The Chicot Aquifer and the I-49

Connector Project
A Primer

What is an Aquifer?
An Aquifer is Not An
Underground Lake or River

An aquifer is a geological
structure of sand and rock
that is saturated with
water and permeable
enough for water to readily
flow through it.

General Types of Aquifers

Water in Well Will Only
Rise to the Level in the Aquifer

Well
Unsaturated
Zone

Water Table

Unconfined
Aquifer

Saturated
Zone

Bedrock or Other Impermeable Layer

Recharge
Area

Water Rises in Well

To This Level

Perched
Water

Water Freely Flows

From the Top
Of This Well

Water Table

Lower Confining Layer

(Bedrock or Other
Impermeable Layer)

Co
n
(Un fine
de d A
r P qu
res ife
sur r
e)

Upper Confining
Layer

Unconfined aquifers are

those into which water seeps
from the ground surface
directly above the aquifer.
Confined aquifers are those
in which an upper layer
exists that inhibits water
from seeping into the
aquifer from the ground
surface located directly
above. Instead, water seeps
into confined aquifers from
farther away where the
impermeable layer doesn't
exist. Faults and other
naturally occurring
irregularities in the upper
confining unit can allow for
localized seepage into the
aquifer.
http://techalive.mtu.edu/meec/module04/Basics3.htm

The Hydrologic Water Cycle

Condensation

Transpiration

Rain

Evaporation

Rain

Rain

Rain

Recharge

Run
of

Run
of
Uppe

r Con

fining

of
Run
Ru

Unit

Infiltration
Recharge

Percolation

Infiltration is the rate which water will be absorbed into the soil.
Percolation is the rate which water will flow downward in the soil.

Recharge

nof

Chicot Aquifer In Louisiana

Map Derived from:

Department of The Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations
Report 86-4348 Sheet 1 of 2

in
as

Some
Recharge
From
Atchafalaya
Basin

aB
lay
afa
ch
At

Chicot
Aquifer
Recharge
Area

The Chicot Aquifer

is Extremely
Important to South
and Southwest
Louisiana

Sole Source Aquifer

The only or primary
source of drinking
water for the entire
area
The Chicot Aquifer
Covers approximately 9,000
Square Miles
The Chicot Aquifer is a
Confined Aquifer
The primary recharge areas
are in the northern area of
the aquifer (Rapides,
Evangeline, Allen Vernon,
and Beauregard Parishes)
and some recharge comes
from the Atchafalaya Basin.

Thickness of the Chicot Aquifer

Upper Confining Unit

According to the
U.S.G.S., the confining
unit above the Chicot
Aquifer in Lafayette
Parish ranges from less
than 40 feet in the
southern end of the
Parish to between 80120 feet thick along
the west.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Technical Report No 73
2004, Page 10

Chicot Aquifer in Lafayette Parish

Shallow Sand
(Limited Production)

Perched Water
(Not Producible)

Shallow Sand
(Limited Production)

Upper Confining Unit

Chicot Aquifer
Upper Sand
500 Feet Depth
Chicot Aquifer
Lower Sand
900 Feet De
pth
Evangeline Aquifer
(Salt Water)
Not to Scale.
Conceptual Only.

* U.S.G.S. found shallow sands in the

southeastern and western parts of the parish.
Shallow sands have limited production.

The Lafayette
Utilities Systems
public water supply
wells that produce
water for its North
Water Plant are
generally screened in
the Lower Sand. The
water supply wells
that produce water
for its South Water
Plant are generally
screened in the Upper
Sand.

Source: Derived from U.S. Geological Survey

Water Resources Technical Report No 73
2004, Page 4.

I-49 Connector Development Process

(FHWA Regulations)
I-49 Connector is a Federal Highway Administration Project
Title 23 CFR, Highways, 635.309 Authorization.
Authorization to advertise the physical construction for bids or to proceed with force
account construction thereof shall normally be issued as soon as, but not until, all of the
following conditions have been met:
.
(j) The FHWA Division Administrator has determined that requirements of 23 CFR part 771 have
been fulfilled and appropriate measures have been included in the PS&E (Plans,
Specifications & Estimates) to ensure that conditions and commitments made in the
development of the project to mitigate environmental harm will be met.
Title 23 CFR, Highways 771.109 Applicability and responsibilities.
.
(b) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant, in cooperation with the Administration to
implement those mitigation measures stated as commitments in the environmental
documents prepared pursuant to this regulation. The FHWA will assure that this is
accomplished as a part of its program management responsibilities that include reviews of designs,
plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), and construction inspections. The UMTA
(Urban Mass Transit Administration) will assure implementation of committed mitigation
measures through incorporation by reference in the grant agreement, followed by reviews of
designs and construction inspections.
Emphasis added.

I-49 Connector Development Process

(Environmental Impact Statement)

Commitments are Detailed in the

Environmental Impact Statement
Commitment 7 Waste Sites:

Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement

I-49 Connector, Lafayette, Louisiana
August 2002.

I-49 Connector Development Process

(Environmental Impact Statement)

Commitments are Detailed in the

Environmental Impact Statement
Commitment 9 Chicot Aquifer:

Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement

I-49 Connector, Lafayette, Louisiana
August 2002.

The Chicot Aquifer and

the I-49 Connector
In 2003 the FHWA
issued its Record of
Decision on the I-49
Connector project
and the corridor
through Lafayette
has been approved.

Source: http://lafayetteconnector.com/project-library/#1447192936646-880357ac-d953

I-49 Connector Development Process

(Record of Decision by FHWA)
3. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
This section of the Record of Decision Lists 21 Commitments That Must Be
Adhered to And Are Part of the Basis of the Approval of the Project.

Waste Sites
Discussion from
the Record Of
Decision

Source: Record of Decision

I-49 Connector, Lafayette, Louisiana
January, 2003

The Selected Alternative traverses two known contaminated

sites: the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. tract and the site
occupied by Union Pacific, Georgia-Pacific Corp., and Conco
Food Distributing Co., Inc. The possibility that contamination
may not be limited to these two sites, but may be prevalent in
the general area and thus would warrant additional evaluation
has been considered.
The LaDEQ was consulted on November 6, 2001, regarding the
contaminated site occupied by Georgia-Pacific Corp., Union Pacific,
and Conco Food Distributing Co., Inc. While Georgia-Pacific Corp.
has cleaned its portion of the site to an acceptable industrial level, the
LaDEQ has not approved Union Pacifics plan to clean up the Union
Pacific and Conco portions of the site. The LaDEQ considers that the
proposed roadway would constitute an industrial use and would not
require a higher level of clean up than the industrial level
remediation contemplated at present.

I-49 Connector Development Process

(Record of Decision by FHWA)

Waste Sites
Commitments
from the
Record Of
Decision

Special consideration will be made for construction near the area of contaminated
waste site(s) along the Selected Alternative alignment. Construction alternatives for
the elevated roadway include but are not limited to:
Excavating to a depth of 15 ft and hauling contaminated soil for disposal at an
appropriate offsite location, then backfilling with clean material;
Excavating to depth of 5 ft, hauling excavated material to an appropriate offsite
location, providing a cap over the excavated area, and replacing the excavated 5 ft
with clean material;
Excavating footing locations only; and
Drilling (instead of pile driving) and using a slurry seal that would prevent
contamination from downward migration.
It is possible that unregistered USTs will have leaked and contaminated the
surrounding area. The LaDOTD will ensure that permanent closure of USTs in the
project right-of-way will follow the procedures set forth in LACXI.905 and LACXI.907
(Louisiana Administrative Code). A construction plan that includes measures to
prevent the spread of hazardous contamination will be developed for review
and approval by the LaDEQ. LaDOTD will ensure that any actions taken with
regard to contaminated waste sites will be coordinated with the measures
designed to protect the Chicot Aquifer from contamination.

Source: Record of Decision

I-49 Connector, Lafayette, Louisiana
January, 2003

I-49 Connector Development Process

(Record of Decision by FHWA)

Chicot Aquifer
Discussion
from the
Record Of
Decision

All of the alternatives considered for the project corridor are underlain by the sole
source Chicot Aquifer, which covers a large area of south Louisiana. Each of the
alternatives considered necessarily would employ construction techniques that
would prevent any contamination of the aquifer. Pile driving or excavation
operations, with the potential to puncture the existing, confining claybed,
are the most significant project components with regard to potential
contamination of the Chicot Aquifer from hazardous waste. Hazardous
waste sites have been documented to exist in the project corridor and hazardous
material could be allowed to enter the aquifer if documented and/or currently
unknown contaminated areas are excavated and the confining clay layer is
punctured creating a point of recharge. None of the alternatives would impact
primary recharge areas of the Chicot Aquifer, which are located in
Beauregard, Allen, and Evangeline Parishes.
Construction impacts to the Chicot Aquifer would be dependent of the depth to
the water bearing strata of sand and gravel underlying the Selected Alternative.
Utilizing idealized geologic sections prepared by the United States Geological
Survey, none of the alternatives would be anticipated to impact the Chicot
Aquifer. This determination is further substantiated by recent construction of the
University Avenue underpass at the Union Pacific Railroad. This project included
a railroad bridge on piles and excavation for the roadway underpass, neither of
which penetrated the aquifer. Avoidance of impacts to the Chicot Aquifer,
which is a sole source aquifer, will continue to be coordinated with the EPA
and LaDEQ as the I-49 Connector projects continues to develop.

Source: Record of Decision

I-49 Connector , Lafayette, Louisiana
January, 2003

I-49 Connector Development Process

(Record of Decision by FHWA)

Chicot Aquifer
Commitment
from the
Record Of
Decision

The potential for contamination through ground water/surface water

interchange will be minimized through special design techniques and plan
review procedures that continue to involve the EPA, LaDEQ, and other
appropriate agencies. Through such coordination, adequate safeguards will
be instituted to assure compliance with state and federal regulations.
The actual aquifer layer will be identified at the time of the design phase
when borings are obtained for design purposes. Design measures and
construction techniques will be utilized to guard against contamination of the
aquifer. See Section 3.7 of this ROD (Wastes Sites).
During the construction phase of the project, close coordination with
LaDEQ and EPA will be maintained to assure that adequate protection is
maintained for the Chicot Aquifer.

Source: Record of Decision

I-49 Connector , Lafayette, Louisiana
January, 2003

LaDOTD and LaDEQ Working

Together On Highway Projects
I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge Project:

2000 - The DOTD initiates an engineering and environmental

feasibility study for an area of I-10 extending from PPG Drive
to US 90 including replacement of the existing bridge
2000-2009 DOTD prepares various alternatives and holds
several public meetings for input.
2010 - FHWA approves to restart the NEPA process as an EIS
rather than an EA due to the discovery of hazardous
contamination.

LaDEQ Involvement in the I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge Project:

1994 - Leak in an underground pipeline on dock property located immediately south of I-10 reported to
LDEQ/EPA. Facility estimates 150,000-170,000 gallons of 1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) released into ditches
and subsurface.
1995-2000 - LaDEQ overseeing remediation of the contamination.
2000 LDOTD informed LDEQ of plans to replace the I-10 Bridge over the Calcasieu River. Given the
proximity of the project to the spill area both agencies agree that additional subsurface investigation is
necessary.
Through 2015 - LaDEQ has provided recommendations to LaDOTD on bridge replacement in terms
of limitations on depth of pilings in certain impacted areas or slight alignment modifications
(yards, not miles) that would not place any limitations on pile foundation construction.
It is not intended to compare the issues related to contamination at the Lake Charles bridge replacement site with any issues related to possible
contamination at the old railroad site or any other site along the approved I-49 Connector corridor. It is included only to show that the agencies have
worked together in the past on highway projects.
Source: http://www.i10lakecharles.com/ , LaDEQ presentation to Lake Charles MPO Transportation Committee May 2015 and discussions with LaDEQ personnel.

Some Possible Alternatives to Standard

Pile Foundations
Cased or Uncased
(Steel or PVC Casing May Be used)

Predrilled and Grouted

Piling??
This method is described
in the EIS and the ROD.

Concrete Pile Cap

Grout Seal

Known Contamination

Known Contamination

Confining Layer

Aquifer

Concrete Pile Cap

Known Contamination

Multiple Piles That Do

Not Penetrate Clay Layer

Not to Scale. Conceptual Only.

Multiple Shallow
Piles??
Confining Layer

Aquifer

Not to Scale. Conceptual Only.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of

all potential foundation types that might be
incorporated into the project. The type of
foundations required cannot be determined
until geotechnical evaluation of the site soils is
complete.

Some Studies of the Impact of Driving Piles

Through Contaminated Sites

Hayman, James W., Richard B. Adams, Robert G. Adams,Foundation Piling as a

Potential Conduit for DNAPL Migration, Air & Waste Management
Association, 86th Annual Meeting, June 1993
Boutwell, G., Mc. Manis, K. "Deep Foundations on Brownfield Sites." Presented
at the Prague 2000, 5th Conference on Environmental Problems in Eastern Europe,
Prague, Czech Republic, October, 2000.
Satyamurthy, Ranjan, "Investigations of Pile Foundations in Brownfields"
(2005). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. Paper 245.
Hird, C.C, K.B.Emmett and G. Davies, Piling in layered ground: risks to
groundwater and archaeology, Science Report SC020074/SR, Environment
Agency October 2006 (UK)
Katsumi, T., Inui, T., Kamon, M., In-Situ Containment for Waste Landfill and
Contaminated Sites, Proceedings of International Symposium on
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ISGE2009

Since its inception in 1995, EPA's brownfields Program has grown into a proven, results-oriented
program that has changed the way contaminated property is perceived, addressed, and managed.
EPA's brownfields Program is designed to empower states, communities, and other stakeholders in
economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
sustainably reuse brownfields.
Source: https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfield-overview-and-definition

Questions these Studies

Attempt to Answer
While the studies investigated different scenarios and
contaminant types, taken in combination, the studies attempt
to evaluate the environmental impact of various aspects of
driven pile foundations, as follows:
What is the impact of driving piles through
contaminated upper clay soils and into lower waterbearing sand layers during construction?
Does the pile/soil interface form a conduit for
contaminant migration?
Does the type of pile used matter?
Does the pile material itself allow for internal
wicking of contamination through the pile?
Does the type of material used matter?

What is the Impact of Driving Piles Through

Contaminated Soil (Direct Transfer)?
Driven Pile
Confining Clay
Layer
Contamination

Upper Aquifer
Layer

Contamination

Small soil plug

The studies indicate installation of a

conical shoe at the base of the pile
will significantly reduce (by orders
of magnitude) the amount of soil
pushed into the top of the aquifer.
The effect of Direct Transfer (plug)
is negligible, and can be made
virtually undetectable by using
pointed pile tips.

The studies indicate that a small

plug of soil will push through the
clay layer into the top of the aquifer.
that could carry some of the
contamination with it. Since the
aquifer is flowing, the studies
indicate that any contamination
contained in the plug quickly
dissipates and the risk is considered
negligible.
Driven Pile
Confining Clay
Layer
Contamination

Upper Aquifer
Layer

Contamination
Significantly less
soil carried into
the aquifer
Conical Shoe

*Cracks may form in the clay immediately around the pile during driving but generally close within four
hours after pile driving is complete.

Does the Pile/Soil Interface Form A

Conduit for Contaminant Migration?
Driven Pile

Confining Clay
Layer
Contamination

Upper Aquifer
Layer

Concrete Pile Cap

Contamination

Displaced clay soil

Pushes back against
Pile and forms a seal

Another name for a driven

circular or square pile is
displacement pile because it
displaces the soil it is
driven through to the side
and the soil then pushes
back. The studies indicate
that as long as there is
sufficient thickness to the
clay layer (at least 2x the
pile diameter) a conduit for
contaminant migration was
not created.

Did the studies determine that the type of pile matters?

Yes!

With sufficient thickness to the clay layer, displacement-type piles (wood, steel,
and probably concrete) do not form conduits for contaminant migration.
Non-displacement piles (steel H) do form such conduits.

*One study did indicate that heavily overconsolidated or hard clays at relatively shallow depths could
potentially form a conduit for migration. Geotechnical evaluations should indicate if such conditions exist.

Does the Pile Allow for Wicking Through

the Pile Itself?
Driven Pile

Confining Clay
Layer
Contamination

Upper Aquifer
Layer

Concrete Pile Cap

Contamination

There may be concern that

the contamination can
migrate into the pile itself
and wick down into the
aquifer. The studies have
shown that if the correct
type of pile is used,
wicking of contamination
through the pile itself did
not occur.

Did the studies determine the type of pile material used matters?
Yes!

The studies, primarily with regard to driven wood piles, indicate that treated
piles do not create circumstances where wicking of contaminants through the
pile occurs.
The studies also indicate that untreated wood piles do allow for wicking to occur.

Considerations for the

I-49 Connector Project
In order to minimize potential impacts to the Chicot Aquifer from sites
known to have some level of contamination in the upper clay soils:
During CSS and Actual Engineering Design - Close coordination
between the stakeholders, design engineers, the LaDOTD, the
LaDEQ and USEPA.
Select and design foundations that are not only structurally
appropriate but also minimize potential adverse impact on the
aquifer.
During Construction Establish appropriate Quality
Assurance/Quality Control mechanisms in the construction contract
that emphasize the need for and reasoning behind those QA/QC
mechanisms. Ignorance of the need for these procedures may lead
to omissions during construction.

Westcott, F.J., C M B Lean & M L Cunningham Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods
on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention
National Groundwater & Contaminated Land Centre report NC/99/73, May 2001 (UK)