The Capital Area Road and Bridge District on its first-quarter 2025 meeting received an update from the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and consultant Atlas Technical on the proposed Mississippi River bridge project, including a timeline for Environmental Assessment (NEPA) work and remaining deliverables, and then heard multiple public comments opposing bridge alternative E‑11‑4.

DOTD project manager Christina Bridal told the district the project has “all of the pre NEPA field work complete and all of the NEPA field work complete,” and that available funding for the project is “just under $400,000,000 for available funding for the project.” Bridal said the final geotechnical report would be submitted in about two weeks, with bridge conceptual design, cost estimates and hydraulic analysis to follow. She said traffic studies are under DOTD review and the tolling analysis is being finalized.

The update laid out a schedule that places public meetings in the third quarter of 2025 (July–Sept.), public hearings in the third or fourth quarter of 2025, and anticipated completion of NEPA in spring 2026. Bridal said the wetlands and cultural‑resource field work are complete and that the Phase I environmental site assessment is under DOTD review. Kara, an Atlas Technical consultant, said the NEPA field work was allowed to start early by Federal Highway Administration staff so the team could meet federal timing expectations for an EA.

Why it matters: the bridge project requires federal NEPA review and FHWA approval; whether the project proceeds under an Environmental Assessment (EA) or requires a more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will change the scope and schedule of study and public review. Secretary Donahue and DOTD representatives told the district FHWA is closely engaged and that the agency currently anticipates an EA but could require an EIS depending on the record and public input.

District discussion and next steps
District chair Jay Campbell and members pressed DOTD and Atlas on what had been completed since the prior meeting and requested a concise bullet list of work completed over the past year for public distribution. Bridal and Atlas described completed geotechnical borings, topographic and subsurface utility surveys, wetlands delineation, cultural resources field investigations, traffic analyses and a Phase I ESA draft submitted for review. Atlas said the conceptual relocation planning work covers three build alternatives plus the no‑build option and includes line‑and‑grade studies for each.

Bridal and Atlas said they expect draft cost estimates to be available a few weeks after geotechnical report submission and indicated those draft estimates will be presented at the public meetings. The consultants said public meetings will likely number about four rather than the six held during earlier planning phases, with at least one meeting in each area along the river; two public hearings are planned to present a preferred alternative once the project team reaches that decision point.

Federal involvement and EA versus EIS
On when the team will know whether the project requires an EA or an EIS, DOTD officials and Atlas said FHWA has been involved throughout the project. Secretary Donahue said FHWA has provided feedback to date that an EA is anticipated, but that FHWA could require an EIS if the record or public testimony supports a need for the higher‑level review. Donahue said agencies will know more after public meetings and hearings and that FHWA has been engaged in frequent discussions, including biweekly contact with the FHWA division administrator.

Public comments oppose E‑11‑4; cite ecology and history
During the public‑comment portion, several landowners and residents from Plaquemines Point and nearby parishes strongly opposed alternative E‑11‑4. Carrie Blaze, representing the A. E. LeBlanc family, said, “We are strongly opposing the E‑eleven‑four option,” and asked the district to consider preserving an old‑growth cypress forest on family land. Laura Como, a landowner, said, “Bridge alternative E‑eleven‑four will cut through my community,” and warned of increased flood risk and damage to mature trees. Lydia Bridal, a landowner, said Plaquemines Point had been classified as endangered by the Louisiana Trust for Historic Places and asked DOTD to forward documented cultural and ecological findings to FHWA.

Speakers gave specific claims about ecological surveys: Lydia Bridal said an ongoing habitat evaluation has identified “125 animals and 155 plants” and that 16 species of greatest conservation need have been recorded; she asked DOTD to pass the findings to FHWA. Philip LeBlanc and Cliff Como, both landowners who spoke, said the route would cause significant environmental impact and urged NEPA to consider those impacts fully. Commenters also raised concern that industrial landowners might prefer E‑11‑4, and asked that DOTD and FHWA ensure the process does not favor private industrial expansion over conservation.

What the district recorded as formal action
The only formal vote taken during the meeting was approval of the minutes from the district’s December meeting. The minutes were moved by Mr. Raiford and seconded by President Daigle and were approved by voice vote.

Where this stands
DOTD and Atlas said the team will present draft cost estimates and the assembled NEPA materials for all alternatives at the upcoming public meetings, after which the public record and FHWA review will guide whether an EA or an EIS is required and which alternative will be identified as preferred. DOTD representatives stressed FHWA’s continued involvement and that the FHWA holds final approval authority for the NEPA determination.

The district said it will publish meeting and hearing notices to an email list compiled from commenters who provided addresses and will post available materials to the project webpage maintained by a third party. The Capital Area Road and Bridge District said it will next meet in late June 2025 as part of its quarterly schedule.