.

After almost a year of inactivity, Michael Waldon’s Connector Comments blog in opposition to the project has revived itself in a fury of posts centered on the dire threat that the freeway project would pose to the drinking water supply of Lafayette.

The trigger for all this is a lawsuit currently ongoing in Federal court against the Union Pacific Railroad over their ownership of property in central Lafayette that used to serve for years by Southern Pacific Railroad as their main classification and distribution yard. The former site, which was abandoned in 1954 when the current rail classification yard was built west of Lafayette, used to house both maintenance facilities and reclassification for SP trains using the Lafayette Subdivision.

The lawsuit ostensively seeks to force the current owners of the property underlying the former rail yard, UPRR, to pay for a full environmental assessment and cleanup of the facility.

However, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit also have a second, more direct objective: to reveal the levels of contamination that the rail yard has caused, as a means to elevate concerns that construction of the Connector freeway would potentially threaten mass contamination of Lafayette’s water supply.

The prevailing theory is that pilings that would have to be dug to support an elevated freeway would threaten the protective layer of clay soils that overlay the aquifer, and possibly cause a breach that would allow hazardous materials into the water-bearing soils. In addition, there is the concern that driving pilings directly into the soils at the rail yard site would introduce a direct risk to the aquifer’s protection.

The Chicot Aquifer’s protective clay layer generally runs from 40 to 60 feet above the actual aquifer soils along the Connector’s stated route; the pilings that would be dropped to support the elevated structure would generally need 30 feet of depth. During the earlier Connector Environmental Impact study which led to the 2003 Record of Decision, it was noted that while there would be some potential weakening of protection for the aquifer, it could be managed through special design and construction techniques and outreach with state Department of Environmental Quality and local officials.

This latest lawsuit, however, has upped the ante a bit by citing that Lafayette’s water supply has recently been found to be breached with some marginal contamination from the railyard, including traces of arsenic, benzene, and other potential hazardous chemicals. The contamination was found to be below the levels of contamination set by the federal EPA, and mitigatable through treatment; nevertheless, the Lafayette Sierra Club (one of the plantiffs in the UPRR railyard suit) was inflamed enough to issue an open letter (warning, link is to PDF document via Google Drive) to Lafayette Consolidated Government officials calling for the following:

1) The shut off of all water wells drawing water from the Chicot Aquifer near the railyard site, pending a full assessment of the contamination;

2) The immediate closure and screening off of the railyard site as an official hazardous waste (“Superfund”) site;

3) A full assessment and cleanup of the site, paid for by the UPRR (in their capacity as the current owners of the SPRR).

Not surprisingly, since the Sierra Club is essentially the lead group for opponents to the Connector project, and Michael Waldon has also been one of their chief spokespeople as well as a long-time opponent of the project, he has exploited this issue to the fullest in brandishing the opposition. (In fact, the Connector Concepts blog notes that Waldon has been involved with the original plaintiffs in this lawsuit from the beginning; which include environmental attorney William Goddell, Jr. and original 2004 Connector lawsuit plaintiff Kim Goddell (William’s wife??); all of them spoke to a public anti-Connector meeting on January 19th sponsored by the Sierra Club’s Y-49 group.)

(Update 4-21-17: The previous paragraph has been corrected to reflect Michael Waldon’s role in support of the plaintiffs in the Goddell lawsuit; he is not, as I mistakenly noted originally, an actual plaintiff. My thanks to Mr. Waldon for noting the discrepancy of mine, and for his graciousness and congeniality, even as we are on opposite sides of this issue.)

Why this sudden shift in strategy by Connector opponents? Because the contamination issue is really the only issue that could potentially stop the Connector in its tracks. The last lawsuit in 2004 against the Connector ROD was based on the impacts to the Sterling Grove Historical District and the process not including any alternatives like the Teche Ridge Bypass; but that suit was totally rejected by US District Judge Tucker Melancon; and upheld on appeal.

It should be noted, of course, that the SPRR railyard has been inoperationable since the 1950’s, and that the property has been very much inactive save for the Consolidated Companies (“Conco”) distribution warehouse located at the intersection of the southbound Evangeline Thruway and Taft Street. There were earlier lawsuits that sought to mitigate the cleanup of the site by having Union Pacific pay for the full costs, but they were settled privately out of court.

In the meantime, the current consultants overseeing the current Conceptual Design Study and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process for determining the final design for the Connector project are also reassessing what degree of impact the railyard site would have. Some advocates of the now rejected Partially Depressed/Covered design option have advocated that LADOTD, in addition to any direct mitigation for any ROW used over the rail site, should also foot the costs for a full Stage 2 Environmental Assessment for the site and perhaps even pay the full cost for remediation and cleanup. LADOTD’s stated policy is only to pay for remediation costs directly related to ROW takings such as pile driving or excavation.

In addition, the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT), endowed by the LCG with developing means to mitigate the footprint of the Connector on the surrounding neighborhood, has suggested the same approach, with an eye on future development of the former site property.

In response, LADOTD (through Transportation Secretary Shawn Wilson, who is on the Executive Committee overseeing the project design) has said that while DOTD would not pay for a full remediation, LCG would not have to either, since standard protocol is to bill the property owners responsible for the contamination to begin with (i.e., UPRR).

The environmental reevaluation and SEIS process for the Connector project does include an updated assessment of the railyard site and other potential hazardous properties. A Stage 1 Assessment was already done for the entire Connector corridor last year, which did mark the rail yard for future investigation. Further analysis will be undertaken with the SEIS process; although Waldon naturally still is miffed that he had to undergo a Freedom of Information Act request to release the current information; and that the assessment in his view deliberately undersold the risk by not including the information from the Goddell lawsuit regarding contamination of the water wells.

All in all, the concern with the Chicot Aquifer and the Southern Pacific Railroad site is legitimate enough that those of us who support the Connector freeway project should demand LADOTD take the full measure to maximize protection for the drinking supply of Lafayette. Whether all the fuss thrown up by the Goddell lawsuit and Y-49 turns out to be real or just another amplified ruse to divert I-49 through Teche Ridge? That remains to be seen.