rushcounty.in.govrushcounty.in.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/...Bridge...Indiana Department of...

Indiana Department of Transportation

County Rush Route CR 900 West Des. No. 1600968

This is page 1 of 29 Project name: Bridge and Road Project Date: May 1, 2020

Form Version: June 2013

Attachment 2

FHWA-Indiana Environmental Document

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

After completing this form, I conclude that this project qualifies for the following type of Categorical Exclusion (FHWA must review/approve if Level 4 CE):

Note: For documents prepared by or for Environmental Services Division, it is not necessary for the ESM of the district in which the project is located to release for public involvement or sign for approval.

Approval ____________________ __________ _______________________ __________ ESM Signature Date ES Signature Date

_______________________ __________ FHWA Signature Date

Release for Public Involvement

ESM Initials Date ES Initials Date

Certification of Public Involvement ________________________ __________ Office of Public Involvement Date

Note: Do not approve until after Section 106 public involvement and all other environmental requirements have been satisfied.

INDOT ES/District Env. Reviewer Signature: Date:

Name and Organization of CE/EA Preparer: Susan Castle, Metric Environmental, LLC

Road No./County: County Road (CR) 900 West over Little Blue River / Rush County

Designation Number: 1600968

Project Description/Termini:

Bridge and Road Project, County Road (CR) 900 West over Little Blue River, 0.20 mile north of Base Road, beginning 18 feet (ft.) north of Base Road and extending 1,443 ft. north of Base Road for a total of 1,425 ft. (0.27 mile).

Categorical Exclusion, Level 2 – The proposed action meets the criteria for Categorical Exclusion Manual Level 2 - table 1, CE Level Thresholds. Required Signatories: ESM (Environmental Scoping Manager)

X Categorical Exclusion, Level 3 – The proposed action meets the criteria for Categorical Exclusion Manual Level 3 - table 1, CE Level Thresholds. Required Signatories: ESM, ES (Environmental Services Division)

Categorical Exclusion, Level 4 – The proposed action meets the criteria for Categorical Exclusion Manual Level 4 - table 1, CE Level Thresholds. Required Signatories: ESM, ES, FHWA

Environmental Assessment (EA) – EAs require a separate FONSI. Additional research and documentation is necessary to determine the effects on the environment. Required Signatories: ES, FHWA

N/A 5/1/2020



This is page 2 of 29 Project name: Bridge and Road Project Date:

May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Part I - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Every Federal action requires some level of public involvement, providing for early and continuous opportunities throughout the project development process. The level of public involvement should be commensurate with the proposed action.

Yes No Does the project have a historic bridge processed under the Historic Bridges PA*? X If No, then: Opportunity for a Public Hearing Required? X

*A public hearing is required for all historic bridges processed under the Historic Bridges Programmatic Agreement between INDOT, FHWA, SHPO, and the ACHP. Discuss what public involvement activities (legal notices, letters to affected property owners and residents (i.e. notice of entry), meetings, special purpose meetings, newspaper articles, etc.) have occurred for this project.

Remarks: Notice of Entry letters were mailed to potentially affected property owners near the project area on October 2, 2017 notifying them about the project and that individuals, responsible for land surveying and field activities, may be seen in the area. A sample copy of the Notice of Entry letter is included in Appendix G, pages G-1 to G-2. To meet the public involvement requirements of Section 106, a legal notice of FHWA’s finding of No Historic Properties Affected was published in The Rushville Republican on December 10, 2019 offering the public an opportunity to submit comment pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d), 800.3(e), and 800.6(a)(4). The public comment period closed 30 days later on January 9, 2020. The text of the public notice and the affidavit of publication appear in Appendix D, page D-56 to D-57. The project will meet the minimum requirements described in the current Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) Public Involvement Manual which requires the project sponsor to offer the public an opportunity to submit comment and/or request a public hearing. Therefore, a legal notice will appear in a local publication contingent upon the release of this document for public involvement. This document will be revised after the public involvement requirements are fulfilled.

Public Controversy on Environmental Grounds Yes No Will the project involve substantial controversy concerning community and/or natural resource impacts? X

Remarks: At this time, there is no substantial public controversy concerning impacts to the community or to natural

resources.

Part II - General Project Identification, Description, and Design Information

Sponsor of the Project: Rush County INDOT District: Greenfield Local Name of the Facility: CR 900 West over Little Blue River

Funding Source (mark all that apply): Federal X State Local X Other* *If other is selected, please indentify the funding source:




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

PURPOSE AND NEED:

Describe the transportation problem that the project will address. The solution to the traffic problem should NOT be discussed in this section. (Refer to the CE Manual, Section IV.B.2. Purpose and Need)

The primary need for this project is evidenced by the deteriorated physical condition of Rush County Bridge #70-00127, National Bridge Inventory (NBI) #7000113, which conveys CR 900 West over Little Blue River. Based on the recent Bridge Inspection Report, dated April 9, 2019, the superstructure is rated in fair condition (5 out of 9) with seepage, leaching, cracks, and damage. The substructure is rated in poor condition (4 out of 9) with advanced deterioration. The approach guardrails and bridge rails are substandard and do not meet current crash standards. A secondary need for the project is a result of the inadequate horizontal and vertical roadway geometrics. CR 900 West is 15 ft. in width and the horizontal curvatures are substandard for the posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph). There are two sag vertical curves and one crest vertical curve that do not meet current design standards for the posted speed limit. In addition, CR 900 West, north of the bridge crossing, experiences frequent flooding and over the road flow after storm events. This occurs several times per year causing the roadway to be impassable and closed for extended periods of time, often weeks until the water recedes. The purpose of this project is to achieve a structure with all ratings greater than or equal to 7 out of 9 and increase the expected structure life by 75 years. Specific deteriorated conditions to be addressed include:

The superstructure which currently exhibits seepage, leaching, cracks, and damage. The substructure which currently exhibits advanced deterioration. The approach guardrails and bridge rails which are currently substandard and do not meet current crash standards.

The secondary purpose of this project is to eliminate over the road flow north of the bridge and improve the existing horizontal and vertical roadway geometrics.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE):

County: Rush Municipality: Rushville

Limits of Proposed Work: Beginning 18 feet (ft.) north of Base Road and extending 1,443 ft. north of Base Road for a

total of 1,425 ft. (0.27 mile). Total Work Length: 0.27 Mile(s) Total Work Area: 4.36 Acre(s)

Yes1 No Is an Interchange Modification Study / Interchange Justification Study (IMS/IJS) required? X If yes, when did the FHWA grant a conditional approval for this project? Date:

1If an IMS or IJS is required; a copy of the approved CE/EA document must be submitted to the FHWA with a request for final approval of the IMS/IJS. In the remarks box below, describe existing conditions, provide in detail the scope of work for the project, including the preferred alternative. Include a discussion of logical termini. Discuss any major issues for the project and how the project will improve safety or roadway deficiencies if these are issues.




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Location: Rush County, with funding from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), intends to proceed with a bridge and roadway improvement project on CR 900 West beginning 18 feet (ft.) north of Base Road and extending 1,443 ft. north of Base Road for a total of 1,425 ft. (0.27 mile). (Appendix B, page B-1). Specifically, the project is located in Sections 34 and 35, Township 14 North, Range 8 East on the 7.5-Minute Manilla United States Geological Survey topographic quadrangle (Appendix B, page B-2). Existing Conditions: The existing bridge #70-00127 was built in 1900 and was rehabilitated in 1955. The bridge was evaluated and found not to be eligible in the Indiana Historic Bridges Inventory (Volume 2 Section 2 Listing of Non-Historic Bridges [Counties R-W]). The bridge consists of three spans (26 ft., 40 ft., 26 ft.), prestressed concrete adjacent box beam with no skew. The end bents have concrete caps on top of stone abutments and are presumably resting on shallow foundations. The interior bents are supported on steel fluted piles. The bridge has an out to out deck width of 22 ft. – 11 inches and a clear roadway width of 21 ft. The bridge rail is post and beam type and attached directly to the exterior box beam. CR 900 West, a rural local road, is approximately 15 ft. wide. Shoulders, where present, are earthen. Guardrail is of an unknown type and does not meet current standards. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Land uses within the project area include agricultural, residential, forested, and the stream riparian zone. Overhead electric and communication lines are located within the project area. Water resources within the study limits include four jurisdictional wetlands, six jurisdictional streams and one non-jurisdictional roadside ditch. Preferred Alternative: The proposed project includes replacement of Rush County Bridge #70-00127 over Little Blue River. The new bridge will consist of three spans (115 ft., 124 ft., 115 ft.) for a total span length of 354 ft. and skewed 20 degrees left. By positioning the bridge 20 degrees left, the bridge will align with the stream better and will help to protect from scour. The bridge will have a clear roadway width of 28 ft. consisting of two 10 ft. wide travel lanes adjoined by 4 ft. wide shoulders and an out to out coping width of 30 ft. New bridge railing will be installed. The superstructure will consist of an 8 inch reinforced concrete deck on four 48 inch prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams. The structure will rest on integral end bents at each end founded on piling approximately 5 ft. deep. The interior bents will be concrete pier walls and shallow foundations, bearing on rock, approximately 5 ft. deep. This project will also include realignment of approximately 700 ft. of CR 900 West 65 ft. to the east. The realignment will remove substandard horizontal curves by placing the entire project length in a straight line. Two sag vertical curves and one crest vertical curve will be incorporated into the alignment and will exceed minimum design standards for the design speed limit of 45 mph. The roadway elevation will be increased by approximately 4.5 ft. The roadway will consist of two 10 ft. wide travel lanes adjoined by 3.67 ft. wide paved shoulders and 2 ft. wide aggregate. A hydraulic analysis has been completed with the proposed structure meeting all current standards. The analysis shows no anticipated adverse flooding effects by constructing the bridge. Grading and seeding will be conducted where CR 900 West asphalt is removed. Two mailboxes will be replaced on the west side of CR 900 West near the northern portion of the project limits. A concrete box culvert approximately 94 ft. long 4 ft. wide and 5 ft. rise will be constructed north of the bridge to convey water flow to the adjacent Wetland A that would otherwise be cut off from the roadway grade raise (Appendix B, page B-14). Mitigation is expected for this project. Approximately 0.375 acre of wetlands (4:1 mitigation ratio), 719 lineal ft. of stream (1:1 mitigation ratio), and 0.52 acre of non-wetland trees (1:1 mitigation ratio) will be disturbed during construction. The 0.52 acre for tree replanting is located in a portion of a farmland (Appendix B, pages B-3 and B-18). The bridge plans are located in Appendix B, pages B-11 to B-17. Maintenance of Traffic: The planned maintenance of traffic (MOT) for the project will utilize a road closure without a posted detour route. Rush




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

County will prepare a letter to INDOT stating that the project will not utilize a posted detour route. One residential drive located at the north end of the project area will be maintained throughout the project. There are no businesses that will be impacted by the closure. Termini This project has independent utility because it meets the purpose and need of the project without being connected to any other actions in the area. This project has logical termini because the limits are confined to those required to meet the deteriorated conditions of the existing bridge and geometric deficiencies of the roadway within the project area. The preferred alternative meets the stated purpose and need of the project because a new bridge will be rated at either 8 or better and by improving the existing horizontal and vertical roadway geometrics for the traveling public.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Describe all discarded alternatives, including the Do-Nothing Alternative and an explanation of why each discarded alternative was not selected.

Alternative 1: Rehabilitate structure This alternative consists of replacing the existing superstructure and rehabilitating the substructure, while also stabilizing the channel and installing scour countermeasures. This work could be completed with the goal of achieving an additional service life of 10-20 years. This option addresses the deteriorated condition of the existing bridge and extends its service life; however, given the extent of the deterioration, its rehabilitation would not be a long-term solution. This alternative would not cause impacts to any wetlands; however, this alternative does not meet the primary nor secondary purpose of the project and therefore, was eliminated from consideration. Alternative 2: Alignment Option 1 This alternative consists of creating two “S” curves, one north and one south of the bridge while maintaining a bridge that lies completely in a straight line. The bridge would be oriented so that the new bents and piers would avoid the existing bridge's substructure. This alternative would disturb 0.51 acre of wetlands (4:1 mitigation ratio), 664 lineal ft. of stream (1:1 mitigation ratio), and 0.38 acre of trees (1:1 mitigation ratio). There would be 4.49 acres of right-of-way acquisition necessary for this alternative. This alternative would add 300 ft. to the project limits when compared to the preferred alternative. Alternative 3 meets the stated primary and secondary purpose; however, the environmental impacts would exceed the preferred alternative. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from consideration. Alternative 3: Alignment Option 2 This alternative consists of placing the proposed bridge over the existing bridge but creates an “S” curve that is in an existing wetland to tie back into the existing roadway north of the bridge. This alternative would disturb 0.46 acre of wetlands (4:1 mitigation ratio), 866 lineal ft. of stream (1:1 mitigation ratio), and 0.41 acre of trees (1:1 mitigation ratio). There would be 5.32 acres of right-of-way acquisition necessary for this alternative. This alternative would add 300 ft. to the project limits when compared to the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 meets the stated primary and secondary purpose; however, the environmental impacts would exceed the preferred alternative. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from consideration. Alternative 4: Do-Nothing: This alternative would leave the existing bridge and roadway in their current deteriorating and geometrically deficient states. No additional cost would be incurred by maintaining the continued use of the existing bridge and roadway alignment. Based on the continued deterioration of the structure, the structure would eventually need to be closed. Closing the structure would force local traffic to use an inconvenient route, resulting in undue burden for the traveling public. Therefore, this alternative was not considered reasonable or practical and was eliminated from consideration. No other alternatives were considered.




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

The Do Nothing Alternative is not feasible, prudent or practicable because (Mark all that apply): It would not correct existing capacity deficiencies; It would not correct existing safety hazards; It would not correct the existing roadway geometric deficiencies; X It would not correct existing deteriorated conditions and maintenance problems; or X It would result in serious impacts to the motoring public and general welfare of the economy. Other (Describe)

ROADWAY CHARACTER:

CR 900 West

Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Current ADT: 213 VPD (2018) Design Year ADT: 335 VPD (2041) Design Hour Volume (DHV): 85 Truck Percentage (%) 5 Designed Speed (mph): 45 Legal Speed (mph): 45

Existing Proposed

Number of Lanes: 2 2 Type of Lanes: Through travel Through travel Pavement Width: 15 ft. 20 ft. Shoulder Width: N/A ft. 5.67 ft. Median Width: N/A ft. N/A ft. Sidewalk Width: N/A ft. N/A ft.

Setting: Urban Suburban X Rural Topography: X Level Rolling Hilly

If the proposed action has multiple roadways, this section should be filled out for each roadway.

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BRIDGES:

Structure/NBI Number(s): #70-00127 / #7000113 Sufficiency Rating: 42.2, Bridge Inspection Report 4/9/2019

(Rating, Source of Information)

Existing Proposed

Bridge Type: Prestressed concrete box beam Prestressed concrete bulb “T” beam Number of Spans: 3 3 Weight Restrictions: N/A ton N/A ton Height Restrictions: N/A ft. N/A ft. Curb to Curb Width: 21 ft. 28 ft. Outside to Outside Width: 22.9 ft. 30 ft. Shoulder Width: N/A ft. 4 ft. Length of Channel Work: 719 ft.

Describe bridges and structures; provide specific location information for small structures.




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Remarks:

Rush County Bridge #70-00127, NBI #7000113 is three-spans (26 ft., 40 ft., 26 ft.), consisting of six 21 inches deep continuous prestressed concrete adjacent box beams, and has no skew. The end bents have concrete caps on top of stone abutments and are presumably resting on shallow foundations. The interior bents are supported on steel fluted piles. The bridge rail is post and beam type and attached directly to the exterior box beam. There are no other existing bridges or small structures within the project area.

Yes No N/A Will the structure be rehabilitated or replaced as part of the project? X

If the proposed action has multiple bridges or small structures, this section should be filled out for each structure.

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (MOT) DURING CONSTRUCTION:

Yes No Is a temporary bridge proposed? X Is a temporary roadway proposed? X Will the project involve the use of a detour or require a ramp closure? (describe in remarks) X Provisions will be made for access by local traffic and so posted. X Provisions will be made for through-traffic dependent businesses. X Provisions will be made to accommodate any local special events or festivals. X Will the proposed MOT substantially change the environmental consequences of the action? X Is there substantial controversy associated with the proposed method for MOT? X

ESTIMATED PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULE:

Engineering: $ $

265,325 100,000

(2018) (2020)

Right-of-Way:

$

80,000

(2020)

Construction:

$ $

100,000 2,300,00

(2020) (2022)

Anticipated Start Date of Construction: March 2022

Date project incorporated into STIP

2016-2019 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Amendment #16-41, May 25, 2017, 2018-2021 STIP July 3, 2017, and 2020-2024 STIP July 2, 2019 (Appendix H, pages H-1 to H-3)

Yes No

Is the project in an MPO Area? X If yes,

Name of MPO Location of Project in TIP Date of incorporation by reference into the STIP

Remarks: The planned maintenance of traffic (MOT) for the project will utilize a road closure without a posted detour route. Rush County will prepare a letter to INDOT stating that the project will not utilize a posted detour route. CR 900 West will be closed within the project limits. The closures/lane restrictions will pose a temporary inconvenience to traveling motorists (including school buses and emergency services); however, no significant delays are anticipated and all inconveniences will cease upon project completion. Delays may occur during construction but will cease with project completion.




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

RIGHT OF WAY:

Amount (acres)

Land Use Impacts Permanent Temporary

Residential 0.08 0.0008 Commercial 0.00 0.00 Agricultural 2.65 0.00 Forest 0.52 0.00 Wetlands 0.57 0.00 Other: 0.00 0.00 Other: 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 3.82 0.0008 Describe both Permanent and Temporary right-of-way and describe their current use. Typical and Maximum right-of-way widths (existing and proposed) should also be discussed. Any advance acquisition or reacquisition, either known or suspected, and there impacts on the environmental analysis should be discussed. Remarks: There is no legally recorded ROW on file with the Rush County Recorder’s Office for the project area;

however, it is assumed the existing ROW is edge of pavement. It will be necessary for Rush County to re-acquire and properly record approximately 0.55 acre of ROW on CR 900 West, necessary to complete this project. The project requires approximately 3.82 acres of new permanent ROW of which 0.08 acre is residential, 2.65 acres is agricultural, 0.52 acre is forested, and 0.57 acre is wetlands. The project also requires approximately 0.0008 acre of temporary ROW from one residential parcel in the northeast portion of the project area to reconstruct the driveway (Appendix B, pages B-3, B-13, and B-14). If the scope of work or permanent or temporary right-of-way amounts change, the INDOT Environmental Services Division (ESD) and the INDOT District Environmental Section will be contacted immediately.

Part III – Identification and Evaluation of Impacts of the Proposed Action

SECTION A – ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Presence Impacts Yes No Streams, Rivers, Watercourses & Jurisdictional Ditches X X Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers State Natural, Scenic or Recreational Rivers Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) listed Outstanding Rivers List for Indiana Navigable Waterways X X




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Remarks: Based on a desktop review, a site visit on September 8, 2018 by Metric Environmental, the 2012 aerial map of the project area (Appendix B, page B-3), and the water resources map in the Red Flag Investigation (RFI) report (Appendix E, page E-8), there are ten streams and rivers located within the 0.5 mile search radius. There is one river present within or adjacent to the project area. A Waters of the U.S. Determination / Wetland Delineation Report was completed for the project on February 14, 2020. Please refer to Appendix F, pages F-1 to F-33 for the Waters of the U.S. Determination / Wetland Delineation Report. It was determined that six jurisdictional streams, totaling 1,656 linear ft., were observed within the project study limits. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) makes all final determinations regarding jurisdiction. Little Blue River is a navigable waterway within the project area. Little Blue River flows from east to west and is approximately 224 linear ft. (0.206 acre) within the project study limits. Little Blue River flows from the east to the west into Big Blue River which flows to Driftwood River, and then into the East Fork White River, a Section 10 Traditional Navigable Water (TNW). Little Blue River is associated with a solid blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is perennial. Little Blue River was classified by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded (R2UBH). The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) was an average of 40 ft. wide and 3 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of boulder, cobble, gravel, hardpan, and silt. Overhanging vegetation, deep pools, and logs or woody debris were the in-stream cover present. Sinuosity was low with good development and stability was moderate. The water velocity and gradient were moderate. Multiple fish, aquatic insects, and crayfish were found in the stream with the presence of many deep pools. According to USGS Indiana StreamStats, the drainage area upstream of Little Blue River at the project study limits is 66.55 square miles. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as good quality. Approximately 24 linear ft. of Little Blue River will be impacted by this project to remove the existing bridge and install a new bridge. Mitigation and permits will be required (Appendix B, page B-16). UNT 1 to Little Blue River was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 1 flows from southeast to northwest through Wetland A then into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW west of the project study limits. UNT 1 is located outside of the construction limits. Therefore, no permanent or temporary impacts to UNT 1 are expected (Appendix B, page B-16). UNT 2 was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 2 flows into UNT 1, which flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. UNT 2 is located outside of the construction limits. Therefore, no permanent or temporary impacts to UNT 2 are expected (Appendix B, page B-16). UNT 3 was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 3 flows into UNT 4, which flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. UNT 3 is located outside of the construction limits. Therefore, no permanent or temporary impacts to UNT 3 are expected (Appendix B, page B-16). UNT 4 was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 4 flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. Therefore, UNT 4 should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. UNT 4 flows from northeast to south and is approximately 273 linear ft. in length (0.025 acre) within the project study limits. UNT 4 is not associated with a solid blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is ephemeral. UNT 4 was not classified by the NWI, but it can be classified as Riverine, Ephemeral, corps designation (R5). The OHWM was an average of 4 ft. wide and 1 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of cobble, gravel, silt, and clay or hardpan. The left bank of the stream consisted of forested wetland and the right bank consisted of agricultural field and paved road. Sinuosity was at one bend per 200 ft. and the channel had low water velocity. No riffles and pools were observed, and no aquatic organisms were found in the stream. According to USGS Indiana StreamStats, the drainage area upstream of UNT 4 at the project study limits is 0.06 square miles. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as poor quality. Approximately 211 linear ft. of UNT 4 will be impacted by this project to install a




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

new bridge and realign CR 900 West. Mitigation and permits will be required (Appendix B, page B-16). UNT 5 to Little Blue River was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 5 flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. Therefore, UNT 5 should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. UNT 5 to Little Blue River flows from south to north and is approximately 674 linear ft. in length (0.077 acre) within the project study limits. UNT 5 to Little Blue River is associated with a dashed blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is intermittent. UNT 5 to Little Blue River was classified by the NWI as Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Seasonally Flooded (R4SBC). The OHWM was an average of 5 ft. wide and 1.25 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of cobble, gravel, silt, and clay or hardpan. UNT 5 to Little Blue River had moderate to narrow riparian width and was adjacent to agricultural fields and paved roads. No sinuosity was present, and the water velocity was moderate with a relatively flat gradient. UNT 5 to Little Blue River had riffles and pools with multiple fish, aquatic insects, and crayfish. According to USGS Indiana StreamStats, the drainage area upstream of UNT 5 at the project study limits is 1.58 square miles. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as fair quality. Approximately 484 linear ft. of UNT 5 will be impacted by this project to install a new bridge and realign CR 900 West. Mitigation and permits will be required (Appendix B, page B-16). One roadside ditch (RSD) was identified within the project study limits. RSD 1 is located on the west side of CR 900 West and north of Little Blue River. It is approximately 370 linear ft. long. This feature contains a concrete structure and is adjacent to CR 900 West and Wetland A. RSD 1 appears to carry surface water runoff from CR 900 West to Wetland A. No OHWM was observed, so this feature is likely non-jurisdictional. Early coordination letters were sent to Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Division of Fish & Wildlife (DFW), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U. S. Coast Guard (Eighth Coast Guard District), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on February 7, 2019. The USACE, Eighth Coast Guard District, and USFWS did not respond to the early coordination letter. IDNR-DFW responded on March 8, 2019 with recommendations to avoid or minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources to the greatest extent possible, and compensate for impacts (Appendix C, pages C-5 to C-8). IDNR-DFW recommends bridges rather than culvers and bottomless culverts rather than box or pipe culverts be installed, minimizing the use of riprap in the stream and methods for riprap placement, minimizing in-channel disturbance, and avoiding work in the waterway from April 1 through June 30. All applicable IDNR-DFW recommendations are included in the Environmental Commitments section of this CE document. On April 6, 2020, correspondence was sent to the Eighth Coast Guard District, to determine if a permit will be required for this project. On April 7, 2020, a representative from the Eighth Coast Guard District responded that they only issue Coast Guard Section 9 Bridge Permits for the first 10.6 miles of this river (Little Blue River). Therefore, they have no issues at this location. Correspondence is located in Appendix C, page C-54.

Presence Impacts Other Surface Waters Yes No Reservoirs Lakes Farm Ponds Detention Basins Storm Water Management Facilities Other:




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Remarks: Based on a desktop review, a site visit on September 4, 2018 by Metric, the 2012 aerial map of the project area (Appendix B, page B-3), and the water resources map in the RFI report (Appendix E, page B-8), there is one lake located within the 0.5 mile search radius. There are no other surface waters present within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, no impacts are expected. A Waters of the U.S. Determination / Wetland Delineation Report was completed for the project on February 14, 2020. Please refer to Appendix F, pages F-1 to F-33 for the Waters of the U.S. Determination / Wetland Delineation Report. It was determined that no other surface waters were identified within the project area. The USACE makes all final determinations regarding jurisdiction.

Presence Impacts Yes No Wetlands X X Total wetland area: 1.23 acre(s) Total wetland area impacted: 0.375 acre(s)

(If a determination has not been made for non-isolated/isolated wetlands, fill in the total wetland area impacted above.)

Wetland No. Classification Total Size

(Acres)

Impacted Acres

Comments

A

Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded (PFO1A)

0.59

0

Wetland A is located on a floodplain north of Little Blue River and west of CR 900 West. Wetland A drains into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW from its junction with the Big Blue River in Shelbyville for 25.6 river miles to its junction with Ball Run (Appendix B, page B-16 and Appendix F, page F-17).

B

PFO1A

0.29

0.106

Wetland B is located east of CR 900 West on the north bank floodplain to Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW, and also borders UNT 3 and UNT 4 (Appendix B, page B-16 and Appendix F, page F-17).

C

PFO1A

0.269

0.269

Wetland C is located in a floodplain between UNT 3 and UNT 4, which flow into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW (Appendix B, page B-16 and Appendix F, page F-17).

D

PFO1A

0.091

0

Wetland D is located on the southern bank of Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW (Appendix B, page B-16 and Appendix F, page F-17).

Documentation ES Approval Dates Wetlands (Mark all that apply)

Wetland Determination X N/A Wetland Delineation X N/A USACE Isolated Waters Determination Mitigation Plan

Improvements that will not result in any wetland impacts are not practicable because such avoidance would result in (Mark all that apply and explain):

Substantial adverse impacts to adjacent homes, business or other improved properties; Substantially increased project costs; Unique engineering, traffic, maintenance, or safety problems; X Substantial adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts, or The project not meeting the identified needs. X

Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland impacts need to be discussed in the remarks box.




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Remarks: Based on a review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) online mapper (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ data/Mapper.html), a site visit on September 4, 2018 by Metric Environmental, the USGS topographic map (Appendix B page B-2), and the RFI report (Appendix E page E-8) there are seven wetlands located within the 0.5 mile search radius. There is one wetland present within or adjacent to the project area. A Waters of the U.S. Determination / Wetland Delineation Report was completed for the project on February 14, 2020. Please refer to Appendix F, pages F-1 to F-33 for the Waters of the U.S. Determination / Wetland Delineation Report. It was determined that four jurisdictional PFO1A wetlands, totaling 1.23 acres, were observed within the project study limits. The USACE makes all final determinations regarding jurisdiction. Wetland A is a 0.59 acre PFO1A wetland located on a floodplain north of Little Blue River and west of CR 900 West. Wetland A will be avoided during construction activities. Therefore, there will be no permanent or temporary impacts to Wetland A (Appendix B, page B-16). Wetland B is a 0.29 acre PFO1A wetland located east of CR 900 West on the north bank floodplain to Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW, and also borders UNT 3 and UNT 4; therefore, likely receives flood waters on a consistent basis during rain events. Since Little Blue River is a Section 10 TNW, and Wetland B appears to have a significant nexus to Little Blue River, the wetland should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Wetland B continued outside the project study limits to the east, and the northern boundary of Wetland B is UNT 3. The wetland is located adjacent to CR 900 West and is likely impacted by run-off from CR 900 West. However, the wetland exhibited good plant species diversity and was forested. These factors contribute to the conclusion the wetland can support wildlife or aquatic habitat, and therefore should be considered good quality. Approximately 0.106 acre of Wetland B will be impacted by removal of trees for the roadway realignment and the placement of 263 tons of 18-inch-deep revetment riprap over 376 square yards of geotextiles for scour protection (Appendix B, page B-16). Since a mitigation ratio of 4:1 is required for PFO1A wetlands, approximately 0.424 acre of forested wetland mitigation will be required. Avoidance of Wetland B is not practical and will incur greater overall wetland and environmental impacts than Alternatives 1 and 2 as discussed in the other alternatives considered section of this document. Wetland C is a 0.269 acre PFO1A wetland located in a floodplain between UNT 3 and UNT 4; therefore, likely receives flood waters on a consistent basis during rain events. UNT 3 and UNT 4 flow into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. Since Wetland C appears to have a significant nexus to UNT 3 and 4, the wetland should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Wetland C continued outside the project study limits to the east, and the northern boundary of Wetland C was determined by the change of vegetation to established agricultural crop and elevation. Wetland C is located adjacent to an agricultural field and CR 900 West and is likely impacted by runoff from the agricultural field and paved road. However, the wetland exhibited good plant species diversity and was forested. These factors contribute to the conclusion the wetland can support wildlife or aquatic habitat, and therefore should be considered good quality. Approximately 0.269 acre of Wetland C will be impacted by this project due to the removal of trees for the roadway realignment (Appendix B, page B-16). Since a mitigation ratio of 4:1 is required for PFO1A wetlands, approximately 1.076 acre of forested wetland mitigation will be required. Avoidance of Wetland C is not practical and will incur greater overall wetland and environmental impacts than Alternatives 1 and 2 as discussed in the other alternatives considered section of this document. Wetland D is a 0.091 acre PFO1A wetland located on the southern bank of Little Blue River. Wetland D will be avoided during construction activities. Therefore, there will be no permanent or temporary impacts to Wetland D (Appendix B, page B-16). IDNR-DFW responded on March 8, 2019 with recommendations to avoid or minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources to the greatest extent possible, and compensate for impacts (Appendix C, pages C-5 to C-8). Due to the presence or potential presence of wetland habitat on site, IDNR-DFW recommends coordination with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 401 program




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

and also the USACE 404 program. Impacts to wetland habitat should be mitigated at the appropriate ratio according to the 1991 INDOT/IDNR/USFWS Memorandum of Understanding. All applicable IDNR-DFW recommendations are included in the Environmental Commitments section of this CE document.

Use the remarks box to identify each type of habitat and the acres impacted (i.e. forested, grassland, farmland, lawn, etc). Remarks: Based on a desktop review, a site visit on September 4, 2018 by Metric Environmental, and the 2012 aerial

map of the project area (Appendix B, page B-3), there are forty-six types of terrestrial habitats within the project area. The dominant vegetation located within the project area is eastern black walnut (junglans nigra), eastern cottonwood (populus deltoids), green ash (fraxinus pennsylvanica), honey locust (gleditsia triacanthos), boxelder maple (acer negundo), American elm (ulmus Americana), silver maple (acer saccharinum), and osage orange (maclura pomifera) from the tree stratum; multiflora rose (rosa multiflora), green ash (fraxinus pennsylvanica), boxelder maple (acer negundo), hackberry (celtis occidentalis), and American elm (ulmus Americana) from the sapling/shrub stratum; clustered blacksnakeroot (sanicula odorata), giant ragweed (ambrosia trifida), common blue violet (viola sororia), Kentucky bluegrass (poa pratensis), common nettle (urtica dioica), Virginia wildrye (elymus virginicus), spotted touch-me-not (impatiens capensis), white avens (geum canadense), Canadian clearweed (pilea pumila), jumpseed (persicaria virginiana), frost aster (symphyotrichum pilosum), Johnson grass (sorghum halepense), earlyleaf brome (bromus latiglumis), Canadian blacksnakeroot (sanicula canadensis), tall white aster (symphyotrichum lanceolatum), hackberry (celtis occidentalis), rough cocklebur (xanthium strumarium), creeping jenny (lysimachia nummularia), and prairie coneflower (ratibida pinnata) in the herb stratum; and Virginia creeper (parthenocissus quinquefolia) in the woody vine stratum. The project includes removing the existing bridge and approximately 700 ft. of CR 900 West. CR 900 West will be realigned in a straight line approximately 65 ft. to the east of its existing location and construct a new bridge over Little Blue River. During construction, approximately 0.895 acre of trees, 0.078 acre of grass, and 2.645 acre of farmland will be impacted during this project. Avoidance alternatives would not be practicable because by realigning the roadway and bridge, overall environmental impacts due to the project are reduced to include costs of right-of-way and roadway approach work, thus total project cost is reduced. Approximately 0.52 acre of non-wetland trees (1:1 mitigation ratio) will be planted in a tree mitigation area within the project limits (Appendix B, pages B-3 and B-18). The IDNR-DFW responded on March 8, 2019 with recommendations to avoid or minimize impacts to terrestrial habitat (Appendix C, pages C-5 to C-8). Recommendations include impacts to non-wetland forest of one (1) acre or more should be mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio; if less than one acre of non-wetland forest is removed in a rural setting, replacement should be at a 1:1 ratio based on area; revegetating; minimizing tree clearing, and do not cut any trees suitable for Indiana bat or Northern Long-eared bat from April 1 through September 30. All applicable IDNR-DFW recommendations are included in the Environmental Commitments section of this CE document.

If there are high incidences of animal movements observed in the project area, or if bridges and other areas appear to be the sole corridor for animal movement, consideration of utilizing wildlife crossings should be taken.

Presence Impacts Yes No Terrestrial Habitat X X Unique or High Quality Habitat




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Karst Yes No Is the proposed project located within or adjacent to the potential Karst Area of Indiana? X Are karst features located within or adjacent to the footprint of the proposed project? X

If yes, will the project impact any of these karst features?

Use the remarks box to identify any karst features within the project area. (Karst investigation must comply with the Karst MOU, dated October 13, 1993)

Remarks: Based on a desktop review, the project is located outside the designated karst region of Indiana as outlined in the October 13, 1993 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). According to the topo map of the project area (Appendix B, page B-2), and the RFI report (Appendix E, page E-8) there are no karst features identified within or adjacent to the project area. In the early coordination response, the Indiana Geological Survey (IGS) did not indicate that karst features exist in the project area (Appendix C, pages C-17 to C-19). IGS responded that geological hazards include a high liquefaction potential and 1% annual chance flood hazard; mineral resources include high potential bedrock resource and low potential sand and gravel resource; and active or abandoned mineral resources extraction sites include petroleum exploration wells and abandoned industrial minerals sand gravel pits are located within 0.5 mile of the project area. Response from IGS has been communicated with the designer on November 8, 2019. No impacts are expected. Based on the RFI (Appendix E, page E-9) an oil and gas well is located adjacent to the project area. On May 8, 2019, Metric Environmental coordinated with DNR Oil & Gas (Appendix C, page C-23). On June 10, 2019, DNR Oil & Gas responded that if the well is located within construction limits the well will need to be plugged (Appendix C, page C-22). A survey was conducted to locate the well. The well was identified located outside of the construction limits. On July 10, 2019, the designer sent a request to DNR Oil & Gas requesting if the well can be labeled as “do not disturb” (Appendix C, page C-20). On July 10, 2019, DNR Oil & Gas responded that the well can be marked as “do not disturb”. The DNR Oil & Gas also mentioned that the contractor needs to be aware that they may encounter old gas lines if excavating around the area. If lines are currently disconnected there should not be any issues with natural gas. If there are risers of lines at the well they could be flushed to ensure no gas is in them. Chances are that with their age they have holes in them and have been flooded (Appendix C, page C-20).

Presence Impacts

Threatened or Endangered Species Yes No Within the known range of any federal species X X Any critical habitat identified within project area Federal species found in project area (based upon informal consultation) X X State species found in project area (based upon consultation with IDNR) X X Yes No Is Section 7 formal consultation required for this action? X

Remarks: Based on a desktop review and the RFI report (Appendix E, page E-4), completed by Metric Environmental on February 6, 2019, the IDNR Rush Endangered, Threatened and Rare (ETR) Species List has been checked and is included in (Appendix E, page E-10). The highlighted species on the list reflect the federal and state identified ETR species located within the county. According to the IDNR-DFW early coordination response letter dated March 8, 2019 (Appendix C, pages C-5 to C-8), the Natural Heritage Program’s Database has been checked. The following mussel species have been documented in Little Blue River near the project area: Federal and state endanged clubshell (pleurobema clava) and state special concern species wavyrayed lampmussel (lampsilis fasciola), kidneyshell (ptychobranchus fasciolaris), and little spectaclecase (villosa lienosa). The IDNR-DFW does not foresee any impacts to the mussel species as a result of this project.




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Project information was submitted through the USFWS’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) portal, and an official species list was generated (Appendix C, pages C-24 to C-29). The project is within range of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis). No additional species were found within or adjacent to the project area other than the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat The project qualifies for the Limited Formal Programmatic Consultation for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat (NLEB). An effect determination key was completed on May 17, 2019, and based on the responses provided, the project was found to “likely adversely affect” the Indiana bat and/or the NLEB (Appendix C, pages C-30 to C-45). Proposed impacts cannot be avoided due to realigning (straightening) CR 900 W. INDOT verified the effect finding and submitted to USFWS on May 21, 2019. On May 21, 2019, USFWS concurred with the “likely to adversely affect” finding (Appendix C, pages C-46 to C-49). USFWS stated this concurrence concludes the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 responsibilities relative to these species for this project, subject to the Reinitiation Notice. A “Reinitiation Notice” is required if: more than 1.214 acres of suitable habitat is to be cleared; new information about listed species is encountered; the project is modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species; or a new species or critical habitat is listed that the project may affect. These requirements, and the Avoidance and Minimizations Measures (AMMs) from the Project Submittal Form, are included as firm commitments for this project. INDOT shall satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements of the formal consultation with USFWS through one of the conservation options outlined on page 41 of the May 20, 2016 Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects in the Range of the Indiana bat and NLEB. The amount to be paid to the Range-wide In-lieu Fee Program, to be administered by The Conservation Fund, shall be $1,615.22. This amount was determined by the Habitat Block Method. The area of suitable habitat to be cleared, multiplied by the mitigation ratio for inactive season tree clearing for Rush, and the compensatory price per acre; 0.087 acre X 1.75 X $10,609. As the design progressed, the amount of tree removal reduced from approximately 1.127 acres of trees, 0 ft. to 100 ft. from edge of pavement to 0.892 acre of trees, 0 ft. to 100 ft. from edge of pavement as indicated in the USFWS threatened and endangered species list and consistency letter (Appendix C, pages C-24 to C-45). Additionally, the amount of tree removal reduced from approximately 0.087 acre of trees, 100 ft. to 300 ft. from edge of pavement to 0.003 acre of trees, 100 ft. to 300 ft. from edge of pavement. Although the tree impacts have been reduced, re-coordination with USFWS was not conducted at the request of the project sponsor. This precludes the need for further consultation on this project as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. If new information on endangered species at the site becomes available, or if project plans are changed, USFWS will be contacted for consultation.

SECTION B – OTHER RESOURCES

Presence Impacts Drinking Water Resources Yes No Wellhead Protection Area Public Water System(s) Residential Well(s) Source Water Protection Area(s) Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

If a SSA is present, answer the following: Yes No Is the Project in the St. Joseph Aquifer System? Is the FHWA/EPA SSA MOU Applicable? Initial Groundwater Assessment Required? Detailed Groundwater Assessment Required?

Remarks: The project is located in Rush County, which is not located within the area of the St. Joseph Sole Source Aquifer, the only legally designated sole source aquifer in the state of Indiana. Therefore, the FHWA/EPA Sole Source Aquifer Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not applicable to this project. Therefore, a detailed groundwater assessment is not needed and no impacts are expected. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s Wellhead Proximity Determinator website (http://www.in.gov/idem/cleanwater/pages/wellhead/) was accessed on January 30, 2020 by Metric Environmental. This project is not located within a Wellhead Protection Area or Source Water Area. No impacts are expected. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources Water Well Record Database website (https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/3595.htm) was accessed on January 30, 2020 by Metric Environmental. No wells are located near this project. Therefore, no impacts are expected. Based on a desktop review of the INDOT MS4 website (https://entapps.indot.in.gov/MS4/) by Metric Environmental on February 1, 2019, and the RFI report; this project is not located in an Urban Area Boundary location. No impacts are expected. Based on a desktop review, a site visit on September 4, 2018 by Metric Environmental, and the 2012 aerial map of the project area (Appendix B, page B-3) no public water systems were identified. Therefore, no impacts are expected.

Presence Impacts Flood Plains Yes No Longitudinal Encroachment Transverse Encroachment X X Project located within a regulated floodplain X X

Homes located in floodplain within 1000’ up/downstream from project

Discuss impacts according to classification system described in the “Procedural Manual for Preparing Environmental Studies”. Remarks: Based on a desktop review of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Indiana Floodway Information

Portal website (http://dnrmaps.dnr.in.gov/appsphp/fdms/) by Metric Environmental on January 30, 2020, and the RFI report; this project is located in a regulatory floodplain as determined from approved IDNR floodplain maps (Appendix F, page F-15). A hydraulic analysis was performed. The project will be reviewed by IDNR hydraulically prior to obtaining the Construction in a Floodway (CIF) permit. An early coordination letter was sent on February 11, 2020, to the local Floodplain Administrator. The floodplain administrator responded on February 11, 2020 that he has no concerns and requested a copy of the approved CIF permit (Appendix C, page C-52). The designer will send a copy of the approved CIF permit to the floodway administrator. This project qualifies as a Category 4 per the current INDOT CE Manual, which states no homes are located within the base floodplain within 1,000 feet upstream and no homes are located within the base floodplain within 1,000 feet downstream. The proposed structure will have an effective capacity such that backwater surface elevations are not expected to substantially increase. As a result, there will be no substantial adverse




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values; there will be no substantial change in flood risks; and there will be no substantial increase in potential for interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation routes; therefore, it has been determined that this encroachment is not substantial.

Presence Impacts Farmland Yes No Agricultural Lands X X Prime Farmland (per NRCS) X X

Total Points (from Section VII of CPA-106/AD-1006* 89

*If 160 or greater, see CE Manual for guidance.

See CE Manual for guidance to determine which NRCS form is appropriate for your project. Remarks: Based on a desktop review, a site visit on September 4, 2018 by Metric Environmental, and the 2012 aerial

map of the project area (Appendix B, page B-3), the project will convert 2.65 acres of farmland as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act. An early coordination letter was sent on February 7, 2019, to Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). Coordination with NRCS resulted in a score of 89 on the NRCS-CPA-106 Form (Appendix C, page C-51). NRCS’s threshold score for significant impacts to farmland that result in the consideration of alternatives is 160. Since this project score is less than the threshold, no significant loss of prime, unique, statewide, or local important farmland will result from this project. No alternatives other than those previously discussed in this document will be investigated without reevaluating impacts to prime farmland.

SECTION C – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Category Type INDOT Approval Dates N/A Minor Projects PA Clearance

Results of Research

Eligible and/or Listed Resource Present

Archaeology NRHP Buildings/Site(s) NRHP District(s) NRHP Bridge(s) Project Effect No Historic Properties Affected X No Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Documentation Prepared Documentation (mark all that apply)

ES/FHWA

Approval Date(s) SHPO

Approval Date(s) Historic Properties Short Report Historic Property Report X July 25, 2019 August 16,2019 Archaeological Records Check/ Review Archaeological Phase Ia Survey Report X July 25, 2019 August 16, 2019 Archaeological Phase Ic Survey Report Archaeological Phase II Investigation Report Archaeological Phase III Data Recovery APE, Eligibility and Effect Determination 800.11 Documentation X December 2, 2019 January 3, 2020




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

MOA Signature Dates (List all signatories) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Describe all efforts to document cultural resources, including a detailed summary of the Section 106 process, using the categories outlined in the remarks box. The completion of the Section 106 process requires that a Legal Notice be published in local newspapers. Please indicate the publication date, name of paper(s) and the comment period deadline. Likewise include any further Section 106 work which must be completed at a later date, such as mitigation or deep trenching.

Remarks: Area of Potential Effect (APE): Qualified professionals working for Green3, LLC and meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards defined an Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE is the geographical area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist, as defined by 36 CFR Section 800.16 (d). The APE for this project includes all properties adjacent to the project and those with a proximate viewshed of the project. The project area is heavily forested near the river and has intermittent forestation south of the bridge, the APE contracts where the visibility is narrower in these areas (Appendix D, page D-8). Coordination with Consulting Parties: Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies, or their representatives, to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c) and the INDOT Cultural Resources Manual, the consulting parties were invited to participate in efforts to identify historic properties potentially affected by this project, assess the project’s effects, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. Potential consulting parties were invited via e-mail to view the consulting party coordination letter and Section 106 documentation on IN SCOPE (Appendix D, Pages D-23 to D-33). The following agencies and organizations were invited to be consulting parties for the project on July 18 and July 25, 2019 (Appendix D, page D-21 to D-22).

Date Invited Invited Consulting Party

Reply Received

Response

July 18, 2019 Indiana Landmarks, Eastern Regional Office

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Rush County Heritage, Inc.

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Rush County Genealogical Society

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Rush County Historical Society

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Rush County Commissioners

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Rush County Highway Department

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

August 22, 2019

Yes

July 18, 2019 Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians

N/A N/A

July 18, 2019 Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma

July 19, 2019 Yes




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

INDOT Cultural Resources Office (CRO), IDNR State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and FHWA are automatic consulting parties. On July 19, 2019, Delaware Tribe of Indians agreed to be a consulting party (Appendix D, page D-34). On August 16, 2019, the SHPO responded to the consulting party coordination letter dated July 18, 2019 (Appendix D, pages D-42 to D-43). The SHPO did not provide recommendations for consulting parties beyond those whom were invited. On August 22, 2019, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma agreed to be a consulting party (Appendix D, page D-44). Archaeology: Green3, LLC reviewed the State Historical Architectural and Archaeological Research Database (SHAARD), cultural resource management reports, cemetery records, county interim report, and historical data. The literature review indicated that no section of the project area had been previously examined. It was also ascertained that no archaeological sites, cemeteries, or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties have been recorded either in or within 100 feet of the proposed corridor. The field investigation documented one site (12-Ru-800), which was the mill race for the Swain Mill; based on the historic cartographic sources, the mill was situated east of the project area. It is believed that further work on the site would not provide data that would enhance understanding of the Swain Mill or the history of the region. Thus, the site fails to meet the minimum criteria for placement on the NRHP. No further work is recommended on the site. Data collected from the excavation of shovel probes indicated that while alluvial deposition has occurred south of Little Blue River, the potential for significant buried archaeological deposits is limited. Because of this, it is recommended that a Phase Ic investigation is not warranted. Based on the data collected from this investigation, it can be ascertained that the proposed project will have “no effect” on any cultural resources that are eligible for placement on the NRHP. Therefore, no further work is recommended. Green3, LLC submitted an Archaeological Phase 1a to INDOT CRO on March 22, 2019. The Archaeological Phase 1a located no archaeological resources in the project area. No further archaeological work was recommended (Appendix D, Pages D-48 to D-49). On July 2, 2019, INDOT CRO concurred with the evaluations and recommendations made within the Phase 1a Archaeological Phase 1a (Appendix D, Page D-19). The Archaeological Phase 1a was then submitted to the SHPO and tribe consulting parties on July 25, 2019. The SHPO concurred with the findings of the report within a letter dated August 16, 2019, (Appendix D, pages D-42 to D-43). None of the tribe consulting parties responded. Historic Properties: Green3, LLC reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures (State Register), SHAARD, and SHAARD Geographic Information Systems. Several other primary and secondary sources containing information about Rush County and Posey Township historic resources were also consulted. No historic resources were identified within the APE. Green3, LLC completed the Historic Properties Report (HPR), dated July 18, 2019, a portion of which is located in Appendix D, Pages D-46 to D-47. The HPR was submitted to the INDOT CRO on March 14, 2019. INDOT CRO concurrence was obtained via an email dated July 12, 2019 (Appendix D, Page D-20). The HPR was then submitted to the SHPO and the other consulting parties in a transmittal dated July 18, 2019 (Appendix D, pages D-21 to D-31). On August 16, 2019, the SHPO indicated concurrence with the findings and recommendations of the HPR (Appendix D, pages D-42 to D-43).




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Documentation Finding: On December 2, 2019, the INDOT CRO, on behalf of the FHWA, approved the APE and issued a “No Historic Properties Affected” finding for this project (Appendix D, page D-4). Following this finding, the effect documentation was provided to the SHPO and other consulting parties for a 30-day review and comment period on December 3, 2019. The SHPO responded with their concurrence regarding the “No Historic Properties Affected” finding on January 3, 2020 (Appendix D, pages D-1 to D-2). Public Involvement: In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(d), 800.3(e), and 800.6(a)(4), the views of the public were sought regarding the effect of the proposed project (Appendix D, Pages D-50 to D-51). An announcement was published in The Rushville Republican on December 10, 2019. A deadline date of January 10, 2019 was established to provide comments on the “No Historic Properties Affected” finding. As no comments were received regarding the “No Historic Properties Affected” finding during the 30-day public comment period, the responsibilities of the FHWA under Section 106 were fulfilled. This completes the Section 106 process and the responsibilities of the FHWA under Section 106 have been fulfilled.

SECTION D – SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES/ SECTION 6(f) RESOURCES

Section 4(f) Involvement (mark all that apply) Presence Use Parks & Other Recreational Land Yes No Publicly owned park Publicly owned recreation area Other (school, state/national forest, bikeway, etc.) Evaluations

Prepared

FHWA Programmatic Section 4(f)* Approval date “De minimis” Impact* Individual Section 4(f)

Presence Use Wildlife & Waterfowl Refuges Yes No National Wildlife Refuge National Natural Landmark State Wildlife Area State Nature Preserve Evaluations

Prepared


Presence Use Historic Properties Yes No Sites eligible and/or listed on the NRHP




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Evaluations Prepared


*FHWA approval of the environmental document also serves as approval of any Section 4f Programmatic and/or De minimis evaluation(s) discussed below. Discuss Programmatic Section 4(f) and “de minimis” Section 4(f) impacts in the remarks box below. Individual Section 4(f) documentation must be separate Draft and Final documents. For further discussions on Programmatic, “de minimis” and Individual Section 4(f) evaluations please refer to the “Procedural Manual for the Preparation of Environmental Studies”. Discuss proposed alternatives that satisfy the requirements of Section 4(f).

Remarks: Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 prohibits the use of certain public and historic lands for federally funded transportation facilities unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative. The law applies to significant publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife / waterfowl refuges, and NRHP eligible or listed historic properties regardless of ownership. Lands subject to this law are considered Section 4(f) resources. Based on a desktop review, a site visit on September 4, 2018 by Metric Environmental, the 2012 aerial map of the project area (Appendix B, page B-3), and the RFI report (Appendix E, page E-7) there are no 4(f) resources located within the 0.5 mile search radius. There are no Section 4(f) resources within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, no use is expected.

Section 6(f) Involvement Presence Use Yes No Section 6(f) Property

Discuss proposed alternatives that satisfy the requirements of Section 6(f). Discuss any Section 6(f) involvement.

Remarks: The U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 established the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which was created to preserve, develop, and assure accessibility to outdoor recreation resources. Section 6(f) of this Act prohibits conversion of lands purchased with LWCF monies to a non-recreation use. A review of 6(f) properties on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) website at https://www. wilderness.org/articles/article/mapping-land-and-water-conservation-fund-lwcf revealed no properties in Rush County. Therefore, there will be no impacts to 6(f) resources as a result of this project.

SECTION E – Air Quality

Air Quality

Conformity Status of the Project Yes No Is the project in an air quality non-attainment or maintenance area? X If YES, then: Is the project in the most current MPO TIP? Is the project exempt from conformity? If the project is NOT exempt from conformity, then: Is the project in the Transportation Plan (TP)? Is a hot spot analysis required (CO/PM)? Level of MSAT Analysis required?




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Level 1a X Level 1b Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Remarks: This project is included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 – 2019 by Amendment #16-41 dated May 23, 2017, 2018 – 2021dated July 3, 2017, and 2020 – 2024 dated July 2, 2019, Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) (Appendix H, pages H-1 to H-3). This project is located in Rush County, which is currently in attainment for all criteria pollutants according to http://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/files/nonattainment_county_list.pdf. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 40 CFR Part 93 do not apply. This project is of a type qualifying as a categorical exclusion (Group 1) under 23 CFR 771.117(c), or exempt under the Clean Air Act conformity rule under 40 CFR 93.126, and as such, a Mobile Source Air Toxics analysis is not required.

SECTION F - NOISE

Noise Yes No

Is a noise analysis required in accordance with FHWA regulations and INDOT’s traffic noise policy? X

Remarks: This project is a Type III project. In accordance with 23 CFR 772 and the current Indiana Department of

Transportation Traffic Noise Analysis Procedure, this action does not require a formal noise analysis.

SECTION G – COMMUNITY IMPACTS

Regional, Community & Neighborhood Factors Yes No Will the proposed action comply with the local/regional development patterns for the area? X Will the proposed action result in substantial impacts to community cohesion? X Will the proposed action result in substantial impacts to local tax base or property values? X Will construction activities impact community events (festivals, fairs, etc.)? X Does the community have an approved transition plan? X If No, are steps being made to advance the community’s transition plan? Does the project comply with the transition plan? (explain in the remarks box) X Remarks: There will be no permanent adverse impact to local mobility, access, pedestrian or motorist safety or

emergency services as a result of the project. However, during construction, there will be temporary impacts due to the detour. There will be no permanent adverse alterations to the movement of traffic, land use or the streetscape. No permanent impacts to the community cohesion, local tax base, property values or community events were identified as a result from the project. In accordance with the current INDOT Design Manual and Standard Specifications, the contractor will be responsible for contacting school districts and emergency services at least two weeks prior to the start of construction. Notification and all signs, lights and barricades utilized for traffic maintenance will be in accordance with current INDOT Standard Specifications and the Manal on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

No Yes/ Date ES Review of Noise Analysis




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

The Indiana Association of Fairs website (www.indianafestivals.org) was reviewed by Metric Environmental on February 11, 2020. There are no events planned within or near the project area. Therefore; this project will not impact community events, such as festivals or fairs due to the project activities. On February 7, 2019, Metric Environmental sent an early coordination packet to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requesting comments from their area of expertise regarding any possible environmental effects associated with this project (Appendix C, pages C-1 to C-4). No response was received. Rush County maintains an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan, adopted June 3, 2012. There are no existing sidewalks or other pedestrian walkways which will be destroyed or amended within the vicinity of this project, and there are no sidewalks or other pedestrian walkways that will be constructed as part of this project. This project will not contribute to any barriers to ADA accessibility.

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Yes No Will the proposed action result in substantial indirect or cumulative impacts? X

Remarks: Indirect impacts are effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate. Cumulative impacts affect the environment, which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions. No indirect or cumulative impacts have been identified as a result of this project. There have been no significant effects identified which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance. In addition, there have been no significant effects identified which may induce changes in the patterns of land use, population density or growth rate, or related effects on air and water or other natural systems, including ecosystems. No significant impacts on the environment have been identified which will result from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This project will improve the road and bridge conditions. None of the resource agencies identified or made known any substantial negative impacts.

Public Facilities & Services Yes No Will the proposed action result in substantial impacts on health and educational facilities, public and private utilities, emergency services, religious institutions, airports, public transportation or pedestrian and bicycle facilities? Discuss how the maintenance of traffic will affect public facilities and services.

X

Remarks: Based on a desktop review, a site visit on September 4, 2018 by Metric Environmental, the 2012 aerial map

of the project area (Appendix B, page B-3), and the RFI report (Appendix B, page B-7), there is one religious facility that also contains a cemetery, located within the 0.5 mile of the project. The religious facility and cemetery are located approximately 0.22 mile north of the project area. These facilities are not located within the construction limits. Access to all properties will be maintained during construction. Therefore, no impacts are expected. It is the responsibility of the project sponsor to notify school corporations and emergency services at least two weeks prior to any construction that would block or limit access.




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Environmental Justice (EJ) (Presidential EO 12898)

Yes

No

During the development of the project were EJ issues identified? X Does the project require an EJ analysis? X If YES, then: Are any EJ populations located within the project area? X Will the project result in adversely high or disproportionate impacts to EJ populations? X

Remarks: Under FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA and the project sponsor, as a recipient of funding from FHWA, are

responsible to ensure that their programs, policies, and activities do not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. Per the current INDOT Categorical Exclusion Manual, an Environmental Justice (EJ) Analysis is required for any project that has two or more relocations or 0.5 acre of additional permanent right-of-way. The project will require 4.37 acres of right-of-way and no relocations. Therefore, an EJ Analysis is required. Potential EJ impacts are detected by locating minority and low-income populations relative to a reference population to determine if populations of EJ concern exists and whether there could be disproportionately high and adverse impacts to them. The reference population may be a county, city or town and is called the community of comparison (COC). In this project, the COC is Rush County. The community that overlaps the project area is called the affected community (AC). In this project, the AC is Census Tract 9745. An AC has a population of concern for EJ if the population is more than 50% minority or low-income or if the low-income or minority population is 125% of the COC. Data from the American FactFinder 2013-2017 was obtained from the US Census Bureau Website https://factfinder.census.gov/ on February 5, 2019 by Metric Environmental. The data collected for minority and low-income populations within the AC are summarized in the below table.

Table: Minority and Low-Income Data (Source Data and Year) COC

Rush County AC-1

Census Tract 9745, Rush County, Indiana

Percent Minority 3.90% 1.17% 125% of COC 4.88% AC < 125% COC EJ Population of Concern No Percent Low-Income 18.32% 24.14% 125% of COC 22.90%) AC < 125% COC EJ Population of Concern Yes

AC-1, Census Tract 9745 has a percent minority of 1.17% which is below 50% and is below the 125% COC threshold. Therefore, AC-1 is not a minority population of EJ concern. AC-1, Census Tract 9745 has a percent low-income of 24.14% which is below 50% but is above the 125% COC threshold. Therefore, AC-1 is a low-income population of EJ concern. Conclusion - On February 5, 2019, INDOT-ESD reviewed the project information along with the EJ Analysis for this project. The project would require strip right-of-way, require no relocations, and would not disrupt community cohesion or create a physical barrier. With the information provided, INDOT-ESD would not consider the impacts associated with this project as causing a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and/or low incomes populations of EJ concern relative to non EJ populations in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and FHWA Order 6640.23a. No further EJ Analysis is required. The map illustrating the AC and COC, census data sheets, calculations, and correspondence with INDOT-ESD can be found in Appendix I, pages I-1 to I-8.




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Relocation of People, Businesses or Farms Yes No Will the proposed action result in the relocation of people, businesses or farms? X Is a Business Information Survey (BIS) required? X Is a Conceptual Stage Relocation Study (CSRS) required? X Has utility relocation coordination been initiated for this project? X Number of relocations: Residences: 0 Businesses: 0 Farms: 0 Other: 0

If a BIS or CSRS is required, discuss the results in the remarks box.

Remarks: USI Consultants, Inc. initiated utility coordination with RushShelby Energy Overhead Electric and Frontier Communications in August 2018 (Appendix C, page C-53). Relocations of the overhead electric and communication lines are anticipated. The conflict analysis has been complete. The utility relocations will be added to the roadway plans and specifications. Utility coordination will be on-going. No relocations of people, businesses, or farms will take place as a result of this project.

SECTION H – HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & REGULATED SUBSTANCES

Documentation Hazardous Materials & Regulated Substances (Mark all that apply) Red Flag Investigation X Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) Design/Specifications for Remediation required?

No Yes/ Date ES Review of Investigations Yes/May 6, 2019

Include a summary of findings for each investigation.

Remarks: Based on a review of GIS and available public records, an RFI was approved on May 6, 2019 by INDOT Site Assessment & Management (Appendix E, pages E-1 to E-10). No sites with hazardous material concerns (hazmat sites) or sites involved with regulated substances were identified in or within 0.5 mile of the project area. Further investigation for hazardous material concerns or regulated substances is not required at this time.

SECTION I – PERMITS CHECKLIST

Permits (mark all that apply)

Likely Required

Army Corps of Engineers (404/Section10 Permit) Individual Permit (IP) Nationwide Permit (NWP) Regional General Permit (RGP) X Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Other Wetland Mitigation required X Stream Mitigation required X IDEM

Section 401 WQC X Isolated Wetlands determination Rule 5 X




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

Other Wetland Mitigation required X Stream Mitigation required X IDNR Construction in a Floodway X Navigable Waterway Permit Lake Preservation Permit Other Mitigation Required X US Coast Guard Section 9 Bridge Permit Others (Please discuss in the remarks box below)

Remarks: An IDEM Section 401 Individual Permit and a USACE 404 Regional General Permit are anticipated to be

required to remove and replace the existing structure on CR 900 West, relocate CR 900 West, and install riprap. Wetland and Stream Mitigation will be required. Final decisions regarding the type of permits will be made by USACE and IDEM. An NPDES General Permit for Erosion Control (Rule 5) will be required, as greater than 1 acre of land will be disturbed. Prior to the initiation of construction, it will be the responsibility of the contractor to submit the Notice of Intent to IDEM regarding the intent to operate the proposed construction project in a manner consistent with the rule. An early coordination letter was sent to IDNR-DFW on February 7, 2019 (Appendix C, pages C-1 to C-4). According to the IDNR-DFW early coordination response letter dated March 8, 2019 this proposal will require the formal approval for construction in a floodway under the Flood Control Act, IC 14-28-1 (Appendix C, pages C-5). A tree mitigation plan will be included in the construction in the floodway permit. Applicable recommendations provided by IDNR-DFW are included in the Environmental Commitments section of this document. If permits are found to be necessary, the conditions of the permit will be requirements of the project and will supersede these recommendations. It is the responsibility of the project sponsor to identify and obtain all required permits.

SECTION J- ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

The following information should be provided below: List all commitments, name of agency/organization requesting the commitment(s), and indicating which are firm and which are for further consideration. The commitments should be numbered.

Remarks: Firm: 1. Any work in a wetland area within right-of-way or in borrow/waste areas is prohibited unless

specifically allowed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. (INDOT ESD) 2. If the scope of work or permanent or temporary right-of-way amounts change, INDOT-ESD and

the INDOT District Environmental Section will be contacted immediately. (INDOT-ESD and INDOT District)

3. It is the responsibility of the project sponsor to notify school corporations and emergency services

at least two weeks prior to any construction activity that would block or limit access. (INDOT-ESD)




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

4. USFWS Bridge/Structure Assessment shall take place no earlier than two (2) years prior to the start of construction. If construction will begin after August 28, 2020, an inspection of the structure by a qualified individual, must be performed. Inspection of the structure should check for presence of bats/bat indicators and/or presence of birds. The results of the inspection must indicate no signs of bats or birds. If signs of bats or birds are documented during this inspection, the INDOT District Environmental Manager must be contacted immediately. (INDOT-ESD)

5. Ensure all operators, employees, and contractors working in areas of known or presumed bat habitat are aware of all FHWAQ/FRA/FTA (Transportation Agencies) environmental commitments, including all applicable AMMs. (USFWS, General AMM 1)

6. Direct lighting away from suitable habitat during the active season. (USFWS, Lighting AMM 1) 7. Modify all phases/aspects of the project (e.g., temporary work areas, alignments) to avoid tree

removal. (USFWS, Tree Removal AMM 1) 8. Ensure tree removal is limited to that specified in project plans and ensure that contractors

understand clearing limits and how they are marked in the field (e.g., install bright colored flagging/fencing prior to any tree clearing to ensure contractors stay within clearing limits) (USFWS, Tree Removal AMM 3)

9. Contractors must take care when handling dead or injured bats (regardless of species), and any other federally listed species that are found at the Project site in order to preserve biological material in the best possible condition and protect the handler from exposure to diseases, such as rabies. Project personnel are responsible for ensuring that any evidence about determining the cause of death or injury is not unnecessarily disturbed. Reporting the discovery of dead or injured listed species is required in all cases to enable the Service to determine whether the level of incidental take exempted by the BO is exceeded, and to ensure that the terms and conditions are appropriate and effective. Parties finding a dead, injured, or sick specimen of any bat (regardless of species), or other endangered or threatened species, must promptly notify the USFWS Bloomington Field Office at (812) 334-4261. (USFWS)

10. A “Reinitiation Notice” is required if: more than 1.214 acres of trees are to be cleared; the amount or extent of incidental take of Indiana bat is exceeded; new information about listed species is encountered; new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the project may affect; the project is modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species; or, new information reveals that the project may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not considered in the BO or the project information. (USFWS)

11. The INDOT Project Manager will assure that $1,615.22 of Preliminary Engineering funds will be allocated to the Rangewide In-Lieu Fee Program, administered by The Conservation Fund, to resolve formal consultation under the Rangewide Programmatic (0.087 acre X 1.75 x $10,609= $1,615.22). Payment shall be in process at Ready for Contracts (RFC) date. (INDOT-ESD, USFWS)

12. The contractors need to be aware that they may encounter old gas lines if excavating around the area of the well. If lines are currently disconnected there should not be any issues with natural gas. If there are risers of lines at the well they could be flushed to ensure no gas is in them. (DNR Oil & Gas).

13. The Rush County Floodway Administrator requested a copy of the approved CIF permit. The designer shall send the approved CIF permit to [email protected]. (Rush County Floodway Administrator)




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

For Further Consideration: 14. If box or pipe culverts are used, the bottoms should be buried to a minimum of ^” (or 20% of the

culvert height/pipe diameter, whichever is greater up to a maximum of 2’) below the stream bed elevation to allow a natural streambed to form within or under the crossing structure. Crossings should span the entire channel width (a minimum of 1.2 times the OHWM width); maintain the natural stream substrate within the structure; have a minimum openness ratio (height x width / length) of 0.25; and have stream depth, channel width, and water velocities during low-flow conditions that are approximate to those in the natural stream channel. The new, replacement, or rehabbed structure should not create conditions that are less favorable for wildlife passage under the structure compared to the current conditions. (IDNR-DFW)

15. Riprap must not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes fish or aquatic organism passage (riprap must not be placed above the existing streambed elevation). Riprap may be used used only at the toe of the sideslopes up to the OHWM. The banks above the OHWM must be restored, stabilized, and revegetated using geotextiles and a mixture of grasses, sedges, wildflowers, shrubs, and trees native to the area and specifically for stream bank/floodway stabilization purposes as soon as possible upon completion. (IDNR-DFW)

16. Impacts to non-wetland forest of one (1) acre or more should be mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio. If less than one acre of non-wetland forest is removed in a rural setting, replacement should be at a 1:1 ratio based on area. Impacts to non-wetland forest under one (1) acre in an urban setting should be mitigated by planting five trees, at least 2 inches in diameter-at-breast height (dbh), for each tree which is removed that is 10 inches dbh or greater (5:1 mitigation based on the number of large trees). (IDNR-DFW)

17. Impacts to wetland habitat should be mitigated at the appropriate ratio according to the 1991 INDOT/IDNR/USFWS Memorandum of Understanding. (IDNR-DFW)

18. Survey the bridge for any bird nests prior to construction. Nest surveys should occur between May 7 and September 7, which denotes the main nesting season for most bird species. If nests are found with eggs, chicks, or parents actively attending to the nest (building the nest and visiting often), then repairs should be put on hold until the nests complete their nesting cycle (to fledging) or fail (by natural causes). (IDNR-DFW)

19. Bridge maintenance activities should be restricted to the period between November 1 and March 1 to avoid the summer roosting period for most bats in the central part of the State. (IDNR-DFW)

20. No matter when work is proposed, the bridge must be inspected for the presence of bats. If there is no evidence of active bat use, work can proceed. If there is evidence of f active bat use, work must not occur until either the bats leave the structure for the season or a separate permit is issued to remove the bats. (IDNR-DFW)

21. It is recommended that consultation with the State Mammologist or the USFWS be conducted before scheduling a bridge maintenance, repair, or replacement project where evidence of bat use of the structure has been observed. (IDNR-DFW)

22. Do not cut any trees suitable for Indiana bat or Northern Long-eared bat roosting (greater than 5 inches dbh, living or dead, with loose hanging bark, or with cracks, crevices, or cavities) from April 1 through September 30. (IDNR-DFW)

23. Do not construct any temporary runarounds or causeways. (IDNR-DFW) 24. Operate equipment used to replace the bridge from the existing roadway. (IDNR-DFW) 25. Use minimum average 6 inch graded riprap stone extended below the normal water level to

provide habitat for aquatic organisms in the voids. (IDNR-DFW) 26. Avoid all work within the inundated part of the stream channel during the fish spawning season

(April 1 through June 30); except for work within sealed structures such as caissons or cofferdams that were installed prior to the spawning season. No equipment shall be operated below Ordinary High Water Mark during this time unless the machinery is within the caissons or on the cofferdams. (USFWS)




May 1, 2020


Attachment 2

27. Evaluate wildlife crossings under bridge/culverts projects in appropriate situations. Suitable crossings include flat areas below bridge abutments with suitable ground cover, high water shelves in culverts, amphibian tunnels, and diversion fencing. (USFWS)

28. Minimize the extent of hard armor (riprap) in bank stabilization by using bioengineering techniques whenever possible. If riprap is utilized for bank stabilization, extend it below low-water elevation to provide aquatic habitat. (USFWS)

29. Restrict below low-water work in streams to placement of culverts, piers, pilings, and/or footings, shaping of the spill slopes around the bridge abutments, and placement of riprap. (USFWS)

30. Culverts should span the active stream channel, should be either embedded or a 3-sided or open-arch culvert, and be installed where practicable on an essentially flat slope. When an open-bottom culvert or arch is used in a stream, which has a good natural bottom substrate, such as gravel, cobbles, and boulders, the existing substrate should be left undisturbed beneath the culvert to provide natural habitat for the aquatic community. (USFWS)

SECTION K- EARLY COORDINATION

Please list the date coordination was sent and all agencies that were contacted as a part of the development of this Environmental Study. Also, include the date of their response or indicate that no response was received. INDOT and FHWA are automatically considered early coordination participants and should only be listed if a response is received.

Remarks: Agency Coordination Sent Response Received Natural Resources Conservation Service February 7, 2019 March 1, 2019 Indiana Geological Survey February 12, 2019 February 12, 2019 INDOT Office of Aviation February 7, 2019 None Received Midwest Regional Office, National Parks Service February 7, 2019 None Received Indiana Department of Natural Resources February 7, 2019 March 8, 2019 US Department of HUD February 7, 2019 None Received IDEM Proposed Roadway Construction Projects February 11, 2020 February 11, 2020 INDOT Office of Public Involvement February 7, 2019 None Received United States Army Corps of Engineers February 7, 2019 None Received Rush County Surveyor February 7, 2019 None Received Rush County Highway Department February 7, 2019 None Received Rush County Commissioner February 7, 2019 None Received IDEM Wellhead Proximity Determinator February 11, 2020 Automatic Response Federal Highway Administration February 7, 2019 None Received U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service February 7, 2019 None Received INDOT Greenfield District February 7, 2019 None Received Chief, Bridge Program Section Eighth Coast Guard District

February 7, 2019 None Received

Rush County School District February 7, 2019 None Received IDNR, Division of Oil & Gas May 8, 2019 June 10, 17, and July

10, 2019 Rush County Floodway Administrator February 11, 2020 February 11, 2020

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: INDOT Supporting Documentation

Threshold Chart ...................................................................................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B: Graphics

Location Map ......................................................................................................................................B-1 USGS Topographic Map .....................................................................................................................B-2 2012 Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................................................B-3 Photograph Location Map ...................................................................................................................B-4 Site Photographs ..................................................................................................................................B-5 Bridge Plans .......................................................................................................................................B-11 Tree Mitigation Aerial Photograph .....................................................................................................B-18

APPENDIX C: Early Coordination Sample Early Coordination letter; February 7, 2019 ...........................................................................C-1 IDNR-DFW response; March 8, 2019 .................................................................................................C-5 IDEM Proposed Roadway Construction Projects Letter; Signed February 11, 2020 ..........................C-9 IGS response; February 12, 2019 ........................................................................................................C-17 IDNR Division of Oil & Gas response; June 10, June 17, and July 10, 2019 .....................................C-20 USFWS official species list; May 17, 2019 ........................................................................................C-24 USFWS Consistency Letter; May 17,2019 .........................................................................................C-30 USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion response; May 21, 2019 .................................................C-46 NRCS response; March 1, 2019 ..........................................................................................................C-50 Rush County Floodplain Administrator response; February 11, 2020 ................................................C-52 Utility Coordination ............................................................................................................................C-53 U.S. Coast Guard Correspondence; April 6 and 7, 2020 .....................................................................C-54

APPENDIX D: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

SHPO concurrence of “no historic properties affected”; January 3, 2020...........................................D-1 Effects Finding and 800.11 (e) Documentation; December 2, 2019 ...................................................D-3 INDOT CRO concurrence of the Archaeological Short Report; July 2, 2019 ....................................D-19 INDOT CRO concurrence of the HPR; July 12, 2019 ........................................................................D-20 List of invited consulting parties .........................................................................................................D-21 Invitation/HPR to potential consulting parties; July 18, 2019 .............................................................D-23 Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma response; July 19, 2019 ..........................................................D-34 Archaeology report to Tribes; July 25, 2019 .......................................................................................D-35 SHPO, INDOT CRO and Green3 correspondence; August 15, 2019 .................................................D-40 SHPO response; August 16, 2019 .......................................................................................................D-42 Miami Tribe of Oklahoma response; August 22, 2019 .......................................................................D-44 Portion of HPR; July 18, 2019 ............................................................................................................D-46 Portion of Phase 1a Archaeological Report; August 15, 2019 ............................................................D-48 Publisher’s Claim and Public Notice; December 10, 2019 .................................................................D-50

APPENDIX E: Red Flag and Hazardous Materials

Red Flag Investigation; Signed by INDOT SAM May 6, 2019 ..........................................................E-1

APPENDIX F: Water Resources Waters Determination Report; February 14, 2020 ..............................................................................F-1 NWI Wetland and Floodplain Map .....................................................................................................F-15 NRCS Soil Survey Map ......................................................................................................................F-16 Waters Delineation Map ......................................................................................................................F-17 Wetland Determination Data Forms ....................................................................................................F-18

APPENDIX G: Public Involvement

Sample Notice of Entry letter; October 2, 2017 ..................................................................................G-1 Publisher’s Claim ................................................................................................................................G-X Public Notice .......................................................................................................................................G-X

APPENDIX H: Air Quality

Amendment #16-41, FY 2016-2019 STIP ..........................................................................................H-1 FY 2018-2021 STIP ............................................................................................................................H-2 FY 2020-2024 STIP ............................................................................................................................H-3

APPENDIX I: Additional Studies

American Fact Finder Map ..................................................................................................................I-1 Minority Census Data Sheets ..............................................................................................................I-2 Low-Income Census Data Sheets ........................................................................................................I-4 Calculations .........................................................................................................................................I-7 Metric Environmental and INDOT ESD EJ correspondence; February 5, 2019 .................................I-8

APPENDIX A INDOT Supporting Documentation

Categorical Exclusion Level Thresholds

PCE Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 41

Section 106

Falls within guidelines of

Minor Projects PA

“No Historic Properties Affected”

“No Adverse Effect”

- “AdverseEffect” Or

Historic Bridge involvement2

Stream Impacts No construction in waterways or water

bodies

< 300 linear feet of stream

impacts

≥ 300 linear feet of stream

impacts

- Individual 404Permit

Wetland Impacts No adverse impacts

to wetlands < 0.1 acre - < 1 acre ≥ 1 acre

Right-of-way3

Property acquisition for

preservation only or none

< 0.5 acre ≥ 0.5 acre - -

Relocations None - - < 5 ≥ 5

Threatened/Endangered Species (Species Specific Programmatic for Indiana bat & northern long eared bat)

“No Effect”, “Not likely to Adversely Affect" (Without AMMs4 or with

AMMs required for all projects5)

“Not likely to Adversely

Affect" (With any other AMMs)

- “Likely to Adversely

Affect”

Project does not fall under

Species Specific

Programmatic

Threatened/Endangered Species (Any other species)

Falls within guidelines of USFWS 2013 Interim Policy

“No Effect”, “"Not likely to

Adversely Affect"

- - “Likely toAdversely

Affect”

Environmental Justice

No disproportionately high and adverse

impacts

- - - Potential6

Sole Source Aquifer Detailed

Assessment Not Required

- - - DetailedAssessment

Floodplain No Substantial

Impacts - - - Substantial

Impacts Coastal Zone Consistency Consistent - - - Not Consistent National Wild and Scenic

River Not Present - - - Present

New Alignment None - - - Any Section 4(f) Impacts None - - - Any Section 6(f) Impacts None - - - Any Added Through Lane None - - - Any Permanent Traffic Alteration None - - - Any Coast Guard Permit None - - - Any Noise Analysis Required No - - - Yes

Air Quality Analysis Required No - - - Yes7 Approval Level

District Env. Supervisor Env. Services Division FHWA

Concurrence by INDOT District

Environmental or Environmental

Services

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

1Coordinate with INDOT Environmental Services. INDOT will then coordinate with the appropriate FHWA Environmental Specialist. 2Any involvement with a bridge processed under the Historic Bridge Programmatic Agreement. 3Permanent and/or temporary right-of-way. 4AMMs = Avoidance and Mitigation Measures. 5AMMs determined by the IPAC decision key to be needed that are listed in the USFWS User’s Guide for the Range-wide Programmatic Consultation for Indiana bat and Northern long-eared bat as “required for all projects”. 6Potential for causing a disproportionately high and adverse impact. 7Hot Spot Analysis and/or MSAT Quantitative Emission Analysis. *Substantial public or agency controversy may require a higher-level NEPA document.

A-1

APPENDIX B Graphics

STARKE

CARROLL

WHITE

PULASKI

HAMILTON

MARION

BENTON

FRANKLIN

HENRY

JOHNSON

RANDOLPHBOONE

VERM

ILLIO

N

FAYETTE

CLAYMORGAN

VIGO

CLINTON

HANCOCKHENDRICKS

UNIO

NPUTNAM

SHELBY

PARKE

FOUNTAIN

WAYNE

DECATURBROWN

GREENE

OWEN

MONROE

LAWRENCE

DEAR

BORN

JACKSON OHIOJENNINGS

RIPLEY

JEFFERSON

NEWTON

LAKE PORTER

LAPORTESTEUBEN

DEKALB

MADISONTIPTON

ADAM

S

ST. JOSEPHELKHART

NOBLE

JAY

MARSHALL

HOWARD

KOSCIUSKO

GRANT

WELLS

FULTON

CASSWABASH

MIAMI

TIPPECANOEWARREN

JASPER

WASHINGTONKNOX

GIBSON

ORANGE

DAVIESS

DUBOIS

MARTIN

POSEY

CRAWFORD

HARRISON

SCOTT

WARRICK PERRYSPENCER

FLOYD

CLARK

WHITLEY ALLEN

DELAWARE

LAGRANGE

SULLIVAN

PIKE

SWITZER-LAND

HUNTING-TON

BLACK-FORD

MONTGO-MERY

VANDER-BURGH

BARTH-OLOMEW

RUSH

S

W E

Not to Scale

NAll locations approximate

PROJECT LOCATIONê

Source: http://maps.indiana.edu/

P:\2

016\

16-0

230

- USI

- Ro

ad R

ealig

nmen

tBrid

ge R

epla

cem

ent C

R 90

0W

\Exh

ibits

\ECL

\Loc

atio

n M

ap.d

wg

Location MapBridge Replacement and Road RealignmentCR 900 W over Little Blue RiverPosey Township, Rush County, IndianaDes. No. 1600968Metric Project No. 16-0230

B-1

USGS Topographic MapBridge Replacement and Road RealignmentCR 900 W over Little Blue RiverPosey Township, Rush County, IndianaDes. No. 1600968Metric Project No. 16-0230

Source: https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=262:1:0

Note: All locations are approximateBase map:Manilla, IN 1960Photorevised 19887.5 Minute Quadrangle

P:\2

016\

16-0

230

- USI

- Ro

ad R

ealig

nmen

tBrid

ge R

epla

cem

ent C

R 90

0 W

\Exh

ibits

\ECL

\Top

o M

ap.d

wg

Project Location

Scale

0

N

2,000'

B-2

W Base Road S 900 W

N 900 W

2012 Aerial PhotographBridge Replacement and Road RealignmentCR 900 W over Little Blue RiverPosey Township, Rush County, IndianaDes. No. 1600968Metric Project No. 16-0230

Source: https://gisdb.uits.indiana.edu/portal/map/m10000.html

Note: All locations are approximate

P:\2

016\

16-0

230

- USI

- Ro

ad R

ealig

nmen

tBrid

ge R

epla

cem

ent C

R 90

0 W

\Exh

ibits

\ECL

\201

2 Ae

rial w

ith R

OW

.dw

g

Construction Limits

Scale

0

N

250'

Proposed Right of Way

B-3

susanc

Line

susanc

Text Box

0.52 Acre for Tree Mitigation

Here

W Base Road

S 900 W

N 900 W

Xref ..\..\Bridge Plans\2017-032 Geo.dwg

Photograph Location MapBridge Replacement and Road RealignmentCR 900 W over Little Blue RiverPosey Township, Rush County, IndianaDes. No. 1600968Metric Project No. 16-0230

Source: https://gisdb.uits.indiana.edu/portal/map/m10000.html

Note: All locations are approximate

P:\2

016\

16-0

230

- USI

- Ro

ad R

ealig

nmen

tBrid

ge R

epla

cem

ent C

R 90

0W

\Exh

ibits

\ECL

\Pho

to L

ocat

ion

Map

.dw

g

Project Location

1

2

34

56

7

8 10

9

11

12

13

1415

1617

1819

20

21

22

23

24

Scale

0

N

250'

B-4

susanc

Text Box

0.52 Acre for Tree Mitigation

susanc

Line

1. View of the west side of CR 900 W and Right-of-Way (ROW),looking north.

3. View of the east side of CR 900 W and adjacent farm field,looking east.

4. View of the unnamed tributary 1, UNT 1, from the westernproject study limits, looking east (upstream).

Site Photographs - Photographs taken 9-10-2018Bridge Replacement and Road RealignmentCR 900 W over Little Blue RiverPosey Township, Rush County, IndianaDes. No. 1600968Metric Project No. 16-0230

2. View of the west side of CR 900 W and ROW, looking south.

B-5

5. View of UNT 1 and UNT 2 split, looking northwest (downstream).

7. View of RSD 1, roadside ditch, looking south. 8. View of RSD 1, roadside ditch, looking north.


6. View of UNT 2 from the western project study limits, lookingeast (upstream).

B-6

9. View of the east side of CR 900 W and ROW, looking north.

11. View of UNT 3 from the eastern project study limits, lookingwest (downstream).

12. View of the Little Blue River from the eastern project studylimits, looking east (upstream).


10. View of the east side of CR 900 W and ROW, looking south.

B-7

13. View of the Little Blue River from the eastern project studylimits, looking west (downstream).

15. View of the Little Blue River from the eastern project studylimits, looking west (downstream).

16. View of the vegetation south of the Little Blue River, lookingwest.


14. View of the Little Blue River from the eastern project studylimits, looking east (upstream).

B-8

17. View of the field adjacent to CR 900 W, looking southwest.

19. View of the riparian area on the east side of UNT 5, lookingnortheast.

20. View of the riparian area on the east side of UNT 5, lookingsoutheast.


18. View of the CR 900 W ROW, looking south.

B-9

21. View of the west side of CR 900 W and ROW from the projectstudy limits, looking north.

23. View of UNT 5, looking north (downstream). 24. View of UNT 5, looking south (upstream).


22. View of the west side of CR 900 W and ROW from the projectstudy limits, looking south.

B-10

1600968 P.E.

1600968 CONST.

BRIDGE PLANS

PROJECT NO.

TRAFFIC DATAA.A.D.T.A.A.D.T.D.H.V.DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION

DESIGN SPEEDPROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

TRUCKS

V.P.D.V.P.D.V.P.H.

% A.A.D.T.

45 MPH

% D.H.V.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONRURAL/URBAN

DESIGN DATA

%

PROJECT LOCATION SHOWN BY

TERRAINACCESS CONTROL

LOCATION MAP

T 14 N

SCALE 1" = 2000'

R 8 E

200

8550

55

3R (NON FREEWAY)LOCAL ROAD

RURALLEVELNONE

(2015)

(2041)

FOR SPANS OVER 20 FEET

CONTRACT

DESIGNATION NO.PROJECT1600968

B-XX

1600968

SPAN AND SKEW OVERTYPESTRUCTURE

RUSH 127

3 SPANS:

114'-6", 124'-0", 114'-6"

SKEW 20° LT.

LITTLE

BLUE RIVER

CONTINUOUS COMPOSITE

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

BULB TEE BEAM BRIDGE

RUSH 127

PROJECT NO. 1600968

BRIDGE LENGTH = 0.067 mi.

ROAD LENGTH = 0.203 mi.

TOTAL LENGTH = 0.270 mi.

MAX. GRADE = +5.09%

BRIDGE FILERUSH 127

LATITUDE: 39°36'48.1" LONGITUDE: 85°36'49.9"

INDIANA DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS DATED 2018TO BE USED WITH THESE PLANS

USI Consultants, Inc.317-544-4996

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE

DATE

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LETTING:APPROVED

CERTIFIED BY:

PREPARED BY:PLANS

PROJECT NO.

DESIGNATION NO.

CONTRACTof

SHEETS

XX

1600968

1 23

16009688415 East 56th Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46216

STATION

17+80.00 "PR"

T 13 N

ON

COUNTY ROAD 900 WEST

OVER LITTLE BLUE RIVER

335(2041)

END PROJECT

STA. 25+25 "PR"

BEGIN PROJECT

STA. 11+00 "PR"

HUC: 05120204030050

BRIDGE NO.RUSH 127

APPROVED BY: DATE:

JERRY SITTON- RUSH COUNTY EMPLOYEE IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (ERC)1600968 R/W

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OF RUSH COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 127 ON COUNTY ROAD 900

WEST OVER LITTLE BLUE RIVER. LOCATED IN SECTIONS 34 & 35, T14N, R8E, POSEY TOWNSHIP,

RUSH COUNTY, INDIANA.

RUSH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

APPROVED BY

ATTEST

DATE

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

DATE

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N

O

T

F

O

R

CR 900 W

EST

CR 100 NORTH

BASE ROAD

L

I

T

T

L

E

B

L

U

E

R

I

V

E

R

CR 800 EAST

CR 725 W

EST

STAGE 2 PLANS 5-16-19

S:\2017Proj\2017-032\Plans\Bridge Plans\2017-032 Title Sheet.dw

g, Title, 5/15/2019 9:59:52 AM

B-11

B-12

B-13

2

1

+

0

0

2

2

+

0

0

23+

00

24+00

26+00

27+00

Asph.

Asph.Asph. Asph.

Gravel

Gravel

Woods

Woods

Woods Grass

Conc

.

2 Story Frame

Low Wire

El.=882.11'

Low Wire

El.=890.89'

Low Wire

El.=896.25'

Low Wire

El. 893.92'

Low Wire

El.=897.18'

RIGSBEE IRREVOCABLE TRUST

MILLER, MARTHAETAL.

RIBBLE, ERIC V.LOUINDA A. BARLOWIRREVOCABLE TRUST

CALLAHAN, BRADLEY C.

Grass

Grass

Grass

Grass

Grass

GrassGrass

Grass

Weeds

Weeds48" F.T.F.F.

Electric Fce.

2

0

+

0

0

25+00

P.C. 22+10.89 "A"

P.T. 20+43.13 "A"

P.T. 24+51.88 "A"

Woods

Southeast Quarter

Section 34, T14N, R8E

Posey Township

Rush County

Southwest Quarter


Posey Township

Rush County

CR. N. 900W

WETLANDS A

WETLANDS C

20+00

25+00

26+50

21+00

22+00

23+00

24+00

26+00

45' R/W

+00.00

45.00'

+80.00

80.00'

+30.00

20.00'

+30.00

25.00'

+50.00

45.00'

N

0

9

°

0

5

'5

8

.2

"

E

N00°31'24.9"E

N00°31'24.9"E

N00°32'17.8"W

App. ⅊

A

p

p

. ⅊

A

p

p

.

⅊

⅊(+32.47)

45.00'

+30.00

Ex. R/W(6.13')

+30.00

Ex. R/W(9.91')

Sta. 23+75, 1-Malibox

Assembly req'd.

P.I. 20+00.63 "A"

Δ = 2°41'41.5" Rt.

P.I. 23+31.70 "A"

Δ = 10°14'12.0" Lt.

CURVE DATA

P.I. 23+31.70 "A"

Δ = 10°14'12.0" Lt.

R = 1348.85'

T = 120.82'

L = 240.99'

E = 5.40'

P.O.T. 26+50.00 "PR"

=O.P.O.T. 26+66.29 "A", 0.00'

END PROJECT

STA. 25+25.00 "PR"

P.O.T. 26+50.00 "PR"

N 305996.4750

E 797630.7067

RIGSBEE IRREVOCABLE TRUST

Sta. 24+18, 1-Malibox

Assembly req'd.

Sta. 23+85.8, Class II Drive

W=12', R=25',15'

CR 900 WEST

+58.6, Str. No. 12

CURVE DATA

P.I. 20+00.63 "A"

Δ = 2°41'41.5" Rt.

R = 1807.74'

T = 42.52'

L = 85.03'

E = 0.50'

R/W

R/W

+95.00

56.00'

+85.00

R/W

+20.00

R/W

Temp. R/W for Drive Constr.

Constr. Limits

Constr. Limits

R

/W

R

/W

R

/

W

+20.10

56.00'

+75.00

60.00'

R/W

R/W

R

/W

+50.00

55.00'

R

/W

R

/W

+00, STR. NO. 13

94 Lft. of 4' x 5' Rise

Concrete Box Culvert

Hatched area indicates area

Gas Well Head1.5' Tall

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

890

858.7

869.67

858.3

869.36

20+00

858.6

869.06

858.5

868.75

858.0

868.49

857.8

868.30

21+00

857.8

868.19

858.3

868.16

858.6

868.21

859.3

868.34

22+00

860.5

868.55

861.6

868.84

862.8

869.20

863.9

869.65

23+00

865.2

870.17

866.5

870.77

867.9

871.45

869.4

872.21

24+00

871.0

873.05

872.5

873.97

874.0

874.96

875.5

876.04

25+00

877.0

877.19

878.4

878.42

879.7

880.9

26+00

882.1

883.4

26+50

884.8

-1.2

2%

+

5

.

0

9

%

-1.2

2%

+

5

.

0

9

%

PVI STA = 22+75

ELEV = 865.70

VC = 500'

Profile Grade Line "PR"

Existing Ground

BD Guardrail Limits LeftA

BC Guardrail Limits RightA

+57.56

+67.53

+08.16

+77.72

+18.35

+87.10

+18.35

+89.41

+20.66

GUARDRAIL LEGEND

A Guardrail, MGS, Transition without Curb Req'd.

B Guardrail End Treatment Type I Req'd.

C 68.75 Lft. Guardrail, MGS, W-Beam, 6'-3" Post Spacing Req'd.

D 81.25 Lft. Guardrail, MGS, W-Beam, 6'-3" Post Spacing Req'd.

+

3

.

7

3

%

+

3

.

7

3

%

23+75

870.09

25+00

874.75

Profile Special "V" Ditch Lt.

4

1

END PROJECT

25+25.00 "PR"

ELEV. 878.42

STR. NO. 13

Invert 857.0'

(both ends)

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N

O

T

F

O

R

20+

00

25+

00

20+3

9.9, 9

.6' G

uard

rail

23+3

6.0, 1

6.8' J

oint U

tility

Pole

#318

34

23+4

7.4, 1

1.6' C

ontro

l Poin

t #10

5

23+8

6.8, 1

0.0' M

ailbo

x #33

2

24+3

5.7, 1

3.0' W

arnin

g Sign

"One

Lane

Brid

ge"

25+2

8.8, 1

2.6' M

ailbo

x #36

1

25+4

4.2, 1

3.4' G

uy A

ncho

r25

+46.5

, 20.4

' Join

t Utili

ty Po

le #3

1833

25+4

7.9, 1

4.6' 1

2" C

MP (h

alf bu

ried)

25+7

7.6, 3

3.0' 2

7" W

alnut

25+8

5.8, 1

4.6' 1

2" C

MP (h

alf bu

ried)

26+0

3.6, 1

1.6' C

ontro

l Poin

t #10

6

27+9

8.9, 1

8.4' J

oint U

tility

Pole

#318

32

20+3

1.2, 1

0.3' G

uard

rail

20+3

1.9, 9

.9' R

etaini

ng W

all

20+4

3.2, 1

0.5' D

eline

ator P

ost

20+7

3.9, 1

1.9' C

ontro

l Poin

t #10

4

21+3

8.6, 1

1.0' T

BM #3

21+3

9.0, 1

1.5' J

oint U

tility

Pole

#316

60

22+4

1.0, 1

3.2' F

arm

Field

Fce.

22+7

7.0, 1

4.3' F

arm

Field

Fce.

23+0

6.5, 1

4.8' F

arm

Field

Fce.

23+4

8.6, 1

8.6' 2

7" P

ine23

+53.0

, 48.2

' 8" T

riple

Elm

23+7

0.5, 5

2.9' P

orch

Cor

.23

+70.7

, 59.3

' Buil

ding

23+7

2.4, 3

2.4' 8

" Qua

d Haw

thorn

23+9

1.3, 3

1.9' 8

" Twi

n Cra

bapp

le23

+93.5

, 51.7

' Buil

ding

24+0

9.7, 5

1.2' B

uildin

g

24+1

9.5, 1

3.2' T

eleph

one P

edes

tal24

+21.7

, 22.2

' Elec

tric F

ce.

24+3

2.5, 1

2.6' E

lectric

Fce

.24

+34.4

, 49.1

' Elec

tric F

ce.

24+8

2.2, 1

3.2' E

lectric

Fce

.

25+5

7.2, 1

1.8' T

BM #4

25+5

7.2, 4

5.9' 4

x4 C

onc.

Post

25+5

7.7, 1

2.1' T

eleph

one P

ole25

+58.7

, 12.3

' Tele

phon

e Ped

estal

25+5

8.9, 4

6.6' E

lectric

Fce

.25

+60.2

, 14.6

' 8x8

Con

c. Po

st25

+60.4

, 14.3

' Elec

tric F

ce.

25+8

9.1, 3

3.3' 4

8" W

alnut

26+1

4.7, 3

4.7' 1

8" W

alnut

26+2

7.8, 1

5.4' 2

4" S

tump

26+5

1.4, 1

4.2' 2

4" M

aple

CHECKED:

DRAWN:DESIGNED:

CHECKED:

of

HORIZONTAL SCALE

VERTICAL SCALE

SURVEY BOOK

CONTRACT

BRIDGE FILE

DESIGNATION

SHEETS

PROJECT

----

B-XX

RUSH 127

1600968

6 23

1600968

1"=30'

1"=5'

INDIANA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PLAN PROFILE

LINE "PR"

MKT

MJH

DWB

MKT

NORTH:

EAST:

100

797602.9390

304491.2510 304757.8480

797611.2340

101

EAST:

NORTH: 304990.3090

797630.0500

102

EAST:

NORTH:

305174.7060

797571.4630

103

EAST:

NORTH: 305405.1240

797601.3090

104

EAST:

NORTH: 305678.4440

797617.5230

105

EAST:

NORTH:

NORTH:

EAST:

106

797619.4240

305933.6580

STA. 11+44.39 "A", 13.60' LT,

1

1

5

.

3

3

'

2

6

°

2

8

.6

8

'

9

3

°

8

5

.

3

3

'

1

3

6

°

1

1

2

.

2

8

'

1

6

8

°

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of 8"

Dia. Wood Post

#5 Capped

Rebar "USI"

N.O.R.A.

6

0

.

8

6

'

2

7

°

1

6

8

.

2

3

'

1

6

5

°

1

2

2

.

2

7

'

1

9

0

°

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of 8"

Dia. Wood Post

#5 Capped

Rebar "USI"

N.O.R.A.

4

7

.

6

4

'

2

3

5

°

4

6

.

2

1

'

3

5

6

°

1

7

8

.

5

6

'

1

7

7

°

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of 8"

Dia. Wood Post

#5 Capped

Rebar "USI"

Bridge

3

1

.

3

6

'

2

1

7

°

6

9

.

0

7

'

3

7

°

1

4

8

.

9

3

'

1

5

8

°

N.O.R.A.

#5 Capped

Rebar "USI"

6

5

.

1

0

'

9

°

4

1

.

9

0

'

1

9

3

°

1

7

5

.

9

9

'

1

7

6

°

N.O.R.A.

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of

Power Pole

N.W. Corner

Ret. Wall

#5 Capped

Rebar "USI"

3

9

.

1

8

'

5

°

7

6

.

3

0

'

2

1

°

3

0

.2

3

'

9

2

°

1

2

.

4

0

'

2

0

9

°

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of

Mailbox Post

#332

Center Of

Tele Pedestol

Center Of

27" Pine

#5 Capped

Rebar "USI"

5

7

.

7

2

'

1

8

8

°

5

1

.

6

3

'

1

5

2

°

4

7

.1

2

' 1

0

7

°

5

4

.

3

8

'

2

8

°

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of

Power Pole

N.W. Corner

Bridge Deck

Center Of

Power Pole

Center Of

Tele. Pole

Center Of

48"

Walnut

Center Of

24" Maple

#5 Capped

Rebar "USI"

STA. 14+11.11 "A", 11.25' LT, STA. 16+42.94 "A", 9.18' RT,

STA. 18+37.83 "A", 12.50' RT, STA. 20+73.86 "A", 11.94' RT, STA. 23+47.37 "A", 11.58' LT,

STA. 26+03.56 "'A", 11.59' LT,

BENCHMARK INFO

TBM#2- RAILROAD SPIKE IN WEST SIDE POWERPOLE #31656, 1' UP, 375'

NORTH OF C/L BASE ROAD, 17' EAST OF C/L C.R. 900 WEST, N:304811.8,

E:797638.2, STA. 14+65.15 "A", 15.34' RT., ELEV.:865.364'

TBM#1- NORTHEAST CORNER OF BOTTOM STEP TO HOUSE #9009 BASE ROAD,

17' SOUTH OF C/L BASE ROAD, 50' WEST OF C/L C.R. 900 WEST, N:304369.7,

E:797568.9, STA. 10+22.13 "A", 44.88' LT., ELEV.:870.753'

TBM#3- RAILROAD SPIKE IN WEST SIDE POWERPOLE #31660, 1' UP, 300'

NORTH OF NORTH END OF BRIDGE, 11' EAST OF C/L C.R. 900 WEST,

N:305469.1, E:797611.4, STA. 14+38.95 "A", 11.45' RT., ELEV.:860.163'

TBM#4- RAILROAD SPIKE IN WEST SIDE TELEPHONE POLE # N/A, 15' EAST OF

C/L C.R. 900 WEST, ACROSS THE STREET FROM DRIVE TO HOUSE #361,

N:305887.5, E:797643.2, STA. 25+57.69 "A", 12.13' RT., ELEV.:880.159'

REFERENCE POINTS

20+4

4.1, 4

8.9' G

as W

ell H

ead

S:\2017Proj\2017-032\Plans\Bridge Plans\2017-032 Plan Profile.dw

g, Plan Profile-02, 7/9/2019 8:52:24 AM

B-14

AutoCAD SHX Text

Z

AutoCAD SHX Text

Z

AutoCAD SHX Text

Z

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

dgraf

Callout

GAS WELL LOCATION

dgraf

Rectangle

13+00

14+00

16+00

1

7

+

0

0

1

8

+

0

0

1

9

+

0

0

2

1

+

0

0

Asph.Asph.

Asph.

Asph.

Asph.

Rip Rap

Rip Rap

Rip Rap

Woods

Woods

WoodsWoods

Woods

Grass

Grass

Grass Grass

Grass

GrassRip Rap

Conc.

Conc.Boulders

Woods

Normal Water

El.=854.1'

Low Wire

El.=886.05'

Low Wire

El.=884.14

Low Wire

El.=882.71'



LOUINDA A. BARLOWIRREVOCABLE TRUST

Southeast Quarter


Posey Township

Rush County

Southwest Quarter


Posey Township

Rush County

Cultivated Field

Cultivated Field

Weeds

Weeds

Woods

15+00

2

0

+

0

0

P.C. 14+74.35 "A"

P.C. 16+23.23 "A"

P.C. 18+18.19 "A"

P.C. 19+58.11 "A"

P.T. 15+65.48 "A"

P.T. 17+13.27 "A"

P.T. 18+54.37 "A"

P.T. 20+43.13 "A"

Woods

Possible PetCemetary


75' Legal Drain Easement

Wood Pallet Fence



Woods

Woods


Little Blue River

CR. N. 900W

WETLANDS D

WETLANDS B

WETLAND A

WETLANDS C

15+00

20+00

13+00

14+00

16+00

17+00

18+00

19+00

21+00

R/W

+75.00

60.00'

+80.00

80.00'

N01°16'34.5"E

N00°31'24.9"E

N

2

2

°

4

8

'

1

0

.

7

"

W

N00°31'24.9"E

N

0

7

°

0

3

'5

5

.8

"E

N

0

9

°

0

5

'5

8

.2

"

E

N00°31'24.9"E


P.I. 15+19.92 "A"

Δ = 2°45'56.7" Lt.

CURVE DATA

P.I. 15+19.92 "A"

Δ = 2°45'56.7" Lt.

R = 1887.86'

T = 45.57'

L = 91.13'

E = 0.55'

CURVE DATA

P.I. 16+68.75 "A"

Δ = 20°50'05.8" Lt.

R = 247.61'

T = 45.52'

L = 90.04'

E = 4.15'

P.I. 16+68.75 "A"

Δ = 20°50'05.8" Lt.

CURVE DATA

P.I. 18+36.69 "A"

Δ = 29°23'23.9" Rt.

R = 70.54'

T = 18.50'

L = 36.19'

E = 2.39'

P.I. 18+36.69 "A"

Δ = 29°23'23.9" Rt.

P.I. 20+00.63 "A"

Δ = 2°41'41.5" Rt.

Line "PR"

Line "A"

CR 900 WEST

LOUINDA A. BARLOWIRREVOCABLE TRUST

L

I

T

T

L

E

B

L

U

E

R

I

V

E

R

+01.4, Str. No. 11

xx Lft. of 6"∅ End Bent

Drain Pipe req'd.

+58.6, Str. No. 12

xx Lft. of 6"∅ End Bent

Drain Pipe req'd

CURVE DATA

P.I. 20+00.63 "A"

Δ = 2°41'41.5" Rt.

R = 1807.74'

T = 42.52'

L = 85.03'

E = 0.50'

℄ Structure

Sta. 17+80.00 "PR"

Skew: 20° Lt.

Hatched area indicates 263 tons

of 18" Revetment Riprap over

373 sys. of Geotextiles for Riprap

Type 2A req'd.

Hatched area indicates 378 tons

of 18" Revetment Riprap over

525 sys. of Geotextiles for Riprap

Type 2A req'd.

8

5

8

8

5

3

8

5

3

8

5

9

8

6

0

8

5

9

858

8

5

5

8

5

5

8

5

8

8

5

8

8

6

1

8

5

8

8

5

7

8

6

0

860

860

8

6

1

860

8

6

1

860

855

8

6

5

8

6

0

8

5

5

+00.00

90.00'

+40.00

45.00'

80' R/W

80' R/W

Constr. Limits

Constr. Limits

Constr. Limits

Constr. Limits

R

/W

R

/W

R

/W

R

/W

R

/W

+00, STR. NO. 13

+15.00

80.00'

+25.00

80.00'

+35.00

135.00'

+35.00

65.00'

65' R/W

Gas Well Head1.5' Tall

R/W

R

/

W

R

/

W

Constr. Limits

Hatched area indicates area for

Tree Mitigation (0.52 Acreas)

845

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

845

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

13+00

865.2

865.72

865.2

865.94

865.1

866.24

865.1

866.56

14+00

865.1

866.89

865.2

867.22

865.3

867.55

865.3

867.87

15+00

865.4

868.20

865.5

868.53

865.7

868.85

865.9

869.18

16+00

866.0

869.51

866.1

869.84

866.4

870.14

866.8

870.39

17+00

866.2

870.58

861.0

870.72

853.7

870.81

853.6

870.85

18+00

853.5

870.84

858.3

870.77

858.2

870.65

858.5

870.48

19+00

856.6

870.25

854.6

869.97

858.7

869.67

858.3

869.36

20+00

858.6

869.06

858.5

868.75

858.0

868.49

857.8

868.30

21+00

857.8

868.19

+1.31%

-1.2

2%

+1.31%

-1.2

2%

PVI STA = 17+75

ELEV = 871.80

VC = 300'

STRUCTURE LIMITS

Profile Grade Line "PR"

Existing Ground

+02.44

+57.57

Flowline Water

Elev. 852.7'

14"∅ Steel Encased Concrete Piles

with Conical Pile Tips (typ.)

Slope 2:1 Perp.

to Skew (typ.)

18" Revetment Riprap

over Geotextiles for Riprap

Type 2A (typ.)

Clearing Elevation

859.0'

6"∅ End Bent Drain Pipe (typ.)

4

1Hatched area indicates xx cys. of Aggregate for

End Bent Backfill and xx Sys. of Geotextiles for

Underdrain Type 2A (typ.)

Q100 Elev.

862.43'

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N

O

T

F

O

R

15+

00

20+

00

CHECKED:

DRAWN:DESIGNED:

CHECKED:

of

HORIZONTAL SCALE

VERTICAL SCALE

SURVEY BOOK

CONTRACT

BRIDGE FILE

DESIGNATION

SHEETS

PROJECT

----

B-XX

RUSH 127

1600968

7 23

1600968

1"=30'

1"=5'

INDIANA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BRIDGE LAYOUT

MKT

MJH

DWB

MKT

LINE "PR" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

ALL R/W ON THIS SHEET DESCRIBED FROM

ALL R/W ON THIS SHEET TO BE AS SHOWN.

Three Span Concrete Box Beam Bridge

Not to Scale

EXISTING STRUCTURE

(Structure to be Removed)

95.7'

26.0' 40.0' 26.0'

6-21" Precast

Conc. Box Beams

Leaching

at Piers

South

End

North

End

Steel

Fluted Piles

W-Beam Guardrail

5" Concrete Deck

Ponding/Vegitation

Conc. Cap on

Stone Abutments

CONTINUOUS COMPOSITE PRESTRESSED

CONCRETE BULB TEE BEAM BRIDGE

THREE SPANS @ 114'-6", 124'-0", 114'-6"

SKEW: 20° LT.

28'-0" CLEAR ROADWAY WIDTH

C.R. 900 WEST OVER LITTLE BLUE RIVER

RUSH COUNTY, INDIANA

HYDRAULIC DATA

69.4 sq. miles

0.97 ft.

862.59 ft.

1506.61 sq. ft.

1125.61 sq. ft.

6.59 ft./sec.

865.56 ft.

0 degrees

3.13 ft.

Q100 Backwater:

Q100 Headwater Elevation:

Gross Waterway Area below Q100:

Road Overflow Waterway Area:

Q100 Velocity:

Minimum Low Structure Elevation:

Skew:

Freeboard:

Existing

Structure

Proposed

Structure

Drainage Area:

DESCRIPTION

Q100 8200 cfs

Q100 Elevation 862.43 ft.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Flowline Elevation:

Q100 Max.Velocity:

Q100 Contraction Scour Depth:

Q100 Pier Scour Depth:

Q100 Total Scour:

Q100 Low Scour Elevation:

Q500 Discharge:

Q500 Natural Water Surface Elev.:

Q500 Max.Velocity:

Q500 Contraction Scour Depth:

Q500 Pier Scour Depth:

Q500 Total Scour:

Q500 Low Scour Elevation:

0.95 ft.

863.26 ft.

2125.12 sq. ft.

0 sq. ft.

4.17 ft./sec.

864.39 ft.

20 degrees

1.96 ft.

852.72 ft.

5.72 ft./sec.

7.86 ft.

5.80 ft.

13.66 ft.

839.06 ft.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

11,070 ft./sec.

864.36 ft.

6.51 ft.

10.58 ft.

5.87 ft.

16.45 ft.

836.27 ft.

B-15

AutoCAD SHX Text

Z

CHECKED:

DRAWN:DESIGNED:

CHECKED:

of

HORIZONTAL SCALE

VERTICAL SCALE

SURVEY BOOK

CONTRACT

BRIDGE FILE

DESIGNATION

SHEETS

PROJECT----

B-XX

RUSH 127

1600968

7 23

1600968

1"=30'

1"=5'

INDIANADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STREAM/WETLAND IMPACTSRTW

---

---

---

S:\2

017P

roj\2

017-

032\

Plan

s\Br

idge

Pla

ns\2

017-

032

Disp

lay

For S

tream

-Wet

land

Miti

gatio

n.dw

g, W

etla

nd-S

tream

Impa

cts,

12/

19/2

019

10:4

0:54

AM

Wetland B Impacts= 0.106 acre

Wetland C Impacts= 0.269 acre

Wetland B- Do not disturb

Wetland D- Do not disturb

Wetland A- Do not disturb

Perimeter Protection and signs for "Do not Disturb Wetland Area"

Permanently Impacted Wetland Areas

Undisturbed Wetland Areas

Wetland Photo #s Lat/Long Cowardin Class

Est. Amount in Review

Area Quality

Likely Water of the U.S.

Wetland A 70-75 39.614204 -85.614075 PFO1A 0.59 acre Good Yes

Wetland B 76-78,82-84, 91

39.61372 -85.613596 PFO1A 0.29 acre Good Yes

Wetland C 79-84 39.614195 -85.613619 PFO1A 0.26 acre Good Yes

Wetland D 85-90 39.613321 -85.61346 PFO1A 0.091 acre Good Yes

Stream Name Photo #s Lat/Long

OHWM Width

(ft.)

OHWM Depth

(ft.) USGS Blue-line

Riffles and

Pools Quality Dominant

Substrate

Likely Water of the U.S.

Little Blue River

19-25,38-43,50, 56,

63

39.613375 -85.613778 40 3 Yes

(Perennial) Yes Good Hardpan and silt Yes

UNT 1 10, 11, 12

39.614337 -85.614195 4 0.5 No

(Ephemeral) No Fair Clay and silt Yes

UNT 2 11, 13, 14

39.614258 -85.614131 6 0.5 No

(Ephemeral) No Fair Silt and gravel Yes

UNT 3 25, 43-44, 47-49, 63

39.613783 -85.613738 15 1 No

(Ephemeral) Yes Good

Clay, silt, gravel,

and cobble

Yes

UNT 4 45-47 39.614089-85.613798 4 1 No

(Ephemeral) Yes Poor Clay and silt Yes

UNT 5 22, 55-56, 61-

64

39.612498 -85.613617 5 1.25 Yes

(Intermittent) Yes Fair Clay, silt,

and gravel

Yes

.0276 acre of tree removal

.0198 acre of tree removal

378

525

263

373 0.003 acre tree removal between 100' and 300'of existing roadway

B-16

susanc

Text Box

Tree removal between 0' and 100' from existing edge of pavement (Wetland B and Wetland C) = 0.372 acre

susanc

Line

susanc

Line

susanc

Line

susanc

Text Box

Tree removal between 0' and 100' from existing edge of pavement = 0.047 acre

susanc

Text Box


susanc

Text Box


susanc

Text Box


susanc

Text Box


B-17

B-18

susanc

Line

susanc

Line

susanc

Line

susanc

Line

susanc

Text Box

0.52 acre for tree mitigation

APPENDIX C Early Coordination

6971 Hillsdale Court, Indianapolis, IN 46250 • t 317.400.1633 • f 855.808.8227 www.metricenv.com

February 7, 2019

{See Attached List}

Re: Designation Number 1600968, Sight Distance and Bridge Project (Bridge 127) County Road (CR) 900 W over Little Blue River Approximately 0.2 mile north of Base Road Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

Dear Interested Agency:

Rush County, a Local Public Agency (LPA), proposes to utilize federal funds provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to proceed with the above referenced project. This letter is part of the early coordination phase of the environmental review process. We are requesting comments from your area of expertise regarding any possible environmental effects associated with this project. Please use the above designation number (Des. No.) and description in your reply. We will incorporate your comments into a study of the project environmental impacts. Your cooperation in this endeavor is appreciated.

PROJECT LOCATION This project is on CR 900 W over the Little Blue River, approximately 0.2 mile north of Base Road in Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana. Specifically, the project is on the boundary of Sections 34 and 35, Township 14 North, Range 8 East on the Manilla, Indiana 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle.

EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing bridge (Rush County 127) was built in 1900 and was rehabilitated in 1955. The structure is a continuous prestressed concrete adjacent box beam bridge consisting of three spans (26’-0”, 40’-0”, 26,0”). The structure is approximately 105 feet long by 22.92 feet wide. During the 2016 National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) inspection, it was noted that the superstructure shows minor deterioration with efflorescence and advanced deterioration of the substructure was observed resulting in poor condition. The approach and bridge rail do not meet current safety standards. The 2016 NBIS gives a sufficiency rating of 42.2 (out of 100). CR 900 W, identified as a Rural Major Collector, consists of one 7 ft. wide travel lane and 1 ft. wide earthen shoulders provided in each direction. According to the 2016 NBIS, the horizontal and vertical curvature of the existing roadway alignment are substandard and requires a high priority corrective action. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph). Land use in the project area consists of a forested riparian zone and agricultural areas.

Overhead electric and communication lines are located within the project area and will have to be relocated. Utility coordination will be ongoing throughout the duration of the project and will be handled by the designer and INDOT Greenfield District.

PROJECT NEED AND PURPOSE The need for this project is based on the deteriorated conditions of the existing bridge and the substandard alignment of the existing roadway along CR 900 W, as described in the Existing Conditions section above.

The purpose of this project is to address the deteriorating conditions of the bridge and existing safety hazards in order to provide a structurally sufficient crossing over Little Blue River.

susanc

Text Box

Sample Early Coordination Letter

susanc

Text Box

C-1


PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed project includes the replacement of the existing bridge (Rush County Bridge No. 127) and realignment of CR 900 W. The replacement structure will by a three span (114’-6”, 124’-0”, 114’-6”) prestressed concrete beam bridge 353.2 feet long, 30 feet wide, skewed 20 degrees Left. The roadway along the replacement structure will consist of one 10 ft. wide travel lane with a 4 ft. usable shoulder provided in each direction. The superstructure of the replacement structure will consist of an 8 in. reinforced concrete deck on four 48 in. prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams. The structure will rest on integral bents at each end founded on piling. The interior bents will be concrete pier walls and will also be founded on piling.

The realignment of CR 900 W will consist of removing substandard horizontal curves by placing the entire project length in a tangent section. Two sag vertical curves and one crest vertical curve will be incorporated into the alignment and will exceed minimum design standards for the design speed of 45 mph. The new alignment of CR 900 W will consist of on 10 ft. wide travel lane with 3.6 ft. paved shoulders provided in each direction.

RIGHT-OF-WAY Approximately 3.76 acres of right of way is expected to be acquired for this project. Over 0.1 acre of wetlands will be impacted and approximately 1.214 acres of trees will be removed. Right-of-way amounts and wetland impacts are expected to change as design progresses.

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC The Maintenance of Traffic for this project will utilize a detour. The detour is likely to include CR 100 N, CR 980 W, CR 800 E, and Base Road. Signs will be posted to alert motorist of the detour.

HISTORIC RESOURCES Based on the Indiana State Historic Bridge, Building, and Cemetery Map, Rush County Survey Sites were identified within the 0.5-mile search radius of the project area. The closest mapped property is a “notable” rated located 0.14 mile northwest of the project.

Based on the scope of work, this project will require full Section 106.

EARLY COORDINATION As part of our early coordination effort for the proposed project, please study the enclosed information and provide a written evaluation of any identified potential impacts upon resources that are under your jurisdiction. It is requested, that you return a reply within 30 days of receipt of this packet. If no reply has been received within 30 days, it will be indicated in the environmental document, which is to be prepared for the referenced project, that your agency has no comment on the project. If you have any questions, please contact Ryan Hennessey, Environmental Geologist, at 317.608.2798; [email protected]; or 6971 Hillsdale Court, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250; or Michelle Loveall, INDOT Project Manager, at 317.467.3438 or [email protected].

Metric Environmental, LLC

susanc

Text Box

C-2


Ryan Hennessey Environmental Geologist

cc: File No. 16-0230 Doug Graf, USI Consultants, Inc. Michell Loveall, INDOT Greenfield District

Attachments: Location Map, USGS Topographic Map, 2012 Aerial Photograph, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Map, National Wetlands Inventory Map, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Photo Location Map, and Site Photographs

susanc

Text Box

C-3

susanc

Text Box

The attachments were intentionally omitted. Please refer to Appendix B and Appendix F in the CE document.

Early Coordination Des. No. 1600968, Rush County Bridge 127 and CR 900 W Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment

CR 900 W over Little Blue River Des No. 1600968

Posey Township, Rush County, IndianaFebruary 7, 2019 Natural Resources Conservation Service State Conservationist {[email protected]}

Indiana Geological Survey {https://igs.indiana.edu/eAssessment/}

Indiana Department of Transportation Office of Aviation {[email protected]}

Midwest Regional Office National Parks Service Hector Santiago {[email protected]}

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish & Wildlife {[email protected]}

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Develop. Chicago Regional Office Michael Wurl, Field Environmental Officer {[email protected]}

Indiana Department of Environmental Management Proposed Roadway Construction Projects Letter {http://www.in.gov/idem/5284.htm}

Indiana Department of Transportation Rickie Clark, Public Hearings Manager and Mary Wright {[email protected], [email protected]}

USACE, Louisville District {[email protected]}

Rush County Surveyor Marvin Rees {[email protected]}

Rush County Highway Department Jerry Sitton, Highway Superintendent {[email protected]}

Rush County Commissioner Bruce Levi, Central District {[email protected]}

IDEM Wellhead Proximity Determinator Electronic Review of Location {http://www.in.gov/idem/cleanwater/pages/wellhead/}

Federal Highway Administration Robert Dirks – Greenfield District {[email protected]}

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Robin McWilliams {[email protected]}

INDOT Greenfield District {[email protected]}

Chief, Bridge Program Section Eighth Coast Guard District 1222 Spruce St. St. Louis Missouri 63103-2832

Rush County School District {[email protected]}

May 8, 2019 IDNR, Division of Oil and Gas {[email protected]}

February 11, 2020 Rush County Floodway Administrator {[email protected]}

C-4

C-5

C-6

C-7

C-8

��

��

��!��!"!�� #$!%&'($)(!*''+,$&+!-./!01&!2.3,&'.4$.(5!��!6��!7��!8��9�!:!�� ;!�6!<=��<> ��?!<@�:=��A!:!>B�A?!�B�: =�B!:!��6��!��!"!C��!6��!D��!B�!79��!E��!F��"�� !;!�6!<=�<� ��G!�� ;!HHI!79��!I�� !=JA�!K� �� !I9��!�� !;!�6!<=�@�!��C!��!��!I��9 ��!L��!D��!I��9G��!L�M�G��D�C��!��!��M�G�!��G 9��!�� G��!"!D9��!I9��!E��!6�!A�:��A!��!H�� !E 9�!D��!C��!��!�� !G��!"!��!��!>��@!"��;!��<!"��;!��@!"��?!"�!�!�� !��! ��!"!B@<!"��!��!�N��!��! �"��!C��!��!�� !��!�!G ��!��!��!"!� !"��!G��!"!��!��!"��!��!�� ! ��M��!��!<!"��!��!��9 ��!��!��!9�!�!9�!G��!��!"!B�!"��!6��!��!�� !�� !��!�� C��!�9��9G�9��!�� !G��!"!��! !��G�!��"�G��!G�G��!��GN!�!"9�!< !��G�!��!G�G��9 �!OCP!��!C��!��9G�9��!�� !��!�!�� !��!��!��G�!��!"9��!�!�� !�� !@!"��!C��!��!��!�� !��!G�G��!��!�� !��!� �!��!"9��!�!�� !�� !@!"��!��D�� G��!�� !� �!��G 9��!�� !"!�� !�;@��!"��!"!ID!J��!��!C��!�� !�� !�9��!��Q�� !G9��!��!� �G��!��!��!��M�G�! ��!��!�!��!��G��!C�!��G� !G9��!��!��!G��!��G� !G9��!�� !��!��G��!��!��!� ��!��!�� !��G��!��9��!��!"�!��!��!��! ��!"!<@!�� !��!�9�!>��?�!C��!��!�� !G��!"!��!��!"��!�� ! ��!��M��!��!B!"��!R! !��G��!��!��9 ��!C�!�� !�� !��!�� G��!�!��!��!"!ID!J��!��!��!��!��!��!"!��!��M�G�! ��!8�� !��BA@!�G��!"!�� !><��!��?;!A�J! �� !"��!"!��!>��!��!��?;!��!��<!�G��!"!��!>��!��!��?!�� !��9��!�9��!G��9G��!C��!��M�G�!��S9��!�� !<�BA!�G��!"!��!��:":��>DT�?!"!��G�!�� !�G��!��!�� ;!��=@!�G��!��!��G9 �9�� ;!��@�!�G��!��!"��;!��@A!�G��!��!�� ;��!��@@!�G��!��!��!��!��!C��!��M�G�!� �!��S9��!�� !�� !�G��!"!��!DT�"��!�!�� !��G� !��!��!��!��!"!��!��M�G�!��!�!��G��9G�!��!��!C��! ��!"��!��!��!��!"!�� !��!>��?!��!��!�!��Q��!��!��S9��!��!��!G��!�!��!G��9G��;!��G��9G��;!�!��!��!��M�G��!��!��!G��!��!��!��!�G��!"!��!��M�G�!��!��!��!�� !��S9��!�"�� !6�� !�� !L �G�!8G�:��!�� !8��!�!�� !��G�7��!8�!��! ��!��!�!��!� !��:�� !�� !��G�!"!�� !G�G��;!��!�� !��!��!��!��G!��!��!��! ��!�� !��!�� G�� !�!�9�!��G9 ��!��!��M�G��!�� !��"��!�!��G�"�G!��:�� !��G�!"!��;!� ��!��!��!��!��!��G��!�� ;!��!"!��G�!��!G��G�!��"��!"�!��!��!��!��9�!��!��!��!G��!S9��!��!"9 �!��!��!��! ��!8 �!� ��!��!��"9 !��!��!�� !��S9��!��!�9�M�G�!�!G��!��!�!��G�!��!��!�!��G 9��!�!G��!"!��! ��!��!��!��M�G��G9��!��GN��!��!��!�!�� !��!��!��G�� !��!��!"!��! ��U!"9��!��@� B��!>��@� B��?�

C-9

��

��

!"��#��"��"� "�� $�� "��#��"��"��%#�� "��&"��"��'��"��"�#"��"�� "��"��"��&"��"'��"��'�"("��"( ��"��#��"��"�#"��"(��"��"��"� ��"("�#��"��"'��#'��&"��'��#'��&"�"��"��)�'��*!�+"*,�"-�.!�/"01*2�!3��"4�'��"5�5"("��"/ ��"��"*'�"��%#��"��"�#"��"�"��"(��"��"1�4�"*��"/��"("��614*/�7"��(��"��'��"��"�"(� "�� "��"��"�� "�"��"��&"�#'�"��"��& �8��&"��&"��"��'��".��"�'��"��# ��"��' #��"��"�� '��&"'�� 9��&"��&"��"�#'�"� ��"("�"��&"��"��"��'��'� "' ��"6#��"("��"'��#'��"�%#��7"(�� "!�#�&"��"�"��)�'�"��"�"��&"��"��"�#�"�� "�"��#��"��"�"�� "��#��"��#�"��"��"��"* ��#��"�#"��"�� "��(��"�"��"1�4�"��"��"�� (�"4��'�,�� "�� "��"��"��"�"��"("��(��"�� "��"("'�'��&"� ��"��"��(# ��"��"��"�"��"��'�")#��'�� "�� "��# ��"��"��"14*/�"�"��"��"(�� "��"*"�� ")#��'�� "�� "��"'��"� �"��"��"��"��"14*/�&#��"��"�: ;"�� "�� "��#� �14*/�"��'��"��"�#"��"�"'��# ��"'��'8"�"��"��"�#�"��)�'�"�� "��#�&"�" ��&"�"�� "��"!"��"�" ��"("'��# ��"��"��"��%#��"�"��"��' #��"�"�" ��"��"��"14*/�"�"��"��"��&"��"14*/�"<��"��"<#� �'",��'��6�� #��'�� (��(�# ��7"6�� #��'�� ("��(�# ��6�� #��'�� (��(�# ��77"��"��"' �'8"�"=��(��="(��"��"��#"�"��"��$��"��"("��"��"!��"=/��# ��"2��="��"��"(#��"��"��"�"��"=��(��="��"< ��"��"��"14*/�"��"� "'��# ��"��"��%#��"�"��"�"��" ��&"��"��"��' #��"("��'# ��"'��# ��"�"��" ��"��"��"��"��"��"("��"'��# ��"��"��"14*/�&"�"��#'�"("��"��"6,��&"2�8�&"<��&"2�<��&"4��">��&"� 8��&"2�?��&"4��#��&"��8� �"'#��@" ��"��"(">��&"4��8�&"�� &",� �&"* ��&"��"*��"'#��@"��" ��"("-��&"��&"<# ��8�&"A�'�#�8&"��"�� "'#��7"��"��"��"��"14*/�"��'�".((�'�"��"6B�B$��C$C ��7�"!��"'�� "��"�#��"��"("��"��"6 ��"��"("-��&"��&<# ��8�&"A�'��8&"��"�� "'#��@"�� "��"(">��&"4��8�&"�� "&",� �&"* ��&"��*��"'#��@"��"� "��"��"'#��" '��"��"��$'�� &"'�� &"��"�#��"��"7"��"��"��"14*/�"2#�� "��'�".((�'�"6D��$B�D$C;BB7�*�� "��(��"�"'��'��"��"1�4�"*��"/��"("��"614*/�7"��'�".((�'��&��"��'��"��")#��'��"��"�� &"��"��"��"%#� ��"��#��&"'��"��"(#��"��5B:C��"6��5B:C��7�"��"��'��"��"��'��"�� "��"��"��"��#�'��"��"��"�"��"(# ��"��"��"��"��"�"4�'��"5�5"�� "��"��"��%#��"(��"��"14*/�&"�#"� �"�#��"��"�"4�'��"5��"0#� ��"/��(�'��"(��"��"��".((�'�"("��"0#� ��"�� "<��"!" ��"��"��#��"�� "<��&"��"��5B 5��"6��5B 5��7�B�"�("��"14*/�"��"��"�"�� "�"��"��"��"��"�� "��"��"�#�)�'�"�"/ ��"��"*'��# ��&"��"��"�� "��# ��"��"��"��"("��"�"*"4��"�� "�� "��"(��"��E�".((�'�"(��"0#� ��"6.�07"��"��%#��"(�"��"�'��"��"��# ��"��"��"��'��"("��"�"(� "�� "�� "�� "!" ��"��"��#�"�� "�� &"'��'�"��".�0"�� "<��"��"B�;$�BB$ 5 �

C-10

��

�� !

"�#�$#�%�#��&�'�#�� #�� #��#�#��(#�'��#$#�� #��'�)#��#�� '��)#�#��# ��*�'� �� #�#��#��#�%'�#��#��#'��#$#�#��#�#�#��#��)#�%#��% �#��+#�� %�#$��#��#,�-#�� #.��#��$$�#/��% �#��#��#��#��" !"��0��" !"��1#$�#��#��#��$$#'��'�#�#$%��#��'%��#�%�#��&�'��(�#��+#��#��#��*�%��#��#$ ��#$#�#��#��#��#��#��% ��#��#��#��#$#2��%�� 3��%�'��)#��#$#��#4��#��#��%��#��#$�#�'��#��% ��#%��#��#$ �#��%��/#�"*�5*�#6�+��#.��#7'�# ��#�7/#��/#�"*�5*(#6��#$#4��#7'��#6�+��#7'�#2#�� #'��/#�"*�!*�#� �#/�� #7'�# ��#�7/#5*��/#�"*�8*�#2�� #��#7'�# ��#�7/#5�/#�"*�8* #9��#��#:�� #.��#7'�# ��#�7/#5�/#�"*�8*"#/��%'��#$#/�� #7'�#2#�� #'��#��$��#�#��#��#0��%��1#/��#��#��#7��#/��#'��)#��#��#�23��#��#��#��8"(��#0��8"(��1#�#/��'�#��#�23��#$#��#��# �;*� �*"�5�#$�#$%��#��$��4��#��'� #��%��'�#$#��#��#��#��#��)#��'�� # ��#��#��#��$$�'��#��#��#��% �#��# ��#�#� �#��#��'�#��#�� %�� #��'��#�#'�� #��#��&�'��4��#��#��#��#��# ��#��#��#�� #��#��#��#��%��#�� #��#$�#�<%��'# �$��5�#��#��&�'��#�� #'��%'��#�'��#0��'�#��' %��#' ��)#��)#��'��#��#��# ��%��#�'��1#��#��% �#��#��#��%��'�#$#��#0�1)#�#��)#�'��#$#�� # ��#��)#'��'�#��,$$�'�#$#��#-%� ��#=#��#. ��#>��'�#0 �;�� *�!5"1#��#��#��#$�#$#�#3% �#(9��#��#3%�$$#.��#?��#��#$ ��#��#��"8��#0��"8��14#��)#��#��#%��)#�#3% �#(#��#�%#�� #$��#��#�#�� #�#/��%'��#. ��0��"8�;��@'��<#0��"8�;��@'��<11)#��#��#��'��# �;#�7/#�(*(*5�(#0�� '�4� �;��7��(�#A.��B0�� '�4� �;��7��(��.��1)#��#�5#��%��#�81�#>�$��#�%#��#�� #$�#�3% �#(#.��)#�#��#'��%'��)#�%#�%��#�%��#�%�#/��%'��#. ��#�#�%�#'%��#9� #��#��/��#��'�#09�/�1#0�� '��'�� 0�� '��'�� 11�C��#��'��#$#��#'��%'��#� ��)#�� #$#��#9�/�#�#��#��#��#$#�� #�� #��#��#� ��#�#��#�$#��#��#��#��<%��#$# �;#�7/#�(*(�#. ��#��#��#��$�'��#�� #��<%��#��*�%�� #�$#��#� ��#��#�%$$�'��#�%#�� #��#��$��#��#��%'��#�#�%��#��$�'��#�#��#��#��#$#��#3% �#(#2��'�#$#��#02,�1#�%�� #,�'�#'��%'��#��)��$$#$#��#9�/�#�#��#��#$#�� #��#�� #��$��#��'��#$�'��#��#��#��#$�#'�� '�#��#��#��% ��. ��#��#��$% #��#�� #�"8#�%��'�� #9��#9��#9��#9��#0�9"1#��#��#��#�� #��#��%�# '� #�� #��#��%��%�#��#��#��#��#$#��#�� $#.��#��#$�� #��#��#��<%��#7 #$#��#�9"#��#�� #��%� �#��+�#�� #$�/��%'��#. ��#��)#��'��)#��#��$�'��#7�#��#�9"#��#��#��#�� #$��)#��#�� #��#��#�#�# ��#$#�9"#��#��#�#��#��#��#��"8��#0��"8��1�

C-11

��

�� !

�"#�$�#��%�&�#��# &��#��#��#��'��#�( #��)#� ��#&��&�#��# &� #�( #��#��$��#��#��#��#��*$��#+�&�#��#�( #��#��#� ��)#��#,+�#&��#��#�$��#��-�� #"#��#��.�#"#�$�#��%�&�)#�#��&�#��&�#�$#��/#��#�#��#��#��#��*$��)��#��&��#��#��#��$&�$��#��#��&��*$��#��#$�� .��#��#�$��#��#&��$&��)#��#�"��#&�� #"#��#��%�&�)#�#��.�#��#��&��#��&��#��#��#��#�$�""�#0��$��#"#��#� ��#��#��#�� #��#��#��#��#*$� ��#��$��#��&��#�#��#�� #"��# ��#��#&��$&��#��#�$��#�&��# ��#��$��&�#��#"�#��&��$&��#��#*$� ��#&�&��#��"��#��#��&�#��#��#��#�� #�&��$&��#�&��#��#�� #"��#��#(� #��#��#1��#��&�#2(�1�3#""�&��#��#��&�&$��#�#"��#��4�#��#��%�&��#�� #��&��#�#"��#��#��&� #��$�&��)#&��&�#��#��#"#,��$�� #-��$�&��'#��#"#��#��#�� "�#25�4��5�' �!�3#"�#��#��%�&�#��$��!�#��#��%�&��#�� #��#��#&��$&��)#��#��#��)#��#��#�$� �&#��#�$�� )&��&�#��#+""�&�#"#��#6$� ��#'#��/��#��#7��&�#25�4'5�!'5�883#��#��#��#"�#��8�#��#��%�&��#�� #�"" $��#��&��#�#��#"#��#(��#"#��#)#&��&�#��#+""�&�#"#��6$� ��#'#9��#7��&�#25�4'�55'� :!3#��#��#��#"�#�#,�� #9 $��#��&��#� ��(��#2,9��(3#��#��#��%�&��#�� #��#&��$&��#"#��#"�&� ��#��#��# ��)#&��&�#��#+""�&�#"#��6$� ��#'#9��#7��&�#25�4'�5�'!:4;3#��#��#��#"�#��<=>#?@<A=BC0��#��'��#��%�&�#��$ �#��#��#�#��.�#��#��&�#�#��#��#*$� ��#��)#�#��)#��#��%�&��#0��#��%�&�#�$��#&�� #��#� #"�� #��#��#��#� $��#��$ ��#1��#��$ �#��#��#��#" ��#-��#��#�$��)#��#��#"#��&#��#��#��# ��#& ��#�&��D#��#��"#��#�$��#��#� ��#2�� !��#2�� !��33#$��&�"�&#&��#E$#� �#&��#��/#��#��#�$��#��&�#"��#��F��)#��#�� #��&��#��#�$#��/�#��#��#�#�#��#��#��&��#"�&� ��#�#��#��#��#��#&��#�#��#��#&��#�#��#2�$#�$��#��#��#�"#��#��#�)��#�$��#��#�#��#&��D#&��&�#5�4��5�'��::3�#0��#"��#&��#&��#��#$��#��#�#�$ &�#�#�� #��#E$#� �#��#�$��#��#��#��#2�$&�#��# ��)#��)��&��)# ��)#��#��$�/�#��#��$��3#��)#� ��$��#�$��# ��#*$��#"#�$&�#�� #&��# ��#�$��&�#�� )# ��#��-�� #��&�$��#�$��#��#��/��#�#��.�#"$��#�$��#��#"��#&��$&��#��#�� &��#��#�� )#��#��#��#��#��)#&��$&��#��#��)#�#��#�$��#��#��&��&� #�� .��#2�$&�#��#&� &�$�#&� ��#�#�� #��#&��&�� #��$&��3�#��#��&/��#��#��#"��#$��#��#��$ �#��#��.��G�� )#�"#&��$&��#�#�� #��#&��$&��#��#�#��#��#��#� �&/��#��#��#��#�$� ��#�#�$� ��#��&��#��#��&�#��#�#��#��#��#"�#5';#��#��&�$��$��#��$ �#��#��/��#�#��#��#$��/#"#�� #0��#��#��#&�$��#��#��#"$��$�F�� #&��$ ��$�)#��&�#��#"��#��#�#��#��#��#��#�&&$�$ ��#��#��#��#"�#5';

C-12

��

�� !

��"#��"��"$��"��"$%��%�"��&��"��"��"��"��"��"��%��"��"&��"&�%��"��$�&��"��"��"&��%��"��"$"��"��"#��"��"��% �"��"��"��"��"�"& ��%�"�� "$"��"��'�&�"��"��"��"�� "��$��"�"�� "��"��"&�� (� ��"&��&�"��")&%��"��"*�� "��"$"��"��"+��"��"$",�� "��"-.�/0"�..1/�/��"#��"2�+�"�3)"��"��"+%��"4�� "��&��"��"�� "��"��" ��1��"��%��"�"��"�� "��"5"�*��6�"-��"�"&%��1��1&%��"��"$"��&��"��" �� "��"��("��5�5 ��"-��5�5 ��0�0#��"2�+�"�3)"$%��"��&��"��"� "��"-��"��"��"��"��"$"��%��" �� 0"��"$�"��"�$"��1��"��" �� "��"��"�"��"5"�*��6("�"��("�3)"��&��"�"$ �1%�"��"�$"��"��&��"��"&�$��"��"��" �� "��"5"�*��6("�"��("�3)"��&��"��"�� $"��1��%&��"��%��"-��"�" ��"$"7%� �$��"��"��"��"��"��"-�"��%&��0��&�� "��"��&�� $��8��8��8 ��$-��&�� $��8��8��8 ��$0�0"��"� �"��"��&��"��"��%&��"��%��"��"�%� �"��"� "��"��("��&% �� "��"��" �9�"��"��"��"�"��"��&��"��" �� #" ��"��"��%�"��("��"��9�("��"��"�"��%&�"��%��"��&�� "-��&�� 0(��5�5 ��"-��5�5 ��0("�"�� -�� 0�.�"��"��&�"�"��"�� "� "$�&� ��"� ��"$�"��"�"�� "-��&��"�� %� ��"��"��"-50"$%�"�"$��"�� "%��"��"��&�"�� "��"��"%��"$�"&��&�� "�%��0�%��"��"��&��"��"��"��1 �&��"��"��&��"��"�"��"&��&��"$"��"��"�� "�&��"�$"��% ��"��1&��"�� "-:)*�0"��"��"��&��"��"��$%��("��"�%��7%��"�� ("��("�"��"�� "�&��"�%��"��"��$��"��&&��&�"��"��"��"��$�&��"��"��"&�� "��7%��$"�"��"��"$%��"��"�"��"�&��"�� "&&%�("�"�$"��"��"�� "�� "$" ��"�;�" ��"$��"$":)*�"$$"$"��(" ��"��"�;�"�7%��"$��"$":)*�"$$"$"��"$�&� ��&��("�" ��"��". "&%��&"$��"$":)*�"$$"$"� "$�&� ��"&��("��"��"�"��"$"��'�&�"��"��"��"�"��$�"��"��$��"��"��"��"�&��"7%��"�"��"�� "��"��"�&��("�%"&��"� �"&� "��<�"6��)��&��"��"�1!!!1 /51!� ��,��("��"� "&��"��"�"�� "�&��"�� "&&%�"-��"�$"�"��"��"$%��0("��"��"��"�%��"�� "��$�"��"��"��9��"��"��"�"��"�� ("%��"��"$��"$%��"��&��$� ��$��55 =.��$"-��&��$� ��$��55 =.��$0�)��"�%��"�"�� "��$�&��"$��"�� "��"�� "�"��$�&��"$��"��"%��"��%��"$"$�� "��"&��"�� "�"��"��"�"�� "3�'�&��"��"�� "�� "$"��"��"�(;��" ��"$��"$"$�� "��"&��"�� "�"��("�"�(;��"�7%��$��"�"5��"&%��&"$��"$"$�� "��"&��"�� "�"��"$�&� ��"&��("�� "��"�� "�"$��$">� �"��"��'�&�?"��'�&��"�� "��"��%��"�� "��"�� "�"$��"$"> �"��"��'�&��") "��$�&��"�� "��"�� "�"�"7%�� "��

C-13

��

�� !

��"��"��#��"��$�"��"� �%�"��"��"�� "��"�� &"��'(!)��"*��'(!)��+�'�"��"��%�"�" ��,��"��"�� "��"��%$��"� "�##��"�"��-�"�$��"��$��"�" ��,��"��"%��"��"�$��"��"��"��%$ �� "%�%��"��"�$��"%�� "��"�" ��"%��"�$##��#��" ��"�� ". ��$��" ��,��"��"��"�##��"��"��"��&"��"��"��"%��$%��"��"�$��"�$� �"��#��"/��$��"�&"�(0!"&"�"�"%�� ,%%$��"#�%� ��"��"��1$��"�%�� "��"� " ��,��"��"��2"��%��%�"��&" �%��"��"��#�%��"��1$��"��"��#��"��$�" ��,��"��"�� "��"��(�)��*��(�)��+�3�"��$��"��"�� "��"� ��"��"��"��"��"�� "4��"$��"#"%$��%2"�� &"�"�� $ ��"%��"��"��"��"��%��"*05+"� "�� &"��"��"�$��"��"��".�� $��"6%��"7��")� "�.8"!,3,�"&".�� "9��":$ �*�� %�4�)� ��.��!��9��*�� %�4�)� ��.��!��9��++� �"�#"�$�"��;�%�"�� "��"%��$%��"#"�"��"�$�%�"#"��"��"�"��"��#�%��"#"��"��$�%�"#"��"��"�"��"� $��"%�� "�1$��&"��"�� "��"�"��"��"��"��"��"6##�%�"#.��"<$� ��"*6.<+�"."��"�"��"��"��"��1$��"$��")� "�.8"�"*=��"�� %��)� ��#"*�� %��)� ��#+�+">��$�%��"��"$��"�"��"��-��$�"��"� $��"��"��"�$�;�%�"�"7�%��"��"#"��"8 ��".��".%�"��%��"��"��"��$ ��"��"��-��$�"��"� $��0�"��"��"��#��"�"��"��"��"��'��)��*��'��)��+&"�"�"��"��"��"��"��"��%��&"� ��"%��%�"��"6##�%�"#.��"<$� ��"9��":��"#"��"��"��"*)�0+"�)),��0!"�"6.�9:6�"��$��?.>�"<@.?�4A��"��"�"��"%�� %�"��"� "�� %�� " ��"��"%��"��"��"��"�� &��"��%��"��"�#"��"��"��"#$��"�"%��"��"��"$��"�"��"#"� ��"�"��-��$�"��&"�$"��"�"%��%�"��6##�%�"#"?��"<$� ��"*6?<+��")�0,)�!,)��)��". "� ��"��"��"��"��"��;�%�&"�"��"#��"��"��;�%�"��&"��"�"��"��2��"�"�"�� "� ��"��"��%��"�"�� "#�%� ��"��"��"��#��&"��'((!��"*��'((!��+�)�"�#"��"%��"�� "��"��%��"�$��"��"��;�%�&"��"��"��"�$�;�%�"�"�� "��"��-��$��"9 ��"%��%�"��"6?<"��")�0,)�!,)��)"�"��"��#��"�"��"�� "��%��$��'�"�#"98B�"��"#$��"��"��"��&"� ��"%��%�"��"��$�� "��"7�%��"#"6?<"��")�0,)�!,)��)"#��#��"��"��"#"��"98B"��"#��"��"��3�"�#"��"��"��"��"�� "��$��"�� "�"��"��&"� ��"%��%�"��"��$�� "��"7�%��"#6?<"��")�0,)�!,)��)"#�"��#��"��"��"��"#"��"��"*.��"�� "��"��&"$��".��"<$� ��+� �"�#"��"��;�%�"�� "��"�� "�"�� "#"��"$��$��"��"��2&"�"�� "%��#��"��"$��$��"��"��2&"�$"�$��"%��%�"��"��"@��$��"7��"4��2"��"��

C-14

��

�� !

"� �"�!#"�"$�%&��%��'$$$��%(��'$$$��)��*+,%-��+-.&&�/ �%�/%��%�%��%��%�� %��%��%��0��%��%��%��%��1�0�2%� ��%��%��3/ ��%�4%�"#�5#!%��6/��%��%�/%��3�%� %��1��%��%��%��%00/��%��%��%��%�/��/�� %3%��0�%��%�� 0��%7��2%�3%�/%��%��8��%�/ �� %��2%�/%0��%�� %��%��3�0��%��6/��%��%�%�� %��0�%�3%� %��6/��%��%�� 0��%��%�/��%��%��%��%��%��&�/ �%��%�0��%3%��%��%��1�0�%��%��%�%��%��%��%�%*�� %�� %9 �0�%+0�� %+��%(�+)%�%�� %��0�%&��%(��&)%��%��6/��2%��%�� %�0�� 0��%��%��%�� %��0�%0��%��%3%��%��1�0�� 2%� ��%��%��%��% ��%��%��%0��/��%�%��2% �0��2%��%�%��%��%3��%3�� %�%��%��%3%��%��%��%3%�� %��%��%��%��1�0�%3�%��0�%�0��%3%��% ��%��%/��%+ �%��%��%��%��%��%�� %3%��%��1�0�%��%�%0��/ ��%/��%��% ��%��/��%��%��%��%0/��%��3�%3%��%�0/��2%��0�%��% 0��%��%��5�!'��(��5�!'��)2%��%/��%:;<=>?@ABCDE%FG%?HB%IJJK;L>=?�%�08�� %��%��%3 ��%��%��%��1�0�%�� %��%3��0��%��%��2%�%��%�� 2%��%�/� �0%��9�1�0�%��0��M��%��%��1�0�%��0 /��%�� 0��%3%-/��%4/��%N��%*�% �#�� %��%,�� %N /�%-��%M��%��%�� %0��%3%��%��%(��5%3��2%��'%3��2%��5%3��)%3�%�%�� %��% ��%3%"5'%3��%��%�8��%��%�� 3��%M��%��%�� %��%�%0 ��%��%��%3%�!%3��%0��%3%��%��%3��%��%�� % ��%��1��%��%'%3��%��/ ��%��%��%/�%�%/�%0��%��%3%"�%3��%*��%��%�� %�� %��%�� %M��%�/��/0�/��%�� 0��%3%��%!%��0�%��3�0��%0�0��%��08%�%3/�%'!%��0�%��%0�0��%�/ �%OMP%��%M��%��/0�/�� %��%�%�� %��%��%��0�%��%3/��%�%�� %�� %5%3��%��%M��%��%��%�� %��0�0��%��%�� %��%� �%��%3/��%�%�� %�� %5%3��%��%-�� 0��%�� %� �%��0 /�� %3%�� %�25��%3��%3%4-%$��%��%M��%�� %�� %��%�/��%��Q�� 0/��%��%� �0��%��%��%��1�0�% ��%��%�%��%��0��%M�%��%��0� %0/��%��%��%0��%��0� 0/��%�� %��%��0��%��%��%� ��%��%�� %��0��%��/�%��%��%3�%��%��%��% ��3%'5%�� %��%�/�%(��)�%M��%��%�� %0��%3%��%��%3��%��%�� % ��%��1��%��%"%3��%R%!%��0��%��/ ��%M�%�� %�� %��%�� 0��%�%��%��%��%3%4-%$��%��%��%��%��%��%3%��1�0�% ��%+�� %��" 5%�0��%3%�� %('�%��%��)2% �$% �� %3��%3%��%(��%��)2%��%��'%�0��%3%��%(��%��%��)%�� %��%��/��%�/��%0��/0��%M��%��1�0�%��6/�� %'�" %�0��%3%��%��#3#��%(-S�)%3%��0�%��!%�0��%��%�� 2%��T5%�0��%��0/ �/�� 2%��5�%�0��%��%3��2%��5 %�0��%��%�� 2%��%��55%�0��%��%��%��%��%M��%��1�0�%� ��6/��%�� %��!%�0��%3%��%-S�%3��%�%�� %��0� %��%��%��%��%3%��1�0�%��%�%��0��/0�%��%��%��%��/��2%�%�%��%�33��%��%�%��%��%��% ��%3��%��%��%��%3%��%��%��0� �%��%��%��2%�%/��%��%��%��%�%0�� %��%��1�0�%��%��0�%�%��%��2��%�%��/�%3%��0�%�%��%��2%�%�/��%0��%� %��%��/��%��%��%��%�3�� 2%��%3/��2%��%�%�/��%��%��%��6/��%��

C-15

C-16

Organization and Project InformationProject ID: 16-0230Des. ID: 1600968Project Title: Sight Distance and Bridge ProjectName of Organization: Metric Environmental, LLCRequested by: Ryan Hennessey

Environmental Assessment Report

Geological Hazards:High liquefaction potential1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard

1.

Mineral Resources:Bedrock Resource: High Potential Sand and Gravel Resource: Low Potential

2.

Active or abandoned mineral resources extraction sites:Petroleum Exploration WellsAbandoned Industrial Minerals Sand Gravel Pits

3.

*All map layers from Indiana Map (maps.indiana.edu)

INDIANAGEOLOGICAL SURVEY

DISCLAIMER: This document was compiled by Indiana University, Indiana Geological Survey, using data believed to be accurate; however, adegree of error is inherent in all data. This product is distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed orimplied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. No attempt has been made in either thedesign or production of these data and document to define the limits or jurisdiction of any federal, state, or local government. Thedata used to assemble this document are intended for use only at the published scale of the source data or smaller (see themetadata links below) and are for reference purposes only. They are not to be construed as a legal document or surveyinstrument. A detailed on-the-ground survey and historical analysis of a single site may differ from these data and this document.

This information was furnished by Indiana Geological SurveyAddress: 420 N. Walnut St., Bloomington, IN 47404Email: [email protected]

Phone: 812 855-7428 Date: February 12, 2019

Privacy NoticeCopyright © 2015 The Trustees of Indiana University, Copyright Complaints

C-17

https://maps.indiana.edu/

https://www.iu.edu/comments/privacy.shtml

https://www.iu.edu/

https://www.iu.edu/copyright/index.shtml

https://www.iu.edu/

https://www.iu.edu/copyright/complaints.shtml

Privacy Notice Copyright © 2015 The Trustees of Indiana University,

Copyright Complaints

C-18


https://www.iu.edu/


https://www.iu.edu/


Metadata: https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Petroleum_Wells.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Industrial_Minerals_Sand_Gravel_Pits_Abandoned.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Seismic_Earthquake_Liquefaction_Potential.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Industrial_Minerals_Sand_Gravel_Resources.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Hydrology/Floodplains_FIRM.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Bedrock_Geology.html

Privacy Notice Copyright © 2015 The Trustees of Indiana University,

Copyright Complaints

C-19

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Petroleum_Wells.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Industrial_Minerals_Sand_Gravel_Pits_Abandoned.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Seismic_Earthquake_Liquefaction_Potential.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Industrial_Minerals_Sand_Gravel_Resources.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Hydrology/Floodplains_FIRM.html

https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Bedrock_Geology.html


https://www.iu.edu/


https://www.iu.edu/


1

Susan Castle

Subject: FW: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN

From: Royer, Brian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 2:35 PM To: Doug Graf; Susan Castle Subject: RE: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN They can leave it alone and mark as do not disturb, we do not have any rules on existing wells distance from roads or buildings. As close as it is crews need to be aware that they may encounter old gas lines if excavating around the area. We have no records of where the lines ran from this well when it was in use. If lines are currently disconnected there should not be any issues with natural gas. If there are risers of lines at the well they could be flushed to ensure no gas is in them. Chances are that with their age they have holes in them and have been flooded. If you have any further questions or concerns with this issue please let me know. Thanks, Brian Royer Orphan Well Manager Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil & Gas Cell- 317-417-6556 www.dnr.IN.gov * Please let us know about the quality of our service by taking this brief customer survey.

From: Doug Graf [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 2:19 PM To: Royer, Brian <[email protected]>; Susan Castle <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Brian/Susan: Our survey crew was able to go out to the site and locate the well in question. We have plotted it on our plan sheets, see attached. It is located just outside of construction limits, but within the R/W. It should not be disturbed during construction given it is outside of theoretical limits; however, it is very close to the limits on the order of just a couple feet. Can we avoid plugging the well by showing it as do not disturb? Is there a limit on the proximity to the construction before it must be plugged? Please provide guidance on how this matter should be resolved. Thanks. Doug Douglas J. Graf, PE | Project Manager, Bridges USI Consultants, Inc.

C-20

2

Direct: (513) 509.0969 | Office: (513) 509.0969 [email protected] | www.usiconsultants.com

From: Royer, Brian <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 8:40 AM To: Susan Castle <[email protected]> Cc: Doug Graf <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

We do have gps coordinates for this well in UTM’s. Our units are just Garmin 60CsX units so it is accurate to 15’ or so normally better than that. The UTM’s are X- 619014 Y- 4385851 using NAD 83. Hope this helps you, it is visible so they can survey it to get an exact location for the project. Please let me know if you need anything further. Thanks, Brian Royer DNR Oil & Gas Orphan Well Manager 317-417-6556 [email protected]

From: Susan Castle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 4:57 PM To: Royer, Brian <[email protected]> Cc: Doug Graf ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Hi Brian, Do you have any information on the exact location of the well or distance from existing roadway? The designer can compare with the plans if we can provide them with the location. Thank you Susan Castle NEPA Senior Technical Consultant Phone: 317.608.2730 Mobile: 317.379.3649 Email: [email protected] From: Royer, Brian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 2:18 PM

C-21

3

To: Susan Castle; Ryan Hennessey Subject: RE: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN After looking at this plan the well may be in the way if it is within the project area and in the way of construction the well will need to be plugged. I can help with providing names of contractors and creating a plugging plan that follows the State of Indiana’s rules and regulations. Well exists at surface and if it is determined that it will not impact the project as long as it is still accessible the well can be left. It is an orphan well and has no current owner or operator so cost of plugging if it will be necessary should be planned in the cost of the project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Thanks, Brian Royer DNR Oil & Gas Orphan Well Manager 317-417-6556 [email protected]

From: Hernly, Beth Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 10:45 AM To: Royer, Brian <[email protected]> Cc: AmRhein, James <[email protected]>; Retherford, Russell L <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN

From: Susan Castle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 10:40 AM To: Hernly, Beth <[email protected]> Cc: Ryan Hennessey <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Correction: The project also includes straightening CR 900 W over Little Blue River to the east where the petroleum well is identified on the mining/mineral exploration map. Please see the attached design plan sheets. Please advise of any actions and /or commitments that may be necessary by the contractor during construction. Thank you Susan Castle NEPA Senior Technical Consultant Phone: 317.608.2730 Mobile: 317.379.3649 Email: [email protected] From: Ryan Hennessey Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 9:39 AM

C-22

4

To: [email protected] Cc: Susan Castle Subject: Early Coordination: Des. No. 1600968, CR 900W over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, IN Good Morning, Rush County Indiana, a local public agency (LPA) plans to replace a bridge (Structure No. 70-00127) at the above referencedlocation. Please see attachments. Based on our review of the State of Indiana Geographical Information Office Library, the project area is adjacent to an oil and gas well. Seven (7) wells were identified within one-half mile of the project limits. One well, owned by the Beaver Meadow Natural Gas Company, is located approximately 54 feet east of the project area. Based on the proposed project (replacement of the existing structure) impacts to the well is not anticipated, however, we wanted to coordinate with you. Please let me know if you have comments that we should include in the environmental document concerning the nearby well and or petroleum field. Also,if there is another person we should coordinate with involving comments for the well in question, we would appreciate it if youprovided information regarding the correct contact with IDNR O&G. Thank you, Ryan Hennessey Phone: 317.608.2798 Email: [email protected] Environmental Geologist 6971 Hillsdale Court, Indianapolis, IN 46250

www.metricenv.comComplex Environment. Creative Solutions.Certified DBE/MBE/SBE INDIANAPOLIS | GARY | CINCINNATI

please consider the environment before printing this e-mail “Notice: If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail and/or any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this copy and any attachments hereto from your system. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.”

C-23

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEIndiana Ecological Services Field Office

620 South Walker Street

Bloomington, IN 47403-2121

Phone: (812) 334-4261 Fax: (812) 334-4273

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/s7process/step1.html

In Reply Refer To:

Consultation Code: 03E12000-2019-SLI-0414

Event Code: 03E12000-2019-E-04508

Project Name: Des. No. 1600968, Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Posey Township,

Rush County, IN

Subject: Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed

project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The attached species list identifies any federally threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate

species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project or may be affected by your

proposed project. The list also includes designated critical habitat if present within your proposed

project area or affected by your project. This list is provided to you as the initial step of the

consultation process required under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, also referred to

as Section 7 Consultation.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that actions authorized, funded, or

carried out by Federal agencies not jeopardize federally threatened or endangered species or

adversely modify designated critical habitat. To fulfill this mandate, Federal agencies (or their

designated non-federal representative) must consult with the Service if they determine their

project “may affect” listed species or critical habitat.

Under 50 CFR 402.12(e) (the regulations that implement Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act) the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be

completed formally or informally. You may verify the list by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ at regular intervals during project planning and implementation and

completing the same process you used to receive the attached list. As an alternative, you may

contact this Ecological Services Field Office for updates.

Please use the species list provided and visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Region 3

Section 7 Technical Assistance website at - http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/

s7process/index.html. This website contains step-by-step instructions which will help you

May 17, 2019

C-24


http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/index.html

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/index.html

determine if your project will have an adverse effect on listed species and will help lead you

through the Section 7 process.

For all wind energy projects and projects that include installing towers that use guy wires or

are over 200 feet in height, please contact this field office directly for assistance, even if no

federally listed plants, animals or critical habitat are present within your proposed project or may

be affected by your proposed project.

Although no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, be aware that bald eagles are

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) and Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq), as are golden eagles. Projects affecting these species may

require measures to avoid harming eagles or may require a permit. If your project is near an

eagle nest or winter roost area, see our Eagle Permits website at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

midwestbird/EaglePermits/index.html to help you determine if you can avoid impacting eagles or

if a permit may be necessary.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please include the

Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or

correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment(s):

▪ Official Species List

C-25

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird/EaglePermits/index.html

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird/EaglePermits/index.html

Official Species ListThis list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the

requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether

any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed

action".

This species list is provided by:

Indiana Ecological Services Field Office



(812) 334-4261

C-26

Project SummaryConsultation Code: 03E12000-2019-SLI-0414

Event Code: 03E12000-2019-E-04508

Project Name: Des. No. 1600968, Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Posey

Township, Rush County, IN

Project Type: BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE

Project Description: Rush County Indiana, a local public agency proposes to proceed with a

bridge replacement and road realignment project, located at County Road

(CR) 900 West over Little Blue River (Bridge No. 127) in Rush County,

IN. The preferred alternative is to replace the existing structure with a

three span (115’-0”, 124’-0”, 115’-0”) prestressed concrete beam bridge

354 feet long, 30 feet wide, skewed 20 degrees left. The roadway along

the replacement structure will consist of one 10 feet wide travel lane with

a 4 feet usable shoulder provided in each direction. The superstructure of

the replacement structure will consist of an 8 inch reinforced concrete

deck on four 48 inch prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams. The structure

will rest on integral bents at each end founded on piling. The interior

bents will be concrete pier walls and will also be founded on piling.

During the Bridge inspection, conducted by Metric Environmental on

August 28, 2018, no signs of bats were seen or heard under the structure.

The realignment of CR 900 W will consist of removing substandard

horizontal curves by placing the entire project length in a tangent section.

Two sag vertical curves and one crest vertical curve will be incorporated

into the alignment and will exceed minimum design standards for the

design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). The new alignment of CR 900

W will consist of a 10 feet wide travel lane with 3.6 feet wide paved

shoulders provided in each direction.

Suitable summer habitat is located in all quadrants of the project area.

Approximately 1.214 acres of suitable summer habitat will be removed by

this project. Ten different tree species are planned to be removed. The

most dominant species of trees that will be removed are Eastern black

walnut (Juglans nigra), Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids), Green Ash

(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), Boxelder

maple (Acer negundo), American elm (Ulmus Americana), Silver maple

(Acer saccharinum), and Osage orange (Maclura pomifera).

Approximately 1.127 acres of trees will be removed within 0 to 100 feet

from edge of pavement and 0.087 acre of trees will be removed beyond

100 feet but not more than 300 feet from edge of pavement. Tree removal

C-27

will occur during the inactive season for endangered bats. The amount to

be paid to the Range-wide In-lieu Fee Program, to be administered by the

Conservation Fund shall be $1,615.22 (0.087 X 1.75 X $10,609 =

$1,615.22).

This project is expected to Let in October of 2020. Temporary lighting

will be used if night construction is necessary and no permanent lighting

will be added. The USFWS bat database was checked on August 22,

2018, and the result stated that a review of the USFWS database did not

indicate the presence of endangered bat species in or within 0.5 mile of

the project area.

Project Location:

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://

www.google.com/maps/place/39.61345161172299N85.61389458943177W

Counties: Rush, IN

C-28

https://www.google.com/maps/place/39.61345161172299N85.61389458943177W

https://www.google.com/maps/place/39.61345161172299N85.61389458943177W

Endangered Species Act SpeciesThere is a total of 2 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include

species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species

list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 1 of these species should be

considered only under certain conditions.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA

Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the

Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially

within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office

if you have questions.

1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an

office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of

Commerce.

MammalsNAME STATUS

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalisThere is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949

Species survey guidelines:

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/1/office/31440.pdf

Endangered

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalisNo critical habitat has been designated for this species.

This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions:

▪ Incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited here. Federal agencies may consult using the

4(d) rule streamlined process. Transportation projects may consult using the programmatic

process. See www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/index.html

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045

Threatened

Critical habitatsTHERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

1

C-29

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/1/office/31440.pdf

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045


FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEIndiana Ecological Services Field Office



Phone: (812) 334-4261 Fax: (812) 334-4273


IPaC Record Locator: 058-16552956

Subject: Consistency letter for the 'Des. No. 1600968, Road Realignment and Bridge

Replacement, Posey Township, Rush County, IN' project (TAILS 03E12000-2019-

R-0414) under the revised February 5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic

Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within the Range of the Indiana Bat

and Northern Long-eared Bat.

To whom it may concern:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received your request dated to verify that the

Des. No. 1600968, Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Posey Township, Rush

County, IN (Proposed Action) may rely on the revised February 5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA

Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects within the Range of the Indiana

Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat (PBO) to satisfy requirements under Section 7(a)(2) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Based on the information you provided (Project Description shown below), you have determined

that the Proposed Action is within the scope and adheres to the criteria of the PBO, including the

adoption of applicable avoidance and minimization measures, and may affect, and is likely to

adversely affect the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and/or the threatened Northern long-

eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Consultation with the Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is

required.

This "may affect - likely to adversely affect" determination becomes effective when the lead

Federal action agency or designated non-federal representative uses it to ask the Service to rely

on the PBO to satisfy the agency's consultation requirements for this project. Please provide this

consistency letter to the lead Federal action agency or its designated non-federal representative

with a request for its review, and as the agency deems appropriate, transmittal to this Service

Office for verification that the project is consistent with the PBO.

May 17, 2019

C-30


This Service Office will respond by letter to the requesting Federal action agency or designated

non-federal representative within 30 calendar days to:

▪ verify that the Proposed Action is consistent with the scope of actions covered under the

PBO;

▪ verify that all applicable avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures are

included in the action proposal;

▪ identify any action-specific monitoring and reporting requirements, consistent with the

monitoring and reporting requirements of the PBO, and

▪ identify anticipated incidental take.

ESA Section 7 compliance for this Proposed Action is not complete until the Federal action

agency or its designated non-federal representative receives a verification letter from the Service.

For Proposed Actions that include bridge/structure removal, replacement, and/or

maintenance activities: If your initial bridge/structure assessments failed to detect Indiana bats,

but you later detect bats during construction, please submit the Post Assessment Discovery of

Bats at Bridge/Structure Form (User Guide Appendix E) to this Service Office. In these

instances, potential incidental take of Indiana bats may be exempted provided that the take is

reported to the Service.

If the Proposed Action may affect any other federally-listed or proposed species and/or

designated critical habitat, additional consultation between the lead Federal action agency and

this Service Office is required. If the proposed action has the potential to take bald or golden

eagles, additional coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

may also be required. In either of these circumstances, please advise the lead Federal action

agency for the Proposed Action accordingly.

C-31

Project DescriptionThe following project name and description was collected in IPaC as part of the endangered

species review process.

Name

Des. No. 1600968, Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Posey Township, Rush

County, IN

Description

C-32

Rush County Indiana, a local public agency proposes to proceed with a bridge replacement

and road realignment project, located at County Road (CR) 900 West over Little Blue River

(Bridge No. 127) in Rush County, IN. The preferred alternative is to replace the existing

structure with a three span (115’-0”, 124’-0”, 115’-0”) prestressed concrete beam bridge 354

feet long, 30 feet wide, skewed 20 degrees left. The roadway along the replacement structure

will consist of one 10 feet wide travel lane with a 4 feet usable shoulder provided in each

direction. The superstructure of the replacement structure will consist of an 8 inch reinforced

concrete deck on four 48 inch prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams. The structure will rest on

integral bents at each end founded on piling. The interior bents will be concrete pier walls

and will also be founded on piling. During the Bridge inspection, conducted by Metric

Environmental on August 28, 2018, no signs of bats were seen or heard under the structure.

The realignment of CR 900 W will consist of removing substandard horizontal curves by

placing the entire project length in a tangent section. Two sag vertical curves and one crest

vertical curve will be incorporated into the alignment and will exceed minimum design

standards for the design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). The new alignment of CR 900 W

will consist of a 10 feet wide travel lane with 3.6 feet wide paved shoulders provided in each

direction.

Suitable summer habitat is located in all quadrants of the project area. Approximately 1.214

acres of suitable summer habitat will be removed by this project. Ten different tree species

are planned to be removed. The most dominant species of trees that will be removed are

Eastern black walnut (Juglans nigra), Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids), Green Ash

(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), Boxelder maple (Acer

negundo), American elm (Ulmus Americana), Silver maple (Acer saccharinum), and Osage

orange (Maclura pomifera). Approximately 1.127 acres of trees will be removed within 0 to

100 feet from edge of pavement and 0.087 acre of trees will be removed beyond 100 feet but

not more than 300 feet from edge of pavement. Tree removal will occur during the inactive

season for endangered bats. The amount to be paid to the Range-wide In-lieu Fee Program, to

be administered by the Conservation Fund shall be $1,615.22 (0.087 X 1.75 X $10,609 =

$1,615.22).

This project is expected to Let in October of 2020. Temporary lighting will be used if night

construction is necessary and no permanent lighting will be added. The USFWS bat database

was checked on August 22, 2018, and the result stated that a review of the USFWS database

did not indicate the presence of endangered bat species in or within 0.5 mile of the project

area.

C-33

Determination Key ResultBased on your answers provided, this project is likely to adversely affect the endangered Indiana

bat and/or the threatened Northern long-eared bat. Therefore, consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87

Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required. However, also based on your answers

provided, this project may rely on the conclusion and Incidental Take Statement provided in the

revised February 5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for

Transportation Projects within the Range of the Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat.

Qualification Interview1. Is the project within the range of the Indiana bat ?

[1] See Indiana bat species profile

Automatically answered

Yes

2. Is the project within the range of the Northern long-eared bat ?

[1] See Northern long-eared bat species profile


Yes

3. Which Federal Agency is the lead for the action?

A) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

4. Are all project activities limited to non-construction activities only? (examples of non-

construction activities include: bridge/abandoned structure assessments, surveys, planning

and technical studies, property inspections, and property sales)

[1] Construction refers to activities involving ground disturbance, percussive noise, and/or lighting.

No

5. Does the project include any activities that are greater than 300 feet from existing road/

rail surfaces ?

[1] Road surface is defined as the actively used [e.g. motorized vehicles] driving surface and shoulders [may be

pavement, gravel, etc.] and rail surface is defined as the edge of the actively used rail ballast.

No

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

C-34

http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A000

http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A0JE

6. Does the project include any activities within 0.5 miles of a known Indiana bat and/or

NLEB hibernaculum ?

[1] For the purpose of this consultation, a hibernaculum is a site, most often a cave or mine, where bats hibernate

during the winter (see suitable habitat), but could also include bridges and structures if bats are found to be

hibernating there during the winter.

No

7. Is the project located within a karst area?

No

8. Is there any suitable summer habitat for Indiana Bat or NLEB within the project action

area ? (includes any trees suitable for maternity, roosting, foraging, or travelling habitat)

[1] See the Service’s summer survey guidance for our current definitions of suitable habitat.

[2] The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely

the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR Section 402.02). Further clarification is provided by the

national consultation FAQs.

Yes

9. Will the project remove any suitable summer habitat and/or remove/trim any existing

trees within suitable summer habitat?

[1] See the Service’s summer survey guidance for our current definitions of suitable habitat.

Yes

10. Will the project clear more than 20 acres of suitable habitat per 5-mile section of road/rail?

No

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

C-35

https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbasummersurveyguidance.html

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html#18


11. Have presence/probable absence (P/A) summer surveys been conducted within

the suitable habitat located within your project action area?

[1] See the Service's summer survey guidance for our current definitions of suitable habitat.

[2] Presence/probable absence summer surveys conducted within the fall swarming/spring emergence home range

of a documented Indiana bat hibernaculum (contact local Service Field Office for appropriate distance from

hibernacula) that result in a negative finding requires additional consultation with the local Service Field Office to

determine if clearing of forested habitat is appropriate and/or if seasonal clearing restrictions are needed to avoid

and minimize potential adverse effects on fall swarming and spring emerging Indiana bats.

[3] For projects within the range of either the Indiana bat or NLEB in which suitable habitat is present, and no bat

surveys have been conducted, the transportation agency will assume presence of the appropriate species. This

assumption of presence should be based upon the presence of suitable habitat and the capability of bats to occupy

it because of their mobility.

[4] Negative presence/probable absence survey results obtained using the summer survey guidance are valid for a

minimum of two years from the completion of the survey unless new information (e.g., other nearby surveys)

suggest otherwise.

No

12. Does the project include activities within documented Indiana bat habitat ?

[1] Documented roosting or foraging habitat – for the purposes of this consultation, we are considering

documented habitat as that where Indiana bats and/or NLEB have actually been captured and tracked using (1)

radio telemetry to roosts; (2) radio telemetry biangulation/triangulation to estimate foraging areas; or (3) foraging

areas with repeated use documented using acoustics. Documented roosting habitat is also considered as suitable

summer habitat within 0.25 miles of documented roosts.)

[2] For the purposes of this key, we are considering documented corridors as that where Indiana bats and/or

NLEB have actually been captured and tracked to using (1) radio telemetry; or (2) treed corridors located directly

between documented roosting and foraging habitat.

No

13. Will the removal or trimming of habitat or trees occur within suitable but undocumented

Indiana bat roosting/foraging habitat or travel corridors?

Yes

[1][2] [3][4]

[1][2]

C-36



14. What time of year will the removal or trimming of habitat or trees within suitable but

undocumented Indiana bat roosting/foraging habitat or travel corridors occur ?

[1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates.

B) During the inactive season

15. Does the project include activities within documented NLEB habitat ?

[1] Documented roosting or foraging habitat – for the purposes of this consultation, we are considering

documented habitat as that where Indiana bats and/or NLEB have actually been captured and tracked using (1)

radio telemetry to roosts; (2) radio telemetry biangulation/triangulation to estimate foraging areas; or (3) foraging

areas with repeated use documented using acoustics. Documented roosting habitat is also considered as suitable

summer habitat within 0.25 miles of documented roosts.)

[2] For the purposes of this key, we are considering documented corridors as that where Indiana bats and/or

NLEB have actually been captured and tracked to using (1) radio telemetry; or (2) treed corridors located directly

between documented roosting and foraging habitat.

No

16. Will the removal or trimming of habitat or trees occur within suitable but undocumented

NLEB roosting/foraging habitat or travel corridors?

Yes

17. What time of year will the removal or trimming of habitat or trees within suitable but

undocumented NLEB roosting/foraging habitat or travel corridors occur?

B) During the inactive season

18. Will any tree trimming or removal occur within 100 feet of existing road/rail surfaces?

Yes

19. Will the tree removal alter any documented Indiana bat or NLEB roosts and/or alter any

surrounding summer habitat within 0.25 mile of a documented roost?

No

20. Will any tree trimming or removal occur between 100-300 feet of existing road/rail

surfaces?

Yes

21. Are all trees that are being removed clearly demarcated?

Yes

[1]

[1][2]

C-37

22. Will the removal of habitat or the removal/trimming of trees include installing new or

replacing existing permanent lighting?

No

23. Does the project include wetland or stream protection activities associated with

compensatory wetland mitigation?

No

24. Does the project include slash pile burning?

No

25. Does the project include any bridge removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities

(e.g., any bridge repair, retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation work)?

Yes

26. Is there any suitable habitat for Indiana bat or NLEB within 1,000 feet of the bridge?

(includes any trees suitable for maternity, roosting, foraging, or travelling habitat)

[1] See the Service’s current summer survey guidance for our current definitions of suitable habitat.

Yes

27. Has a bridge assessment been conducted within the last 24 months to determine if the

bridge is being used by bats?

[1] See User Guide Appendix D for bridge/structure assessment guidance

[2] Assessments must be completed no more than 2 years prior to conducting any work below the deck surface on

all bridges that meet the physical characteristics described in the Programmatic Consultation, regardless of

whether assessments have been conducted in the past. Due to the transitory nature of bat use, a negative result in

one year does not guarantee that bats will not use that bridge/structure in subsequent years.

Yes

SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS

▪ Bat Structure Assessment Form 8-28-18.pdf https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/

KV5J4XFDABFMRKRF5F7POPKPLQ/

projectDocuments/15167597

[1]

[1] [2]

C-38


https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/fhwa/pdf/AppDBridgeStructueAssessmentGuidanceMay2017.pdf

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KV5J4XFDABFMRKRF5F7POPKPLQ/projectDocuments/15167597




28. Did the bridge assessment detect any signs of Indiana bats and/or NLEBs roosting in/under

the bridge (bats, guano, etc.) ?

[1] If bridge assessment detects signs of any species of bats, coordination with the local FWS office is needed to

identify potential threatened or endangered bat species. Additional studies may be undertaken to try to identify

which bat species may be utilizing the bridge prior to allowing any work to proceed.

Note: There is a small chance bridge assessments for bat occupancy do not detect bats. Should a small number of

bats be observed roosting on a bridge just prior to or during construction, such that take is likely to occur or does

occur in the form of harassment, injury or death, the PBO requires the action agency to report the take. Report all

unanticipated take within 2 working days of the incident to the USFWS. Construction activities may continue

without delay provided the take is reported to the USFWS and is limited to 5 bats per project.

No

29. Will the bridge removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities include installing new

or replacing existing permanent lighting?

No

30. Does the project include the removal, replacement, and/or maintenance of any structure

other than a bridge? (e.g., rest areas, offices, sheds, outbuildings, barns, parking garages,

etc.)

No

31. Will the project involve the use of temporary lighting during the active season?

No

32. Will the project install new or replace existing permanent lighting?

No

33. Does the project include percussives or other activities (not including tree removal/

trimming or bridge/structure work) that will increase noise levels above existing traffic/

background levels?

No

[1]

C-39

34. Are all project activities that are not associated with habitat removal, tree removal/

trimming, bridge and/or structure activities, temporary or permanent lighting, or use of

percussives, limited to actions that DO NOT cause any additional stressors to the bat

species?

Examples: lining roadways, unlighted signage , rail road crossing signals, signal lighting, and minor road repair

such as asphalt fill of potholes, etc.

Yes

35. Will the project raise the road profile above the tree canopy?

No

36. Are the project activities that are not associated with habitat removal, tree removal/

trimming, bridge and/or structure activities, temporary or permanent lighting, or use of

percussives consistent with a No Effect determination in this key?


Yes, other project activities are limited to actions that DO NOT cause any additional

stressors to the bat species as described in the BA/BO

37. Is the habitat removal portion of this project consistent with a Not Likely to Adversely

Affect determination in this key?


Yes, because the tree removal/trimming that occurs outside of the active season occurs

greater than 0.5 miles from the nearest hibernaculum, is less than 100 feet from the

existing road/rail surface, includes clear demarcation of the trees that are to be removed,

and does not alter documented roosts and/or surrounding summer habitat within 0.25

miles of a documented roost

38. Is the habitat removal portion of this project consistent with a Likely to Adversely Affect

determination in this key?


Yes, because the tree removal that occurs during the winter is 100-300 feet from the

existing road/rail surface, and is not in documented roosting/foraging habitat or travel

corridors

39. Is the habitat removal portion of this project consistent with a Not Likely to Adversely

Affect determination in this key?


Yes, because the tree removal/trimming that occurs outside of the active season occurs

greater than 0.5 miles from the nearest hibernaculum, is less than 100 feet from the

existing road/rail surface, includes clear demarcation of the trees that are to be removed,

and does not alter documented roosts and/or surrounding summer habitat within 0.25

miles of a documented roost

C-40

40. Is the habitat removal portion of this project consistent with a Likely to Adversely Affect

determination in this key?


Yes, because the tree removal that occurs during the winter is 100-300 feet from the

existing road/rail surface, and is not in documented roosting/foraging habitat or travel

corridors

41. Is the bridge removal, replacement, or maintenance activities portion of this project

consistent with a No Effect determination in this key?


Yes, because the bridge has been assessed using the criteria documented in the BA and no

signs of bats were detected

42. General AMM 1

Will the project ensure all operators, employees, and contractors working in areas of

known or presumed bat habitat are aware of all FHWA/FRA/FTA (Transportation

Agencies) environmental commitments, including all applicable Avoidance and

Minimization Measures?

Yes

43. Tree Removal AMM 1

Can all phases/aspects of the project (e.g., temporary work areas, alignments) be modified,

to the extent practicable, to avoid tree removal in excess of what is required to

implement the project safely?

Note: Tree Removal AMM 1 is a minimization measure, the full implementation of which may not always be

practicable. Projects may still be NLAA as long as Tree Removal AMMs 2, 3, and 4 are implemented and LAA as

long as Tree Removal AMMs 3, 5, 6, and 7 are implemented.

[1] The word “trees” as used in the AMMs refers to trees that are suitable habitat for each species within their

range. See the USFWS’ current summer survey guidance for our latest definitions of suitable habitat.

Yes

44. Tree Removal AMM 3

Can tree removal be limited to that specified in project plans and ensure that contractors

understand clearing limits and how they are marked in the field (e.g., install bright colored

flagging/fencing prior to any tree clearing to ensure contractors stay within clearing

limits)?

Yes

[1]

C-41

45. Lighting AMM 1

Will all temporary lighting used during the removal of suitable habitat and/or the

removal/trimming of trees within suitable habitat be directed away from suitable habitat

during the active season?

Yes

46. For Indiana bat, if applicable, compensatory mitigation measures are required to offset

adverse effects on the species (see Section 2.10 of the BA). Please select the mechanism in

which compensatory mitigation will be implemented:

1. Range-wide In Lieu Fee Program, The Conservation Fund

Project Questionnaire1. Have you made a No Effect determination for all other species indicated on the FWS IPaC

generated species list?

N/A

2. Have you made a May Affect determination for any other species on the FWS IPaC

generated species list?

N/A

3. How many acres of trees are proposed for removal between 0-100 feet of the existing

road/rail surface?

[1] If described as number of trees, multiply by 0.09 to convert to acreage and enter that number.

1.127

4. How many acres of trees are proposed for removal between 100-300 feet of the existing

road/rail surface?

[1] If described as number of trees, multiply by 0.09 to convert to acreage and enter that number.

0.087

5. Please verify:

All tree removal will occur greater than 0.5 mile from any hibernaculum.

Yes, I verify that all tree removal will occur greater than 0.5 miles from any hibernaculum.

6. Is the project location 0-100 feet from the edge of existing road/rail surface?

Yes

[1]

[1]

C-42

7. Is the project location 100-300 feet from the edge of existing road/rail surface?

Yes

8. Please verify:

No documented Indiana bat roosts or surrounding summer habitat within 0.25 mile of

documented roosts will be impacted between May 1 and July 31.

Yes, I verify that no documented Indiana bat roosts or surrounding summer habitat within

0.25 mile of documented roosts will be impacted during this period.

9. Please verify:

No documented NLEB roosts or surrounding summer habitat within 150 feet of

documented roosts will be impacted between June 1 and July 31.

Yes, I verify that no documented NLEB roosts or surrounding summer habitat within 150

feet of documented roosts will be impacted during this period.

10. Please describe the proposed bridge work:

The proposed project includes the replacement of the existing bridge (Rush County Bridge

No. 127) and

realignment of CR 900 W. The replacement structure will by a three span (115’-0”,

124’-0”, 115’-0”) prestressed

concrete beam bridge 354 feet long, 30 feet wide, skewed 20 degrees Left. The roadway

along the

replacement structure will consist of one 10 ft. wide travel lane with a 4 ft. usable shoulder

provided in each

direction. The superstructure of the replacement structure will consist of an 8 inch

reinforced concrete deck on

four 48 inch prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams. The structure will rest on integral bents

at each end founded

on piling. The interior bents will be concrete pier walls and will also be founded on piling.

11. Please state the timing of all proposed bridge work:

Begin Spring 2021

12. Please enter the date of the bridge assessment:

August 28,2018

13. You have indicated that the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs)

will be implemented as part of the proposed project:

▪ General AMM 1

▪ Lighting AMM 1

C-43

▪ Tree Removal AMM 1

▪ Tree Removal AMM 3

Avoidance And Minimization Measures (AMMs)This determination key result includes the committment to implement the following Avoidance

and Minimization Measures (AMMs):

GENERAL AMM 1

Ensure all operators, employees, and contractors working in areas of known or presumed bat

habitat are aware of all FHWA/FRA/FTA (Transportation Agencies) environmental

commitments, including all applicable AMMs.

LIGHTING AMM 1

Direct temporary lighting away from suitable habitat during the active season.

TREE REMOVAL AMM 1

Modify all phases/aspects of the project (e.g., temporary work areas, alignments) to avoid tree

removal.

TREE REMOVAL AMM 3

Ensure tree removal is limited to that specified in project plans and ensure that contractors

understand clearing limits and how they are marked in the field (e.g., install bright colored

flagging/fencing prior to any tree clearing to ensure contractors stay within clearing limits).

C-44

Determination Key Description: FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Consultation For Transportation Projects Affecting NLEB Or Indiana BatThis key was last updated in IPaC on March 16, 2018. Keys are subject to periodic revision.

This decision key is intended for projects/activities funded or authorized by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and/or Federal Transit

Administration (FTA), which require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the endangered Indiana bat

(Myotis sodalis) and the threatened Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis).

This decision key should only be used to verify project applicability with the Service’s February

5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects. The

programmatic biological opinion covers limited transportation activities that may affect either bat

species, and addresses situations that are both likely and not likely to adversely affect either bat

species. This decision key will assist in identifying the effect of a specific project/activity and

applicability of the programmatic consultation. The programmatic biological opinion is not

intended to cover all types of transportation actions. Activities outside the scope of the

programmatic biological opinion, or that may affect ESA-listed species other than the Indiana bat

or NLEB, or any designated critical habitat, may require additional ESA Section 7 consultation.

C-45

https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/section7/fhwa/index.html

https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/section7/fhwa/index.html


Fish and Wildlife Service

Indiana Field Office (ES) 620 South Walker Street

Bloomington, IN 47403-2121 Phone: (812) 334-4261 Fax: (812) 334-4273

May 21, 2019

Michelle Allen TAILS: 03E12000-2018-R-0414 Federal Highway Administration 575 N. Pennsylvania St. Room 254 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 RE: CR 900 W road realignment and bridge replacement, Rush Co., Des . 1600968 Dear Ms. Allen: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responding to your request dated May 17, 2019 to verify that the CR 900 W road realignment and bridge replacement project (the Project) may rely on the December 15, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) for federally funded or approved transportation projects that may affect the federally listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and/or federally listed threatened northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis). We received your request and the associated LAA Consistency Letter on May 21, 2019. This letter provides the Service’s response as to whether the Federal Highway Administration may rely on the BO to comply with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the Project’s effects to the Indiana bat and/or NLEB. This letter also responds to your request for Service concurrence that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) ESA-listed species and/or designated critical habitats other than the Indiana bat and NLEB. The Federal Highway Administration has determined that the Project is likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat and/or the NLEB. The Service concurs with this determination. This concurrence concludes your ESA Section 7 responsibilities relative to these species for this Project, subject to the Reinitiation Notice below. Conclusion The Service has reviewed the effects of the proposed Project, which includes the Federal Highway Administration’s commitment to implement any applicable mitigation measures as indicated on the LAA Consistency Letter. We confirm that the proposed Project’s effects are consistent with those analyzed in the BO. The Service has determined that projects consistent with the conservation measures and scope of the program analyzed in the BO are not likely to

C-46

jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat and/or the NLEB. In coordination with your agency and the other sponsoring Federal Transportation Agencies, the Service will reevaluate this conclusion annually in light of any new pertinent information under the adaptive management provisions of the BO. Incidental Take Indiana Bat The Service anticipates that tree removal associated with the proposed Project will cause incidental take of Indiana bats. As described in the Incidental Take Statement (ITS) of the BO, such taking will be difficult to detect. The Service determined that it is appropriate to measure the amount or extent of incidental taking resulting from BO projects using the proposed acreage of tree removal from Indiana bat suitable habitat as a surrogate for the numbers of individuals taken. The proposed Project will remove 1.214 acres of trees from habitat that is suitable for the Indiana bat. All tree removal will occur in winter and comply with all other conservation measures in the BO. Based on the BO, 1.127 acres of the removal are not anticipated to result in any adverse effects, and 0.087 acres (those between 100-300 feet) are anticipated to result in adverse effects. The Federal Highway Administration used the mitigation ratio of 1.75 from Table 3 of the BO to calculate the compensatory mitigation required to offset these adverse impacts for a total of 0.152 acres1 of trees that is suitable for the Indiana bat. Using the information provided in Table 2 of Exhibit E in The Conservation Fund’s (TCF) In Lieu Fee (ILF) Instrument2 and the mitigation identified above, the Federal Highway Administration will contribute $1615.22 to TCF to comply with the mitigation requirements of the program of transportation projects reviewed in the BO. These calculations are based on the 2017/2018 Land Use Values in Table 2 of Exhibit E in TCF’s ILF Instrument, which are applicable even if the project construction should occur in a different calendar year.

If a conservation bank or ILF option is chosen to compensate for adverse effects on Indiana bats, the purchase of species conservation credits and/or in-lieu fee contributions shall occur prior to construction of a transportation project covered under this programmatic consultation. Exceptions to this program stipulation include emergency projects that do not require a letting prior to construction. In these cases, purchase of credits and/or in-lieu fee contributions shall occur within three months of completion of the project. This timeframe allows for measuring the acres of habitat affected by the emergency project and for financial processing.

In addition, the Project may take up to 5 Indiana bats that were not detected during bridge/culvert bat assessments conducted prior to implementing the proposed work on the structure under the westbound on-ramp. In these instances, potential incidental take of Indiana bats may be exempted provided that the take is reported to the Service (refer to User Guide Appendix E -

1 XX acres * XX ratio 2 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/fhwa/pdf/ILF_ExhibitsBthruI_INBA.pdf https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/fhwa/pdf/ILF_ExhibitsBthruI_INBA.pdf

C-47

Post Assessment Discovery of Bats at Bridge/Structure Form). Although such take is reasonably certain to occur at up to 10 bridge projects per year as included in the scope of the BO, it is a remote possibility for any individual project that is implemented consistent with the conservation measures of the BO. The Service will add the acreage of Project-related tree removal to the annual total acreage attributed to the BO as a surrogate measure of Indiana bat incidental take and exempted from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA. Such exemption is effective as long as your agency implements the reasonable and prudent measure (RPM) and accompanying terms and conditions of the BO’s ITS. The sole RPM of the BO’s ITS requires the Federal Transportation Agencies to ensure that State/Local transportation agencies, who choose to include eligible projects under the programmatic action, incorporate all applicable conservation measures in the project proposals submitted to the Service for ESA section 7 compliance using the BO. The implementing terms and conditions for this RPM require the Federal Transportation Agencies to offer training to appropriate personnel about using the BO, and promptly report sick, injured, or dead bats (regardless of species) or any other federally listed species located in project action areas. Northern Long-eared Bat The Service anticipates that tree removal associated with the Project will cause incidental take of NLEBs. However, the Project is consistent with the BO, and such projects will not cause take of NLEB that is prohibited under the ESA section 4(d) rule for this species (50 CFR §17.40(o)). Therefore, the incidental take of NLEBs resulting from the Project does not require exemption from the Service. Reporting Dead or Injured Bats The Federal Highway Administration, its State/Local cooperators, and any contractors must take care when handling dead or injured Indiana bats and/or NLEBs, or any other federally listed species that are found at the Project site to preserve biological material in the best possible condition and to protect the handler from exposure to diseases, such as rabies. Project personnel are responsible for ensuring that any evidence about determining the cause of death or injury is not unnecessarily disturbed. Reporting the discovery of dead or injured listed species is required in all cases to enable the Service to determine whether the level of incidental take exempted by this BO is exceeded, and to ensure that the terms and conditions are appropriate and effective. Parties finding a dead, injured, or sick specimen of any endangered or threatened species must promptly notify this Service Office. Reinitiation Notice This letter concludes consultation for the Project, which qualifies for inclusion in the BO issued to the Federal Transportation Agencies. To maintain this inclusion, a reinitiation of this Project-level consultation is required where the Federal Highway Administration’s discretionary involvement or control over the Project has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if:

C-48

1. the amount or extent of incidental take of Indiana bat is exceeded; 2. new information reveals that the Project may affect listed species or critical habitat in a

manner or to an extent not considered in the BO or in the Project information that supported Service concurrence with NLAA determinations;

3. the Project is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or designated critical habitat not considered in the BO or in the Project information that supported Service concurrence with NLAA determinations; or

4. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the Project may affect. Per condition #1 above, the anticipated incidental take is exceeded when:

• the Project removes trees from more than 0.087 acre(s) of habitat suitable for the Indiana bat between 100-300 feet from edge of pavement; or

• the Project takes more than 5 Indiana bats resulting from work on the bridge or culvert. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the Federal Highway Administration is required to immediately request a reinitiation of this Project-level consultation. We appreciate your continued efforts to ensure that this Project is fully consistent with all applicable provisions of the BO. If you have any questions regarding our response or if you need additional information, please contact Robin McWilliams Munson at 812-334-4261 x. 207 or [email protected].

Sincerely, Scott Pruitt

Field Office Supervisor Cc (via email): Laura Hilden, INDOT, Indianapolis, IN Sandra Bowman, INDOT, Indianapolis, IN Susan Castle, Metric Environmental Consulting, Indianapolis, IN Ibat ILF coordinator – to be sent by INDOT at later date

C-49

Natural Resources Conservation ServiceIndiana State Office

6013 Lakeside BoulevardIndianapolis, IN 46278

317-290-3200

Helping People Help the Land.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

March 1, 2019

Ryan HennesseyMetric Environmental, LLC6971 Hillsdale CourtIndianapolis, Indiana 46250

Dear Mr. Hennessey:

The proposed project to realign the road and replace bridge 127 on County Road 900 over Little Blue River in Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana, (Des No 1600968) as referred to in your letter received February 7, 2019, will cause a conversion of prime farmland.

The attached packet of information is for your use competing Parts VI and VII of the AD-1006.After completion, the federal funding agency needs to forward one copy to NRCS for our records.

If you need additional information, please contact Daniel Phillips at 317-295-5871.

Sincerely,

JERRY RAYNORState Conservationist

Enclosures

JERRY RAYNORDigitally signed by JERRY RAYNOR Date: 2019.03.04 11:04:13 -05'00'

C-50

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURENatural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO

4.Sheet 1 of

NRCS-CPA-106(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATINGFOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For SegmentCorridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted DirectlyB. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive ServicesC. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

A. Total Acres Prime And Unique FarmlandB. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important FarmlandC. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be ConvertedD. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) CorridorAssessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

MaximumPoints

15102020102557. Availablility Of Farm Support Services

8. On-Farm Investments9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

202510

160TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local siteassessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to beConverted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

Des1600968

Bridge Replacement & Road Realignment

2/7/19 1

Federal Highway AdministrationRush County, Indiana

2/7/19 DP✔ 247 Ac

Corn 255,429 98 241,962 93

LESA 3/1/19

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.760.00<0.00192.0

63

151010000000

26 0 0 0

63

26 0 0 0

89 0 0 0

12.65 ✔

The need for this project is based on the deteriorated conditions of the existing bridge and the substandardalignment of the existing roadway along CR 900 W.

The purpose of this project is to address the deteriorating conditions of the bridge and existing safety hazardsin order to provide a structurally sufficient crossing over Little Blue River.

Susan Castle 3/1/19

Corridor 1 Corridor 2 Corridor 3 Corridor 4:

C-51

1

Susan Castle

Subject: FW: Agency Coordination, Des. No. 1600968, Road and Bridge Improvements on CR 900 W over Little Blue River, AQpproxiamtley 0.2 mile north of Base Road, Posey Township, Rush County, IN

From: Gregg Duke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:58 PM To: Susan Castle Subject: RE: Agency Coordination, Des. No. 1600968, Road and Bridge Improvements on CR 900 W over Little Blue River, AQpproxiamtley 0.2 mile north of Base Road, Posey Township, Rush County, IN Thank you Susan. I have no concerns. I would ask that you send me a copy of the DNR approval. Gregg Duke Executive Director Rush County Planning and Zoning 101 E 2nd Street | Rushville, IN 46173 Office: 765-932-3090 [email protected]

From: Susan Castle <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:47 AM To: Gregg Duke <[email protected]> Cc: Doug Graf ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Riggs, Nathan W ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: Agency Coordination, Des. No. 1600968, Road and Bridge Improvements on CR 900 W over Little Blue River, AQpproxiamtley 0.2 mile north of Base Road, Posey Township, Rush County, IN Hi Gregg, Metric is preparing the environmental document for the above referenced project. This project is located within Flood Zone A. An IDNR construction in a floodway permit will be obtained for this project. Please find attached a letter describing the project and appendices. I’m late in reaching out to you regarding this project and I apologize. If you have any comments can you please respond this week? Thank you very much. Susan Castle Phone: 317.608.2730

NEPA Senior Technical Consultant Mobile: 317.379.3649

6971 Hillsdale Court, Indianapolis, IN 46250 INDIANAPOLIS | GARY | CINCINNATI Certified DBE/MBE/SBE

www.metricenv.com Complex Environment. Creative Solutions.

please consider the environment before printing this e-mail “Notice: If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail and/or any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this copy and any attachments hereto from your system. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.”

C-52

C-53

1

Susan Castle

Subject: FW: Rush County Bridge # 127 CR 900 West over little Blue River

From: Washburn, Eric CIV <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:51 AM To: Ken McMullen <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Rush County Bridge # 127 CR 900 West over little Blue River

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning Ken. We only issue CG Section 9 Bridge Permits for first 10.6 miles of this river so we have no issues at this location.

Thanks for the heads up.

Eric

From: Ken McMullen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 6:40 PM To: Washburn, Eric CIV <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Rush County Bridge # 127 CR 900 West over little Blue River

Mr. Washburn, I have been asked to reach out to see if this bridge would require a Section 10 Permit. While the Little Blue is traditionally navigable, the bridge has no aids to navigation and seems a little too shallow and narrow for navigation. I believe the closest town is New Palestine. Thank you for your assistance.

Very Respectfully,

Kenneth McMullen, MELP | Environmental SpecialistUSI Consultants, Inc. 8415 E. 56th Street Indianapolis, IN 46216

Office: (317) 544.4996. | Cell 765.427.6521 [email protected] | www.usiconsultants.com

C-54

APPENDIX D Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act

D-1

D-2

Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River (Des. No. 1600968), Rush County, Indiana

Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana Des. No. 1600968 800.11(d) Documentation and Effects Finding November 26, 2019 Prepared for: Metric Environmental

By: Connie Zeigler Historian/QP

Green3 LLC 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203

p. 317.634.4110 f. 866.422.2046 email: [email protected]

D-3

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION’S SECTION 4(f) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS (for historic properties)

AND SECTION 106 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

EFFECTS FINDING Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River

Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana Des. No. 1600968; DHPA 24161

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (Pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.4(a)(1)) The APE of the project includes all properties adjacent to the project and those with a proximate viewshed of the project. The project area is heavily forested near the river and has intermittent forestation south of the bridge, the APE contracts where the visibility is narrower in these areas. Please see Appendix A for a map of the APE. ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS (Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2)) No properties within the APE are listed in or recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

EFFECT FINDING (Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)) The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), acting on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), determined a “No Historic Properties Affected” finding was appropriate for this undertaking. INDOT respectfully requests the Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer provide written concurrence with the Section 106 determination of effect. SECTION 106/SECTION 4(f) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS (For historic properties) This undertaking will not convert property from any Section 4(f) historic property to a transportation use; the INDOT, acting on FHWA’s behalf, has determined the appropriate Section 106 finding is “No Historic Properties Affected”; therefore, no Section 4(f) evaluation is required. ___________________________ Anuradha V. Kumar, for FHWA Manager INDOT Cultural Resources ___________________________ Approval Date12/2/2019

D-4

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENTATION OF SECTION 106 FINDING OF

NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES AFFECTED SUBMITTED TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 36 CFR Section 800.4(d)(1)

Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

Des. No. 1600968; DHPA 24161

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE UNDERTAKING Rush County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), proposes to proceed with the Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River (Des No. 1600968). The project is located on CR N 900 W in Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana. The project proposes to replace the Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113, with a three-span structure with a total span length of 354 feet and a skew of 20 degrees left. The bridge will have a clear roadway width of 28 feet (two 10-foot lanes and three-foot, eight-inch paved shoulders). The superstructure will consist of an eight-inch reinforced concrete deck on four 48-inch prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams. The structure will rest on integral bents at each end on piling. The interior bents will be concrete pier walls also on piling. Approximately 1,500 feet of N CR 900 W will be realigned to remove substandard horizontal curves. The new roadway will consist of two 10-foot lanes and three-foot, eight-inch paved shoulders. It is anticipated that 4.36 acres of permanent right-of-way and 0.008 acre of temporary right-of-way will be required. See preliminary plans in Appendix E. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is the area in which the proposed project may cause alterations in the character or use of historic resources. The APE of the project includes all properties adjacent to the project and those with a proximate viewshed of the project. The project area is heavily forested near the river and has intermittent forestation south of the bridge, the APE contracts where the visibility is narrower in these areas. The APE expands north of the bridge where open fields allow wider visibility. The full length of the APE is approximately 2,800 feet. At its widest, the APE is approximately 793 feet. In the narrowest areas, the APE expands approximately 200 feet on both the east and west sides of the linear project where trees mask it or there is little to no potential for impacts. See Appendix A for a map of the APE. 2. EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY HISTORIC PROPERTIES The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures (State Register), and the State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database (SHAARD and the Indiana Historic Building, Bridges and Cemeteries map) were consulted. The Alva Swain Farm (IHSSI #139-380-15052, was rated notable and the Blue River Wesleyan Church and Cemetery (IHSSI #139-380-15054) and Swain House (IHSSI #139-380-15053) were rated contributing. A Historic Property Report (HPR) was prepared by Green 3, LLC, and contained the results of this survey and literature review. Connie Zeigler conducted a site visit of the project area on February 25, 2019 and March 8, 2019. The historian drove the entire project alignment and the APE. She took general photographs of the

D-5

project area. All resources that will be 50 years of age by the time of project letting (expected approximately December 21, 2022), so properties built in or before 1971 were surveyed, and photographic documentation of “contributing” resources and representative “non-contributing” resources was prepared. See Appendix B for Photographs.

The following parties/agencies were invited to become consulting parties (CP) to this project and were sent an early coordination letter (ECL) with a Historic Property Report (HPR) on July 18, 2019. The HPR recommended no properties within the APE as eligible or listed in the NRHP. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) received a paper copy of the ECL and HPR. All potential CPs were invited to view the information on INSCOPE http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/. The SHPO is an automatic consulting party; that office and others accepting consulting party status are shown in boldface type.

• Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer• Indiana Landmarks, Eastern Regional Field Office• Rush County Heritage, Inc.• Rush County Historical Society• Rush County Genealogical Society• Rush County Commissioners• Rush County Highway Department• Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma• Miami Tribe of Oklahoma• Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma• Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians• Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma

In a letter dated July 19, 2019, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma responded to the Early Coordination Letter (ECL) and HPR, stating: “We wish to continue as a consulting party on this project and look forward to receiving a copy of the cultural resources survey report if one is performed.”

In a letter dated August 16, 2019, the SHPO staff concurred with the boundaries of the APE and with the recommendations of the HPR that none of the properties in the APE are listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

A Phase Ia Archaeological Records Review and Field Investigation Report (Jackson 6/25/2019) was prepared by Green 3, LLC and located archaeological site 12Ru800, the Swain Mill Race, in the project area. The report concluded that the site failed to meet the minimum criteria for placement in the NRHP and no further work was recommended. The Phase Ia report and distribution letter were distributed on July 26, 2019. The archaeology was made available to tribal consulting parties on INSCOPE on this date.

The SHPO staff responded to the archaeology report in an email to INDOT on August 12, 2019 asking for clarification on the following items:

1. SHPO: “I’m unclear on if the delineated wetlands shown in Figure 8 and within the project area were surveyed. P. 10 indicates they were not, but p. 28 states all of the project area was at least visually

2

D-6

http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/

inspected. I’m a bit concerned if the wetlands were not surveyed given the locations of the saw mill and grist mill are unknown could have potentially been missed. Did the wetlands contain standing water?” 2. SHPO: “The resolution of Figure 9 (p. 22) is very poor and you can’t see the mills or mill race. [Reviewing a clear image of the map, seems to indicate that both mill structures would be within the project area, contrary to what is stipulated on p. 52 that the mill (unclear which saw or grist mill – does this mean the mill complex) was outside of the project area.” 3. SHPO: “On Figure 10 (p. 23) does the structure with the initials S.M. located just north of the red circle indicate the location of the saw mill? Would this structure be within the project area?” 4. SHPO: “Pg 52. states the mill (unclear which saw or grist mill) was situated east of the road, but outside of the project area. How was this discerned if neither structure was found? Also, the 1856 map referenced in the report but not shown appears to indicate the mill (symbol for grist mill?) was on the west side of the road.” Green 3’s archaeologist revised the report to address these questions (Jackson 8/15/ 2019). The report was revised and emailed to SHPO and INDOT, and a paper copy was sent to SHPO on August 15, 2019. The SHPO staff responded to the archaeology report in the previously noted letter of August 16, 2019, stating: “we concur with the opinion of the archaeologist . . . that archaeological site 12Ru800, the Swain Mill Race, does not appear eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (“NRHP”).” The Miami Tribe emailed a letter dated August 22, 2019 in which the tribe offered no objection to the project at this time but wished to be notified if any human remains or Native American cultural items falling under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) are discovered. No other consulting party comments were received. Please see Appendix C for correspondence and Appendix D for summaries of the HPSR and Archaeological Short Report. A public notice of the “No Historic Properties Affected” finding will be published in the Rushville Republican and the public will be afforded thirty (30) days to respond. This document will be revised, if necessary, after the expiration of the public comment period. 3. BASIS FOR FINDING Based on identification efforts, a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” is appropriate because there no historic properties present within the APE.

APPENDICES A—Maps B—Photographs C—Consulting Parties List and Correspondence D—Historic Property Short Report and Archaeology Report Summaries E—Preliminary Plans

D-7

susanc

Text Box

Duplicate maps were intentionally omitted. Please refer to Appendix B in the CE document.

susanc

Text Box

The plans were intentionally omitted. Please refer to Appendix B in the CE document.

susanc

Text Box

Publishers Claim and Public Notice

susanc

Rectangle

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*2,3

1

45,6

78 9

10

11-14

15

16,17

18

19

G1

G2

G3

139-380-15054

139-380-15053

139-380-15052

139-380-45015002-380-70005

CR-70-46

N 9

00 W

BASE RD

S 900 WNational Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), Farm Services Agency (FSA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), UITS, Indiana Spatial Data Portal

/ 0 510255Feet

Photo Locations MapRush County Bridge Project(Bridge No. 127; NBI7000113) over Little BlueRiverDes. No.1600968

#* Photo

Area of Potential Effects!( G3 identified

Cemetery!( IHSSI

Project Des 1600968

Construction Limits

Township: Posey

County: Rush Ü

G4

D-8

1. Looking northwest at intersection of CR S 900 W and Base Road

2. Looking west at Base Road from CR S 900 WD-9

3. Looking east at Base Road from CR S 900 W

4. West at Base Road near CR N 900 WD-10

5. Looking east from tee at CR 900 W

6. Looking north at CR N 900 WD-11

7. Looking north at east side of bridge

8. Looking north at west side of bridgeD-12

9. North at Bridge No. 127

10. North from Bridge No. 127D-13

11. Looking south at bridge

12. Looking south at Bridge No. 127 from CR N 900 W on north side of riverD-14

13. Bridge No. 127 from north side of river

14. Looking south at flooded area south of bridgeD-15

15. Looking north from north end of project

16. North on CR N 900 WD-16

17. Looking south toward river from north end of project

18. Looking north from north end of construction limitsD-17

19. Looking south toward project from in front of Blue River Wesleyan Church

D-18

1

Karen Wood

From: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 2:13 PMTo: Chris JacksonCc: Karen Wood; Kelly, ClintSubject: RE: Des 1600968

Chris, Thank you for submitting the revised archaeological short report for Des. No. 1600968, which has been reviewed by INDOT Cultural Resources personnel who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as per 36 CFR Part 61. It is our opinion that the report is acceptable, and we concur with recommendations made by Green 3 (June 25, 2019 ). Please submit one hard copy of the report to SHPO for review and also post a copy of the report to IN SCOPE for tribal review. In addition, we ask that a copy of the DHPA review request be sent to INDOT CRO care of Shaun Miller at [email protected] during the time of submission. Thanks, Shaun Miller INDOT, Cultural Resources Office Archaeology Team Lead (317)233‐6795

From: Chris Jackson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 11:44 AM To: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]> Cc: Karen Wood <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Des 1690968

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Shaun‐‐‐‐ Sorry about that. It appears that I made the corrections to one file, then came back and opened a second file and made changes to it. This time, I worked in only one file, so all of the changes should be complete. If you have any questions/comments concerning the re‐revised report, please let me know. Thanks. Chris

From: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 9:27 AM To: Chris Jackson <[email protected]> Cc: Karen Wood <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Des 1690968

D-19

1

Karen Wood

From: Kelly, Clint <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 9:33 AMTo: Connie ZeiglerCc: Kumar, Anuradha; Branigin, Susan; Miller, Shaun (INDOT); Karen Wood; Riggs, Nathan W;

Carmanygeorge, Karstin M; [email protected]: RE: Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127; NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River Attachments: RushCountyBridge127_des1600968_HPR-2019-06-25_INDOT Comments.pdf

Connie, Thank you for the submittal of these revised documents for our review. Please find attached a few minor comments. Also, make sure to update the ECL to reflect that there are no National Register‐eligible properties recommended. Once these comments are addressed, please upload the HPR and ECL to IN SCOPE. Once they are released, you may send hardcopies to SHPO and email the non‐tribal consulting parties, copying CRO. When we receive that email, we will notify the Tribes. I will be out of the office Monday the 15th through Thursday the 18th. If you upload during that time, please send to Susan Branigin. Let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Clint

Clint Kelly Historian Cultural Resources Office Environmental Services 100 N. Senate Ave., Rm. 642 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐1349 Email: [email protected]

From: Connie Zeigler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 11:46 AM To: Kelly, Clint <[email protected]> Cc: Kumar, Anuradha <[email protected]>; Branigin, Susan <[email protected]>; Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]>; Carmanygeorge, Karstin M <[email protected]>; Karen Wood <[email protected]>; Erin Mulryan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127; NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River


Hello Clint,

D-20

Chad Slider Department of Natural Resources/Div. of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 402 W. Washington St., W274 Indianapolis, IN 46204 [email protected]

Indiana Landmarks, Eastern Regional Field Office Huddleston Farmhouse 838 National Road, PO Box 284 Cambridge City, IN 47327 [email protected]

Rush County Heritage, Inc. Larry L. Stout, President 6352 W 650 S Rushville, IN 46173 Phone: 765-629-2892 [email protected]

Rush County Genealogical Society P.O. Box 293 Milroy, IN 46156 [email protected] Contact: Donna Tauber, President

Rush County Historical Society [email protected]

Bruce Levi, Commissioner [email protected]

Mark Bacon, Commissioner [email protected]

Paul Wilkinson, Commissioner [email protected]

Rush County Highway Department 1352 East State Road 44 Rushville Indiana 46173 Phone: 765-932-2926 Email: [email protected]

D-21

mailto:[email protected]







Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians

Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma

Consulting parties shown in boldface type

D-22

www.in.gov/dot/An Equal Opportunity Employer

Eric Holcomb, GovernorJoe McGuinness, Commissioner

July 18, 2019

This letter was sent to the listed parties.

Re: Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana; Des. No. 1600968

Dear Consulting Party,

Rush County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), proposes to proceed with the Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River, Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana; Des. No. 1600968. Green 3, LLC is under contract with Rush County to advance the environmental documentation for the referenced project.

This letter is part of the early coordination phase of the environmental review process requesting comments associated with this project. We are requesting comments from your area of expertise regarding any possible environmental effects associated with this project. Please use the above Des. Number and project description in your reply and your comments will be incorporated into the formal environmental study.

The proposed undertaking is located on County Road North 900 West from north of the intersection with West Base Road south of US 52 in Posey Township, Rush County. Specifically, the project is 2.6 miles south of US 52 in Sections 34 and 35, Township 14 North, Range 8 East, Rush County, Indiana, located on the Manilla Quadrangle USGS 7.5 topographic map. See attached map for project location.

The project proposes to replace the Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113, with a three-span structure with a total span length of 354 feet and a skew of 20 degrees left. The bridge will have a clear roadway width of 28 feet (two 10-foot lanes and three 8-inch paved shoulders). The superstructure will consist of an eight-inch reinforced concrete deck on four 48-inch prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams. The structure will rest on integral bents at each end on piling. The interior bents will be concrete pier walls and also be on piling. Approximately 1,500 feet of N. CR 900 W will be realigned to remove substandard horizontal curves. The new roadway will consist of two 10-foot lanes and three 8-inch paved shoulders. It is anticipated that 3.76 acres of right-of-way will be required. No right-of-way is anticipated from historic properties. See plans attached.

D-23

2www.in.gov/dot/

An Equal Opportunity Employer

The purpose of the project is to replace the existing bridge and to realign the road in order to meet current safety standards. The need for the project is due to the following: 1) Superstructure exhibits minor deterioration, with efflorescence between beams; 2) Substructure is in poor condition with advanced deterioration; 3) Approach and bridge rail do not meet current safety standards. The 2016 National Bridge Inventory Survey gave the bridge a sufficiency rating of 42.2 out of 100 based on factors such as structural adequacy and safety (condition), serviceability (geometry), functionality, essentiality for public use, and other special reductions, according to the Abbreviated Engineer’s Report. Without replacement, the structure will continue to deteriorate, leading to its eventual closure. The secondary, incidental work of realigning N CR 900 W is due to its current alignment, which features substandard horizontal and vertical curvature.

Land use around the project is agricultural and sparsely residential. Land use is not anticipated to change because of this project.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic and archaeological properties. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c), you are hereby requested to be a consulting party to participate in the Section 106 process. Entities that have been invited to participate in the Section 106 consultation process for this project are identified in the attached list. Per 36 CFR 800.3(f), we hereby request that the Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) notify this office if the SHPO staff is aware of any other parties that may be entitled to be consulting parties or should be contacted as potential consulting parties for the project.

The Section 106 process involves efforts to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. For more information regarding the protection of historic resources, please see the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s guide: Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review available online at http://www.achp.gov/citizensguide.pdf.

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is the area in which the proposed project may cause alterations in the character or use of historic resources. The APE contains no resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards identified and evaluated above-ground resources within the APE for potential eligibility for the NRHP. As a result of the historic property identification and evaluation efforts, the Blue River Wesleyan Church and Cemetery (IHSSI 139-380-15054) is recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP.

An archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards is conducting a survey of archaeology resources within the APE for potential eligibility for the NRHP. A report of that investigation is forthcoming and will be distributed to the appropriate consulting parties for review at a later date.

The Historic Property Report is now available for review in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE). You are invited to review these documents and respond with comments on any historic resource impacts incurred as a result of this project so that an environmental report can be completed. We also

D-24

3www.in.gov/dot/


welcome your related opinions and other input to be considered in the preparation of the environmental document. If you prefer a hard copy of this material, please respond to this email with your request within seven (7) days.

Please review the information and comment within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. If you indicate that you do not desire to be a consulting party, or if you do not respond, you will not be included on the list of consulting parties for this project. If we do not receive your response in the time allotted, the project will proceed consistent with the proposed design and you will not receive further information about the project unless the design changes.

For questions concerning specific project details, you may contact Connie Zeigler of Green 3, LLC at (317) 634-4110 or e-mail to [email protected]. All future responses regarding the proposed projectshould be forwarded to Green 3, LLC at the following address:

Connie Zeigler Architectural Historian/Historian Green 3 LLC 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203 [email protected]

Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317- 233-6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317-226-7344.

Sincerely,

Anuradha V. Kumar, Manager Cultural Resources Office Environmental Services

Enclosures: Topographic Project Area Map Preliminary Plans

Distribution List: SHPO INDOT-CRO

D-25

4www.in.gov/dot/


Indiana Landmarks, Eastern Regional Field Office Rush County Heritage, Inc. Rush County Historical Society Rush County Genealogical Society Rush County Commissioners Rush County Highway Department Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma

D-26

N 7

75 E

W 100 N

W 100 S

N 9

00 W

S 80

0 W

BASE RD

N 9

75 W

S 90

0 W

E 500 N

S 75

0 W

E 600 N

S 92

5 W

E 700 N

W 50 N

CO

UN

TY LINE R

D

E 625N

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

/0 0.50.25

Miles

Topographic MapRush County Bridge No. 127Des. No. 1600968Manilla QuadrangleRush County, Indiana

ProjectArea of Potential Effects1:24,000 Scale

D-27

1

Connie Zeigler

From: Connie ZeiglerSent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 2:47 PMTo: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'rchs1

@frontier.com'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

Cc: Kelly, Clint; 'Branigin, Susan'; Kumar, Anuradha; Miller, Shaun (INDOT); Karen Wood; Chris JacksonSubject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over

Little Blue River, Rush County, IndianaAttachments: RushCoBridge127_des1600968_ECL_2019-07-18.pdf

Des. No.: 1600968 Project Description: Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113 over Little Blue River Location: N CR 900 W, Rush County, Indiana

Rush County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation, proposes to proceed with the Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113, over Little Blue River Project, Des. No. 1600968

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The following agencies/individuals are being invited to become consulting parties:

SHPO Indiana Landmarks, Eastern Regional Field Office Rush County Heritage, Inc. Rush County Historical Society Rush County Genealogical Society Rush County Commissioners Rush County Highway Department Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma


Please review the letter [and any other document(s) currently available: HPR, archaeology report, etc.] located in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE), andrespond with your comments on any historic resource impacts incurred as a result of this project so that an environmentalreport can be completed. We also welcome your related opinions and other input to be considered in the preparation ofthe environmental document. If a hard copy of the materials is needed, please respond to this email with your requestwithin seven (7) days.

Consulting parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this information to review and provide comment. If we do not receive a response from an invited consulting party in the time allotted, the project will proceed consistent with

D-28

Connie Ziegler

Typewritten Text

C-8

2

the proposed design. Therefore, if we do not receive a response within thirty (30) days, your agency or organization will not receive any further information on the project unless the scope of work changes.

Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317‐233‐6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317‐226‐7344. Thank you in advance for your input,

Connie Zeigler Architectural Historian

[email protected]

D-29

Connie Ziegler

Typewritten Text

C-9

1

Connie Zeigler

From: Connie ZeiglerSent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 2:48 PMTo: [email protected]: FW: FHWA Project: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113)

over Little Blue River, Rush County, IndianaAttachments: RushCoBridge127_des1600968_ECL_2019-07-18.pdf

Des. No.: 1600968 Project Description: Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113 over Little Blue River Location: N CR 900 W, Rush County, Indiana Rush County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation, proposes to proceed with the Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113, over Little Blue River Project, Des. No. 1600968 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The following agencies/individuals are being invited to become consulting parties: SHPO Indiana Landmarks, Eastern Regional Field Office Rush County Heritage, Inc. Rush County Historical Society Rush County Genealogical Society Rush County Commissioners Rush County Highway Department Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma This letter is part of the early coordination phase of the environmental review process requesting comments associated with this project. We are requesting comments from your area of expertise regarding any possible environmental effects associated with this project. Please use the above Des. Number and project description in your reply and your comments will be incorporated into the formal environmental study. Please review the letter [and any other document(s) currently available: HPR, archaeology report, etc.] located in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE), andrespond with your comments on any historic resource impacts incurred as a result of this project so that an environmentalreport can be completed. We also welcome your related opinions and other input to be considered in the preparation ofthe environmental document. If a hard copy of the materials is needed, please respond to this email with your requestwithin seven (7) days. Consulting parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this information to review and provide comment. If we do not receive a response from an invited consulting party in the time allotted, the project will proceed consistent with the proposed design. Therefore, if we do not receive a response within thirty (30) days, your agency or organization will not receive any further information on the project unless the scope of work changes.

D-30

2

Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317‐233‐6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317‐226‐7344. Thank you in advance for your input, Connie Zeigler Architectural Historian [email protected]

D-31

1

Connie Zeigler

From: Branigin, Susan <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 3:34 PMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]: Allen, Michelle (FHWA); Miller, Shaun (INDOT); Riggs, Nathan W; Carmanygeorge, Karstin M; Connie

Zeigler; [email protected]; [email protected]: FHWA Project: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over

Little Blue River, Rush County, IndianaAttachments: RushCoBridge127_des1600968_ECL_2019-07-18.pdf

Des. No.: 1600968 Project Description: Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113 over Little Blue River Location: N. County Road (CR) 900 W, Rush County, Indiana

Rush County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation, proposes to proceed with the Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113, over Little Blue River Project, Des. No. 1600968

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The following agencies/individuals are being invited to become consulting parties:

Indiana Historic Preservation Officer (IN SHPO) Indiana Landmarks, Eastern Regional Office Rush County Heritage, Inc. Rush County Historical Society Rush County Genealogical Society Rush County Commissioners Rush County Highway Department Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma


Please review the letter [and any other document(s) currently available: HPR, archaeology report, etc.] located in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE), andrespond with your comments on any historic resource impacts incurred as a result of this project so that an environmentalreport can be completed. We also welcome your related opinions and other input to be considered in the preparation ofthe environmental document. If a hard copy of the materials is needed, please respond to this email with your requestwithin seven (7) days.

D-32

Connie Ziegler

Typewritten Text

C-10

2

Consulting parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this information to review and provide comment. If we do not receive a response from an invited consulting party in the time allotted, the project will proceed consistent with the proposed design. Therefore, if we do not receive a response within thirty (30) days, your agency or organization will not receive any further information on the project unless the scope of work changes.

Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317‐233‐6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317‐226‐7344.

Thank you in advance for your input,

Susan R. Branigin History Team Lead Cultural Resources Office Environmental Services 100 N. Senate Ave., Rm. N642‐ES Indianapolis IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐2969 Email: [email protected]

** Historic Property Report (HPR) guidelines can be found here

*Design Memorandum 18‐02 regarding the new procedures for Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis Documents canbe found here: http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/standards/memos/2018/18‐02%20ta%20Historic%20Bridge.pdf

D-33

Connie Ziegler

Typewritten Text

C-11

July 19, 2019


Attn: Shaun Miller

100 North Senate Avenue, Room N642

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Re: Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue

River, Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana; Des. No. 1600968

Dear Shaun Miller,

Thank you for informing the Delaware Tribe on the proposed construction associated

with the above referenced project. Our review indicates that there are no religious or

culturally significant sites in the project area. As such, we defer comment to your office

as well as to the State Historic Preservation Office and/or the State Archaeologist.

We wish to continue as a consulting party on this project and look forward to receiving a

copy of the cultural resources survey report if one is performed. We also ask that if any

human remains are accidentally unearthed during the course of the survey and/or the

construction project that you cease development immediately and inform the Delaware

Tribe of Indians of the inadvertent discovery.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office by phone at (620) 341-

6699 or by e-mail at [email protected]

Sincerely,

Brice Obermeyer

Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Office

1 Kellogg Drive

Roosevelt Hall, RM 212

Emporia State University

Emporia, KS 66801

Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Office

1 Kellogg Circle

Roosevelt Hall, RM 212

Emporia State University

Emporia, KS 66801

(620) 341-6699

[email protected]

D-34




Eric Holcomb, GovernorJoe McGuinness, Commissioner

July 25, 2019

This letter was sent to the listed parties.

Dear Consulting Party,

Rush County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), proposes to proceed with the Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) Des. No. 1600968. Green 3, LLC is under contract with Metric Environmental for Rush County to advance the environmental documentation for the referenced project.

This letter is part of the Section 106 review process for this project. A Section 106 early coordination letter was distributed on July 18, 2019.

The proposed undertaking is on CR N 900 W Rush County, Indiana 2.6 miles south of US 52 in Rush County, Indiana. It is within in Posey Township, Manila USGS Topographic Quadrangle, in Sections 34 and 35, Township 14 North, Range 8 East.

The purpose of the project is to replace the existing bridge and to realign the road in order to meet current safety standards. The need for the project is due to the following: 1) Superstructure exhibits minor deterioration, with efflorescence between beams; 2) Substructure is in poor condition with advanced deterioration; 3) Approach and bridge rail do not meet current safety standards. The 2016 National Bridge Inventory Survey gave the bridge a sufficiency rating of 42.2 out of 100 based on factors such as structural adequacy and safety (condition), serviceability (geometry), functionality, essentiality for public use, and other special reductions, according to the Abbreviated Engineer’s Report. Without replacement, the structure will continue to deteriorate, leading to its eventual closure. The secondary, incidental work of realigning N CR 900 W is due to its current alignment, which features substandard horizontal and vertical curvature. The project proposes to replace the Rush County Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113, with a three-span structure with a total span length of 354 feet and a skew of 20 degrees left. The bridge will have a clear roadway width of 28 feet (two 10-foot lanes and three 8-inch paved shoulders). The superstructure will consist of an eight-inch reinforced concrete deck on four 48-inch prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams. The structure will rest on integral bents at each end on piling. The interior bents will be concrete pier walls and also be on piling. Approximately 1,500 feet of N. CR 900 W will be realigned to remove substandard horizontal curves. The new roadway will consist of two 10-foot lanes and three 8-inch paved shoulders. It is anticipated that 3.76 acres of right-of-way will be required.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic and archaeological properties. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2 (c), you were invited to become a consulting party as part of the Section 106 process. Entities that have accepted consulting party status are identified in the attached list.

D-35


The Section 106 process involves efforts to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. For more information regarding the protection of historic resources, please see the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s guide: Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review available online at https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017-01/CitizenGuide.pdf.

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is the area in which the proposed project may cause alterations in the character or use of historic resources. The APE contains no resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

A historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards identified and evaluated above-ground resources within the APE for potential eligibility for the NRHP. As a result of the historic property identification and evaluation efforts, no above-ground resources are recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP.

With regards to archaeological resources, an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards identified # sites within the project area. As a result of these efforts, site(s) Site 12-Ru-800 was recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP and no further work is recommended.

The Archaeology Report (Tribes only) is available for review in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE). You are invited to review these documents and respond with comments on any historic resource impacts incurred as a result of this project so that an environmental report can be completed. We also welcome your related opinions and other input to be considered in the preparation of the environmental document. If youprefer a hard copy of this material, please respond to this email with your request within seven (7) days.

Please review the information and comment within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt.

For questions concerning specific project details, you may contact Connie Zeigler of Green 3, LLC at 317.634.4110 or [email protected]. All future responses regarding the proposed project should be forwarded to Green 3, LLC at the following address:

Connie Zeigler Architectural HistorianGreen 3, LLC 1104 Prospect StreetIndianapolis, IN 46203 [email protected]

Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317-233-6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317-226-7344.

Sincerely,

D-36


Anuradha V. Kumar, Manager Cultural Resources OfficeEnvironmental Services

Enclosures: Topographic Map

Distribution List: SHPOIndiana Landmarks, Eastern Regional Field Office Rush County Heritage, Inc. Rush County Historical Society Rush County Genealogical Society Rush County Commissioners Rush County Highway Department Eastern Shawnee Tribe of OklahomaMiami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma

D-37

1

Connie Zeigler

From: Connie ZeiglerSent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 3:03 PMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; rchs1

@frontier.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: Miller, Shaun (INDOT)Subject: RE: FHWA Project: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113)

Rush County, IndianaAttachments: RushCountyBridge127_des1600968_Section106distribution_2019-07-25.pdf

Dear Consulting Parties,

Des. No.: 1600968 Project Description: Bridge Project Location: CR N 900 W, Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

Rush County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation, proposes to proceed with the Rush County Bridge Project Des. No. 1600968. The Section 106 Early Coordination Letter for this project was originally distributed on July 18, 2019.

As part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, an Archaeology Report has been prepared and is ready for review and comment by consulting parties (Tribes Only).

Please review this documentation located in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE), and respond with any comments that you may have. If a hard copy of the materials is needed, please respond to this email with your request within seven (7) days.

Consulting parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this information to review and provide comment. Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317‐233‐6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317‐226‐7344. Thank you in advance for your input,

Connie Zeigler Architectural Historian

[email protected]

D-38

1

Connie Zeigler

From: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 7:52 AMTo: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; [email protected]; Matthew Bussler

([email protected]); '[email protected]'Cc: Connie Zeigler; Michelle (FHWA) Allen; Kelly, ClintSubject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) Rush

County, IndianaAttachments: RushCountyBridge127_des1600968_Section106distribution_2019-07-25.pdf

Dear Consulting Parties,

Des. No.: 1600968 Project Description: Bridge Project Location: CR N 900 W, Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

Rush County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation, proposes to proceed with the Rush County Bridge Project Des. No. 1600968. The Section 106 Early Coordination Letter for this project was originally distributed on July 18, 2019.

As part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, an Archaeology Report has been prepared and is ready for review and comment by consulting parties (Tribes Only).

Please review this documentation located in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE), and respond with any comments that you may have. If a hard copy of the materials is needed, please respond to this email with your request within seven (7) days.

Consulting parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this information to review and provide comment. Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317‐233‐6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317‐226‐7344.

Thank you in advance for your input,

Shaun Miller INDOT, Cultural Resources Office Archaeology Team Lead (317)233‐6795

D-39

Connie Ziegler

Typewritten Text

C-17

1

Connie Zeigler

From: Chris JacksonSent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 3:20 PMTo: Connie ZeiglerSubject: FW: Phase Ia report for Rush County Bridge 127 over Little Blue River, Des. No 1600968Attachments: RushCountyBridge127_Des1600968_PhaseIa_2019-08-15.pdf

From: Chris Jackson Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 3:16 PM To: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]> Cc: Karen Wood <[email protected]>; McCord, Beth K <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Phase Ia report for Rush County Bridge 127 over Little Blue River, Des. No 1600968

Shaun/Beth‐‐‐‐

Attached is a pdf copy of the revised report that address’s all but one of DHPA comments concerning the report, which is #3.

Based on its location on the map and then determining where it would be located in the project area, it was ascertained that the documented building would have been on an upland overlooking the mill race. This would make it unlikely to represent a sawmill and more likely to represent a house with the initials S.M. referring to the landowner. Due to the narrowness of the alignment in the upland section, the building would have been located outside of the project area.

A hard copy of the report will be mailed out to DHPA tomorrow.

If you have any additional questions/comments concerning the revised report, please let me know.

Thanks.

Chris

From: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:52 AM To: Chris Jackson <[email protected]> Cc: Karen Wood <[email protected]>; McCord, Beth K <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Phase Ia report for Rush County Bridge 127 over Little Blue River, Des. No 1600968

Chris,

Please review SHPO’s questions below pertaining to Des. No. 1600968. Please respond to each question and revise the report to address these comments. You can email a PDF (color print) with your responses but you will also need to send a hard copy of the revised report to SHPO.

Thank you,

Shaun Miller INDOT, Cultural Resources Office

D-40

Connie Ziegler

Typewritten Text

C-18

2

Archaeology Team Lead (317)233‐6795

From: McCord, Beth K Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 3:03 PM To: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]> Subject: Phase Ia report for Rush County Bridge 127 over Little Blue River, Des. No 1600968

Shaun,

I’m reviewing Chris Jackson’s report for this bridge project and I have a couple of questions. Can you pass these along with whomever reviewed the report?

1. I’m unclear on if the delineated wetlands shown in Figure 8 and within the project area were surveyed. P. 10indicates they were not, but p. 28 states all of the project area was at least visually inspected. I’m a bitconcerned if the wetlands were not surveyed given the locations of the saw mill and grist mill are unknowncould have potentially been missed. Did the wetlands contain standing water?

2. The resolution of Figure 9 (p. 22) is very poor and you can’t see the mills or mill race. [Reviewing a clear image ofthe map, seems to indicate that both mill structures would be within the project area, contrary to what isstipulated on p. 52 that the mill (unclear which saw or grist mill – does this mean the mill complex) was outsideof the project area.

3. On Figure 10 (p. 23) does the structure with the initials S.M. located just north of the red circle indicate thelocation of the saw mill? Would this structure be within the project area?

4. Pg 52. states the mill (unclear which saw or grist mill) was situated east of the road, but outside of the projectarea. How was this discerned if neither structure was found? Also, the 1856 map referenced in the report butnot shown appears to indicate the mill (symbol for grist mill?) was on the west side of the road.

Thanks,

Beth K. McCord Director Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 402 W. Washington St., Room W274 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317‐232‐3492

www.dnr.IN.gov

* Please let us know about the quality of our service by taking this brief customer survey.

D-41

Connie Ziegler

Typewritten Text

C-19

D-42

D-43

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 3410 P St. NW, Miami, OK 74354 ● P.O. Box 1326, Miami, OK 74355

Ph: (918) 541-1300 ● Fax: (918) 542-7260 www.miamination.com

Via email: [email protected]

August 22, 2019

Shaun Miller Archaeological Team Lead Cultural Resources Office, Indiana DOT 575 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River, Rush County, Indiana – Comments of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

Dear Mr. Miller:

Aya, kikwehsitoole – I show you respect. My name is Diane Hunter, and I am the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Federally Recognized Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. In this capacity, I am the Miami Tribe’s point of contact for all Section 106 issues.

The Miami Tribe offers no objection to the above-mentioned project at this time, as we are not currently aware of existing documentation directly linking a specific Miami cultural or historic site to the project site. However, as this project is within the aboriginal homelands of the Miami Tribe, if any human remains or Native American cultural items falling under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) or archaeological evidence is discovered during any phase of this project, the Miami Tribe requests immediate consultation with the entity of jurisdiction for the location of discovery. In such a case, please contact me at 918-541-8966 or by email at [email protected] to initiate consultation.

The Miami Tribe accepts the invitation to serve as a consulting party to the proposed project. In my capacity as Tribal Historic Preservation Officer I am the point of contact for consultation.

Respectfully,

Diane Hunter Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

D-44

1

Connie Zeigler

From: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 8:57 AMTo: Connie ZeiglerCc: Kelly, ClintSubject: FW: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue

River, Rush County, Indiana – Comments of the Miami Tribe of OklahomaAttachments: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River,

Rush County, Indiana – Comments of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.pdf

Hi Connie,

I believe the attached letter from the Miami Tribe is in response to the ECL which was sent on July 22. I expect another response to the archaeology letter that was distributed on July 26

Thank you,

Shaun Miller INDOT, Cultural Resources Office Archaeology Team Lead (317)233‐6795

From: Diane Hunter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:28 PM To: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <[email protected]> Subject: Des. No. 1600968; Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River, Rush County, Indiana â€“ Comments of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma


Dear Mr. Miller: Attached you will find the response of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to the above‐mentioned project.

Diane Hunter Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Miami Tribe of Oklahoma [email protected] 918‐541‐8966

D-45

Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River (Des. No. 1600968), Rush County, Indiana HISTORIC PROPERTY REPORT

Des. No. 1600968 July 18, 2019

Prepared for: Metric Environmental By:

Connie Zeigler Green3 LLC

Historic Fountain Square 1104 Prospect Street

Indianapolis, IN 46203

p. 317.634.4110 f. 866.422.2046 [email protected]

D-46

3

MManagement Summary

This report documents the identification and evaluation efforts for properties included in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Rush County Bridge Project (Bridge No. 127, NBI 7000113) over Little Blue River (Des. No. 1600968), Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana. Above-ground resources located within the project APE were identified and evaluated in accordance with Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800).

As a result of the NHPA, as amended, and CFR Part 800, federal agencies are required to take into account the impact of federal undertakings upon historic properties in the area of the undertaking. Historic properties include buildings, structures, sites, objects, and/or districts that are eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). As this project is receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), it is subject to a Section 106 review.

The APE contains no properties listed in the National Register and none is recommended eligible for listing.

D-47

A Phase Ia Archaeological Records Review and Field Investigation for the Proposed Replacement of Rush County Bridge 127 over Little Blue River in Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana (Des 1600968)ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

August 15, 2019

Prepared for:Metric Environmental 6971 Hillsdale Court Indianapolis, Indiana 46250

Christopher Jackson, M.S., RPA Archaeologist, Historian/QP

Green 3, LLCHistoric Fountain Square

1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203

p. 317.634.4110 f. 866.422.2046 e. [email protected]

D-48

i

AABSTRACT

In August 2018, Metric Environmental contracted Green 3, LLC to conduct a Phase Ia archaeological study for the proposed replacement of Rush County Bridge 127 (Des 1600968) in Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana.

The purpose of the project is to replace Rush County Bridge 127, which is located on CR 900 West. The superstructure is showing minor deterioration with efflorescence between beams. The substructure is in poor condition with advanced deterioration. The approach and bridge rail do not meet current safety standards. The 2016 NBIS recommends replacement and gives a sufficiency rating of 42.2 out of 100. Without replacement, the structure will continue to deteriorate, leading to an eventual closure of the structure and a permanent detour route for the traveling public. The secondary, incidental work of realigning County Road 900 West is due to an alignment that is essentially intolerable and requires a high priority of corrective action per the 2016 NBIS report. The horizontal and vertical curvature are substandard.

The project area, which is approximately 1,750 feet in length and 170 feet at its maximum width and will encompass approximately 6.7 acres, is situated in northeastern quarter of the southeastern quarter of the southeastern quarter in Section 34, Township 34 North, Range 8 East, as well as the northwestern quarter of the southwestern quarter of the southwestern quarter of Section 35, Township 14 North, Range 8 East.

The literature review indicated that no section of the project area had been previously examined. It was also ascertained that no archaeological sites, cemeteries, or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties have been recorded either in or within 100 feet of the proposed corridor.

The field investigation documented one site (12-Ru-800), which was the mill race for the Swain Mill; based on the historic cartographic sources, the mill was situated east of the project area. It is believed that further work on the site would not provide data that would enhance our understanding of the Swain Mill or the history of the region. Thus, the site fails to meet the minimum criteria for placement on the NRHP. No further work is recommended on the site.

Data collected from the excavation of shovel probes indicated that while alluvial deposition has occurred south of the Little Blue River, the potential for significant buried archaeological deposits is limited. Because of this, it is recommended that a Phase Ic investigation is not warranted.

Based on the data collected from this investigation, it can be ascertained that the proposed project will have no effect on any cultural resources that are eligible for placement on the NRHP. Because of this, no further work is recommended.

D-49

D-50

D-51

APPENDIX E Red Flag and Hazardous Materials

6971 Hillsdale Court


317.983.5328

www.metricenv.com

Date: February 6, 2019

To: Site Assessment & Management Environmental Policy Office - Environmental Services DivisionIndiana Department of Transportation 100 N Senate Avenue, Room N642 Indianapolis, IN 46204

From: Ryan Hennessey Metric Environmental 6971 Hillsdale Court Indianapolis, Indiana [email protected]

Re: RED FLAG INVESTIGATION Des. No. 1600968 Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 70-00127) and Road Realignment CR 900W over Little Blue River, Approximately 2.62 miles south of SR 52 Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Brief Description of Project: Rush County Indiana, a local public agency (LPA) intends to proceed with the above referenced bridge replacement and road realignment project utilizing federal funds. The project is located on County Road (CR) 900 west over Little Blue Creek (Bridge No. 70-00127), Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana. Specifically, this project is located in Sections 34 & 35, Township 14 North, Range 8 East, as shown on the Palmer, Indiana 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle. According to the most recent bridge inspection conducted by INDOT and dated April 25, 2018, the superstructure is showing minor deterioration with efflorescence between beams. The substructure is in poor condition with advanced deterioration. The approach and bridge rail do not meet current safety standards. The structure was given a sufficiency rating of 42.2 (out of 100). The approach roadway has substandard horizontal curves on both ends of the structure. The proposed improvements for this project include replacing the existing bridge and realigning the roadway. The existing bridge will be replaced with a three span (115’-0”, 124’0”, 115’-0”) structure with a total span length of 354 ft. and a skew of 20 degrees left. The bridge railing will be replaced with rail type PF-2 and the superstructure will consist of an 8-in. concrete deck on top of four, 48-in. prestressed concrete bulb “T” beams.

The realignment of CR 900 West will consist of removing the substandard horizontal curves by incorporating two sag vertical curves and one crest vertical curve into the alignment and will exceed minimum design standards for the design speed of 45 miles per hour. The roadway will be widened to include one 10-ft. through lane in each direction and a 3.75-ft. paved shoulder provided on both sides of the roadway.

Bridge and/or Culvert Project: Yes ☒ No ☐ Structure # __70-00127____

If this is a bridge project, is the bridge Historical? Yes ☐ No ☒ , Select ☐ Non-Select ☐

(Note: If the project involves a historical bridge, please include the bridge information in the Recommendations Section of the report).

Proposed right of way: Temporary ☐ # Acres __N/A__ Permanent ☒ # Acres __3.76___

E-1



317.983.5328

www.metricenv.com

Type of excavation: Excavation will range from 2-6 ft. on both sides of the bridge for road reconstruction and the construction of roadside ditches and approximately 7-10 ft. for the placement of piers. Maintenance of traffic: The current maintenance of traffic plan is to utilize a detour. The detour route would utilize West Base Road, CR N 800 E, and CR W 100N and would add approximately 3.8 miles of additional travel length.

Work in waterway: Yes ☒ No ☐ Above ordinary high water mark: Yes ☐ No ☒

State Project: ☐ LPA: ☒ Any other factors influencing recommendations: N/A

INFRASTRUCTURE TABLE AND SUMMARY

Infrastructure Indicate the number of items of concern found within the 0.5 mile search radius. If there are no items, please indicate N/A:

Religious Facilities 1 Recreational Facilities N/A

Airports1 N/A Pipelines N/A

Cemeteries 1 Railroads N/A

Hospitals N/A Trails N/A

Schools N/A Managed Lands N/A 1In order to complete the required airport review, a review of public airports within 3.8 miles (20,000 feet) is required.

Religious Facilities: One (1) religious facility is located within the 0.5-mile search radius. The facility is approximately 0.22 mile north of the project area. No impact is expected.

Cemeteries: One (1) cemetery is located within the 0.5-mile search radius. Blue River Wesleyan Cemetery is located approximately 0.22 mile north of the project area. No impact is expected.

WATER RESOURCES TABLE AND SUMMARY

Water Resources Indicate the number of items of concern found within the 0.5 mile search radius. If there are no items, please indicate N/A:

NWI - Points N/A Canal Routes - Historic N/A

Karst Springs N/A NWI - Wetlands 7

Canal Structures – Historic N/A Lakes 1

NPS NRI Listed N/A Floodplain - DFIRM 1

NWI-Lines 15 Cave Entrance Density N/A

IDEM 303d Listed Streams and Lakes (Impaired)

2 Sinkhole Areas N/A

Rivers and Streams 10 Sinking-Stream Basins N/A

NWI-Lines: Fifteen (15) NWI Line segments are located within the 0.5-mile search radius. One segment intersects the project area. A Waters of the US Report is recommended and coordination with the appropriate agency, if applicable, will occur.

E-2



317.983.5328

www.metricenv.com

IDEM 303d Listed Streams and Lakes (Impaired): Two (2) impaired stream segments are located within the 0.5-mile search radius. The confluence of Little Blue River and Beaver Meadow Creek is listed as impaired for E.coli. The nearest segment is located approximately 0.45 mile northeast of the project area. No impact is expected.

Rivers and Streams: Ten (10) river and stream segments are located within the 0.5-mile search radius. Little Blue River intersects the project area. A Waters of the US Report is recommended and coordination with the appropriate agency, if applicable, will occur.

NWI-Wetlands: Seven (7) NWI wetlands are located within the 0.5-mile search radius. One wetland is located within the project area. A Waters of the US Report is recommended and coordination with the appropriate agency, if applicable, will occur.

Lakes: One (1) lake is located within the 0.5-mile search radius. The feature is located approximately 0.19 mile south of the project area. No impact is expected.

Floodplains – DFIRM: One (1) floodplain polygon is located within the 0.5-mile search radius. The project area is located within the floodplain polygon. Coordination with the appropriate agency will occur.

URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY SUMMARY

The project area is not located within an Urbanized Area Boundary.

MINING AND MINERAL EXPLORATION TABLE AND SUMMARY

Mining/Mineral Exploration Indicate the number of items of concern found within the 0.5 mile search radius. If there are no items, please indicate N/A:

Petroleum Wells 7 Mineral Resources N/A

Mines – Surface N/A Mines – Underground N/A

Petroleum Wells: Seven (7) petroleum wells are located within the 0.5-mile search radius. One well is located adjacent to the project area. Coordination with IDNR Oil and Gas Division will occur.

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CONCERNS TABLE AND SUMMARY

Hazardous Material Concerns Indicate the number of items of concern found within the 0.5 mile search radius. If there are no items, please indicate N/A:

Superfund N/A Manufactured Gas Plant Sites N/A

RCRA Generator/ TSD N/A Open Dump Waste Sites N/A

RCRA Corrective Action Sites N/A Restricted Waste Sites N/A

State Cleanup Sites N/A Waste Transfer Stations N/A

Septage Waste Sites N/A Tire Waste Sites N/A

E-3



317.983.5328

www.metricenv.com

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Sites

N/A Confined Feeding Operations

(CFO) N/A

Voluntary Remediation Program N/A Brownfields N/A

Construction Demolition Waste N/A Institutional Controls N/A

Solid Waste Landfill N/A NPDES Facilities N/A

Infectious/Medical Waste Sites N/A NPDES Pipe Locations N/A

Leaking Underground Storage (LUST) Sites

N/A Notice of Contamination Sites N/A

No Hazardous Materials Concerns were identified within the 0.5-mile search radius.

ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION SUMMARY

The Rush County listing of the Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center information on endangered, threatened, or rare (ETR) species and high quality natural communities is attached with ETR species highlighted. A preliminary review of the Indiana Natural Heritage Database by INDOT Environmental Services did indicate the presence of endangered species. Coordination with USFWS and IDNR will occur.

A review of the USFWS database did not indicate the presence of endangered bat species in or within 0.5 mile of the project area. The project area is located in a rural, forested area with residential dwellings. The April 25, 2018, inspection report for Bridge #70-00127 states that no evidence of bats was seen or heard under the bridge. The range-wide programmatic consultation for the Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat will be completed according to “Using the USFWS’s IPaC System for Listed Bat Consultation for INDOT Projects”.

An inquiry using the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website did not indicate the presence of the federal endangered species, the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, in or within 0.5-mile of the project area. No impact is expected.

RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

INFRASTRUCTURE: N/A

WATER RESOURCES: A Waters of the US Report is recommended and coordination with the appropriate agency, if applicable, will occur for the following resources:

• One NWI-Line segment is located within the project area.

• Little Blue River intersects the project area.

• One wetland is located within the project area.

• The project area is located within a floodplain.

URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY: N/A

MINING/MINERAL EXPLORATION:

Petroleum Wells: One well is located adjacent to the project area. Coordination with IDNR Oil and Gas Division will occur.

E-4



317.983.5328

www.metricenv.com

HAZMAT CONCERNS: N/A

INDOT Environmental Services concurrence: (Signature)

Prepared by: Ryan Hennessey Environmental Geologist Metric Environmental

Graphics:

A map for each report section with a 0.5 mile search radius buffer around all project area(s) showing all items identified as possible items of concern is attached. If there is not a section map included, please change the YES to N/A:

SITE LOCATION: YES

INFRASTRUCTURE: YES

WATER RESOURCES: YES

URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY: N/A

MINING/MINERAL EXPLORATION: YES

HAZMAT CONCERNS: N/A

May 6, 2019

E-5

¬«44

£¤52

CSX RR

N 7

00 E

N 7

75 E

N 9

75 W

N 7

50 E

S 80

0 W

UNKNOWN RR

N 6

25 E

N 6

00 E

W 100 S

N 9

00 W

W 100 N

N 7

00 W

S 71

5 W

E 500 N

E 600 N

W 200 N

E 700 N

N 6

50 W

BASE RD

UNION RD

E 400 N

E 850 N

S 75

0 W

N 8

00 W

S 92

5 W

N 7

25 W

W 200 S

N 6

00 W

W 125 S

W 250 S

E 300 N

S 72

5 W

W 300 N

S 95

0 W

S 97

5 W

W 50 N

S 90

0 W

S 85

0 W

S 64

0 W

E 625N

CR 235 S

N 6

50 E

S 70

0 W

E 750 N

E 800 N

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

E 250 N W 350 S

OA

K ST

KIN

G S

T

W 150 N

ANN ST

VINE ST

W 255 S

WAS

HIN

GTO

N S

T

PARKS DR

BASE RD

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

N 7

75 E

N 9

00 W

W 50 N

W 100 S

S 80

0 W

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

RUSHSHELBY

º

Red Flag Investigation - Site LocationCR 900W over Little Blue River (Bridge No. 70-00127)

Des. No. 1600968, Bridge ReplacementPosey Township, Rush County, Indiana

MANILLA QUADRANGLEINDIANA

7.5 MINUTE SERIES(TOPOGRAPHIC)This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic

representation only. This information is not warranted for accuracy or other purposes.

Sources:Non Orthophotography Data - Obtained from the State of Indiana Geographical Information Office LibraryOrthophotography - Obtained from Indiana Map Framework Data(www.indianamap.org) Map Projection: UTM Zone 16 N Map Datum: NAD83

0.75 0 0.750.375Miles

E-6

N 9

00 W

RUSH

º

Red Flag Investigation - InfrastructureCR 900W over Little Blue River (Bridge No. 70-00127)

Des. No. 1600968, Bridge Replacement and Road RealignmentPosey Township, Rush County, Indiana

This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation only. This information is not warranted for accuracy or other purposes.


0.1 0 0.10.05Miles 0 Religious Facility

®v Hospital

nm School

_ Recreation Facility

Pipeline

Railroad

Trails

County Boundary

Project Area

Half Mile Radius

Managed Lands

Ý Cemeteries

p AirportToll

Interstate

State Route

US Route

Local Road

E-7

N 9

00 W

RUSH

º

Red Flag Investigation - Water ResourcesCR 900W over Little Blue River (Bridge No. 70-00127)




0.1 0 0.10.05Miles \ NWI - Point

ò Karst Spring

0 Canal Structure - Historic

NWI- LineXWXW

NPS NRI listed" "

County Boundary<<<<<<Sinkhole Area

ÜÜÜÜÜÜSinking-Stream Basin

Wetlands

Floodplain - DFIRM

WWWWWWCave Entrance Density

Lake

River

Canal Route - Historic

Half Mile Radius

Project Area

! ! Impaired_Stream_Lake

Toll

Interstate

State Route

US Route

Local Road

E-8

N 9

00 W

RUSH

º

Red Flag Investigation - Mining/Mineral Exploration CR 900W over Little Blue River (Bridge No. 70-00127)




0.1 0 0.10.05Miles

333

333

333Mine - Surface

County Boundary

Half Mile Radius

Project Area

B B B

B B BMine - Underground

InterstateState RouteUS RouteLocal Road

Toll

Mineral Resources

!/ Oil and Gas Wells

E-9

Species Name Common Name STATEFED

Page 1 of 1

02/05/2018Indiana County Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species List

GRANK SRANK

RushCounty:

Mollusk: Bivalvia (Mussels)

Lampsilis fasciola Wavyrayed Lampmussel SSC G5 S3

Pleurobema clava Clubshell LE SE G1G2 S1

Ptychobranchus fasciolaris Kidneyshell SSC G4G5 S2

Toxolasma lividus Purple Lilliput C SSC G3Q S2

Villosa lienosa Little Spectaclecase SSC G5 S3

Amphibian

Lithobates pipiens Northern Leopard Frog SSC G5 S2

Reptile

Clonophis kirtlandii Kirtland's Snake C SE G2 S2

Bird

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle SSC G5 S2

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike SE G4 S3B

Tyto alba Barn Owl SE G5 S2

Mammal

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat or Social Myotis LE SE G2 S1

Nycticeius humeralis Evening Bat SE G5 S1

Taxidea taxus American Badger SSC G5 S2

Vascular Plant

Carex cephaloidea Thinleaf Sedge SE G5 S1

Crataegus pedicellata Scarlet Hawthorn ST G5 S2

High Quality Natural Community

Forest - upland mesic Central Till Plain Central Till Plain Mesic Upland

Forest

GNR S3

Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center

Division of Nature Preserves

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

This data is not the result of comprehensive county

surveys.

Fed: LE = Endangered; LT = Threatened; C = candidate; PDL = proposed for delisting

State: SE = state endangered; ST = state threatened; SR = state rare; SSC = state species of special concern;

SX = state extirpated; SG = state significant; WL = watch list

GRANK: Global Heritage Rank: G1 = critically imperiled globally; G2 = imperiled globally; G3 = rare or uncommon

globally; G4 = widespread and abundant globally but with long term concerns; G5 = widespread and abundant

globally; G? = unranked; GX = extinct; Q = uncertain rank; T = taxonomic subunit rank

SRANK: State Heritage Rank: S1 = critically imperiled in state; S2 = imperiled in state; S3 = rare or uncommon in state;

G4 = widespread and abundant in state but with long term concern; SG = state significant; SH = historical in

state; SX = state extirpated; B = breeding status; S? = unranked; SNR = unranked; SNA = nonbreeding status

unranked E-10

ryanh

Highlight

ryanh

Highlight

ryanh

Highlight

ryanh

Highlight

ryanh

Highlight

APPENDIX F Water Resources

WATERS DETERMINATION REPORT

CR 900 W BRIDGE NO. 127 OVER LITTLE BLUE RIVER ROAD REALIGNMENT AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

POSEY TOWNSHIP, RUSH COUNTY, INDIANA DES.NO. 1600968

Prepared for: USI Consultants, Inc.

February 14, 2020

Metric Environmental, LLC

Complex Environment. Creative Solutions. 6971 Hillsdale Court


Telephone: 317.207.4286

www.metricenv.com

F-1

CR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River

Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement

Des. No. 1600968

Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

Metric Project No. 16-0230

Contents

Date of Waters Field Investigation ............................................................................................................... 1

Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Information ......................................................................................... 1

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) ...................................................................................................... 1

Soils ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

Attached Documents .................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Field Reconnaissance .................................................................................................................................... 2

Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Streams ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Roadside Ditches ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 11

F-2



Des. No. 1600968


Metric Project No. 16-0230 Page 1 of 12

WATERS OF THE U.S. DETERMINATION REPORT CR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River

Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

Des. No. 1600968 Prepared By: Zachary Root, Metric Environmental, LLC

February 14, 2020

Date of Waters Field Investigation: September 4, 2018 Location: Section 34 and 35; Township 14 North; Range 8 East Manilla Ridge, IN 7.5 minute U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle (Exhibit 2) Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana 12-digit HUC: 051202040204 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Information: Three mapped NWI wetlands are located within the project study limits, as shown on Exhibit 3. The NWI wetlands are a Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded (PFO1A) wetland located in the central western portion of the project study limits which corresponds with Wetland A (identified in field reconnaissance); a Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Seasonally Flooded (R4SBC) wetland that corresponds with UNT 5 to Little Blue River, and a Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded (R2UBH) wetland that corresponds with the Little Blue River. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The floodplain of the Little Blue River, identified as Zone A, an area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance of flood, covers the majority of the project study limits. The FIRM map for this area is provided as Exhibit 3. Soils: According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Rush County, Indiana, the project study limits contained six mapped soil units. The NRCS soil survey map is provided as Exhibit 4.

F-3



Des. No. 1600968



Symbol Map Unit Name

Hydric Rating

EdB2 Eldean loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Hydric (3%)

Ge Genesee loam, gravelly substratum Hydric (3%)

MpD Miamian silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Hydric (6%)

MpB2 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Hydric (5%)

MuC3 Miamian clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded Hydric (5%)

Sh Shoals silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, brief duration Hydric (4%)

Attached Documents: Maps of the project area (Exhibits 1-7) Photo Location Map (Exhibit 6) Site Photographs Wetland Determination Data Form(s) Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) Form Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI) Form Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form Project Description: The existing structure CR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River will be removed and the area surrounding the structure will be wet excavated. A new, three-span continuous prestressed concrete bulb-tee bridge concrete slab bridge will be installed on a new alignment. The existing substandard horizontal curves at the structure will be removed and the new structure placed on a horizontal tangent throughout the project length. The new bridge (Rush County Bridge No. 127) will have span lengths of 114.50 ft., 124.00 ft., and 114.50 ft. and an out-to-out coping width of 30.0 ft. Approximately 378 tons (234 cys) of 18 in. deep Revetment Riprap will be placed over 525 square yards (sys) of geotextile at the south stream bank and 263 tons (163 cys) of 18 in. deep Revetment Riprap will be placed over 373 sys of geotextile at the north stream bank. Riprap will be installed at a 2:1 grade, perpendicular to Bents 1 and 4. The road profile will consist of sag and crest vertical curves as well as tangent sections. A maximum grade of 5.00% will be incorporated at the north end of the project. The bridge will be located in a 300 ft crest vertical curve having an entrance grade of +1.31% and exit grade of -1.22%. Approximately 680 ft. of guardrail will be installed on both the east and west side of the structure and approach roadway. One existing private drive, Type II, is located in the northeast quadrant of the project area. The drive will be reconstructed. This project extends approximately 745 ft. north and 680 ft. south of the center of the proposed bridge, for a total of 1425 ft., and approximately 80 ft. east and west of the centerline of CR 900 W, for a total of 160 ft. Field Reconnaissance: The wetland determination field visit was conducted on September 4, 2018 by Amy Noel Smith and Zachary Root of Metric Environmental, LLC. The project study limits consist of the area that

F-4



Des. No. 1600968



has the potential to be impacted, based on the provided design scenario. This area was evaluated for the presence of wetlands and Waters of the United States. This investigation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual and the August 2010 Midwest Regional Supplement (version 2.0) Manual. A Location Map showing the project location is provided as Exhibit 1. The proposed project is located in the west central portion of Rush County, Indiana, on County Road 900 West over Little Blue River, approximately 0.01 mi. north of W. Base Rd. The project study limits extended 50 ft. to 180 ft. east and west of CR 900 W centerline and .43 mile north of W Base Rd. Specifically, the project is located in Section 34 and 35, Township 14 North, Range 8 East, Posey Township, Rush County as shown on the attached 7.5 minute Manilla, Indiana USGS Topographic map (Exhibit 2). An aerial map of sampling points, and the location of Little Blue Creek is provided in Exhibit 5. A photo location map is provided as Exhibit 6 and site photographs are attached. The site was investigated for evidence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology to determine if the project impacts wetlands and other Waters of US. The sampling point (SP) locations were chosen in possible wetland areas within the project study limits.

Sampling Plot Data Summary Table CR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River

Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

Des. No. 1600968

Plot # Photo #s Lat/Long Hydrophytic Vegetation

Hydric Soils

Wetland Hydrology

Within Wetland

SP-A1 70-72 39.614204 -85.614075

Yes Yes Yes Yes,

Wetland A

SP-A2 73-75 39.614399 -85.61399

No No Yes No

SP-B1 76-78 39.61372

-85.613596 Yes Yes Yes

Yes, Wetland B

SP-B2 & C2

82-84 39.614311 -85.613619

No Yes Yes No

SP-C1 79-81 39.614195 -85.913697

Yes Yes Yes Yes,

Wetland C

SP-B2 & C2

82-84 39.614311 -85.673619

No Yes Yes No

SP-D1 85-87 39.613321 -85.61346

Yes Yes Yes Yes,

Wetland D

SP-D2 88-90 39.6131686 -85.613445

Yes Yes No No

F-5



Des. No. 1600968



Wetlands: Four wetlands were observed within the project study limits. Descriptions of the sampling points for those wetlands are provided below.

Wetland Summary Table CR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River

Des. No. 1600968, Posey Township, Rush County, Indiana

Wetland Photo #s Lat/Long Cowardin

Class

Est. Amount in Review

Area Quality

Likely Waters of the U.S.

Wetland A 70-75 39.614204 -85.614075

PFO1A 0.59 acre Good Yes

Wetland B 76-78,

82-84, 91 39.61372

-85.613596 PFO1A 0.29 acre Good Yes

Wetland C 79-84 39.614195 -85.613619


Wetland D 85-90 39.613321 -85.61346


Wetland A (0.59 acre) – PFO1A Wetland A is a PFO1A wetland located on a floodplain north of the Little Blue River and west of CR 900 W. The wetland likely receives flood waters on a consistent basis during rain events. Wetland A drains into Little Blue River, which is a Section 10 Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) from its junction with the Big Blue River in Shelbyville for 25.6 river miles to its junction with Ball Run. Since Wetland A appears to have a significant nexus to the Little Blue River, the wetland should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Wetland A continued outside the project study limits to the west, and the northern boundary of Wetland A was determined by the lack of wetland vegetation and increased elevation. Since the wetland is located adjacent to CR 900 W, it is likely impacted by run-off from CR 900 W. However, the wetland exhibited good plant species diversity and was forested. These factors contribute to the conclusion the wetland can support wildlife or aquatic habitat, and therefore should be considered good quality. Sampling Point A1 (SP-A1) – Wetland A SP-A1 was located on the northern bank of the Little Blue River, on the west side of CR 900 W. The dominant vegetation at this sampling point was black walnut (Juglans nigra, FACU), and cottonwood (Populus deltoides, FAC) in the tree stratum. The dominant vegetation in the sapling/shrub stratum was multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora, FACU) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, FACW). In the herb stratum, the dominant vegetation was clustered black-snakeroot (Sanicula odorata, FAC) and great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida, FAC). This met the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation with a dominance test of 67 percent and a prevalence index of 2.97. To a depth of 20 in., the soils in the test pit were silty clay loam. From 0 to 11 in., the soil

F-6



Des. No. 1600968



in the test pit exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 (95 percent) with prominent mottles of 10YR 5/6 (5 percent). From 11 to 20 in., the soil exhibited a mix matrix of colors 10YR 3/2 (50 percent) and 10YR 3/4 (50 percent). The soil demonstrated the hydric soil indicator for redox dark surface (F6). Two primary indicators of hydrology, sediment deposits (B2) and geomorphic position (D2), along with one secondary indicator, crayfish burrows (C8), were observed. Since hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology criteria were met, this area qualified as a wetland. Sampling Point A2 (SP-A2) – Wetland A upland SP-A2 was located northeast of SP-A1, where the floodplain begins to slope upward. The dominant vegetation at this sampling point was green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, FACW) and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos, FACU) in the tree stratum. In the herb stratum, the dominant vegetation was Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis, FAC) and common blue violet (Viola sororia, NI). In the woody vine stratum, the dominant vegetation was Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinequefolia, FACU). This did not meet criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. The soil in the test pit was a silty clay loam to a depth of 10 in. with gravel becoming mixed at 7 in. From 0 to 10 in., the soil exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 4/3 (100 percent). A restricted layer of gravel was encountered below 10 in., prohibiting the further characterization of soils. This did not meet hydric soil criteria. One primary indicator of hydrology, sediment deposits (B2), and two secondary indicators, crayfish burrows (C8) and geomorphic position (D2), were observed. Since only one out of the three required wetland criteria were met, this area did not qualify as a wetland. Wetland B (0.29 ac.) – PFO1A Wetland B was a PFO1A wetland, located on the north bank of the Little Blue River, east of CR 900 W and UNT 4, and south of UNT 3. Wetland B was located within a floodplain to Little Blue River, and also borders UNT 3, and UNT 4, therefore likely receives flood waters on a consistent basis during rain events. Since Little Blue River is a Section 10 TNW, and Wetland B appears to have a significant nexus to the Little Blue River, the wetland should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Wetland B continued outside the project study limits to the east, and the northern boundary of Wetland B is UNT 3. The wetland is located adjacent to CR 900 W and is likely impacted by run-off from CR 900 W. However, the wetland exhibited good plant species diversity and was forested. These factors contribute to the conclusion the wetland can support wildlife or aquatic habitat, and therefore should be considered good quality.

Sampling Point B1 (SP-B1) – Wetland B SP-B1 was located north of the Little Blue River, on the east side of County Road 900 W. The dominant vegetation at this sampling point was boxelder (Acer negundo, FAC) and American elm (Ulmus americana, FACW) in the tree stratum. The dominant vegetation in the sapling/shrub stratum was boxelder (Acer negundo, FACW). In the herb stratum, the dominant vegetation was stinging nettle (Urtica dioica, FACW), Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus, FACW), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis, FACW), white avens (Geum canadense, FAC), Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila, FACW), jumpseed (Persicaria virginiana, FAC), and white oldfield American-Aster

F-7



Des. No. 1600968



(Symphyotrichum pilosum, FACU). This met the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation with a dominance test of 90 percent and a prevalence index of 2.51. To a depth of 20 in., the soils in the test pit were silty loam. From 0 to 20 in., the soil in the test pit exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 (70 percent) with distinct mottles of 10YR 5/3 (30 percent). The soil demonstrated the hydric soil indicator for redox dark surface(F6). One primary indicator of hydrology, sediment deposits (B2), and two secondary indicators, geomorphic position (D2) and FAC-neutral test (D5) were observed. Since the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology criteria were met, this area qualified as a wetland. Sampling Point B2/C2 (SP-B2/C2) – Wetland B and C upland SP-B2/C2 was located northeast of SP-C1 and north of SP-B1 in a terrace adjacent to an agricultural field. The dominant vegetation at this sampling point was Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense, FACU) in the herb stratum. This did not meet and of the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. The soil in the test pit was a silty clay loam to a depth of 21 in. From 0 to 15 in., the soil exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 4/2 (90 percent) with distinct mottles of 10YR 5/4 (10 percent). From 15 to 21 in., the soil exhibited a mixed matrix color of 10YR 4/2 (90 percent) with distinct mottles of 10YR 4/4 (10 percent). The soil demonstrated the hydric soil indicator for depleted matrix (F3). One primary indicator of hydrology, algal mat or crust (B4) was observed. Since only twoout of the three required wetland criteria were met, this area did not qualify as a wetland. Wetland C (0.26 ac.) – PFO1A Wetland C was a PFO1A wetland located in a floodplain between UNT 3 and UNT 4, therefore likely receives flood waters on a consistent basis during rain events. UNT 3 and UNT 4 flow into the Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. Since Wetland C appears to have a significant nexus to UNT 3 and 4, the wetland should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Wetland C continued outside the project study limits to the east, and the northern boundary of Wetland C was determined by the change of vegetation to established agricultural crop and elevation. Wetland C is located adjacent to an agricultural field and CR 900 W and is likely impacted by run-off from the agricultural field and paved road. However, the wetland exhibited good plant species diversity and was forested. These factors contribute to the conclusion the wetland can support wildlife or aquatic habitat, and therefore should be considered good quality. Sampling Point C1 (SP-C1) – Wetland C SP-C1 was located east of CR 900 W in the northwest section of Wetland C. The dominant vegetation at this sampling point was silver maple (Acer saccharium, FACW) and boxelder (Acer negundo, FAC) in the tree stratum. The dominant vegetation in the herb stratum was great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida, FAC), early-leaf brome (Bromus latiglumis, FACW), black-snakeroot (Sanicula odorata, FAC), Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila, FACW), and white panicled American-aster (Symphyotrichum lanceolatum, FAC). This met the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation with a dominance test of 86 percent and a prevalence index of 2.69. To a depth of 21 in., the soils in the test pit were silty clay loam. From 0 to 10 in., the soil in the test pit exhibited a matrix color

F-8



Des. No. 1600968



of 10YR 3/2 (95 percent) with prominent mottles of 10YR 6/4 (5 percent). From 10 to 20 in., the soil exhibited a mix matrix color of 10YR 4/4 (80 percent) with faint mottles of 10YR 3/2 (20 percent). The soil demonstrated the hydric soil indicator for redox dark surface (F6). Two primary indicators of hydrology, sediment deposits (B2) and drift deposits (B3), and three secondary indicators, drainage patterns (B10), geomorphic position (D2), and FAC-neutral test (D5), were observed. Since the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology criteria were met, this area qualified as a wetland. Wetland D (0.091 ac.) – PFO1A Wetland D was a PFO1A wetland located on the southern bank of the Little Blue River and likely receives flood waters on a consistent basis during rain events. Since Little Blue River is a Section 10 TNW, and Wetland D appears to have a significant nexus to the Little Blue River, the wetland should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. The southern boundary of Wetland D was determined by the change of vegetation to an agricultural crop and the wetland continued outside the project study limits, to the east. Wetland D is located adjacent to CR 900 W and agricultural field and is likely impacted by run-off from the agricultural field and paved road. However, Wetland D exhibited good plant species diversity and can support a fair amount of wildlife or aquatic habitat, and therefore should be considered to be of good quality.

Sampling Point D1 (SP-A1) – Wetland A SP-D1 was located south of the Little Blue River, on the west side of County Road 900 W. The dominant vegetation at this sampling point was osage-orange (Maclura pomifera, FACU) in the tree stratum. The dominant vegetation in the sapling/shrub stratum was hackberry (Celtis occidentalis, FAC) and American elm (Ulmus americana, FACW). In the herb stratum, the dominant vegetation was Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus, FACW), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis, FAC), Canadian black-snakeroot (Sanicula canadense, FACU), and early-leaf brome (Bromus latiglumis, FACW). This met the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation with a dominance test of 71 percent. To a depth of 20 in., the soils in the test pit were silty clay loam. From 0 to 3 in., the soil in the test pit exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 (100 percent). From 3 to 20 in., the soil exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 (90 percent) with distinct mottles of 10YR 4/4 (10 percent). The soil demonstrated the hydric soil indicator for redox dark surface (F6). Two primary indicators of hydrology, sediment deposits (B2) and sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8), and two secondary indicators, crayfish burrows (C8) and geomorphic position (D2), were observed. Since the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology criteria were met, this area qualified as a wetland. Sampling Point D2 (SP-D2) – Wetland D upland SP-D2 was located south of Wetland D on a hill sloping upward toward agricultural field. The dominant vegetation at this sampling point was boxelder (Acer negundo, FAC) in the tree stratum. In the sapling/shrub stratum, the dominant vegetation was green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, FACW). In the herbaceous stratum, dominant vegetation was rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium, FAC), great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida, FAC), creeping-jenny (Lysimachia

F-9



Des. No. 1600968



nummularia, FACW), prairie coneflower (Ratibida pinnata, NI), and Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus, FACW). This met the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation with a dominance test of 100 percent and prevalence index of 2.97. The soil in the test pit was a silty clay loam to a depth of 20 in. From 0 to 20 in., the soil exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 4/1 (90 percent) with distinct mottles of 10YR 5/3 (10 percent). The soil demonstrated the hydric soil indicator for depleted matrix (F3). One secondary indicator of hydrology, FAC-neutral test (D5) was observed. Since only two out of the three required wetland criteria were met, this area did not qualify as a wetland. Streams: Six streams were observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance.

Stream Summary Table

CR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River Des. No. 1600968,


Stream Name

Photo #s Lat/Long OHWM Width

(ft.)

OHWM Depth

(ft.) USGS Blue-line

Riffles and

Pools Quality

Dominant Substrate

Likely Waters of the U.S.

Potential Stream Impact

(ft.)

Little Blue River

19-25, 38-43, 50, 56,

63

39.613375 -85.613778

40 3 Yes

(Perennial) Yes Good

Hardpan and silt

Yes 224

UNT 1 10, 11,

12 39.614337 -85.614195

4 0.5 No

(Ephemeral) No Fair

Clay and silt

Yes 122

UNT 2 11, 13,

14 39.614258 -85.614131

6 0.5 No

(Ephemeral) No Fair

Silt and gravel

Yes 62

UNT 3 25, 43-44, 47-49, 63

39.613783 -85.613738

15 1 No

(Ephemeral) Yes Good

Clay, silt, gravel,

and cobble

Yes 301

UNT 4 45-47 39.614089 -85.613798

4 1 No

(Ephemeral) Yes Poor

Clay and

silt

Yes 273

UNT 5 22, 55-56, 61-

64

39.612498 -85.613617

5 1.25 Yes

(Intermittent) Yes Fair

Clay, silt, and

gravel Yes 674

Little Blue River (224 LFT) Little Blue River was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. The Little Blue River flows from east to west and is approximately 224 linear feet (0.206 ac.) within

F-10



Des. No. 1600968



the project study limits. Little Blue River is a Section 10 TNW from its junction with the Big Blue River in Shelbyville for 25.6 river miles to its junction with Ball Run, therefore Little Blue River is a jurisdiction Waters of the U.S. Little Blue River is associated with a solid blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is perennial. Little Blue River was classified by the NWI as Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded (R2UBH). The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) was an average of 40 ft. wide and 3 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of boulder, cobble, gravel, hardpan, and silt. Overhanging vegetation, deep pools, and logs or woody debris were the in-stream cover present. Sinuosity was low with good development and stability was moderate. The water velocity and gradient were moderate. Multiple fish, aquatic insects, and crayfish were found in the stream with the presence of many deep pools. According to USGS Indiana StreamStats, the drainage area upstream of the Little Blue River at the project study limits is 66.55 square miles. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as good quality. UNT 1 to Little Blue River (UNT 1) (122 LFT) UNT 1 was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 1 flows from southeast to northwest through Wetland A within the project study limits. UNT flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW, west of the project study limits. Therefore, UNT 1 should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. The primary channel of UNT 1 makes up 62 LFT of the total length and is located south of the secondary channel to UNT 1 which makes up 60 LFT of the total length. The secondary channel branches off from the primary channel, running parallel with the primary channel flowing northwest. The secondary channel converges with the primary channel further west of the project study limits. UNT 1 flows from southeast to northwest and is approximately 122 linear feet (0.011 ac.) within the project study limits. UNT 1 is not associated with a solid blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is ephemeral. UNT 1 was not classified by the NWI, but it can be classified as Riverine, Ephemeral, Corps designation (R6). The OHWM was an average of 4 ft. wide and 0.5 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of cobble, gravel, silt, and clay or hardpan were present in the stream channel. The riparian width was greater than 30 feet wide and consisted of forested wetland. Sinuosity was at one bend per 200 ft. of channel and the stream had no water flow with a flat gradient. No riffles and pools were observed, and no aquatic organisms were found in the stream. There is no line associated with UNT 1 on USGS Indiana StreamStats, therefore no drainage area could be calculated. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as fair quality. UNT 2 to Little Blue River (UNT 2) (62 LFT) UNT 2 was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 2 flows into UNT 1, which flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. Therefore UNT 2 should be considered a jurisdictional Wates of the U.S. UNT 2 flows from east to west and is approximately 62 linear feet in length (0.008 ac.) within the project study limits. UNT 2 is not associated with a solid blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is ephemeral. UNT 2 was not classified by the NWI, but it can be classified as Riverine, Ephemeral, corps designation (R5). The OHWM

F-11



Des. No. 1600968



was an average of 6 ft. wide and 0.5 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of cobble, gravel, silt, and clay or hardpan. Sinuosity was at one bend per 200 ft. with low water velocity. The stream was surrounded by a wide forested wetland. No riffles and pools were observed, and no aquatic organisms were found in the stream. There is no line associated with UNT 2 on USGS Indiana StreamStats, therefore no drainage area could be calculated. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as fair quality. UNT 3 to Little Blue River (UNT 3) (301 LFT) UNT 3 was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 3 flows into UNT 4, which flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. Therefore, UNT 3 should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. UNT 3 flows from northeast to southwest and is approximately 301 linear feet in length (0.104 ac.) within the project study limits. UNT 3 is not associated with a solid blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is ephemeral. UNT 3 was not classified by the NWI, but it can be classified as Riverine, Ephemeral, corps designation (R5). The OHWM was an average of 15 ft. wide and 1 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of boulders, cobble, gravel, silt, clay or hardpan, and artificial. The stream is bordered on both sides by forested wetland. Sinuosity was at one bend per 200 ft. and the water velocity was moderate with a flat to moderate gradient. Riffles and pools were observed, and multiple fish, aquatic insects, and crayfish were also found in the stream. According to USGS Indiana StreamStats, the drainage area upstream of the UNT 3 at the project study limits is 0.06 square miles. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as good quality. UNT 4 to Little Blue River (UNT 4) (273 LFT) UNT 4 was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 4 flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. Therefore, UNT 4 should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. UNT 4 flows from northeast to south and is approximately 273 linear feet in length (0.025 ac.) within the project study limits. UNT 4 is not associated with a solid blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is ephemeral. UNT 4 was not classified by the NWI, but it can be classified as Riverine, Ephemeral, corps designation (R5). The OHWM was an average of 4 ft. wide and 1 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of cobble, gravel, silt, and clay or hardpan. The left bank of the stream consisted of forested wetland and the right bank consisted of agricultural field and paved road. Sinuosity was at one bend per 200 ft. and the channel had low water velocity. No riffles and pools were observed, and no aquatic organisms were found in the stream. According to USGS Indiana StreamStats, the drainage area upstream of the UNT 4 at the project study limits is 0.06 square miles. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as poor quality. UNT 5 to Little Blue River (UNT 5) (674 LFT) UNT 5 to Little Blue River was observed within the project study limits during the field reconnaissance. UNT 5 flows into Little Blue River, a Section 10 TNW. Therefore, UNT 5 should be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. UNT 5 to Little Blue River flows from south to

F-12



Des. No. 1600968



north and is approximately 674 linear feet in length (0.077 ac.) within the project study limits. UNT 5 to Little Blue River is associated with a dashed blue line on the USGS topographic map, indicating it is intermittent. UNT 5 to Little Blue River was classified by the NWI as Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Seasonally Flooded (R4SBC). The OHWM was an average of 5 ft. wide and 1.25 ft. deep within the project study limits. The stream substrate consisted of cobble, gravel, silt, and clay or hardpan. UNT 5 to Little Blue River had moderate to narrow riparian width and was adjacent to agricultural fields and paved roads. No sinuosity was present, and the water velocity was moderate with a relatively flat gradient. UNT 5 to Little Blue River had riffles and pools with multiple fish, aquatic insects, and crayfish. According to USGS Indiana StreamStats, the drainage area upstream of the UNT 5 at the project study limits is 1.58 square miles. Based on the information provided above, this stream qualifies as fair quality. Roadside Ditches: One roadside ditch (RSD) was identified within the project study limits. Roadside Ditch 1 (370 LFT) RSD 1 is located on the west side of County Road 900 W and north of the Little Blue River. It is approximately 370 LFT long. This feature contains a concrete structure and is adjacent to County Road 900 W and Wetland A. RSD 1 appears to carry surface water runoff from County Road 900 W to Wetland A. No OHWM was observed, so this feature is likely non-jurisdictional. Conclusion: Four jurisdictional PFO1A wetlands, totaling 1.23 ac., along with six jurisdictional streams, totaling 1,656 LFT, were observed within the project study limits. Every effort should be taken to avoid or minimize impacts to these waterways. If impacts are necessary, mitigation may be required. The final determination of jurisdictional waters is ultimately made by the USACE. This report is our best judgment based on the guidelines set forth by USACE.

F-13



Des. No. 1600968



Acknowledgement: This waters determination has been prepared based on the best available information, interpreted in the light of the investigator’s training, experience and professional judgement in conformance with the 1987 Corps of engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, the appropriate regional supplement, the USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook, and other appropriate agency guidelines.

Metric Environmental

Staff Position

Contributing Effort

Signature/Date

Amy Noel

Smith Natural Resources Project Manager

Project Manager, Field Data Collection

02/14/2020

Zachary Root

Natural Resources Environmental Scientist II

Field Data Collection,

Report Preparation

02/14/2020

Alex Gray Natural Resources Technical

Consultant Report QAQC 02/14/2020

F-14

susanc

Text Box

Duplicate attachments were intentionally omitted. Please refer to Appendix B in the CE document.

A

PFO1A

PFO1APFO1A

R2UBH

R4SBC

PFO1A

PFO1A

PFO1A

All locations approximateSource: Indiana Spatial Data Portal (2012)

± Exh. 3

Exhibit 3 - NWI, NHD, and FIRM MapCR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue RiverRoad Realignment and Bridge ReplacementPosey Township, Rush County, IndianaDes. No. 1600968Metric Project No. 16-0230Map Date: 9/12/18 0 350 700175

Feet

Project Study Limits (PSL) Floodplain- Zone A- 1% Annual Chance NWI Wetlands NHD Streams

W Base Rd

N 90

0 W

Little Blue River

F-15

ShGe

EdB2

MuD3

MpB2

OcA

MuC3

MpB2

OcA

MuD3

MuC3

MpD

MpB2

MuC3

MpC

Sm

MuC3

MuC3

CeB2


± Exh. 4

Exhibit 4 - NRCS Soil Survey MapCR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue RiverRoad Realignment and Bridge ReplacementPosey Township, Rush County, IndianaDes. No. 1600968Metric Project No. 16-0230Map Date: 9/12/18

0 390 780195Feet

Project Study Limits (PSL) NRCS Soil Survey

N 90

0 W

Little Blue River

W Base RdSymbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating

EdB3 Eldean loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Hydric (3%)Ge Genesee loam, gravelly substratum Hydric (3%)MpB2 Miamian silt loam, New Castle Till Plain, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Hydric (5%)MpD Miamian silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Hydric (6%)MuC3 Miamian clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded Hydric (5%)Sh Shoals silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, brief duration Hydric (4%)

F-16

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

SP-A1

SP-A2

SP-C1

SP-B&C2

SP-B1

SP-D1

SP-D2


±

Exhibit 5 - Waters Delineation MapCR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue RiverRoad Realignment and Bridge ReplacementPosey Township, Rush County, IndianaDes. No. 1600968Metric Project No. 16-0230Map Date: 9/12/18

0 300 600150Feet

&< Sampling Point (SP)

Delineated Wetland Extends Outside the PSL

Project Study Limits (PSL)

Roadside Ditch (RSD)

Stream

PFO1A Wetland

Stream

Little Blue River(224 LFT)

UNT 4(273 LFT)

UNT 3(301 LFT)

UNT 2 (62 LFT)

Primary Channel of UNT 1 (62 LFT)

Secondary Channel to UNT 1(60 LFT)

_

_

_

_

_

_

Wetland A (0.59 ac)

Wetland B(0.29 ac)

Wetland D (0.091 ac)

Wetland C(0.26 ac)

RSD

1

Exh. 5

UNT 5 (674 LFT)

N 90

0 W

W Base Rd

_

_

_

F-17

State:

Yes No

No No Yes No

No No

YesYes NoYes

Remarks:

AbsoluteTree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover1. 30%2. 20%3. 10% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)4. 10%5. 5%

75%

1. 10%2. 10%3. 5%4. 5%5. 5%

35%x1 =

1. 20% x2 =2. 20% x3 = 3. 10% x4 =4. 10% x5 = 5. 10% (B)6. 5%7. 5%8.9.

10.11.12.13. X14. X 3-Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

15. 4-Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting16. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)17. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)18.19. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must20. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

80%

1.2. No

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation2-Dominance Test is >50%

)

= Total CoverXYes Present?

Vegetation

Shoals silt loam (Sh) NWI classification: PFO1A

39.614204 Long: -85.614075 Datum:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain

NAD 83Slope (%):

Soil Map Unit Name:

X

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

Are Vegetation , Soil

Are Vegetation

Lat:0%

No

Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

INDOT

CR 900 W over Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River City/County: Rush County, Arlington, Indiana

Amy Smith and Zachary Root

IN

Sec 34, 14 N, 8 E

x

significantly disturbed?

naturally problematic?

Local relief (concave, convex, none): none

Section, Township, Range:

)

X

, Soil

Is the Sampled Area

X, or Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.), or Hydrology No

Hydric Soil Present?

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

within a Wetland?Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

xNoNoNo

YesX

Smilax rotundifolia

Wetland Hydrology Present?

FACW

YesYesNoNo

Populus deltoidesAcer negundoGleditsia triacanthos

No

FAC

FACUFAC

FACU

30' radiusDominantSpecies?

Wetland A - Sampling Point

VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.

Herb Stratum (Plot size:

IndicatorStatus

Juglans nigra

Elymus virginicus

Rosa multiflora Yes FACU15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

No FACWAmbrosia trifida FACYes

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

FACFAC

Ulmus americana

NoNoNo

FACWFAC

No FACWBromus latiglumis No FACWVerbesina alternifolia FACW

YesAcer negundoCeltis occidentalis

5' radius )Sanicula odorata Yes

6 Species Across All Strata: (B)

No

OBL species

30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

No

= Total Cover

Solidago gigantea

Urtica dioica

FACW

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Sampling Date: 9/4/2018

Sampling Point: SP-A1

UPL species Column Totals:

2.97

55%85%50%

FACW species

Prevalence Index = B/A =

(A)

FAC species

1.90

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1.1

FACU species

5.65

Hydrophytic

FAC

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

4

2.552

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species

Percent of Dominant Species

Total Number of Dominant

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0

F-18

SP-A1

% Type1

5 C

Type:Depth (inches): Yes x No

xx

x

xxx Yes x No

11-20 10YR 3/2 Mixed Matrix

10YR 3/4 50

SiCL50

95 10YR 5/6

Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Depth Matrix Redox Features

Color (moist) Loc2Color (moist) % Remarks

M SiCL Prominent Mottles

Texture(inches)

0-11 10YR 3/2

Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)Dark Surface (S7)

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic.

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Stratified Layers (A5)

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6)

x

HYDROLOGY

3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,

Remarks:

Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)


Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Surface Water Present?Water Table Present?Saturation Present?(includes capillary fringe)

YesYes

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

NoDepth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?

Depth (inches):Depth (inches):

Remarks: Geomorphic position due to location in depression within a floodplain

Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14)

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)

High Water Table (A2) Drainage Patterns (B10) Aquatic Fauna (B13)

Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Yes

No Field Observations:

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

No


F-19

State:

Yes No

No No Yes No

No No

Yes XYes X NoYes

Remarks:

AbsoluteTree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover1. 20%2. 20%3. 20% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)4. 10%5.

70%

1.2.3.4.5.

x1 =1. 40% x2 =2. 40% x3 = 3. 10% x4 =4. 5% x5 = 5. 5% (B)6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14. 3-Prevalence Index is ≤3.01


100%

1. 5%2. No

5%



)

= Total Cover

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Yes FACUXYes Present?

Vegetation

Shoals silt loam (Sh) NWI classification: PFO1A

39.614399 Long: -85.613927 Datum:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope

NAD 83Slope (%):

Soil Map Unit Name:

X



Are Vegetation

Lat:0%

No

Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

INDOT

CR 900 W Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River City/County: Rush County, Arlington, Indiana


IN

Sec 34, 14 N, 8 E

x





)

, Soil

Is the Sampled Area






xNoNoNo

YesWetland Hydrology Present?

YesYesYesNo

Gleditsia triacanthosAcer negundoCeltis occidentalis

FAC

FACWFACU

FAC


Wetland A - Upland Sampling Point



IndicatorStatus

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Sanicula canadensis

15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

No FACUPoa pratensis FACYes

No FACURosa multiflora No FACU

5' radius )Viola sororia Yes


OBL species


= Total Cover

Oxalis corniculata




Sampling Point: SP-A2


3.19

20%70%45%

FACW species


(A)

FAC species

1.35


0.4

FACU species

4.3

Hydrophytic

NI



3

2.11.8







F-20

SP-A2

% Type1

Type:Depth (inches): Yes No x

xx

x

xxx Yes x No

100



SiCL Gravel mixed in at 7 inches

Texture(inches)

0-10 10YR 4/3







Gravel








HYDROLOGY

10


Remarks:Gravel at 7 inches and dug till 10 inches






YesYes

















Yes



No


F-21

State:

Yes No

No No Yes No

No No

YesYes NoYes

Remarks:

AbsoluteTree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover1. 40%2. 40%3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)4.5.

80%

1. 10%2.3.4.5.

10%x1 =

1. 20% x2 =2. 20% x3 = 3. 10% x4 =4. 10% x5 = 5. 10% (B)6. 10%7. 10%8. 5%9. 5%

10. 5%11.12.13. X14. X 3-Prevalence Index is ≤3.01


105%

1.2. No




9

2.40.4






FAC

Multiply by:

2.1

FACU species

4.9

Hydrophytic

FACW




Sampling Point: SP-B1


2.51

105%80%10%

FACW species


(A)

FAC species

1.95

Total % Cover of:


No FACW

Yes

OBL species


Yes

= Total Cover

Symphyotrichum pilosum

Geum canadense

FACU

No

Yes FAC

Ambrosia trifida No FAC

Pilea pumila Yes FACWPersicaria virginiana FAC

5' radius )Urtica dioica Yes


IndicatorStatus

Acer negundo

Impatiens capensis

Acer negundo Yes FAC15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Yes FACWElymus virginicus FACWYes


YesYesUlmus americana

FACFACW


Wetland B - Sampling Point


)

X

, Soil

Is the Sampled Area






xNoNoNo

YesX

X



Are Vegetation

Lat:1%

No

Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

INDOT



IN

Sec 35, 14 N, 8 E

x





Genesee loam (Ge) NWI classification: none

39.61372 Long: -85.613596 Datum:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace

NAD 83Slope (%):

Soil Map Unit Name:


)

Verbesina alternifolia

= Total Cover

Smilax rotundifolia

XYes Present? Vegetation


F-22

SP-B1

% Type1

30 C


x

xx

xxx Yes x No



Yes



No













YesYes






HYDROLOGY


Remarks:



Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)








x Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6)





2 cm Muck (A10)

70 10YR 5/3



M SL Distinct Mottles

Texture(inches)

0-20 10YR 3/2


F-23

State:

Yes No

No No Yes No

No No

Yes XYes NoYes

Remarks:

AbsoluteTree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover1.2.3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)4.5.

1.2.3.4.5.

x1 =1. 100% x2 =2. x3 = 3. x4 =4. x5 = 5. (B)6.7.8.9.



100%

1.2. No




0

4






Multiply by:

FACU species

4

Hydrophytic

FACU




Sampling Point: SP-B2 & C2


4.00

100%

FACW species


(A)

FAC species

1.00

Total % Cover of:


OBL species


= Total Cover

5' radius )Sorghum halepense Yes


IndicatorStatus


= Total Cover

= Total Cover



Wetland B and C - Upland Point


)

X

, Soil

Is the Sampled Area






xNoNoNo

YesX



Are Vegetation

Lat:1%

No

Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

INDOT



IN

Sec 35, 14 N, 8 E

x





Shoals silt loam (Sh) NWI classification: none

39.614311 Long: -85.613619 Datum:


NAD 83Slope (%):

Soil Map Unit Name:


)


Vegetation


F-24

SP-B2 & C2

% Type1

10 C

10 C


x

xxx Yes x No



Yes



No













YesYes




Remarks:


HYDROLOGY


Remarks:
















2 cm Muck (A10)

90 10YR 5/4



M SiCL Distinct Mottles

Texture(inches)

0-15 10YR 4/2

15-21 10YR 4/2 Distinct MottlesSiCL90 10YR 4/4 M


F-25

State:

Yes No

No No Yes No

No No

YesYes NoYes

AbsoluteTree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover1. 40%2. 20%3. 10% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)4. 10%5.

80%

1.2.3.4.5.

x1 =1. 20% x2 =2. 10% x3 = 3. 10% x4 =4. 10% x5 = 5. 10% (B)6. 5%7.8.9.

10.11.12.13. X14. X 3-Prevalence Index is ≤3.01


65%

1.2. No



)


Vegetation


39.614195 Long: -85.613697 Datum:


NAD 83Slope (%):

Soil Map Unit Name:

X



Are Vegetation

Lat:1%

No

Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

INDOT



IN

Sec 35, 14 N, 8 E

x





)

X

, Soil

Is the Sampled Area






xNoNoNo

YesX


YesYesNoNo

Acer negundoMorus albaJuglans nigra

FAC

FACWFAC

FACU


Remarks:Wetland C - Sampling Point



IndicatorStatus

Acer saccharinum

Sanicula canadensis


= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Yes FACUBromus latiglumis FACWYes

Yes FACWSymphyotrichum lanceolatum Yes FACUrtica dioica FACW

5' radius )Ambrosia trifida Yes


OBL species


No

= Total Cover

Pilea pumila




Sampling Point: SP-C1


2.69

65%60%20%

FACW species


(A)

FAC species

1.45


1.3

FACU species

3.9

Hydrophytic

FAC



6

1.80.8







F-26

SP-C1

% Type1

5 C

20 C


x

xx

xx

xxx Yes x No

10-21 10YR 4/4 Faint MottlesSiCL80 10YR 3/2 M

95 10YR 6/4




Texture(inches)

0-10 10YR 3/2














x

HYDROLOGY


Remarks:Hit gravel at 12 inches






YesYes

















Yes



No


F-27

State:

Yes No

No No Yes No

No No

Yes XYes NoYes

Remarks:

AbsoluteTree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover1.2.3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)4.5.

1.2.3.4.5.

x1 =1. 100% x2 =2. x3 = 3. x4 =4. x5 = 5. (B)6.7.8.9.



100%

1.2. No




0

4






Multiply by:

FACU species

4

Hydrophytic

FACU




Sampling Point: SP-B2 & C2


4.00

100%

FACW species


(A)

FAC species

1.00

Total % Cover of:


OBL species


= Total Cover

5' radius )Sorghum halepense Yes


IndicatorStatus


= Total Cover

= Total Cover



Wetland B and C - Upland Point


)

X

, Soil

Is the Sampled Area






xNoNoNo

YesX



Are Vegetation

Lat:1%

No

Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

INDOT



IN

Sec 35, 14 N, 8 E

x






39.614311 Long: -85.613619 Datum:


NAD 83Slope (%):

Soil Map Unit Name:


)


Vegetation


F-28

SP-B2 & C2

% Type1

10 C

10 C


x

xxx Yes x No



Yes



No













YesYes






HYDROLOGY


Remarks:
















2 cm Muck (A10)

90 10YR 5/4




Texture(inches)

0-15 10YR 4/2



F-29

State:

Yes No

No No Yes No

No No

YesYes NoYes

Remarks:

AbsoluteTree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover1. 40%2. 10%3. 10% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)4.5.

60%

1. 20%2. 10%3.4.5.

30%x1 =

1. 20% x2 =2. 20% x3 = 3. 10% x4 =4. 10% x5 = 5. 5% (B)6. 5%7. 5%8. 5%9. 2%

10.11.12.13. X14. 3-Prevalence Index is ≤3.01


82%

1.2. No




5

2.12.48






Multiply by:

0.8

FACU species

5.38

Hydrophytic

FACW




Sampling Point: SP-D1


3.13

40%70%62%

FACW species


(A)

FAC species

1.72

Total % Cover of:


No FACU

No

OBL species


No

= Total Cover

Allium canadense

Bromus latiglumis

FACU

FACW

Yes FACW

Viola sororia No FAC

Polygonatum biflorum No FACUSmilax rotundifolia FAC

Yes

5' radius )Elymus virginicus Yes


IndicatorStatus

Maclura pomifera

Sanicula canadensis

Celtis occidentalis Yes FAC15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Yes FACUCeltis occidentalis FACYes

Ulmus americana


YesNoNo

Crataegus douglasiiAcer negundo FAC

FACUFAC


Wetland D - Sampling Point


)

X

, Soil

Is the Sampled Area






xNoNoNo

YesX

X



Are Vegetation

Lat:0%

No

Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(s):

INDOT



IN

Sec 35, 14 N, 8 E

x



Local relief (concave, convex, none): None


Shoals silt loam (Sh) NWI classification: R4SBC

39.613321 Long: -85.61346 Datum:


NAD 83Slope (%):

Soil Map Unit Name:


)

Symphyotrichum pilosum


Vegetation


F-30

SP-D1

% Type1

10 C


xx

x

x

xxx Yes x No



Yes



No













YesYes






HYDROLOGY


Remarks:
















2 cm Muck (A10)

100



SiCL

Texture(inches)

0-3 10YR 3/2



F-31

State:

Yes No

No No Yes No

No No

YesYes NoYes X

Remarks:

AbsoluteTree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover1. 30%2.3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)4.5.

30%

1. 5%2.3.4.5.

5%x1 =

1. 20% x2 =2. 10% x3 = 3. 10% x4 =4. 10% x5 = 5. 10% (B)6. 5%7. 5%8. 5%9. 5%

10. 5%11. 5%12. 2%13. X14. X 3-Prevalence Index is ≤3.01


77%

1.2. No




6

1.950.88






FACU

Multiply by:

0.5

FACU species

3.33

Hydrophytic

FAC

Polygonum virginianum NIFACU




Sampling Point:

Convolvulus equitans

SP-D2


2.97

25%65%22%

FACW species


(A)

FAC species

1.12

Total % Cover of:


No FACU

No

OBL species


No

= Total Cover

Celtis occidentalis

Ratibida pinnata

FAC

NoNoNo

Yes NI

Campsis radicans No FACU

Elymus virginicus Yes FACWSorghum halepense FACU

5' radius )Xanthium strumarium Yes


IndicatorStatus

Acer negundo

Lysimachia nummularia

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Yes FACW15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Yes FACWAmbrosia trifida FACYes


Yes FAC30' radius

DominantSpecies?

Wetland D - Upland Sampling Point


)

X

, Soil

Is the Sampled Area






xNoNoNo

YesX


Are Vegetation

No

Project/Site: CR 900 W over Bridge No. 127 over Little Blue River City/County: Rush County, Arlington, Indiana

IN

Sec 35, 14 N, 8 E

x





NWI classification: R4SBC

Long: -85.613697 Datum: NAD 83

Applicant/Owner: INDOT

Investigator(s): Amy Smith and Zachary Root

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope

Slope (%): 1% Lat: 39.614195

Soil Map Unit Name: Shoals silt loam (Sh)



)

Sanicula canadensis

= Total Cover

Oxalis dillenii

XYes Present? Vegetation


F-32

SP-D2

% Type1

10 C


x

xxx Yes No x



Yes



No













YesYes




Remarks:


HYDROLOGY


Remarks:
















2 cm Muck (A10)

90 10YR 5/3




Texture(inches)

0-20 10YR 4/1


F-33

APPENDIX G Public Involvement

www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer

Land & Aerial Survey Office Division of Materials & Tests Building 120 South Shortridge Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46219-6705

PHONE: (317) 610-7251 FAX: (317) 356-9351

Eric J. Holcomb, Governor Joe McGuinness, Commissioner

October 2, 2017 Callahan, Bradley C. 9009 W Base Rd., Arlington, IN 46104

NOTICE OF SURVEY Dear Property Owner: The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) will perform a survey for the proposed Bridge Replacement project on CR 900 W Over Little Blue River, Des No. 1600968, in Rush County, Indiana. A portion of this survey work may be performed on your property in order to provide design engineers information for project design. The survey work will include mapping the location of features such as trees, buildings, fences, drives, ground elevations, etc. The survey is needed for the proper planning and design of this highway project. At this stage we generally do not know what effect, if any, our project may eventually have on your property. If we determine later that your property is involved, we will contact you with additional information. Indiana Code 8-23-7-26 allows the Greenfield as the authorized employees of INDOT, Right of Entry to the project site (including private property) upon proper notification. A copy of a Notice of Survey discussion sheet, as found on INDOT’s website (http://www.in.gov/indot/2888.htm), is attached to this letter. Pursuant to Indiana Code 8-23-7-27, this letter serves as written notification that we will be performing the above noted survey in the vicinity of your property after October 2, 2017. INDOT employees will show you their identification, if you are available, before coming onto your property. If you own but are not the tenant of this property (i.e. rental, sharecrop), please inform us so that we may also contact the actual tenant of the property prior to commencement of our work. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our proposed survey work or schedule, please contact the Survey Operations Manager. This contact information is as follows: Mark Schepers, PLS Survey Operations Manager 8415 E. 56th St. Suite A Indianapolis, IN 46216 [email protected] 317-522-2486

G-1

http://www.in.gov/indot/3271.htm�

mailto:[email protected]�

susanc

Text Box

Sample Notice of Entry Letter

www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer

Land & Aerial Survey Office Division of Materials & Tests Building 120 South Shortridge Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46219-6705

PHONE: (317) 610-7251 FAX: (317) 356-9351

Eric J. Holcomb, Governor Joe McGuinness, Commissioner

Under Indiana Code 8-23-7-28, you have a right to compensation for any damage that occurs to your land or water as a result of the entry or work performed during the entry. To obtain such compensation, you should contact the Central Office District Real Estate Manager; contact information is below. The District Real Estate Manager can provide you with a form to request compensation for damages. Once you fill out this form, you can return it to the District Real Estate Manager for consideration. If you are not satisfied with the compensation that INDOT determines is owed to you, Indiana Code 8-23-7-28 provides the following:

The amount of damages shall be assessed by the county agricultural extension educator of the county in which the land or water is located and two (2) disinterested residents of the county, one (1) appointed by the aggrieved party and one (1) appointed by the department. A written report of the assessment of damages shall be mailed to the aggrieved party and the department by first class United States mail. If either the department or the aggrieved party is not satisfied with the assessment of damages, either or both may file a petition, not later than fifteen (15) days after receiving the report, in the circuit or superior court of the county in which the land or water is located.

If you have questions regarding the rights and procedures outlined in this letter, please contact the Greenfield Real Estate Manager. This contact information is as follows:

Michael Widing 32 S Broadway St. Greenfield, IN 46140 (317) 467-3941

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, _____________________________ Mark Schepers, PLS Survey Operations Manager

G-2

APPENDIX H Air Quality

�� !��"�� #�$�� %&'�()*�(+,-� ./�0��#0�� ./�0��#0�.�/�� 12�3456'�34748�9:;�� <=>?1@��%8A�984B:8�%C66D�=45EF'�G:HHCDDC:248�I2JC2448C2J�&2K�>DD4F�%&2&J4H42F�,++�@:8FL�M42&F4�>B42E4�12KC&2&5:6CD*�1@�NO(+N��=4&8�%8A�%C66D;��P4�L&B4�Q:H564F4K�:E8�84BC4R�:7�1@=S9TD�>H42KH42F�U,O?N,�F:�FL4�VW�(+,O?(+,X�12KC&2&�MF&F4RCK4�98&2D5:8F&FC:2�1H58:B4H42F�Y8:J8&H�ZM91Y[�K&F4K�%&'�(\*�(+,-A��V<P>�&558:B4D�CF�7:8�C2Q6EDC:2�C2F:�FL4�M91YA��ML:E6K�':E�L&B4�&2'�]E4DFC:2D�84J&8KC2J�FLCD�&558:B&6�564&D4�Q:2F&QF�:'Q4�@4R6&2K�&F�\,-?((O?)\)\�:8�4?H&C6�&F�_:'Q4A24R6&2K K:FAJ:BA�� MC2Q4846'*�� V:8;�%&'46&�M:D&�� =CBCDC:2�>KHC2CDF8&F:8��I2Q6:DE84��4QQ;��%CQL&46�%Q@4C6*�1@=S9��abcde�e�feghifjjklkmnoop�qklrst�up�abcde�e�feghifj�jfv�wxyz{�|xy}z}�~|�s�r�srm{�|�xjb��gi�rtknrn�|okq�f{�|�x��gi��gi�rtknrn�|okq�f{�wrxabcde�e�feghifj�jnmsv��}��}��v��v��

H-1

�� !�"#$%&#%' (%&)'*()�+�,�-.*/�/.# '%0). 1%'2�)3$. -%(*)4%& /4#)'4() 54-.# 6./.'*-�(*).7%'3 $'%7'*5 $8*#. 6./.'*- 5*)(8.9:;<=:>?�(@9:�A>B:�:@�(@<CA>:>$D@E>F:G �HIJK �HIJL �HIHI �HIHJ#)4$&*5.MN�O�� P��MQ�RS�T�� S�MN��U�RS��VNW X�� Q ��N� � MY Z�[�� Z�\��[�� Z�\��[��Q�� Z�\]�\_�[��]�a�a�T��_�_ ��N� � b Z�[�� Z�a\a�a[�� Z�a\a�a[�� Q�� b Z_]_\ca�[�� Z�[�� Z_]_\ca�[�� Q�� MY Z�\��[�� Z�[�� Z�\��[��b��d !�P�!��Q ��e�� \�c�� ]�\��c\�� MY��_�� \�� \��\�� b �� _]_\ca�� a\a�a[MN�O�� ] ��\�!�O�� P��f��b�� U�� Q��g�� X�� Q ��N� � �e Z�[�� Z�a\��[�� Z�a\��[�� Q�� Z�\_�]\ �[��]�a�]�T��_�� Q�� e Z��\ �[�� Z�[�� Z��\ �[�� N� � b Z�[�� Z]_\a��[�� Z]_\a��[�� Q�� b Z�\� \a�[�� Z�[�� Z�\� \a�[�� b��d ��P�!��Q ��e�� \ �� a\��\�� b �� \� \a�� ]_\a��[MN�O�b�N��g �M�� R��M��\�b��[��[�b��[�R�h�R�� R��i��bM�_��Y��R�N��M��\��[��O��R��M X�� [�c�� N� � MY Z�[�� Z��\��[�� Z��\��[��[]�a]��T��_� ��N� � �e Z�[�� Z��\��[�� Z��\��[�� MN�O�b�N��g �M�� R��M��\�b��[��[�b��[�R�h�R�� R��i��bM�_��Y��R�N��M��\��[��O��R��M X�� [�c�� N� � �e Z�[�� Zca\�c[�� Zca\�c[�� Q�� Z�\]c\a�c[��]�a]��T��_� ��R� f��f�� e Z��\��[�� Z�[�� Z��\��[�� b��d ��P�!��Q ��e�� \�� ca\�c[�� M�]] R� f��O��S�!��g !jeM�V!�Xe��RMQ bV\��[��Y�k��c� X�� R� f��b��N�� b Z�\] [�� Z��\�[�� Z��\��][��Q��] Z��a\��][��]�c�_�T��_ R� f��b��N��f �e Z]\��[�� Z�\��[�� Zc\��[�� b��d ��P�!\�� Zc\��e�� Z��\��]��_�b ��N� ��][�� M�]] VPQ�!��g\��P�� []��Y��k��c��Yb��MN�O��"��k��c� X�� []�a�� M�� b��N��f �e Z�]\��[�� Z\��[�� Za�\��[��Q�� Z�c\ c[��]�c_]�T��b��d !�P�!\�Q �Za�\��e��_�� M�]] VPQ�!��g\��P�� []��l��k��c��Yb��MN�O��"��k��c� X�� []�a�� M�� b��N�� b Z�c�\c�][�� Za\][�� Z��\�a�[�� Q��] Z��\�a�[��]�c_]�T��b��d �l��\� ��P�!mnopqrsptu�vwopo�xtyp�pw�vwrzxtpt�{|w}t~p�~wx�r��qo�yw|�~wopo�p�sp�rs��t�pt�u��t�w�u�p�t�yw�|��ts|o�wy�s��{��qo�~wx�r��qo��wp�yqo~sxx��~w�op|sq�tu�s�u�qo�yw|�q�yw|rspqw��z�|zwoto��f��c_��c M��b�� dT�T��_��da�dc_�P

H-2

susanc

Rectangle

�� !"#$%"$& '$%(&)'(�*�+�,-).�.-" &$/(- 0$&1�(2#- ,$')(3$% .3"(&3'( 43,-" 5-.-&),�')(-6$&2 #&$6&)4 #7)"- 5-.-&), 4)('7-89:;<9=>�'?89�@=A9�9?�'?;B@=9=#C?D=E9F �GHGH �GHGI �GHGG �GHGJ �GHGK"(3#%)4-&L8M�'?LN9OPQ�R�S�Q��T UV�UVP� W� X�� S�Q��TY ��W� X�� T��X��ST��Z[�� \�� W\ ��W� X��X�� ] Z_aaab_c �b�� Z_aaab_c � � ��bZ_��ca ��Q� � �] �b�� daaabca daaabca � � ��PQ�R�S�Q��T �P�Z��Z W� X�� S�Q��TY ��W� X�� T��X��ST��Z�� \�� W\ ��W� X��X�� ] �_[Z��b�� b�� ZaadZb�� Z�Z[edb�� Zc��b��ZZ[��cb��V��[ d�Z��db��Za��ee ��Q� � �] �b�� e��[abc� � �ac�bc� �_��b�� e��b��a�_[b��S��f��g� b��V �ZZ[��cb�� a�_[��Q� ��Zb��V �ZaadZb�� ac�bc��Q� ��b��V �Z�Z[edb�� _��bc��Q� ��db��V �Zc��b�� e��Q� ��b�� h��_� W� X��P�� R��S��Q�� _b�e�i��P��gQ �S��jb \�� W\ W� X��S��Q�� S� Z[[�deabe� ��d_a�b�� Z[ae�b��bd_�_��k�Z��e�eePQ�R�� Z�� Y�P�� S��Q�� S�� l��Q��i�T��R��m��T��c�� \�� b_d��W\ ��Q� � S� �b�� a��_e�b�� a��_e�b��bdc�dd�k�Z��[[� \��Q��X�� S� d�Zc��b�� b�� d�Zc��b��PQ�R�� Z�� Y�P�� S��Q�� SR��T��S�� l��Q��i�T��SP�� \�� bc__��W\ ��Q� � S� �b�� Z[��b�� Z[��b�� b��d��k�Ze��aeZ \��Q��X�� S� d[��c��b�� b�� d[��c��b�� PQ�R�� Z�� R�� g��X��S�� n�� V��T�� \�� W\ ��V�� S� �ZZ[�edb�� b�� ZZ[�edb�� b��d��k�Ze�Za�Z ��Q� � S� �b�� [�eecdb�� [�eecdb�� PQ�R�S�Q��T �P�Z��Z W��P��S��b��b�S��b�W�m�W�� W��o�Z�[�SP�a��i��W�Q��P��b��W��P \�� b�_��W\ ��W� X��X�� S� Ze��b�� b�� Ze��b�� b��d��k�Ze��aec ��Q� � S� �b�� c��b�� Z��b�� [��b�� PQ�R�S�Q��T �P�Z��Z W��P��S��b��b�S��b�W�m�W�� W��o�Z�[�SP�a��i��W�Q��P��b��W��P \�� b�_��W\ ��W� X��X�� Pi e��b�� b�� e��b�� V�ZZ ��Z��b��d��k�Ze��aec ��Q� � Pi �b�� Ze��b�� Ze��b�� S��f��g� ��V �Pi�� e�� Ze��b�� P�� lgV� ��T��g�� b��i��h��_��iS��PQ�R��!��h��_� \�� b��d�l�� P�� S��Q�� S� Zcde�_be� �_a�Zb�� a_�[b�� b��_a��k�Z[��c�[�� P�Z�� lgV� ��T��g�� h��b�e��b��h�� \�� b��Z��W\ P�� S��Q�� S� e_��[cb�� Ze�_eabe� � � � �cZ�c�cb��b�Z�a[�k�Zc��[_�� P�d lgV� ��T��g�� h��_��p��b��Zb_Z��h��_��p��b \�� Zb�ac�l�� P�� S��Q�� S� ce[Z�Zbe� �Ze[c_b�� Z�cda�[b��b�ZZ��k�Zc��[_cqrstuvwtxy�z{sts�|x}t�t{�z{v~|xtx��{�x�t��{|�v��us�}{��{sts�t�wt�vw��x�tx�y��x�{�y�t�x�}{��xw�s�{}�w��us��{|�v��us��{t�}us�w||��{�st�wu�xy�w�y�us�}{��u�}{�vwtu{��~��~{sxs��X��a��daa P��S�� fZk�ak��fZaf_[�g

H-3

susanc

Rectangle

APPENDIX I Additional Studies

�� !"��#��$%�&'(')*#��+��$%�&'(')*,��-�� .%/)01.')2/2�34560

7�%87 9:;9<;:97= I-1

ryanh

Callout

Project Location

susanc

Text Box

Rush

susanc

Text Box

9745

B03002 HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACEUniverse: Total population2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces anddisseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

Rush County, Indiana Census Tract 9745, Rush County,Indiana

Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of ErrorTotal: 16,765 ***** 4,001 +/-283 Not Hispanic or Latino: 16,511 ***** 3,981 +/-279 White alone 16,111 +/-8 3,954 +/-276 Black or African American alone 229 +/-99 0 +/-11 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 +/-18 0 +/-11 Asian alone 14 +/-18 12 +/-17 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 +/-18 0 +/-11 Some other race alone 45 +/-63 4 +/-8 Two or more races: 112 +/-79 11 +/-21 Two races including Some other race 0 +/-18 0 +/-11 Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races 112 +/-79 11 +/-21 Hispanic or Latino: 254 ***** 20 +/-32 White alone 186 +/-53 20 +/-32 Black or African American alone 9 +/-15 0 +/-11 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 +/-18 0 +/-11 Asian alone 0 +/-18 0 +/-11 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 +/-18 0 +/-11 Some other race alone 40 +/-47 0 +/-11 Two or more races: 19 +/-25 0 +/-11

1 of 2 02/05/2019 I-2

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html

https://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample_size_and_data_quality/


Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Two races including Some other race 19 +/-25 0 +/-11 Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races 0 +/-18 0 +/-11

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. Thevalue shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of errorand the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for adiscussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas;in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.

Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from theACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. Astatistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculatedbecause one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.

2 of 2 02/05/2019 I-3

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation.html/

B17001 POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY SEX BY AGEUniverse: Population for whom poverty status is determined2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces anddisseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.


Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of ErrorTotal: 16,523 +/-108 3,989 +/-281 Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: 3,027 +/-524 963 +/-411 Male: 1,274 +/-283 487 +/-243 Under 5 years 124 +/-82 52 +/-72 5 years 29 +/-34 19 +/-29 6 to 11 years 132 +/-85 73 +/-84 12 to 14 years 55 +/-43 23 +/-35 15 years 25 +/-37 0 +/-11 16 and 17 years 64 +/-48 0 +/-11 18 to 24 years 109 +/-64 50 +/-47 25 to 34 years 197 +/-101 107 +/-76 35 to 44 years 160 +/-79 40 +/-50 45 to 54 years 164 +/-82 85 +/-71 55 to 64 years 88 +/-48 22 +/-23 65 to 74 years 69 +/-49 4 +/-9 75 years and over 58 +/-36 12 +/-16 Female: 1,753 +/-316 476 +/-226 Under 5 years 140 +/-79 47 +/-54 5 years 32 +/-35 22 +/-34

1 of 3 02/05/2019 I-4

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html

https://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample_size_and_data_quality/


Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error 6 to 11 years 216 +/-77 46 +/-41 12 to 14 years 32 +/-36 7 +/-11 15 years 42 +/-32 33 +/-31 16 and 17 years 58 +/-46 42 +/-44 18 to 24 years 228 +/-91 26 +/-38 25 to 34 years 222 +/-79 103 +/-72 35 to 44 years 129 +/-69 36 +/-39 45 to 54 years 186 +/-77 55 +/-55 55 to 64 years 208 +/-84 51 +/-41 65 to 74 years 112 +/-65 0 +/-11 75 years and over 148 +/-71 8 +/-13 Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: 13,496 +/-537 3,026 +/-360 Male: 6,822 +/-293 1,540 +/-192 Under 5 years 310 +/-82 33 +/-30 5 years 61 +/-36 6 +/-10 6 to 11 years 434 +/-96 79 +/-48 12 to 14 years 337 +/-96 109 +/-54 15 years 103 +/-49 7 +/-12 16 and 17 years 179 +/-60 24 +/-21 18 to 24 years 592 +/-72 66 +/-50 25 to 34 years 681 +/-93 137 +/-68 35 to 44 years 835 +/-68 208 +/-72 45 to 54 years 1,054 +/-81 283 +/-86 55 to 64 years 1,111 +/-61 279 +/-77 65 to 74 years 666 +/-56 177 +/-68 75 years and over 459 +/-40 132 +/-53 Female: 6,674 +/-329 1,486 +/-220 Under 5 years 308 +/-81 68 +/-41 5 years 52 +/-47 37 +/-40 6 to 11 years 460 +/-99 90 +/-51 12 to 14 years 306 +/-93 11 +/-14 15 years 152 +/-70 9 +/-14 16 and 17 years 144 +/-50 22 +/-20 18 to 24 years 438 +/-100 148 +/-74 25 to 34 years 665 +/-77 111 +/-56 35 to 44 years 849 +/-81 207 +/-64 45 to 54 years 1,017 +/-90 274 +/-74 55 to 64 years 975 +/-87 213 +/-60 65 to 74 years 747 +/-78 216 +/-69 75 years and over 561 +/-85 80 +/-37

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. Thevalue shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of errorand the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling

2 of 3 02/05/2019 I-5

variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas;in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.

Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from theACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. Astatistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculatedbecause one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.

I-6

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation.html/

Environmental Justice AnalysisDes. No. 1600968, Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement, CR 900 W COC AC1

Rush County, IndianaCensus Tract 9745, Rush County, Indiana

LOW-INCOME

B17001001 Population for whom poverty status is determined: Total 16,523 3,989B17001002 Population for whom poverty status is determined: Income in 2017 below poverty level 3,027 963

Percent Low-Income (Income in 2017 below poverty level/Total population) 18.32% 24.14%125 Percent of COC (125 x COC Percent Low-Income) 22.90% AC <125% COCPotential Low-Income EJ Impact? YES

MINORITYB03002001 Total Population: Total 16,765 4,001B03002002 Total Population: Not Hispanic or Latino 16,511 3,981B03002003 Total Population: Not Hispanic or Latino; White alone 16,111 3,954B03002004 Total Population: Not Hispanic or Latino; Black or African American alone 229 0B03002005 Total Population: Not Hispanic or Latino; American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 0B03002006 Total Population: Not Hispanic or Latino; Asian alone 14 12B03002007 Total Population: Not Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiin and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 0B03002008 Total Population: Not Hispanic or Latino;Some other race alone 45 4B03002009 Total Population: Not Hispanic or Latino;Two or more races 112 11B03002010 Total Population: Hispanic or Latino 254 20B03002011 Total Population: Hispanic or Latino; White alone 186 20B03002012 Total Population: Hispanic or Latino;; Black or African American alone 9 0B03002013 Total Population: Hispanic or Latino; American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 0B03002014 Total Population: Hispanic or Latino;Asian alone 0 0B03002015 Total Population: Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 0B03002016 Total Population: Hispanic or Latino; Some other race alone 40 0B03002017 Total Population: Hispanic or Latino; Two or more races 19 0

Number Non-white/minority (B03002001 - B03002003) 654 47Percent Non-white/Minority (Total population - white alone)/Total population 3.90% 1.17%125 Percent of COC (125 x COC Percent Non-white/Minority) 4.88% AC <125% COCPotential Minority EJ Impact? No

I-7

1

Ryan Hennessey

From: Bales, Ronald <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 11:51 AMTo: Ryan HennesseyCc: Malone, Barbara; Miller, BrandonSubject: RE: EJ Analysis: Des. No. 1600968, Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement, CR 900 W Rush County,

INAttachments: STG1 PlansXsect 1600968 for Bridge Services.pdf; Compiled Data.pdf

INDOT‐Environmental Services Division (ESD) has reviewed the project information along with the Environmental Justice (EJ) Analysis for the above referenced project. The project would require strip right‐of‐way, require no relocations, and would not disrupt community cohesion or create a physical barrier. With the information provided, INDOT‐ESD would not consider the impacts associated with this project as causing a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and/or low incomes populations of EJ concern relative to non EJ populations in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and FHWA Order 6640.23a. No further EJ Analysis is required. Ron Bales Environmental Policy Manager 100 North Senate Ave., Room 642 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 234‐4916 Email: [email protected]

From: Ryan Hennessey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:11 AM To: Bales, Ronald <[email protected]> Subject: EJ Analysis: Des. No. 1600968, Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement, CR 900 W Rush County, IN **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Good Morning Ron, As per Environmental Justice Analysis guidance, I am sending you information about the above referenced project. Please find the attached Data, Map, and Project Plans, and provide a determination about whether or not disproportionate impact to EJ populations is likely to result from this project. During data collection, it was identified that the AC’s percent low‐income was greater than 125% The COC’s percent low‐income. Thank you,

Ryan Hennessey Phone: 317.608.2798 Email: [email protected] Environmental Geologist 6971 Hillsdale Court, Indianapolis, IN 46250

www.metricenv.comComplex Environment. Creative Solutions.Certified DBE/MBE/SBE INDIANAPOLIS | GARY | CINCINNATI

I-8

Date post:	07-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times