Indiana Department of Transportation County
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
1601197
FFHWA-Indiana Environmental Document
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Road No./County:
Fairview Road and Peterman Road, Johnson Co.
Designation Number:
1601197
Project Description/Termini:
Construction of a single-lane roundabout at Fairview Rd. and Peterman Rd. in White River Township, Johnson Co.
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):
X
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) 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
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
2019.06.24 14:18:38 -04'00'
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: Name and Organization of CE/EA Preparer:
This is page 1 of 28
Project name:
Date: Erin Mulryan, Green 3, LLC
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
1601197
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
X
Does the project have a historic bridge processed under the Historic Bridges PA*? 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 July 17, 2018 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-2. To meet the public involvement requirements of Section 106, FHWA’s finding of “No Historic Properties Affected”, a notice was advertised in the Indianapolis Star on February 13, 2019. The public comment period closed 30 days later on March 15, 2019. No comments from the public were received. The text of the public notice and the affidavit of publication appear in Appendix D-11 to D-14. 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 Will the project involve substantial controversy concerning community and/or natural resource impacts? Remarks:
Yes
No
X
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: Local Name of the Facility:
INDOT District:
Johnson County Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Funding Source (mark all that apply):
Federal
X
State
Local
X
Seymour
Other*
*If other is selected, please indentify the funding source:
This is page 2 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
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)
Need: The primary need for the project is due to traffic delays and insufficient capacity at the Fairview/Peterman Road intersection, especially during peak hours. The current level of service (LOS) for the existing 4-way stop controlled intersection is “F”. LOS is used as a measure of effectiveness to evaluate traffic operations at an intersection. Various delay times correspond to letter designations “A” through “F”, with “A” being the best and “F” being the worst. The minimum LOS to meet specifications in the most current Indiana Design Manual is “D”, and this project exceeds the goal by providing an anticipated LOS of “B”. Further increases in traffic delays are expected to continue with increased growth in the area. Purpose: The purpose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion and address future traffic volume deficiencies while also improving local air quality. By improving traffic flow, vehicles will spend less time idling, which will result in less transportation related emissions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE): County:
Municipality:
Johnson
Limits of Proposed Work:
Total Work Length:
N/A
The intersection of Fairview Road and Peterman Road, extending approximately 200 feet east, west, and south and approximately 250 feet north of the existing intersection. 0.16
Mile(s)
Total Work Area:
N/A
Acre(s) Yes1
Is an Interchange Modification Study / Interchange Justification Study (IMS/IJS) required? If yes, when did the FHWA grant a conditional approval for this project?
No X
Date:
1
If 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.
This project proposes construction of a single lane roundabout at the intersection of Fairview Road and Peterman Road near the City of Greenwood, White River Township, Johnson County. See Appendix B-2 to B-4 for project location maps. The project is sponsored by Johnson County and is being funded by the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and local funds. The existing intersection of Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd is a controlled 4-way stop with signs and no turn lanes. Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd are both classified as Urban Collector (Intermediate) roads. The posted speed limit for This is page 3 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
Fairview Rd is 40 mile per hour (MPH) and the posted speed limit for Peterman Rd is 35 MPH. The existing roadways are asphalt with 11-12 foot lanes in each direction. No shoulders are present to the north and east. To the south and west, a 2-4 foot shoulder is present. The roads intersect at nearly right angles. The profiles of both roads are mostly flat with elevation generally increasing from east to west on Fairview Rd and north to south on Peterman Rd. The existing drainage is carried via drain pipes and side ditches. No pedestrian facilities exist in the vicinity of the intersection. The area surrounding the intersection consists of residential subdivisions. This project proposes to construct a single-lane roundabout at the intersection. The cross sections of Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd will consist of two 12-foot wide lanes (one in each direction of travel), widening up to 24 feet within the roundabout (see plan sheet in Appendix B-9). The roadway will be bordered with combined curb and gutter; a roadway drainage system that will convey stormwater runoff during rain events will be included. Concrete sidewalks six feet in width, concrete curb ramps, and marked pedestrian crossings will be provided in all four quadrants. All pedestrian improvements will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the 2018 Abbreviated Engineer’s Assessment, the preferred alternative will provide traffic operations of LOS “B” in peak hours in the 2021 design year and LOS “C” in the peak hours of the 2041 design year. Landscaping and lighting are also planned; locations will be refined as the project budget allows. There are several utilities located within the project limits: gas, sanitary sewer, water, cable, storm, fiberoptic, electrical power, and telephone. The center of the proposed intersection will be located roughly in the same place as the center of the existing intersection. New permanent and temporary right-of-way will need to be acquired in all quadrants of the project. The proposed maintenance of traffic (MOT) will involve a full road closure of the intersection during construction with an official detour that will utilize Smith Valley Rd, SR 135, and Morgantown Rd. The closure and detour are anticipated to last 60 days. Refer to the MOT section in this document. No relocations of businesses or residents will occur, and no impacts to wetlands are anticipated as a result of this project. The total estimated cost of the project including construction, right-of-way, and engineering is $1,489,000. This project is scheduled for a January 2021 letting. The preferred alternative satisfies the purpose and need of the project to reduce congestion at the intersection by improving the traffic capacity of the intersection.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Describe all discarded alternatives, including the Do-Nothing Alternative and an explanation of why each discarded alternative was not selected.
SIGNAL CONTROLLED ALTERNATIVE: The installation of a traffic signal was considered to replace the current four-way stop. This alternative would cost less than the roundabout alternative but would require additional budgeting for signal infrastructure maintenance. Additionally, this alternative does not allow for increased intersection capacity without additional construction costs and right-of-way impacts. DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE: The other alternative considered was the “Do Nothing” alternative. This alternative would cost nothing, but it would not meet the stated purpose and need to reduce traffic congestion at the intersection. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration. No further alternatives were considered.
This is page 4 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
1601197
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; It would not correct existing deteriorated conditions and maintenance problems; or It would result in serious impacts to the motoring public and general welfare of the economy. Other:
X
ROADWAY CHARACTER:
Fairview Road Functional Classification: Current ADT: Design Hour Volume (DHV): Designed Speed (mph):
Urban Collector (Intermediate) 9,910 Design Year ADT: VPD (2016) 1,175 Truck Percentage (%) 0% 40 40 Legal Speed (mph): Existing
Fairview Rd Number of Lanes: Type of Lanes:
ft.
2-4 ft west of ft. intersection; 0 ft east of intersection N/A ft. N/A ft.
Median Width: Sidewalk Width:
6,380
VPD (2041)
2 Asphalt
11-12
Shoulder Width:
VPD (2041)
Proposed
2 Asphalt
Pavement Width:
11,890
Varies 1224 0
ft.
Varies 6
ft. ft.
ft.
Peterman Road Functional Classification: Current ADT: Design Hour Volume (DHV): Designed Speed (mph):
Urban Collector (Intermediate) 5,316 Design Year ADT: VPD (2016) 775 0% Truck Percentage (%) 35 35 Legal Speed (mph): Existing
Peterman Rd Number of Lanes: Type of Lanes: Pavement Width: Shoulder Width: Median Width: Sidewalk Width:
This is page 5 of 28
Proposed
2 Asphalt
2 Asphalt
11-12
ft.
2-4 ft south of intersection; 0 ft north of intersection N/A N/A
Project name:
ft.
ft.
Varies 1224 0
ft. ft.
Varies 6
ft. ft.
ft.
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Setting: Topography:
X
X
Urban Level
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Suburban Rolling
Des. No.
1601197
Rural 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):
Sufficiency Rating:
N/A Existing
Bridge Type: Number of Spans: Weight Restrictions: Height Restrictions: Curb to Curb Width: Outside to Outside Width: Shoulder Width: Length of Channel Work:
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A (Rating, Source of Information)
Proposed N/A N/A Ton ft. ft. ft. ft.
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ton ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.
Describe bridges and structures; provide specific location information for small structures. Remarks: There is one 15-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) that conveys roadside drainage under the east side
of Fairview Road that will be removed. Two 12-inch pipes will be installed under two residential driveways to convey roadside drainage under the driveways when they are reconstructed as part of this project. One will replace an existing six-inch pipe under the existing driveway, and one will be a new pipe. Underdrain pipes will be installed as shown in the plans in Appendix B-10. The purpose of these pipes is to convey roadside drainage under the roadway and will replace the existing drainage features at the intersection. No other bridges, culverts, or small structures are involved in this project.
Yes No Will the structure be rehabilitated or replaced as part of the project? If the proposed action has multiple bridges or small structures, this section should be filled out for each structure.
N/A
X
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (MOT) DURING CONSTRUCTION: Yes Is a temporary bridge proposed? Is a temporary roadway proposed? Will the project involve the use of a detour or require a ramp closure? (describe in remarks) Provisions will be made for access by local traffic and so posted. Provisions will be made for through-traffic dependent businesses. Provisions will be made to accommodate any local special events or festivals. Will the proposed MOT substantially change the environmental consequences of the action? Is there substantial controversy associated with the proposed method for MOT? This is page 6 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
No
X X X X X X
X X Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Remarks:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
1601197
This project will involve the construction of a single-lane roundabout that will require closure of the intersection and a marked detour, with access maintained to all local residences. The proposed detour will utilize Smith Valley Road, SR 135, and Morgantown Road. The additional length of travel will be approximately 4.1 miles, and the additional travel time will be approximately 5 minutes. The estimated length of road closure is 60 days. The closure at the intersection of Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd 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 will occur during construction but will cease with project completion.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULE:
Engineering:
$ 407,000
(2018-2021)
Anticipated Start Date of Construction:
Right-of-Way:
$ 163,000
(2019)
Construction:
$ 1,044,000
(2021)
January 2021 Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-2021 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), approved July 3, 2017 (Appendix H-2)
Date project incorporated into STIP
Note: Costs listed above are from the Indianapolis Regional TIP (Appendix H-3). Engineering costs include Construction Engineering. Is the project in an MPO Area?
Yes X
No
If yes, Name of Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Indianapolis MPO
Location of Project in TIP
Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (Appendix H-3)
Date of incorporation by reference into the STIP
July 3, 2017 (FY 2018-2021 STIP)
This is page 7 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
1601197
RIGHT-OF-WAY: Amount (acres) Land Use Impacts Residential Commercial Agricultural Forest Wetlands Other TOTAL
Permanent
Temporary
0.50 0 0 0 0 0
0.04 0 0 0 0 0
0.50
0.04
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:
The project requires approximately 0.50 acre of permanent right-of-way from adjacent residential properties. The project also requires approximately 0.04 acre of temporary right-of-way from adjacent residential properties. The project will also utilize approximately 0.921 acre of existing right-of-way. 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 Streams, Rivers, Watercourses & Jurisdictional Ditches Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers State Natural, Scenic or Recreational Rivers Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) listed Outstanding Rivers List for Indiana Navigable Waterways Remarks:
Impacts Yes No
X
X
Based on a desktop review, a site visit on September 18, 2018 by Green 3, LLC, the aerial map of the project area (Appendix B-4), and the water resources map in the Red Flag Investigation (RFI; Appendix E-10), there are eight (8) stream/river segments located within the 0.5 mile radius of the project (Appendix E-3). The closest mapped river/stream, Pleasant Run Creek, is located approximately 0.35 mile north of the project area. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map in Appendix B-3, Pleasant Run Creek appears as a blue-line water feature. All mapped rivers and streams are located outside the project
This is page 8 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
area, and therefore the project is not anticipated to impact these features. No Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers, State Natural, Scenic, and Recreational River, Outstanding Rivers for Indiana, Navigable Waterways, or National Rivers Inventory Waterways were identified during the Red Flag Investigation. The existing roadway has one 15-inch CMP located under Fairview Road on the eastern side of the project area; however, no defined ditches were identified in the project area and the CMP appeared to drain water from surrounding upland residential properties. This drainage structure will be removed to accommodate the proposed roundabout. A stormwater drainage system is being developed to convey stormwater runoff during rain events. Environmental review agencies were sent early coordination project information on September 25, 2018 (a full list of agencies included in the mailing can be found in Appendix C-3). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded on September 25, 2018 stating that they have no objections to the proposed project (Appendix C-4). The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) responded on October 23, 2018 (Appendix C-23). Both the USFWS and IDNR provided recommendations to consider to minimize impacts to water resources. Early coordination was also sent to Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District (C-19 to C-20). A representative from Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) provided an email response to that correspondence on September 27-28, 2018 (Appendix C- 18 to C-19) with recommendations for minimizing the amount of sediment that may reach Pleasant Run Creek (located approximately 0.35 mile north of the project) and recommendations for monitoring and maintaining dirt tracked from the project site. IDEM also provides a standard list of recommendations for water quality in their automated response letter to early coordination (Appendix C-6 to C-12). Recommendations include providing appropriate measures to control erosion and storm water runoff and obtaining proper permits. All applicable USFWS, IDNR DFW, and IDEM recommendations are included in the Environmental Commitments of this CE document.
Presence Other Surface Waters Reservoirs Lakes Farm Ponds Detention Basins Storm Water Management Facilities Other: Remarks:
Yes
Impacts No
X
X
Based on a site investigation by Green 3, LLC on September 18, 2018, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map in Appendix F-2, and the RFI report (Appendix E-3), there is one lake within the 0.5-mile search radius. The closest lake is approximately 0.29 mile southeast of the project area. No resource agencies stated any concerns about lakes or any other surface waters in their responses to early coordination (Appendix C). All surface waters are located outside of the project area, and no impacts are expected to occur.
This is page 9 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
1601197
Presence Yes Wetlands
Impacts No
X
Total wetland area:
0
acre(s)
Total wetland area impacted:
X 0
acre(s)
(If a determination has not been made for non-isolated/isolated wetlands, fill in the total wetland area impacted above.) Wetland No.
N/A
Classification
N/A
Total Size (Acres)
N/A
Impacted Acres
N/A
Comments
N/A
Documentation Wetlands (Mark all that apply) Wetland Determination Wetland Delineation USACE Isolated Waters Determination Mitigation Plan
ES Approval Dates
N/A N/A N/A N/A
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; Substantial adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts, or The project not meeting the identified needs. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland impacts need to be discussed in the remarks box. Remarks:
Based on the NWI map in Appendix F-2, the NWI online mapper at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html, the USGS topographic map (Appendix B-3), and the RFI (Appendix E-3), there are two (2) mapped wetlands within the 0.5-mile search radius. The closest mapped wetland is a freshwater pond approximately 0.25-mile northwest of the project area. A site visit was conducted on September 18, 2018 by Green 3, LLC and found the area surrounding the project location consists of maintained residential lawns, and no unmapped wetlands were identified. An early coordination letter was sent to IDEM, IDNR, and the USFWS on September 25, 2018 (Appendix C). No resource agencies stated any specific concerns about wetlands. The IDEM provides a standard list of recommendations for working in wetlands in their automated response letter to early coordination (Appendix C-6 to C-12). Recommendations include obtaining proper permits. All applicable IDEM recommendations are included in the Environmental Commitments of this CE document. According to the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey map (Appendix F-4) the dominant soil types that make up the project area are:
This is page 10 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
SOIL MAP UNIT NAME
CONSIDERED HYDRIC PER NRCS HYDRIC SOILS LIST (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/)?
Fox loam, 0-2% slopes (FoA) Fox loam, 2-6% slopes, eroded (FoB2) Ockley loam, 0-2% slopes (ObaA) Ockley loam, 2-6% slopes, eroded (OcB2) Rensselaer silty clay loam (Re) Whitaker silt loam, 0-2% slopes (Wh)
Yes – Considered a hydric soil Yes – Considered a hydric soil No – Not considered a hydric soil No – Not considered a hydric soil Yes – Considered a hydric soil Yes – Considered a hydric soil
Hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic plants are indicators of the presence of wetlands. All three criteria must be met in order for a site to be considered a wetland under the guidelines of the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual. Since the surrounding areas are maintained lawns, the dominant plants across all vegetative strata of the project area were non-hydrophytic grass mixes, roadside plants, and upland weeds. Due to the lack of any wetland features, it was concluded that there are no unmapped wetlands within the project area. Refer to site photos in Appendix B-5 to B-7. Therefore, it was concluded that this project will have no negative impacts on wetlands. Because no waterways or wetland features were found to be in the project area, a Waters of the U.S. Report was not completed.
Presence
X
Terrestrial Habitat Unique or High Quality Habitat
Impacts Yes No
X
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 18, 2018 by Green 3, LLC, and the aerial map of the project area (Appendix B-4), the terrestrial habitat in the project area consists of lawn, roadside vegetation, and some deciduous and conifer tree cover. The lawn/roadside vegetation is characterized by common lawn species and grasses. Lawn/roadside vegetation shows signs of frequent maintenance and mowing. Tree cover consists primarily of a small number of oak and spruce tree species and is concentrated in the northwest and northeast corners of the project area. Vegetation clearing is anticipated near the corner of each quadrant of the intersection so that the roundabout and sidewalks can be constructed. Tree removal is anticipated to occur only in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the project area. Approximately 0.10 acre of trees and shrubs and 0.20 acre of lawn/roadside vegetation removal will be necessary to accommodate the roundabout structure and sidewalks. The project will include installation of sod to replace the lawn/roadside vegetation that will be removed (see plan sheet in Appendix B-9). Early Coordination letters and project information were mailed to environmental review agencies on September 25, 2018 (Appendix C). The USFWS, in their September 25, 2018 email response (Appendix C4), recommended not clearing trees and understory vegetation outside of the construction zone boundaries. IDEM’s automatic response letter dated September 26, 2018 (Appendix C-6 to C-12) did not provide specific
This is page 11 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
1601197
recommendations regarding impacts to terrestrial habitat. The IDNR DFW provide a list of recommendations to minimize impacts to terrestrial habitat during construction and to mitigate following construction in their response letter received October 23, 2018 (Appendix C-23). All applicable recommendations have been included in the Environmental Commitments at the end 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.
Karst Is the proposed project located within or adjacent to the potential Karst Area of Indiana? Are karst features located within or adjacent to the footprint of the proposed project?
Yes
No
X 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, a site visit on September 18, 2018 by Green 3, LLC, the USGS topographic map of the project area (Appendix B-3), and the RFI report (Appendix E-3), the proposed project is located outside the designated karst region of Indiana as outlined in the October 13, 1993 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). There are no karst features identified within the project area. In the September 26, 2018 early coordination response, the Indiana Geological Survey (IGS) did not indicate that karst features may exist in the project area (Appendix C-13). The IGS response did list moderate liquefaction potential as a geological hazard. According to the IGS Miscellaneous Map 81, liquefaction is a common ground-failure hazard associated with earthquakes. It is defined as the sudden and temporary loss of strength of a watersaturated sediment. This could result in the structural failure of buildings, bridges, and other structures. The IGS response letter also listed bedrock as a moderate potential mineral resource and sand and gravel as a low potential mineral resource. There are no active or abandoned mineral resource extraction sites documented in the project area. The features will not be affected because the project area is in an urban setting and surrounded by residential development, therefore mining of mineral resources is unlikely. Therefore, no impacts are expected.
Presence Threatened or Endangered Species Within the known range of any federal species Any critical habitat identified within project area Federal species found in project area (based upon informal consultation) State species found in project area (based upon consultation with IDNR) Yes Is Section 7 formal consultation required for this action? Remarks:
Impacts Yes No
X
X
No
X
Based on a desktop review and the RFI (Appendix E), completed by Green 3, LLC on October 2, 2018, the IDNR Johnson County Endangered, Threatened, and Rare (ETR) Species List has been checked and is included (Appendix E-12 to E-13). 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
This is page 12 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
received October 23, 2018, the Natural Heritage Program’s data have been checked. No federally threatened, endangered, or rare plant or animal species have been reported to occur in the project vicinity (Appendix C23). Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat The project qualifies for the Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat (NLEB), dated May 2016 (revised February 2018), between FHWA, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and USFWS. Project information was submitted through the USFWS’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) portal, and an official species list was generated (Appendix C-59 to C-64). No additional species were found within the project area. Johnson County is within range of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis). In addition, an effect determination key was completed on November 14, 2018, and based on the responses provided, the project was found to “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the Indiana bat and/or the NLEB (Appendix C-44 to C-57). INDOT verified the effect finding, issued a concurrence letter, and requested USFWS’s review of the finding on November 21, 2018 (Appendix C-29 to C-43). No response was received from USFWS within the 14-day period; therefore, it was concluded they concur with the finding. Avoidance and Mitigation Measures (AMMs) are included as firm commitments in the Environmental Commitments section of this document. 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 Drinking Water Resources Wellhead Protection Area Public Water System(s) Residential Well(s) Source Water Protection Area(s) Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)
Impacts Yes No
X X
X X
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 Johnson 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. No impacts are expected. The IDEM Wellhead Proximity Determinator website (http://www.in.gov/idem/cleanwater/pages/wellhead/) was accessed on December 7, 2018 by Green 3, LLC. This project is located within a Wellhead Protection Area. In an early coordination letter dated December 13, 2018, IDEM stated the project is located within a
This is page 13 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
wellhead area (Appendix C-24). An early coordination letter was sent to the owner of the wellhead, Indiana American Water, on December 18, 2018. In a response letter dated December 18, 2018 (Appendix C-26), Indiana American Water stated that the project is located within the 1-year Time of Travel Zone and outlines best management practices to be utilized throughout construction in order to avoid contamination of drinking water in the area. Indiana American Water also requested to access to the worksite at any time during construction in order to ensure that best management practices are being followed. All management controls requested by Indiana American Water are included in the Environmental Commitments section at the end of this document. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources Water Well Record Database website (https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/3595.htm) was accessed on May 31, 2019 by Green 3, LLC. The nearest well is located approximately 0.34 mile southeast of the project area. The features will not be affected because of the distance between the project and this well. Therefore, no impacts are expected. Should it be determined during the right-of-way phase that these wells are affected, a cost to cure will likely be included in the appraisal to restore the wells. Based on a desktop review of the INDOT Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) website (https://entapps.indot.in.gov/MS4/) by Green 3, LLC on February 5, 2019, and the RFI report (Appendix E4), this project is located in an Urbanized Area Boundary (UAB) location. An early coordination letter was sent on September 25, 2018 to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning MS4 contact. Because the project is near the City of Greenwood the Stormwater/MS4 Coordinator for the City was also sent early coordination project information. No responses were received from either entity within the 30-day time frame. Based on a site investigation on September 18, 2018 by Green 3, LLC and review of the project plans and October 2018 Abbreviated Engineer’s Report by Crossroad Engineers P.C., this project is located in an area with a public water system. An early coordination letter was sent to Indiana American Water, the owner of the public water system, on December 18, 2018. Indiana American Water responded in a letter dated December 18, 2018 but did not provide recommendations specific to impacts to the public water system. It is anticipated that some minimal impacts due to relocation will be necessary due to the scope of the project, however, through coordination with Indiana American Water, no water supply lines will be adversely affected by the project.
Presence Flood Plains Longitudinal Encroachment
Impacts Yes No
Transverse Encroachment Project located within a regulated floodplain 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:
The IDNR Indiana Floodway Information Portal website (http://dnrmaps.dnr.in.gov/appsphp/fdms/) was accessed on February 5, 2019 by Green 3, LLC. This project is not located in a regulatory floodplain as determined from floodplain maps (Appendix F-3). Therefore, it does not fall within the guidelines for the implementation of 23 CFR 650, 23 CFR 771, and 44 CFR. No impacts are expected.
This is page 14 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
Presence
Impacts Yes No
Farmland Agricultural Lands Prime Farmland (per NRCS) Total Points (from Section VII of CPA-106/AD-1006*
1601197
N/A
*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 18, 2018 by Green 3, LLC, the aerial map of the project area (Appendix B-4), and an early coordination response from the NRCS dated October 12, 2018 (Appendix C-22), there is no land that meets the definition of farmland under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) within or adjacent to the project area. The requirements of the FPPA do not apply to this project; therefore, no impacts are expected.
SECTION C – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Category
Type
INDOT Approval Dates
N/A X
Minor Projects PA Clearance Eligible and/or Listed Resource Present
Results of Research Archaeology NRHP Buildings/Site(s) NRHP District(s) NRHP Bridge(s)
Project Effect No Historic Properties Affected
X
No Adverse Effect Documentation Prepared
Documentation (mark all that apply) Historic Properties Short Report Historic Property Report Archaeological Records Check/ Review Archaeological Phase Ia Survey Report Archaeological Phase Ic Survey Report Archaeological Phase II Investigation Report Archaeological Phase III Data Recovery APE, Eligibility and Effect Determination 800.11 Documentation
This is page 15 of 28
Project name:
Adverse Effect
ES/FHWA Approval Date(s)
SHPO Approval Date(s)
X
ES/FHWA 9/27/2018
SHPO 11/1/2018
X
ES/FHWA 11/27/2018
SHPO 12/21/2018
X X
ES/FHWA 2/7/2019 ES/FHWA 2/7/2019
SHPO 2/27/2019 SHPO 2/27/2019
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
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:
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires that federal agencies identify and assess the effects of federal projects, programs, and actions on historic resources. This includes projects that are supported by federal funds. The Section 106 process was managed by Green 3, LLC, who is listed on the IDNR Department of Historic Preservation and Archaeology’s Roster of Qualified Professionals. Area of Potential Effects (APE): According to 36 CFR 800.16(d), the APE is defined as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking…” The APE for this project was established based on the viewshed from the project alignment in all directions. This includes the area of proposed construction as well as adjacent property within the viewshed that could be affected by the project. The APE extended north approximately 815 linear feet, south approximately 565 linear feet, east approximately 625 linear feet, and west approximately 580 linear feet from the Fairview/Peterman Road intersection. Refer to Appendix D-38 for an aerial map of the APE. Coordination with Consulting Parties: On October 2, 2018, the following parties were sent early coordination letters, a copy of the draft Historic Property Short Report (HPSR), and invitations to become Consulting Parties (see Appendix D-25 to D-30): Consulting Party Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer Indiana Landmarks, Central Office Johnson County Historian Johnson County Historical Society/Museum Restore Old Town Greenwood Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (IMPO) Johnson County Commissioners Mayor of Greenwood Greenwood Street Superintendent Johnson County Highway Director Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians
Response No Response October 30, 2018; accepted invitation No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response November 7, 2018; accepted invitation No Response No Response
Note: the IDNR State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO and INDOT Cultural Resources Office (CRO) are automatically included as Consulting Parties.
This is page 16 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
Archaeology: An Indiana Archaeological Literature Review and Phase 1a Reconnaissance (Jackson, November 2018) was approved by INDOT CRO and made available for review to consulting parties on November 27, 2018 (Appendix D-20). The report concluded that no archaeological sites listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) exist within the project area and recommended project clearance (Appendix D-32 to D-34). A hard copy of the approved report was mailed to SHPO for review and concurrence on November 27, 2018. SHPO concurred with the findings in the report in their letter dated December 21, 2018 stating “we have not identified any currently known archaeological resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the proposed project area, and we concur that no further archaeological investigations appear necessary at the proposed project area.” (Appendix D-18 to D-19). Historic Properties: An HPSR was completed for this project (Zeigler, September 2018). This HPR was written as part of the Section 106 process and included the boundaries of the APE for this project. INDOT CRO approved the HPSR for distribution to SHPO and Consulting Parties on September 27, 2018. The HPSR was made available to SHPO and Consulting Parties for review on October 2, 2018 (Appendix D-25 to D-30). The HPSR found no above-ground properties in the APE that are listed in the NRHP and none were recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP. Thirteen (13) resources were evaluated as Contributing. These properties were further investigated for NRHP-eligibility and the HPSR concluded the following: 1) 331 Peterman Road (ID G1) was not eligible for the NRHP. 2) 371 Peterman Road (ID G2) was not eligible for the NRHP. 3) 381 Peterman Road (ID G3) was not eligible for the NRHP. 4) 389 Peterman Road (ID G4) was not eligible for the NRHP. 5) 3955 Fairview Road (ID G5) was not eligible for the NRHP. 6) 3927 Fairview Road (ID G6) was not eligible for the NRHP. 7) 3883 Fairview Road (ID G7) was not eligible for the NRHP. 8) 3910 Fairview Road (ID G8) was not eligible for the NRHP. 9) 3928 Fairview Road (ID G9) was not eligible for the NRHP. 10) 3952 Fairview Road (ID G10) was not eligible for the NRHP. 11) 3996 Fairview Road (ID G11) was not eligible for the NRHP. 12) 402 Peterman Road (ID G12) was not eligible for the NRHP. 13) 500 Peterman Road (ID G13) was not eligible for the NRHP.
The Indiana SHPO concurred with the findings of the HPSR in their letter dated November 1, 2018, agreeing with Green3, LLC’s assessment that none of the above ground properties that were identified in the HPSR appear to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (Appendix D-22 to D-23). Documentation, Findings: A Finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” for this project was approved by INDOT CRO on February 7, 2019 (Appendix D-6 to D-9) and distributed to Consulting Parties and SHPO on February 8, 2019 (Appendix D-16 to D-17) for a 30-day review period, which ended on March 9, 2019. No comments from Consulting Parties were received. SHPO concurred with the finding in their letter dated February 27, 2019 (Appendix D-3 to D-4). Public Involvement: A notice informing the public of the finding and opportunity to comment on the “No Historic Properties Affected” finding was published in the Indianapolis Star on February 13, 2019. No comments were received during the public comment period, which was published in the public notice to end on March 15, 2019. Refer to Appendix D-11 to D-14 for the publisher’s affidavit and text of the public notice.
This is page 17 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
The Section 106 process has been completed 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 Parks & Other Recreational Land Publicly owned park Publicly owned recreation area Other (school, state/national forest, bikeway, etc.)
Use Yes
No
Evaluations Prepared FHWA Approval date
Programmatic Section 4(f)* “De minimis” Impact* Individual Section 4(f) Presence Wildlife & Waterfowl Refuges National Wildlife Refuge National Natural Landmark State Wildlife Area State Nature Preserve
Use Yes
No
Evaluations Prepared FHWA Approval date
Programmatic Section 4(f)* “De minimis” Impact* Individual Section 4(f) Presence Historic Properties Sites eligible and/or listed on the NRHP
Use Yes
No
Evaluations Prepared FHWA Approval date
Programmatic Section 4(f)* “De minimis” Impact* Individual Section 4(f)
*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
This is page 18 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
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 18, 2018 by Green 3, LLC, the aerial map of the project area (Appendix B-4), and the RFI report (Appendix E), there are no Section 4(f) resources within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, no impacts are 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 US 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.lwcfcoalition.com/tools revealed a total of two properties in Johnson County (Appendix I-2). None of these properties are located within or adjacent to the project area. 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 Is the project in an air quality non-attainment or maintenance area? 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)?
Yes
No
X X X
Level of MSAT Analysis required? Level 1a
X
This is page 19 of 28
Level 1b
Project name:
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County Remarks:
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
The Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Project is listed in the FY 2018-2021 Indiana STIP that was approved on July 3, 2017 (Appendix H-2). This project is within the Indianapolis MPO and is included in the FY 2018-2021 Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Program (IRTIP) in Amendment 18-00 on July 3, 2017 (Appendix H-3). This project is located in Johnson County, which is included on the nonattainment list for 8-Hour Ozone (O3) and Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) pollutants (See IDEM’s County List of All Regulated Criteria Pollutants at http://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/files/nonattainment_county_list.pdf). However, the county reached attainment for O3 on June 15, 2009 and PM2.5 on April 5, 2010. This project has been identified as being exempt from air quality analysis in accordance with 40 CFR Part 93.126 and this project is not a project of air quality concern (40 CFR Part 93.123). Therefore, the project will have no significant impact on air quality. This project is of a type qualifying as a categorical exclusion (Group 1) under 23 CFR 771.117 (c) and 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
Is a noise analysis required in accordance with FHWA regulations and INDOT’s traffic noise policy?
ES Review of Noise Analysis Remarks:
No X
No
X
Yes/ Date
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 Will the proposed action comply with the local/regional development patterns for the area? Will the proposed action result in substantial impacts to community cohesion? Will the proposed action result in substantial impacts to local tax base or property values? Will construction activities impact community events (festivals, fairs, etc.)? Does the community have an approved transition plan? 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) Remarks:
Yes
No
X X X X X X
According to the IMPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan, the IMPO’s goals include implementing strategies that address congested transportation segments. This plan can be found at: https://www.indympo.org/whats-underway/lrtp. The Johnson County Comprehensive Plan lists improving the transportation system by designing safe intersections that remain efficient for anticipated future traffic volumes as a primary goal. This project is consistent with the goals of the IMPO Long Range Transportation
This is page 20 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
Plan and the Johnson County Comprehensive Plan to reduce congestion in the transportation system and to design intersections that are safe and efficient. This project is also consistent with Johnson County Comprehensive Plan goals to improve pedestrian and bike mobility in the region through increasing the sidewalk and trail network. Both Johnson County Plans can be found at: http://co.johnson.in.us/government/administrative/department-of-planning-zoning/. This project will provide an improved LOS and reduce congestion while providing safe pedestrian crossings for future pedestrian connectivity at the intersection of Fairview Road and Peterman Road. This project will not substantially impact the tax base or property values. The project will require approximately 0.5 acre of permanent right-of-way from adjacent properties. The right-of-way acquisition will only impact drive and landscape improvements on the properties and will not cause any relocation of businesses or residences. Approximately 0.04 acres of temporary right-of-way will be required for the project. A search of www.fairsandfestivals.net and https://aroundindy.com/Johnsonco.php on April 1, 2019 for events to be held around the project area revealed annual special events and festivals. Also, schools in the area will likely have various sporting and band/choir events that will be minimally impacted by the detour. Since an official detour with clearly marked signage will be used during construction, impacts to community cohesion and local events will be minimized. It was concluded that the project will not substantially impact community cohesion or adversely impact local community events. Johnson County has an ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan (dated May 2015) in place, which can be found at: http://co.johnson.in.us/ (left side of page). All newly constructed structures will be in compliance with that plan. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Will the proposed action result in substantial indirect or cumulative impacts? Remarks:
Yes
No
X
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. This project involves the construction of a single lane roundabout with sidewalks and crossings. This project will not result in induced changes in the pattern of land use, the population density, or the growth rate of the area. The project will not result in indirect effects on air, water, or natural systems (direct effects on air, water, and natural systems have been discussed in previous sections of this document). This project will not result in incremental impacts to the environment nor will it result in cumulative impacts from collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. In conclusion, this project will not result in indirect or cumulative impacts.
Public Facilities & Services 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.
This is page 21 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Yes
No
X
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County Remarks:
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
Based on desktop review, a site investigation on September 18, 2018 by Green 3, LLC, the aerial map of the project area (Appendix B-4), a review of the preliminary plans in Appendix B-8 to B-12, and the RFI report in Appendix E, there are no religious facilities, airports, health facilities (hospitals), public transportation facilities, educational facilities (schools), or trails within 0.5 mile of the project area. There are also no pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) along Fairview or Peterman Roads in the vicinity of the project. No airports were identified within the 0.5 mile or 3.8 mile (20,000) search radius. Although there are no schools located within the 0.5 mile radius of the project area, there are several schools located in the area, including Center Grove Middle School North and Pleasant Grove Elementary, which are located approximately 1.15 miles west of the Fairview Road and Peterman Road intersection. Therefore, it is likely that bus routes will be impacted by the detour. Access to all properties will be maintained during construction. Utilities in the area are owned by AT&T, Vectren Gas, Duke Energy, Zayo Bandwidth, City of Greenwood Sanitation, Johnson County REMC, Indiana American Water, Comcast, Metro Fibernet LLC, and Indianapolis Power & Light. Utilities are located both overhead and buried in the project area and in the vicinity of the intersection. The RFI identified one gas main owned by Vectren Gas located within the project area (Appendix E-3); coordination with the owner will occur. Utility relocations will occur as a result of this project. Coordination with utility companies has been initiated by project engineers and will continue as the project progresses to ensure that impacts to utilities are avoided or minimized. It is the responsibility of the project sponsor to continue to coordinate with utility companies to ensure impacts to facilities are avoided or minimized in accordance with Environmental Commitments at the end of this document. Emergency services will be impacted by the road closure and detour. It is the responsibility of the project sponsor to notify emergency services at least two weeks prior to any construction that would block or limit access (see Environmental Commitments at the end of this document). Early coordination letters were not sent to public facilities. 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. Refer to the Environmental Commitments at the end of this document.
Environmental Justice (EJ) (Presidential EO 12898) During the development of the project were EJ issues identified? Does the project require an EJ analysis? If YES, then: Are any EJ populations located within the project area? Will the project result in adversely high or disproportionate impacts to EJ populations? Remarks:
Yes
No
X X X X
Under FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA and Johnson County, 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. This project will require more than 0.5 acres of right-of-way, but will require no relocations. Therefore, an EJ Analysis is required.
This is page 22 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Route
Johnson
Des. No.
1601197
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 Johnson County, Indiana. The community that overlaps the project limits is called the affected community (AC). In this project, the AC is Johnson County Census Tract 6106.03. 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 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates was obtained from the US Census Bureau Website (https://factfinder.census.gov/) on December 26, 2018 by Green 3, LLC. The data collected for minority and low-income populations within the AC are summarized in the below table.
COC: Johnson County AC 1: Johnson County Tract 6106.03 125% of low income & minority populations of the COC EJ Population?
Percent Low-Income 9.4 1.3
Percent Non-White/Minority 9.7 2.4
11.8
12.1
No
No
AC-1, Census Tract 6106.03, has a percent low-income of 1.3% which is below 50% and is below the 125% COC threshold. This AC do not contain low-income populations of EJ concern. AC-1, Census Tract 6106.03, has a percent minority of 2.4% which is below 50% and is below the 125% COC threshold. This AC do not contain minority populations of EJ concern. The census data sheets, map, and calculations can be found in Appendix I-3 to I-8. Because no EJ populations were found, the analysis and supporting documentation was not submitted to INDOT ESD for review and concurrence. No further EJ analysis is warranted.
Relocation of People, Businesses or Farms
Yes
Will the proposed action result in the relocation of people, businesses or farms? Is a Business Information Survey (BIS) required? Is a Conceptual Stage Relocation Study (CSRS) required? Has utility relocation coordination been initiated for this project? Number of relocations:
Residences:
0
Businesses:
0
Farms:
No
X X X X 0
Other:
0
If a BIS or CSRS is required, discuss the results in the remarks box. Remarks:
This project will not result in the relocations of residences, businesses, or farms. Public utilities within the project area will require relocation. Utility coordination by project engineers is currently ongoing to minimize impacts (see Environmental Commitments at the end of this document).
This is page 23 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
SECTION H – HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & REGULATED SUBSTANCES
Documentation Hazardous Materials & Regulated Substances (Mark all that apply) Red Flag Investigation Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) Design/Specifications for Remediation required? No ES Review of Investigations
X
Yes/ Date 12/12/2018
Include a summary of findings for each investigation. Remarks:
Based on a review of GIS and available public records, an RFI was completed by Green 3, LLC on October 2, 2018 and approved by INDOT SAM on December 12, 2019 (Appendix E). 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) Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Other Wetland Mitigation required Stream Mitigation required IDEM Section 401 WQC Isolated Wetlands determination Rule 5 Other Wetland Mitigation required Stream Mitigation required
X
IDNR Construction in a Floodway Navigable Waterway Permit Lake Preservation Permit Other Mitigation Required
This is page 24 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
US Coast Guard Section 9 Bridge Permit Others (Please discuss in the remarks box below)
Remarks:
An IDEM Rule 5 permit will be required if land disturbance exceeds one acre. Applicable IDEM recommendations are included in the Environmental Commitments section of this document. If a Rule 5 permit is found to be necessary, the conditions of the permit will be requirements of the project and will supersede these recommendations. In their October 23, 2018 early coordination response, the IDNR stated that formal approval by the agency under the regulatory programs administered by the Division of Water is not required for this project. It is the responsibility of the project sponsor, Johnson County, 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.
If the scope of work or permanent or temporary right-of-way amounts change, the INDOT ESD and the INDOT District Environmental Section will be contacted immediately. (INDOT ESD) 2. If any prehistoric or historic archaeological artifacts or human remains are uncovered during construction, demolition, or earthmoving activities, state law (Indiana Code 14-21-1-27 and 29) requires that the discovery must be reported to the IDNR DHPA within two (2) business days. In that event, call (317) 232-1646. (IDNR DHPA) 3. Obtain a Rule 5 Storm Water Runoff Permit from the Office of Water Quality if there will be a disturbance of land area over one acre. (IDEM) 4. 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. 5. Coordination by the project sponsor, Johnson County, will occur with the Johnson County Surveyor office prior to construction and prior to disturbing the section corner monuments located in the project area. (Johnson County Surveyor) 6. 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 environmental commitments, including all applicable AMMs. (USFWS) 7. Lighting AMM 1: Direct temporary lighting away from suitable habitat during the active season. (USFWS) 8. Lighting AMM 2: When installing new or replacing existing permanent lights, use downwardfacing, full cut-off lens lights (with same intensity or less for replacement lighting); or for those transportation agencies using the BUG system developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society, be as close to 0 for all three ratings with a priority of “uplight” of 0 and “backlight” as low as practicable. (USFWS) 9. Tree Removal AMM 1: Modify all phases/aspects of the project (e.g., temporary work areas, alignments) to avoid tree removal. (USFWS) 10. Tree Removal AMM 2: Apply time of year restrictions for tree removal when bats are not likely to be present (only clear from October 1 through April 30), or limit tree removal to 10 or fewer This is page 25 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
20. 21.
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
trees per project at any time of year within 100 feet of existing road surface and outside of documented roosting/foraging habitat or travel corridors; visual emergence survey must be conducted with no bats observed. (USFWS) 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. (USFWS) Tree Removal AMM 4: Do not remove documented Indiana bat or NLEB roosts that are still suitable for roosting, or trees within 0.25 mile or roosts, or documented foraging habitat any time of year. (USFWS). Prior to commencement of construction, provide a list of chemicals to be used and/or stored and a contingency plan outlining response procedure in the case of a release to Indiana American Water. (Indiana American Water) All chemicals on-site must have proper labels and be stored in secondary containment capable of holding 110% of the volume. The contractor should complete and document weekly inspections of all chemical tanks and secondary containment structures. (Indiana American Water) Immediately notify Indiana American Water of a chemical spill or leak onto the ground or into a waterway. Emergency Number: 317-300-4779. (Indiana American Water) All solid waste generated by clearing and grubbing, demolition or other construction practices be moved to locations outside of the wellhead protection area at the end of the day. (Indiana American Water) The following items are prohibited: fertilizer, pesticide, or herbicide application; explosives or any type of blasting to remove stone or other material; re-fueling of equipment on-site; concrete truck or other wash out areas. (Indiana American Water) Indiana American Water would like to have the right to conduct site visits at any time during construction to ensure compliance with these management controls. (Indiana American Water) If a spill occurs or contaminated soils or ground water are encountered during construction, appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) will be utilized. Contaminated materials will need to be properly handled and disposed of in accordance with current regulations. IDEM should be notified through the spill line at (888) 233-7745 within 24 hours of discovery of contamination from an Underground Storage Tank system and within 2 hours of discovery of a spill. (IDEM) One or more sediment control measures will be necessary for all inlets on-site; a measure that allows water to enter the inlet while filtering it is preferred to minimize ponding. (IDEM) Perimeter protection is necessary. IDEM Rule 5 regulations require that a self-monitoring program is implemented which includes a trained individual performing a written evaluation of the project site by the end of the next business day following each measurable storm event and at a minimum of one time per week. IDEM recommends that at least one trained individual is on site daily while construction activities are occurring in order to quickly respond to issues and thus minimize complaints. (IDEM)
For Further Consideration: 22. A stable construction site access shall be provided at all points of construction traffic ingress and egress to the project site. (IDEM) 23. IDEM recommends having a plan to have a sweeper available in the event that tracking during key construction months occurs. (IDEM) 24. Wastes and unused building materials shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable statutes and regulations. (IDEM) 25. Public or private roadways shall be kept cleared of accumulated sediment that is a result of runoff or tracking. (IDEM) This is page 26 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
26. Reasonable precautions must be taken to minimize fugitive dust emissions from construction and demolition activities. Dirt tracked onto paved roads from unpaved areas should be minimized. (IDEM) 27. Ensure that asphalt paving plants are permitted and operate properly. The use of cutback asphalt, or asphalt emulsion containing more than seven percent (7%) oil distillate, is prohibited during the months of April through October. See 326 IAC 852, Asphalt Paving Rule (http://www.ai.org/legislative/iac/T03260/A00080.PDF). (IDEM) 28. Revegetate all bare and disturbed areas with a mixture of grasses (excluding all varieties of tall fescue) and legumes as soon as possible upon completion; low endophyte tall fescue may be used in the ditch bottom and side slopes only. (IDNR) 29. Plant five trees, at least 2 inches in diameter-at-breast-height, for each tree which is removed that is 10 inches or greater in diameter-at-breast-height. (IDNR) 30. Appropriately designed measures for controlling erosion and sediment must be implemented to prevent sediment from entering the stream or leaving the construction site; maintain these measures until construction is complete and all disturbed areas are stabilized. (IDNR) 31. Post “do not mow or spray” signs along the right-of-way. (IDNR) 32. Seed and protect all disturbed streambanks and slopes 3:1 or steeper with erosion control blankets (follow manufacturer’s instructions), and seed and mulch on all other disturbed areas. (IDNR) 33. Re-vegetate “low maintenance” areas with a mixture of grasses (excluding all varieties of tall fescue), legumes, and native shrub and hardwood tree species as soon as possible upon completion; low endophyte tall fescue may be used in “high maintenance areas only. (IDNR) 34. Do not clear trees or understory vegetation outside of the construction zone boundaries. (This restriction is not related to the “tree clearing” restriction for potential Indiana Bat habitat) (USFWS) 35. Implement temporary erosion and siltation control devices within areas of disturbed soil. All disturbed areas upon completion will be vegetated following INDOT’s standard specifications. (USFWS) 36. Post DO NOT DISTURB signs at the construction zone boundaries and o not clear trees or understory vegetation outside of the construction zone boundaries. (USFWS)
This is page 27 of 28
Project name:
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
Indiana Department of Transportation County
Route
Johnson
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd
Des. No.
1601197
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:
Early Coordination packets were sent to regulatory agencies and local government offices on September 25, 2018. Responses received from agencies are listed below. Note: Due to the project’s proximity to the City of Greenwood’s boundaries, city representatives were included in the early coordination mailing.
Agency IDNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife IDEM Automated Response (Online) USFWS HUD Johnson County Council Johnson County Soil and Water
Johnson County Surveyor Johnson County Planning and Zoning MS4 Contact Greenwood Stormwater/MS4 Coordinator Greenwood Street Department Greenwood Sanitation Department Greenwood Mayor Indianapolis MPO NRCS IGS IDEM Groundwater Section INDOT Office of Public Involvement Indiana American Water National Park Service
This is page 28 of 28
Project name:
September 25, 2016 Early Coordination Response Dates 10/23/18 9/26/18 9/25/18 No response No response No response (early coordination forwarded to an IDEM Storm Water Specialist for review and response) 9/26/18 No response No response No response 10/2/18 No response No response 10/12/18 9/26/18 12/13/18 9/26/18 12/28/18 No Response
Fairview Rd & Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Form Version: June 2013
Attachment 2
Date:
June 4, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A- INDOT Supporting Documentation
Page A1
CE Level Threshold Chart
A2
Appendix B – Graphics
B1
Maps of the Project Area Site Photographs Preliminary Plans
B2-B4 B5-B7 B8-B12
Appendix C – Early Coordination
C1
9/25/2018 Early Coordination Letter to Agencies & Mailing List Agency Responses 2016 USFWS Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation USFWS Official Species List
C2-C3 C4-C26 C27-C57 C58-C64
Appendix D – Section 106 of the DHPA
D1
Indiana SHPO 800.11 Effect Finding Concurrence 800.11 Documentation and Effect Finding Publishers Affidavit and Public Notice Consulting Party Correspondence Archaeological Short Report Summary & Conclusions Excerpts from Historic Properties Report
D2-D4 D5-D9 D10-D14 D15-D30 D31-D34 D35-D38
Appendix E – Red Flag Investigation
E1
Appendix F – Water Resources
F1
Red Flag Investigation Form Supporting Maps Threatened & Endangered Species list for Johnson County NWI Map Floodplain Map NRCS Soil Survey Map
E2-E6 E7-E11 E12-E13 F2 F3 F4
Appendix G – Public Involvement
G1
Notice of Entry Letter for Property Owners
G2
Appendix H – Air Quality
H1
Indiana STIP FY 2018-2021 Documentation Indianapolis MPO TIP FY 2018-2021 Documentation
H2 H3
Appendix I – Additional Studies and Information
I1
Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) properties in Johnson Co. Environmental Justice Analysis
I2 I3-I8
Des No 1601197 Appendix A Threshold Chart
A-1
Categorical Exclusion Level Thresholds
Section 106
Stream Impacts Wetland Impacts 3
Right-of-way Relocations
Threatened/Endangered Species (Species Specific Programmatic for Indiana bat & northern long eared bat) Threatened/Endangered Species (Any other species)
Environmental Justice
Sole Source Aquifer Floodplain Coastal Zone Consistency National Wild and Scenic River New Alignment Section 4(f) Impacts Section 6(f) Impacts Added Through Lane Permanent Traffic Alteration Coast Guard Permit Noise Analysis Required Air Quality Analysis Required Approval Level • District Env. Supervisor • Env. Services Division • FHWA
PCE
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 41
Falls within guidelines of Minor Projects PA
“No Historic Properties Affected”
“No Adverse Effect”
-
No construction in waterways or water bodies No adverse impacts to wetlands Property acquisition for preservation only or none None “No Effect”, “Not likely to Adversely Affect" (Without AMMs4 or with AMMs required for all projects5) Falls within guidelines of USFWS 2013 Interim Policy No disproportionately high and adverse impacts Detailed Assessment Not Required No Substantial Impacts Consistent Not Present
< 300 linear feet of stream impacts < 0.1 acre
≥ 300 linear feet of stream impacts -
-
“Adverse Effect” Or Historic Bridge involvement2 Individual 404 Permit
< 1 acre
≥ 1 acre
< 0.5 acre
≥ 0.5 acre
-
-
“Not likely to Adversely Affect" (With any other AMMs)
-
<5 “Likely to Adversely Affect”
≥5 Project does not fall under Species Specific Programmatic
“No Effect”, “"Not likely to Adversely Affect" -
-
-
“Likely to Adversely Affect”
-
-
Potential6
-
-
-
Detailed Assessment
-
-
-
-
-
-
Substantial Impacts Not Consistent Present
-
-
-
Any Any Any Any Any Any Yes Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
None None None None None None No No Concurrence by INDOT District Environmental or Environmental Services
1
Coordinate with INDOT Environmental Services. INDOT will then coordinate with the appropriate FHWA Environmental Specialist. Any involvement with a bridge processed under the Historic Bridge Programmatic Agreement. 3 Permanent and/or temporary right-of-way. 4 AMMs = Avoidance and Mitigation Measures. 5 AMMs 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”. 6 Potential for causing a disproportionately high and adverse impact. 7 Hot Spot Analysis and/or MSAT Quantitative Emission Analysis. *Substantial public or agency controversy may require a higher-level NEPA document. 2
A-2
Des No 1601197 Appendix B Graphics
B-1
Project Location Map Roundabout Construction Fairview Road and Peterman Road Des. No. 1601197 Johnson County, Indiana Source: Indiana Geological Survey
Project Location
/ 0 0.75 1.5
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
3 Miles
County Boundary Johnson County
B-2
PR
CR KW O D
SAN RICARDO CT
VILLAS DR
R
FAIRVIEW RD
OW HIL
EC
DM
SHA
T ILL
DO
WH
R
I LL
CT
0.14 Miles
IND HW
CT
WIN
SHADOWHILL LN
UT
SOUTHWIND
WIND SONG LN
WA Y
IR
N 400 W
RIS
SHADOW RD
SUN
HILLENDALE DR
L DR
D
LAKE CT
SO
TR
SUMMIT RIDGE RD
HAZY LN
0.07
R
SHAD
ES
/ 0
LAKE D
TARA CT
SANTA CLARA DR
CR ROLLING TRAILS RD
DR
TYLER CT
SAN MARCOS DR
RE
RD
LN
MO
C
R
RE
SD
NG
I HA
U IS LE
LO
RO
I CK
CO
AR
RR
DR
NC
NA
O
SA
OD
SE
D IN
EE
WO
IM
RO
TH PA
IA
SAN RICARDO DR
Topographic Map N DR Roundabout REDMAConstruction Fairview Road and Peterman Road Des. No. 1601197 Bargersville Quadrangle Johnson County, Indiana Source: United States Geological Survey
SOUTHWIND TER United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Project Location
B-3
WOODMORE DR
CT
E OR W
OO
DM
SAN RICARDO CT O
DR
VILLAS DR
R
TYLER CT
TARA CT
SANTA CLARA DR
FAIRVIEW RD
SHAD
ES
OW HIL
CR
SHADOW RD
N 400 W
SUMMIT RIDGE RD
DALE CT
LAKE DR
0.05
HILLENDALE DR
D
L DR
TR
WIND SONG LN
HILL CT
/ 0
DR
SD
RD
D
LO
O
AR
CA
O
NC
RI
KW
SA
N
EE
SA
CR
Aerial Map Roundabout Construction Fairview Road and Peterman Road Des. No. 1601197 Johnson County, Indiana Source: NAIP 2016 Imagery
SHADOWHILL LN National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), Farm Services Agency (FSA), U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), UITS, Indiana Spatial Data Portal
0.1 Miles
Project Location
B-4
Fairview Rd. and Peterman Rd. Intersection Improvement, Des. 1601197 Site Photographs and Project Area
8
6
1 3
2
7
5
4
1:1,804 0
0.015
0
0.0225
0.03 0.045
0.06 mi 0.09 km
Esri, HERE, Garmin, Š OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
Project Area
#
Photograph Location
B-5
Photo 1. Facing east along Fairview Rd toward the intersection from Tyler Ct.
Photo 3. Facing east toward the intersection of Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd.
Photo 2. Facing west along Fairview Rd from the intersection.
Photo 4. Facing north along Peterman Rd toward the intersection.
B-6
Photo 5. Facing west along Fairview Rd toward the intersection.
Photo 7. Facing northwest from Fairview Rd toward Peterman Rd.
Photo 6. Facing north along Peterman Rd from the intersection.
Photo 8. Facing south along Peterman Rd toward the intersection.
B-7
PROJECT
DESIGNATION
1601197
1601197
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CONTRACT R-39642
TRAFFIC DATA A.D.T. (2016) A.D.T. (2041) D.H.V. (2041) DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION TRUCKS
Fairview Rd. 9,910 V.P.D. 11,890 V.P.D. 1,175 V.P.H. 52% 0% D.H.V.
Peterman Rd. 5,316 V.P.D. 6,380 V.P.D. 775 V.P.H. 56% 0% D.H.V.
IA NA IND
R T A T IO N
D EP
APPROVED BY: BOARD OF JOHNSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
T
S
E
PO
AR TM N
DESIGN DATA
OF
T RA
N
ROAD PLANS Fairview Road and Peterman Road
DESIGN SPEED PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RURAL/URBAN TERRAIN ACCESS CONTROL
40 mi/h RECONSTRUCTION (NON-FREEWAY) COLLECTOR URBAN (INTERMEDIATE) LEVEL NONE
35 mi/h RECONSTRUCTION (NON-FREEWAY) COLLECTOR URBAN (INTERMEDIATE) LEVEL NONE
PROJECT NO. 1601197 1601197 R/W 1601197 CONSTR
CHARIRMAN:
MEMBER:
MEMBER:
LUCAS MASTIN, JOHNSON COUNTY HIGHWAY DIRECTOR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ATTEST:
END CONSTRUCTION STA. 37+06.29 "B"
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT WITH A ROUNDABOUT ON FAIRVIEW ROAD AND PETERMAN ROAD, LOCATED IN SECTION 26, 27, 35 & 35 T-14-N, R-3-E, WHITE RIVER TOWNSHIP, JOHNSON COUNTY, INDIANA.
DATE:
COUNTY LINE RD. PROJECT LOCATION SHOWN BY JOHNSON COUNTY
COUNTY AUDITOR
BEGIN PROJECT STA. 16+21.57 "A"
END PROJECT STA. 20+06.29 "A"
TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 3417 SHERMAN DRIVE BEECH GROVE, IN 46107 (317) 780-1555 CROSSROADENGINEERS.COM
LONGITUDE: 86° 10' 38" W
STATE RD. 135
PETERMAN RD.
D. FF R BLU
FAIRVIEW RD.
MORGANTOWN RD.
DIRECTORY PATH : R:\Active\Johnson County\Fairview & Peterman\Design\CAD\Plans FILENAME : TITLESHT.dwg DATE/USER : 10/24/2018 4:53 PM / Tybennett
PLANS PREPARED BY
STATE R
D. 37
LATITUDE: 39° 37' 12" N
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION STA. 32+84.29 "B"
SMITH VALLEY RD.
PLANS PREPARED BY:
STG1
CROSSROAD ENGINEERS, P.C.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS DATED 2018 TO BE USED WITH THESE PLANS
(317) 780-1555
DESIGNATION
PHONE NUMBER
1601197
.
CERTIFIED BY:
DATE APPROVED FOR LETTING: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
SURVEY BOOK
SHEETS 1
of
CONTRACT
PROJECT
R-39642
1601197
.
B-8
LEGEND Varies
Line "A" or "B"
Grade As Shown On Profile 2%
2%
R
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION STA. STA. STA. STA.
16+21.57 19+86.29 32+84.29 36+86.29
"A" "A" "B" "B"
to to to to
16+43.67 20+06.29 33+04.29 37+06.29
"A" "A" "B" "B"
Varies
Line "A" or "B"
1'-6" Appurtenance Free Zone
26
1.5%
s* Varie
K
HMA Pavement (Preliminary) 220 lb/yd2 QC/QA HMA, 2, 70, 275 lb/yd2 QC/QA HMA, 2, 70, 385 lb/yd2 QC/QA HMA, 2, 64, 330 lb/yd2 QC/QA HMA, 2, 64,
Surface 12.5 mm on Intermediate 19.0 mm on Base 19.0 mm on Base 19.0 mm
F
Sidewalk
R
Mill and Overlay, 2"
SG
Subgrade Treatment, Type 1B
14
Concrete Curb (Barrier)
15
Combined Concrete Curb & Gutter
16
Combined Concrete Curb & Gutter (Dry)
17
Rolled Curb (Sloped)
26
Sodding, Nursery
10' Clear Zone
10' Clear Zone
5'-0"
PCCP, 7" with D-1 Contraction Joints Spaced at 14' Max on 8" Compacted Aggregate No. 53 Base
12'-0"
Varies 12'-0" to 24'-0"
R
C2
2'-7"
15
Varies 12'-0" to 24'-0"
K
1'-6" Appurtenance Free Zone
Varies 12'-0" to 13'-6" Grade As Shown On Profile 2%
2%
K
2'-7"
5'-0"
15
1.5%
4" (Typ)
*See Cross Sections
26
Varie
4" (Typ)
s* K 2'-0"
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION STA. STA. STA. STA.
16+43.67 18+87.18 33+04.29 36+07.42
"A" "A" "B" "B"
to to to to
16+90.26 19+86.29 34+12.37 36+86.29
"A" "A" "B" "B"
4"
2'-0"
SG
SG
SG Aggregate for Underdrain
10' Clear Zone 1'-6" Appurtenance Free Zone 1'
26
s*
Varie
6'-0"
1.5%
Varies 2'-7"
6'-0"
F
1.5%
Geotextile for Underdrains
10' Clear Zone
15
26
2'-7"
Varies 12'-0" to 18'-7"
K
Grade As Shown On Profile 2%
Varies 0'-7" to 8'-10"
2'-7"
Varies 0'-7" to 8'-10" 26
16
2%
16
2%
2'-7"
Varies 12'-0" to 17'-10"
Grade As Shown On Profile 2%
26
K
UNDERDRAIN DETAIL 1'
6'-0"
6'-0"
15
1" Pipe, Type 4, Circular, 6 in.
1'-6" Appurtenance Free Zone
Line "A" or "B"
1'-2"
F
1.5%
1.5%
NTS
26 Varie s
2.08'
*
4" (Typ) SG
SG
2' (Typ)
2' (Typ)
RAB CENTER
2.0'
Concrete to be broom finished perpendicular to road. D-1 contraction joints to fall at tooled joints. (No greater than 14' apart)
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION STA. STA. STA. STA.
16+90.26 18+49.83 34+12.37 33+49.82
"A" "A" "B" "B"
to to to to
17+50.00 18+87.18 34+50.21 36+07.42
"A" "A" "B" "B"
TRUCK APRON RADIAL JOINT DETAIL NTS
10' Clear Zone C2
2%
Center Circle
K
1'-6" Appurtenance Free Zone 21'-0"
7"
7'-9"
2'-7"
Varies 18'-0" to 29'-8"
1'
6'-0"
6'-0"
2'-7"
Varies
14
C2
2%
17
Line "D" & Profile Grade K
2%
15
26
1.5%
1.5%
F
Aggregate for Underdrain
26 Varie
s*
Pipe, Type 4, Circular, 6"
4" (Typ) SG Underdrain (See Detail)
1"
1'-2"
SG Geotextile for Underdrains
UNDERDRAIN DETAIL AT ROUNDABOUT
SG
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
Varies
SG
26
DIRECTORY PATH : R:\Active\Johnson County\Fairview & Peterman\Design\CAD\Plans FILENAME : TYPSEC.dwg DATE/USER : 10/26/2018 9:05 AM / Tybennett
17
Underdrain (See Detail)
NTS
2' (Typ)
STA. 1+00.00 "C" to 3+01.06 "C"
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
DATE
DESIGN ENGINEER DESIGNED:
M.M.
CHECKED:
M.A.B.
DRAWN:
T.B.
CHECKED:
M.M.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HORIZONTAL SCALE
BRIDGE FILE
1/4" = 1'-0" VERTICAL SCALE
DESIGNATION 1601197
N/A SURVEY BOOK
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
SHEETS 3
of
CONTRACT
PROJECT
R-39642
1601197
-
B-9
12" Pipe
(asph)
2+00
22+00
+99, 30', Water Meter
+55, 62', 36" Dec.
+14, 63', 36" Dec.
21+00
+44, 41', 48" Bush +44, 25', 48" Bush +62, 14', Mailbox +64, 14', Mailbox +68, 73', Yard Light
+18, 38', Yard Light +24, 25', 48" Bush
+53, 33', 12" Con. +57, 29', 6" Dec. +61, 32', Water Meter
App PL FAIRVIEW RD.
N88°56'56"E
(asph)
(grass)
(bldg)
END PROJECT 20+06.29 "A"
(grass) (bldg)
THOMAS R. & DONNA K. HYDE
+87, 50', 3" Dec.
+59, 22', Water Meter
Sec. 35, T14N, R3E White River Township Johnson County
+45, 35', 3" Dec.
+30, 34', Power Pole +31, 20', Sign (40 MPH)
+62, 45', 36" Dec.
+06, 21', Mailbox
30', Tele M.H. 30', Tele M.H. 21', Gas Vavle 19', Gas Vavle 24', Gas Vavle 22', Gas Vavle 35', Tele Box 21', Gas Vavle 35', F/O Marker 35', PP w/Riser 24', Sign
MARGARET & LARRY REYNOLDS
TBM #400 - Cut Square Atop Conc. Pipe End Section
+33, 20', Mailbox
N0°12'35"E App. Section Line
(asph)
P.I. 35+00.00 "B" = P.I. 18+00.00 "A"
+09, +16, +25, +27, +27, +29, +29, +30, +32, +34, +45,
+58, 23', Sign (Stop)
+23, 68', Flag Pole
34', Guy Wire 34', Guy Wire 58', 9" Dec. 34', Guy Wire 35', PP w/Riser +35, +39, +41, +43, +58,
+04, 49',18" Dec. +10, 34', PP w/Riser
+03, 23', Mailbox
(bldg)
12" Pipe
App PL
Sec. 34, T14N, R3E White River Township Johnson County
RONALD R. & EUNICE L. BOBER
(conc)
+75, 49', Guy Wire +74, 54', Guy Wire
P.I. = 18+00.00 "A" Delta = 0°29'22" Rt. No Curve
LOT 22
LOT 23 JACK REIF
+69, 50',18" Dec. +73, 72', Flag Pole
12" Pipe
App PL
P.O.C. 1+00.00 "C" = P.O.T. 17+68.00 "A"
App. Exist. R/W
(bldg)
+39, 59',15" Con.
12" Pipe
C.P. 104
+80, 58', 9" Dec.
App PL
(asph)
(asph)
BEGIN PROJECT 16+21.57 "A"
+94, 49',18" Dec.
+80, 70', 9" Con.
+59, 23', Mailbox +65, 50', 24" Dec.
(asph)
(asph)
(grass)
Sta. 15+81.70 "A", 32.34' Lt., Elev. = 709.57'
TBM #403 - Cut Square Atop Se Crnr of Headwall Sta. 24+07.24 "A", 31.90' Rt., Elev. = 711.04'
TBM #405 - Cut Square Atop E Side of Conc. Base of Brick Wall Sta. 30+07.61 "B", 26.07' Lt., Elev. = 708.27'
SEE SPOT ELEVATION & PROFILE DETAILS FOR LANE PROFILES
TBM #406 - Cut "X" on Bonnet Bolt on Hydrant.
END PROJECT STA. 20+06.29 "A" ELEV. = 711.36
BEGIN PROJECT STA. 16+21.57 "A" ELEV. = 710.65
715
(bldg)
Sta. 39+23.69 "B", 46.38' Rt., Elev. = 711.36'
715 ORIGINATING BENCHMARK
710
DESIGNATION - X 13 PID - KA0010 STATE/COUNTY - IN/MORGAN USGS QUAD - MOORESVILLE EAST (1980)
710 Exist. Grade @ Line "A"
VERT ORDER - FIRST CLASS II
705
(D) (C)
(B)
CP100 (C) NE CRNR OF POST OF "SPEED LIMIT 40" SIGN UP ±1.0', 141.02' N = 50052.5943 (D) T.B.M. 400, CUT SQUARE ATOP CONC. PIPE END SECTION E = 49759.4976 ,6.69'
CONTROL POINT 100 (MAG NAIL) - O.P.O.T. STA. 12+87.05', 28.11' LT. LINE "A"
18+00
19+00
20+00
CP104
(B) NAIL W/CAP FOUND IN SW SIDE OF PWP UP ±0.3', 10.78'
(C) (B) (A)
BLDG (D)
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
DESIGN ENGINEER
(C) NW CRNR OF SIGN POST " 13'-2" " UP ±0.3', 18.80' N = 50000.0000 E = 50000.0000
(D) SW CRNR OF BUILDING UP ±1.0', 98.86'
CONTROL POINT 104 (MAG NAIL) - O.P.O.T. STA. 15+26.83', 27.03' RT. LINE "A"
DESIGNED:
M.M.
CHECKED:
M.A.B.
T.B.
CHECKED:
M.M.
DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1946 1.2 MI N FROM WAVERLY. IN JOHNSON COUNTY, 1.2 MILES NORTH ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 37 FROM THE INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 144 AT WAVERLY, MORGAN COUNTY, 125 YARDS NORTH OF THE MORGAN-JOHNSON COUNTY LINE, 26 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE HIGHWAY, IN LINE WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY FENCE, 1.5 FEET SOUTH OF A WHITE WOODEN WITNESS POST, AND ABOUT 2 FEET HIGHER THAN THE HIGHWAY. A STANDARD DISK, STAMPED 686.370 X 13 1930 AND SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST PROJECTING 7 INCHES ABOVE GROUND.
712.05
685 22+00
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
DRAWN:
712.22
712.39
712.48
712.53
21+00
(A) TOP OPERATING NUT OF HYDRANT, 27.34' Line "A" FAIRVIEW RD.
712.45
712.26
711.97
711.60
711.29
711.03
710.80
710.65
710.55
710.50
710.51
710.57
710.77
710.63
710.83
711.13
711.19
710.93
17+00
(A) NE CRNR OF GARAGE UP ±1.0', 120.40' (B) CENTER OF TOP NUT OF FIRE HYDRANT, 42.17'
Line "A" FAIRVIEW RD.
710.76
16+00 PETERMAN RD.
(A)
710.67
709.49
15+00
710.43
690 710.13
690 709.83
695
709.63
695
709.36
700
709.28
700
709.20
DIRECTORY PATH : R:\Active\Johnson County\Fairview & Peterman\Design\CAD\Plans FILENAME : PP-A.dwg DATE/USER : 10/26/2018 11:56 AM / Tybennett
705
685
Light & Power Pole w/Riser Guy Wire Light Pole Fiber Optic Line Telephone Line Telephone Riser Telephone Manhole Cable TV Line Cable TV Box Utility Manhole Wood Fence Wire Fence Chainlink Fence Iron Fence Iron Pin Sign Flag Pole Bush Tree Trunk Deciduous Tree Coniferous Tree
(conc)
(conc)
MARY ANN HILLENBURG
+40, 47', 9" Dec.
+11, 53', Yard Light +17, 33', 18" Con. +18, 46', 36" Dec.
N88°56'56"E App. Section Line
(conc)
LOT 24
LOT 3
App. Exist. R/W
12" Pipe
(bldg)
LOT 2
12" Pipe
3+00 1+00
Line "A"
JAMES E. GARDNER
App PL
App. Exist. R/W
(grass)
15" Pipe
N89°26'18"E App. Section Line
AMANDA J. ST. JOHN (bldg)
(conc)
Line "C"
C.P. 100
19+00
+79, 32', 24" Dec. +84, 14', Mailbox
+19, 38', Sign (Stop) +22, 24', Sign +28, 18', Gas Marker +34, 17', Power Pole +34, 20', Power Pole +34, 33', Guy Wire +34, 43', 12" Con. +36, 15', Sign (Stop) +57, 59', 36" Dec.
18+00
App. Exist. R/W
T.B.M. 400
12" Pipe
Line "B" App. Section Line
(grass)
(asph)
App. Exist. R/W
(asph)
LOT 1 (bldg)
35' DUE/SSE
Storm Inlets Storm Manhole Sanitary Manhole Sanitary Cleanout Gas Line Gas Valve Gas Meter Water Line Water Valve Fire Hydrant Water Meter Sprinkler Irr. Valve Electric Line Electric Box Overhead Utility Line Power Pole w/(Riser) Light & Power Pole Mailbox
Sec. 26, T14N, R3E White River Township Johnson County
MATTHEW J. & SARAH L. GODSAVE
(bldg) App. Exist. R/W
(bldg)
App. Exist. R/W
App. Exist. R/W
35' DUE/SSE
DAVID ELLIS & THOMAS M. STRACK
N0°25'53"E
35' DUE/SSE
SE 30 '
SE E/S
JUDSON WAYNE & SANDRA L. MCGOWAN
LOT 10
DU E/S
DU
LOT 6
(asph)
PETERMAN RD.
+56, 79', 12" Stump +69, 41', 36" Dec. +80, 56', 12" Stump +80, 67', 12" Stump +81, 92', 12" Stump +86, 36', PP w/Riser +87, 39', Sign (Stop)
+38, 29', 48" Dec.
+27, 62', 36" Dec.
+19, 80', 18" Dec.
17+00
+81, 68', 48" Dec.
+23, 10', Water Valve +24, 43', Water Valve +23, 88', Gas Vavle +26, 44', Fire Hyd.
16+00
+51, 52', 9" Con. +57, 46', 6" Con. +68, 60', 12" Dec. +78, 73', 12" Dec. +83, 59', 12" Dec. +87, 41', Sign (Stop) +88, 66', Water Meter
Con. Con. Con. Con.
15+00
+02, 51', 12" +11, 51', 6" +17, 45', 9" +22, 51', 6"
+33, 64', 3" Dec. +37, 46', 12" Con. +41, 52', 9" Con.
Sec. 27, T14N, R3E White River Township Johnson County
30'
20' DUE/SSE
+46, 12', Sign (40 MPH) +46, 53', 6" Con. +46, 58', 9" Con. +47, 46', 6" Con. +48, 64', 15" Con. +52, 48', 6" Con. +58, 45', 6" Con. +62, 48', 9" Con. +67, 46', 12" Con. +73, 53', 6" Con. +78, 45', 12" Con. +82, 52', 3" Con. +92, 51', 12" Con. +97, 45', 6" Con.
10' DUE
(bldg) App PL
(bldg)
EXISTING LEGEND
RECOVERY NOTE BY IN DEPT OF NAT RES 1985 NEW DESC- AT THE INTERSECTION OF NEW STATE ROAD 144 AND OLD STATE ROAD 37, IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE INTERSECTION, WITNESS POST IS GONE RIGHT-OF-WAY FENCE IS GONE, ALL OTHER INFORMATION APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. ELEVATION = 685.94 (NAVD 88) HORIZONTAL SCALE
BRIDGE FILE
1"=30' VERTICAL SCALE
DESIGNATION
1601197
1"=5'
PLAN & PROFILE LINE "A"
SURVEY BOOK
SHEETS 5
CONTRACT
R-39642
of
-
PROJECT
1601197
B - 10
(asph)
(asph)
35' DUE/SSE
App. Exist. R/W
App. Section Line
+06, 34', 36" Dec.
37+00
+67, 22', Tele Box
+54, 17', 12" Dec. +57, 21', Tele Box
+36, 21', 24" Stump
+12, 13', Mailbox
LOT 10
DAVID ELLIS & THOMAS M. STRACK
Storm Inlets Storm Manhole Sanitary Manhole Sanitary Cleanout Gas Line Gas Valve Gas Meter Water Line Water Valve Fire Hydrant Water Meter Sprinkler Irr. Valve Electric Line Electric Box Overhead Utility Line Power Pole w/(Riser) Light & Power Pole Mailbox
BILLY J. & CANDY MCDONALD LOT 9
P.I. 35+00.00 "B" = P.I. 18+00.00 "A"
(bldg)
(bldg)
(bldg)
App. Exist. R/W
(bldg)
(asph)
(conc) (asph)
PETERMAN RD.
Line "B"
Pipe
12" Pipe
12' DUE
22', Sign (35 MPH) 19', Tele Box 76', 12" Stump 86', Power Pole 66', Guy Wire 68', Guy Wire 90', PP w/Riser 27', 24" Con.
+32, 27',12" Con.
TBM #400 - Cut Square Atop Conc. Pipe End Section Sta. 15+81.70 "A", 32.34' Lt., Elev. = 709.57'
TBM #403 - Cut Square Atop Se Crnr of Headwall Sta. 24+07.24 "A", 31.90' Rt., Elev. = 711.04'
+24, +31, +37, +37, +38, +38, +38, +41,
Sec. 26, T14N, R3E White River Township Johnson County +09, 34',120" Bush +11, 85', Elec. Meter
+94, 52', 36" Dec.
+86, 36', 18" Stump
App PL
12' DUE
MATTHEW J. & SARAH L. GODSAVE
+44, 33',12" Con.
+19, 27', Gas Marker +25, 21', Sign
63', 9" Dec. 20', Fire Hyd. 22', Water Valve 21', Sign (Stop) 29', F/O Box 30', F/O Box 33', F/O Marker 34', PP w/Riser 9', Tele M.H. 17', Tele M.H. 27', Gas Vavle 30', Gas Vavle 25', Gas Vavle 31', Gas Vavle 27', Gas Vavle
App PL
LOT 1
+11, 33', Power Pole
(asph) App. Section Line N88°56'56"E
END PROJECT 37+06.29 "B"
(bldg)
+34, +47, +47, +51, +54, +66, +66, +65, +70, +70, +76, +79, +80, +80, +82,
+75, 61',18" Dec.
+10, 31', Water Meter
App PL 31', PP w/Riser 59', Power Pole 40', Guy Wire 39', Guy Wire 31', Guy Wire +47, +49, +50, +50, +59,
+64, 49', 30" Dec.
+94, 16', Mailbox +97, 50', 24" Dec.
CONNI V. GIBSON
App PL
Sec. 35, T14N, R3E White River Township Johnson County
15' UE
LOT 7
+31, 50', 30" Dec.
+47, 31', Power Pole
+58, 18', Water Valve
(bldg)
(bldg)
ROBERT & ELSA BARKER
+86, 15', Mailbox +92, 50', 30" Dec.
LOT 9
+56, 50',18" Dec.
CLAYTON A. THARP
7.5' UE
App PL
(bldg)
+20, 51', 24" Dec.
7.5' UE
LOT 8
App. Exist. R/W
App. Exist. R/W
C.P. 104
+39, 18', Sign
(asph)
App. Exist. R/W
2+00
(asph)
MARGARET & LARRY REYNOLDS
App PL
12" Pipe
15" Pipe
+84, 33',120" Bush
12" Pipe
(conc)
LOT 10
N0°25'53"E App. Section Line
(asph)
Line "C"
15" Pipe
TBM #405 - Cut Square Atop E Side of Conc. Base of Brick Wall Sta. 30+07.61 "B", 26.07' Lt., Elev. = 708.27'
TBM #406 - Cut "X" on Bonnet Bolt on Hydrant.
SEE SPOT ELEVATION & PROFILE DETAILS FOR LANE PROFILES
715
Sta. 39+23.69 "B", 46.38' Rt., Elev. = 711.36'
715
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION STA. 32+84.29 "B" ELEV. = 708.58
ORIGINATING BENCHMARK
710
710
705
705
31+00
(E) (C) CP105 (D) Line "B" PETERMAN RD. (A) BLDG
33+00 (B)
34+00
35+00
36+00
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
DESIGN ENGINEER
(C) MAG NAIL SET IN S FACE OF PWP, ?'
(C) (D)
N = 50381.6903 E = 49965.0018
(D) T.B.M. 406, 88.78'
CONTROL POINT 106 (MAG NAIL) - O.P.O.T. STA. 58+55.05', 10.49' LT. LINE "B"
DESIGNED:
M.M.
CHECKED:
M.A.B.
T.B.
CHECKED:
M.M.
710.72
710.96
711.16
711.27
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
DRAWN:
685
37+00
(A) MAG NAIL SET IN E FACE OF PWP UP ±1.0', 31.76' (B) NE CRNR OF HOUSE UP ±1.0', 80.89'
711.31
711.21
711.05
710.84
710.67
710.55
710.60
710.77
710.10
709.74
709.51
709.35
709.22
709.11
708.91
708.66
708.55
32+00
(A) NW CRNR OF HOUSE UP ±1.0', 111.20' (B) NE CRNR OF N MOST BRICK PILLAR ON N SIDE OF (B) (A) SUMMET RIDGE DR. UP ±1.0', 65.15' (C) NE CRNR OF BRICK PILLAR, 8.00' Line "B" (D) SE CRNR OF S MOST BRICK PILLAR ON S SIDE OF SUMMIT PETERMAN RD. RIDGE DR., 11.41' (E) T.B.M. 405, CUT SQUARE ATOP E SIDE OF CONC. BASE OF N = 49539.0080 DECORATIVE BRICK WALL, 8.75 E = 49952.3670
CONTROL POINT 105 (MAG NAIL) - O.P.O.T. STA. 50+12.36', 18.28' LT. LINE "B"
708.52
708.50
708.48
708.39
690 708.26
690 708.17
695
708.12
695
708.14
700
708.20
700
708.24
DIRECTORY PATH : R:\Active\Johnson County\Fairview & Peterman\Design\CAD\Plans FILENAME : PP-B.dwg DATE/USER : 10/26/2018 10:31 AM / Tybennett
END CONSTRUCTION STA. 37+06.29 "B" ELEV. = 711.25
Exist. Grade @ Line "B"
685 30+00
Light & Power Pole w/Riser Guy Wire Light Pole Fiber Optic Line Telephone Line Telephone Riser Telephone Manhole Cable TV Line Cable TV Box Utility Manhole Wood Fence Wire Fence Chainlink Fence Iron Fence Iron Pin Sign Flag Pole Bush Tree Trunk Deciduous Tree Coniferous Tree
35' DUE/SSE
N0°12'35"E App. Section Line
JEFFERY L. HAVERSTICK
36+00
+92, 21', 12" Stump +98, 14', Water Meter
+78, 46', 12" Stump
+67, 21', 12" Stump
+56, 21', 12" Stump
+36, 14', PP w/Riser +39, 13', Sign (Stop) +40, 32', 36" Dec.
35+00 N89°26'18"E
FAIRVIEW RD.
12" Pipe
12" Pipe
T.B.M. 405 C.P. 105
Line "A"
P.O.C. 1+00.00 "C" = P.O.T. 17+68.00 "A"
P.I. = 35+00.00 "B" Delta = 0°13'18" Rt. No Curve
BEGIN PROJECT 32+84.29 "B"
App. Exist. R/W
12" Pipe
(asph) (bldg)
1+00 3+00
App. Exist. R/W
App PL
App PL
App. Exist. R/W
(bldg)
30' D UE/S SE
10' DUE
App. Exist. R/W
(bldg)
EXISTING LEGEND
Sec. 27, T14N, R3E White River Township Johnson County
App PL
LOT 20
LOT 19
+76, 42', Sign (Stop)
+46, 25', Guy Wire +51, 25', Guy Wire
(bldg)
10' DUE
App. Exist. R/W
RONALD R. & EUNICE L. BOBER
HEATHER M VILCHES
+25, 25', Power Pole +27, 25', Sign (35 MPH) +31, 76', Flag Pole
34+00
33+00
+03, 99', 144" Bush +11, 62', 108" Bush +11, 67', 108" Bush +11, 73', 108" Bush +19, 34', Power Pole +22, 47', Guy Wire +31, 32', Tele Box +39, 86', 36" Dec.
LOT 21
LOT 22
ROBERT J. & GLENDA S. OGLE
NANCY ELLEN LAWSON
Pipe
+97, 80', BBall Post
+63, 22', Sign +67, 68', Yard Light
+50, 62', 30" Dec.
32+00
+06, 43', Water Meter
+85, 52', 6" Con.
+56, 67', 30" Dec.
30+00
31+00
+97, 33', Power Pole
Sec. 34, T14N, R3E White River Township Johnson County
App PL
DESIGNATION - X 13 PID - KA0010 STATE/COUNTY - IN/MORGAN USGS QUAD - MOORESVILLE EAST (1980) VERT ORDER - FIRST CLASS II DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1946 1.2 MI N FROM WAVERLY. IN JOHNSON COUNTY, 1.2 MILES NORTH ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 37 FROM THE INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 144 AT WAVERLY, MORGAN COUNTY, 125 YARDS NORTH OF THE MORGAN-JOHNSON COUNTY LINE, 26 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE HIGHWAY, IN LINE WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY FENCE, 1.5 FEET SOUTH OF A WHITE WOODEN WITNESS POST, AND ABOUT 2 FEET HIGHER THAN THE HIGHWAY. A STANDARD DISK, STAMPED 686.370 X 13 1930 AND SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST PROJECTING 7 INCHES ABOVE GROUND. RECOVERY NOTE BY IN DEPT OF NAT RES 1985 NEW DESC- AT THE INTERSECTION OF NEW STATE ROAD 144 AND OLD STATE ROAD 37, IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE INTERSECTION, WITNESS POST IS GONE RIGHT-OF-WAY FENCE IS GONE, ALL OTHER INFORMATION APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. ELEVATION = 685.94 (NAVD 88) HORIZONTAL SCALE
BRIDGE FILE
1"=30' VERTICAL SCALE
DESIGNATION
1601197
1"=5'
PLAN & PROFILE LINE "B"
SURVEY BOOK
SHEETS 6
CONTRACT
R-39642
of
-
PROJECT
1601197
B - 11
Line "B"
PETERMAN RD.
END CONSTRUCTION 37+06.29 "B"
21+00
20+00
19+00
17+00
16+00
15+00
37+00
47
47
36+00 40
40
31
BEGIN PROJECT 16+21.57 "A" 46 22
Line "C" 22 31
40 23
40
47
FAIRVIEW RD.
3+00 1+00
Line "A" 47
FAIRVIEW RD.
2+00
46
40
47
Line "A"
46
47
31 40 47 22
22 46
END PROJECT 20+06.29 "A"
31
40
40
PAVEMENT MARKING LEGEND
47
PETERMAN RD.
47
SIGN LEGEND A B C D
MATCH LINE - 33+35 "B"
No Change Required To Exist. Sign & Supports Remove Exist. Sheet Sign & Supports Relocate Exist. Sign On New Post(s) New Sign And Post(s)
Line "B"
Line, Thermoplastic, Dotted White, 12 Inches, 2' Line, 2' Gap Line, Thermoplastic, Dotted White, 4 Inches, 2' Line, 2' Gap Transverse Marking, Thermoplastic, White Yield Line, 27 Inches Transverse Marking, Thermoplastic, Solid White, Crosswalk 24 Inches Line, Thermoplastic, Solid White, 4 Inches Line, Thermoplastic, Solid Yellow, 4 Inches
PETERMAN RD.
Line "B"
34+00 DIRECTORY PATH : R:\Active\Johnson County\Fairview & Peterman\Design\CAD\Plans FILENAME : PM&SIGN.dwg DATE/USER : 10/26/2018 7:42 AM / Tybennett
22 23 31 40 46 47
47
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION 32+84.29 "B"
MATCH LINE - 33+35 "B" RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
DESIGN ENGINEER
DESIGNED:
M.M.
CHECKED:
M.A.B.
DRAWN:
T.B.
CHECKED:
M.M.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
HORIZONTAL SCALE
BRIDGE FILE
1"=20' VERTICAL SCALE
DESIGNATION
1601197
N/A
PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNING SHEET
SURVEY BOOK
SHEETS 10
CONTRACT
R-39642
of
-
PROJECT
1601197
B - 12
Des No 1601197 Appendix C Early Coordination
C-1
September 25, 2018 RE: Des. No. 1601197, Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement, Johnson County, IN. Environmental Reviewer, Johnson County and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) intend to proceed with an intersection improvement project involving Fairview Road and Peterman Road in White River Township, Johnson County, IN. 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 effects associated with this project. Please use the above designation number and description in your reply. We will incorporate your comments into a study of the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s environmental impacts. This project is located at the intersection of Fairview Road and Peterman Road (CR 400 W) in Greenwood, IN. The project area is approximately 0.97 mile south of the Johnson County and Marion County line and approximately 1.83 miles east of SR 37. This intersection is currently a 4way stop in a residential area. The project need arises from high traffic volumes at the intersection causing significant queues for motorists. The purpose of the project is to improve the traffic capacity of the intersection. The current proposed project would construct a single-lane roundabout at the intersection with sidewalk crossings. The project will require the relocation of various utilities near the intersection and coordination will occur with the utility companies. It is anticipated that over 0.5 acre of right-of-way will be acquired from the neighboring parcels. The proposed method of traffic maintenance will be a road closure with a detour that will utilize Smith Valley Road, SR 135, and Morgantown Road. All work will occur in previously disturbed soils. Some vegetation removal will be necessary from the neighboring properties. New lightning will be installed to illuminate the roundabout for motorists and pedestrians. Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2021 and last approximately 60 days. Information specific to your agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s area of expertise concerning the effects of the project should be forwarded to Kevin McLane, Green 3, 1104 Prospect Street, Indianapolis, IN 46203 or by email, kevin@green3studio.com. If you have any questions or comments regarding this request, please contact me at (317) 634-4110 or the above email. Should we not receive a response within 30 calendar days from the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency feels that there will be no adverse effects incurred as a result of the proposed project. However, should you find that an extension to the response time is necessary, a reasonable amount may be granted upon request. Thanks in advance for your input,
Kevin McLane Environmental Consultant/Ecologist Green 3, LLC
Attention reader: The following information was sent to environmental review agencies along with this sample early coordination letter. These maps have been removed from this appendix to avoid duplication:
-
Site Location Map, Appendix B-1 Aerial Photograph, Appendix B-2 USGS Topographic Map, Appendix B-3 Site Photos, Appendix B-7 to B-8 C-2
Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination Notice sent to the Following Agencies: Environmental Coordinator IDNR, Div. of Fish & Wildlife environmentalreview@dnr.in.gov
Johnson County Surveyor Gregg Cantwell gcantwell@co.johnson.in.us
State Conservationist NRCS rick.neilson@in.usda.gov
Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Anna.gremling@indy.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Indiana Office Robin-Mcwilliams@fws.gov
Johnson County Soil and Water Director – Kathy Haste Kathy-haste@iaswcd.org
Indiana Geological Survey Online Submission: https://igws.indiana.edu/eAssessment/
Johnson County Planning and Zoning MS4 Contact David Hittle dhittle@co.johnson.in.us
IDEM Online Submission http://www.in.gov/idem/5283.htm
Greenwood Stormwater/MS4 Coordinator Christopher Jones -Superintendent jonesc@greenwood.in.gov
FHWA – Greenfield District Robert.dirks@dot.gov
Greenwood Street Department Kenny Duncan – Street Superintendent duncank@greenwood.in.gov
Regional Environmental Coordinator Midwest Regional Office National Park Service Hector_santiago@nps.gov Scott_blackburn@nps.gov US Dept. of HUD Chicago Office michael.e.wurl@hud.gov Manager, Public Hearings INDOT rclark@indot.in.gov mwright@indot.in.gov
Mayor Mark Myers City of Greenwood mayor@greenwood.in.gov Johnson County Council District 4 Councilor – James Ison jison@co.johnson.in.us INDOT Env. Services Seymour District Env. Scoping Manager ddye@indot.in.gov IDEM Water Quality, Drinking Water Section Alisha Turnbow aturnbow@idem.in.gov Indiana American Water Christina Gosnell christina.gosnell@amwater.com C-3
Kevin McLane From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
McWilliams, Robin <robin_mcwilliams@fws.gov> Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:22 PM Kevin McLane Re: [EXTERNAL] Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination image002.png
Dear Kevin, This responds to your recent letter, requesting our comments on the aforementioned project. These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (l6 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.) and are consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of l969, the Endangered Species Act of l973, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Mitigation Policy. The project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and should follow the new Indiana bat/northern long-eared bat programmatic consultation process, if applicable (i.e. a federal transportation nexus is established). We will review that information once it is received. Based on a review of the information you provided, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has no objections to the project as currently proposed. However, should new information arise pertaining to project plans or a revised species list be published, it will be necessary for the Federal agency to reinitiate consultation. Standard recommendations are provided below. We appreciate the opportunity to comment at this early stage of project planning. If project plans change such that fish and wildlife habitat may be affected, please recoordinate with our office as soon as possible. If you have any questions about our recommendations, please call (812) 334-4261 x. 207. Sincerely, Robin McWilliams Munson
Standard Recommendations: 1. Do not clear trees or understory vegetation outside the construction zone boundaries. (This restriction is not related to the “tree clearing” restriction for potential Indiana Bat habitat.) 2. 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. 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-bottomed 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.
1
C-4
3.
Restrict channel work and vegetation clearing to the minimum necessary for installation of the stream crossing structure.
4. Minimize the extent of hard armor (riprap) in bank stabilization by using bioengineering techniques whenever possible. If rip rap is utilized for bank stabilization, extend it below low-water elevation to provide aquatic habitat. 5. Implement temporary erosion and sediment control methods within areas of disturbed soil. All disturbed soil areas upon project completion will be vegetated following INDOT’s standard specifications. 6. Avoid all work within the inundated part of the stream channel (in perennial streams and larger intermittent streams) 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. 7. 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.
Robin McWilliams Munson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 620 South Walker Street Bloomington, Indiana 46403 812‐334‐4261 x. 207 Fax: 812‐334‐4273 Monday, Tuesday ‐ 7:30a‐3:00p Wednesday, Thursday ‐ telework 8:30a‐3:00p On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 3:15 PM Kevin McLane <kevin@green3studio.com> wrote: Robin, Attached for your review and comment is the Early Coordination packet for the Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 in Johnson County, IN. Please let me know if you have any issues with the attachment or have any questions or concerns. Your response is requested in 30 days. Thanks!
Kevin McLane Ecologist
2
C-5
9/26/2018
https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
Indiana Department of Environmental Management We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment.
100 North Senate Avenue - Indianapolis, IN 46204 (800) 451-6027 - (317) 232-8603 - www.idem.IN.gov
Johnson County Highway Department 1051 Hospital Rd Franklin , IN 46131 Date
Green3, LLC Kevin McLane 1104 Prospect St. Indianapolis , IN 46203
Dear Grant Administrator or Other Finance Approval Authority: RE: This project is seeking $935,200 in funding from CMAQ Grants from the FHWA. The project is an intersection improvement that plans to construct a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Fairview Rd. and Peterman Rd. in White River Township, Johnson County, IN. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is aware that many local government or notfor-pro t entities are seeking grant monies, a bond issuance, or another public funding mechanism to cover some portion of the cost of a public works, infrastructure, or community development project. IDEM also is aware that in order to be eligible for such funding assistance, applicants are required to rst evaluate the potential impacts that their particular project may have on the environment. In order to assist applicants seeking such nancial assistance and to ensure that such projects do not have an adverse impact on the environment, IDEM has prepared the following list of environmental issues that each applicant must consider in order to minimize environmental impacts in compliance with all relevant state laws. IDEM recommends that each applicant consider the following issues when moving forward with their project. IDEM also requests that, in addition to submitting the information requested above, each applicant also sign the attached certi cation, attesting to the fact that they have read the letter in its entirety, agree to abide by the recommendations of the letter, and to apply for any permits required from IDEM for the completion of their project. IDEM recommends that any person(s) intending to complete a public works, infrastructure, or community development project using any public funding consider each of the following applicable recommendations and requirements:
WATER AND BIOTIC QUALITY 1. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that you obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) before discharging dredged or ll materials into any wetlands or other waters, such as rivers, lakes, streams, and ditches. Other activities regulated include the relocation, channelization, widening, or other such alteration of a stream, and the mechanical clearing (use of heavy construction equipment) of wetlands. Thus, as a project owner or sponsor, it is your responsibility to ensure that no wetlands are disturbed without the proper permit. Although you may initially refer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps as a means of identifying potential areas of concern, please be mindful that those maps do not depict jurisdictional wetlands regulated by the USACE or the C-6 https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
1/7
9/26/2018
https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
Department of Environmental Management. A valid jurisdictional wetlands determination can only be made by the USACE, using the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. USACE recommends that you have a consultant check to determine whether your project will abut, or lie within, a wetland area. To view a list of consultants that have requested to be included on a list posted by the USACE on their Web site, see USACE Permits and Public Notices (http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/orf/default.asp) (http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/orf /default.asp (http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/orf/default.asp)) and then click on "Information" from the menu on the right-hand side of that page. Their "Consultant List" is the fourth entry down on the "Information" page. Please note that the USACE posts all consultants that request to appear on the list, and that inclusion of any particular consultant on the list does not represent an endorsement of that consultant by the USACE, or by IDEM. Much of northern Indiana (Newton, Lake, Porter, LaPorte, St. Joseph, Elkhart, LaGrange, Steuben, and Dekalb counties; large portions of Jasper, Starke, Marshall, Noble, Allen, and Adams counties; and lesser portions of Benton, White, Pulaski, Kosciusko, and Wells counties) is served by the USACE District O ce in Detroit (313-226-6812). The central and southern portions of the state (large portions of Benton, White, Pulaski, Kosciosko, and Wells counties; smaller portions of Jasper, Starke, Marshall , Noble, Allen, and Adams counties; and all other Indiana counties located in north-central, central, and southern Indiana ) are served by the USACE Louisville District O ce (502-315-6733). Additional information on contacting these U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District O ces, government agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands, and other water quality issues, can be found at http://www.in.gov/idem/4396.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4396.htm). IDEM recommends that impacts to wetlands and other water resources be avoided to the fullest extent. 2. In the event a Section 404 wetlands permit is required from the USACE, you also must obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certi cation from the IDEM O ce of Water Quality. To learn more about the water quality certi cation program, visit: http://www.in.gov/idem/4384.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4384.htm). 3. If the USACE determines that a wetland or other body of water is isolated and not subject to Clean Water Act regulation, it is still regulated by the state of Indiana . A state isolated wetland permit from IDEM's O ce of Water Quality is required for any activity that results in the discharge of dredged or ll materials into isolated wetlands. To learn more about isolated wetlands, contact the O ce of Water Quality at 317-233-8488. 4. If your project will impact more than 0.5 acres of wetland, stream relocation, or other large-scale alterations to bodies of water such as the creation of a dam or a water diversion, you should seek additional input from the O ce of Water Quality, Wetlands sta at 317-233-8488. 5. Work within the one-hundred year oodway of a given body of water is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. Contact this agency at 317-232-4160 for further information. 6. The physical disturbance of the stream and riparian vegetation, especially large trees overhanging any a ected water bodies should be limited to only that which is absolutely necessary to complete the project. The shade provided by the large overhanging trees helps maintain proper stream temperatures and dissolved oxygen for aquatic life. 7. For projects involving construction activity (which includes clearing, grading, excavation and other land disturbing activities) that result in the disturbance of one (1), or more, acres of total land area, contact C-7 https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
2/7
9/26/2018
https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
the O ce of Water Quality â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Watershed Planning Branch (317/233-1864) regarding the need for of a Rule 5 Storm Water Runo Permit. Visit the following Web page http://www.in.gov/idem/4902.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4902.htm) To obtain, and operate under, a Rule 5 permit you will rst need to develop a Construction Plan (http://www.in.gov/idem/4917.htm#constreq (http://www.in.gov/idem/4917.htm#constreq)), and as described in 327 IAC 15-5-6.5 (http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03270/A00150 [PDF] (http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03270/A00150.PDF), pages 16 through 19). Before you may apply for a Rule 5 Permit, or begin construction, you must submit your Construction Plan to your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) (http://www.in.gov/isda/soil/contacts/map.html (http://www.in.gov/isda/soil/contacts/map.html)). Upon receipt of the construction plan, personnel of the SWCD or the Indiana Department of Environmental Management will review the plan to determine if it meets the requirements of 327 IAC 15-5. Plans that are deemed de cient will require re-submittal. If the plan is su cient you will be noti ed and instructed to submit the veri cation to IDEM as part of the Rule 5 Notice of Intent (NOI) submittal. Once construction begins, sta of the SWCD or Indiana Department of Environmental Management will perform inspections of activities at the site for compliance with the regulation. Please be mindful that approximately 149 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) areas are now being established by various local governmental entities throughout the state as part of the implementation of Phase II federal storm water requirements. All of these MS4 areas will eventually take responsibility for Construction Plan review, inspection, and enforcement. As these MS4 areas obtain program approval from IDEM, they will be added to a list of MS4 areas posted on the IDEM Website at: http://www.in.gov/idem/4900.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4900.htm). If your project is located in an IDEM-approved MS4 area, please contact the local MS4 program about meeting their storm water requirements. Once the MS4 approves the plan, the NOI can be submitted to IDEM. Regardless of the size of your project, or which agency you work with to meet storm water requirements, IDEM recommends that appropriate structures and techniques be utilized both during the construction phase, and after completion of the project, to minimize the impacts associated with storm water runo . The use of appropriate planning and site development and appropriate storm water quality measures are recommended to prevent soil from leaving the construction site during active land disturbance and for post construction water quality concerns. Information and assistance regarding storm water related to construction activities are available from the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) o ces in each county or from IDEM. 8. For projects involving impacts to sh and botanical resources, contact the Department of Natural Resources - Division of Fish and Wildlife (317-232-4080) for additional project input. 9. For projects involving water main construction, water main extensions, and new public water supplies, contact the O ce of Water Quality - Drinking Water Branch (317-308-3299) regarding the need for permits. 10. For projects involving e uent discharges to waters of the State of Indiana , contact the O ce of Water Quality - Permits Branch (317-233-0468) regarding the need for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. C-8 https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
3/7
9/26/2018
https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
11. For projects involving the construction of wastewater facilities and sewer lines, contact the O ce of Water Quality - Permits Branch (317-232-8675) regarding the need for permits.
AIR QUALITY The above-noted project (see page 1) should be designed to minimize any impact on ambient air quality in, or near, the project area. The project must comply with all federal and state air pollution regulations. Consideration should be given to the following: 1. Regarding open burning, and disposing of organic debris generated by land clearing activities; some types of open burning are allowed under speci c conditions (http://www.in.gov/idem/4148.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4148.htm)). You also can seek an open burning variance from IDEM. IDEM generally recommends that you take vegetative wastes to a registered yard waste composting facility or that the waste be chipped or shredded with composting on-site. You must register with IDEM if more than 2,000 pounds is to be composted; contact 317-232-0066). The nished compost can then be used as a mulch or soil amendment. You also may bury any vegetative wastes (such as leaves, twigs, branches, limbs, tree trunks and stumps) on-site, although burying large quantities of such material can lead to subsidence problems. 2. Reasonable precautions must be taken to minimize fugitive dust emissions from construction and demolition activities. For example, wetting the area with water, constructing wind barriers, or treating dusty areas with chemical stabilizers (such as calcium chloride or several other commercial products). Dirt tracked onto paved roads from unpaved areas should be minimized. If construction or demolition is conducted in a wooded area where blackbirds have roosted or abandoned buildings or building sections in which pigeons or bats have roosted for three to ve years, precautionary measures should be taken to avoid an outbreak of histoplasmosis. This disease is caused by the fungus Histoplasma capsulatum, which stems from bird or bat droppings that have accumulated in one area for three to ve years. The spores from this fungus become airborne when the area is disturbed and can cause infections over an entire community downwind of the site. The area should be wetted down prior to cleanup or demolition of the project site. For more detailed information on histoplasmosis prevention and control, please contact the Acute Disease Control Division of the Indiana State Department of Health at 317-233-7272. 3. The U.S. EPA and the U.S. Surgeon General recommend that people not have long-term exposure to radon at levels above 4 pCi/L. For a county-by-county map of predicted radon levels in Indiana , visit http://www.in.gov/idem/4267.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4267.htm). The U.S. EPA further recommends that all homes and apartments (within three stories of ground level) be tested for radon. If in-home radon levels are determined to be 4 pCi/L or higher, then U.S. EPA recommends a follow-up test. If the second test con rms that radon levels are 4 pCi/L or higher, then U.S. EPA recommends the installation of radon-reduction measures. For a list of quali ed radon testers and radon mitigation (or reduction) specialists, visit http://www. in.gov/isdh/regsvcs/radhealth/pdfs/radon_testers_mitigators_list.pdf (http://www.in.gov/isdh/regsvcs/radhealth/pdfs/radon_testers_mitigators_list.pdf). Also, is recommended that radon reduction measures be built into all new homes, particularly in areas like Indiana that have moderate to high predicted radon levels. To learn more about radon, radon risks, and ways to reduce exposure, visit http://www.in.gov/isdh/regsvcs/radhealth/radon.htm https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
C-9 4/7
9/26/2018
https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
(http://www.in.gov/isdh/regsvcs/radhealth/radon.htm), http://www.in.gov/idem/4145.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4145.htm), or http://www.epa.gov/radon/index.html (http://www.epa.gov/radon/index.html). 4. With respect to asbestos removal, all facilities slated for renovation or demolition (except residential buildings that have four (4) or fewer dwelling units and which will not be used for commercial purposes) must be inspected by an Indiana-licensed asbestos inspector prior to the commencement of any renovation or demolition activities. If regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) that may become airborne is found, any subsequent demolition, renovation, or asbestos removal activities must be performed in accordance with the proper noti cation and emission control requirements. If no asbestos is found where a renovation activity will occur, or if the renovation involves removal of less than 260 linear feet of RACM o of pipes, less than 160 square feet of RACM o of other facility components, or less than 35 cubic feet of RACM o of all facility components, the owner or operator of the project does not need to notify IDEM before beginning the renovation activity. For questions on asbestos demolition and renovation activities, you can also call IDEM's Lead/Asbestos section at 1-888-574-8150. In all cases where a demolition activity will occur (even if no asbestos is found), the owner or operator must still notify IDEM 10 working days prior to the demolition, using the form found at www.in.gov/icpr/web le/formsdiv/44593.pdf. Anyone submitting a renovation/demolition noti cation form will be billed a noti cation fee based upon the amount of friable asbestos containing material to be removed or demolished. Projects that involve the removal of more than 2,600 linear feet of friable asbestos containing materials on pipes, or 1,600 square feet or 400 cubic feet of friable asbestos containing material on other facility components, will be billed a fee of $150 per project; projects below these amounts will be billed a fee of $50 per project. Billings will occur on a quarterly basis. For more information about IDEM policy regarding asbestos removal and disposal, visit: http://www.in.gov/idem/4983.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4983.htm). 5. With respect to lead-based paint removal, IDEM encourages all e orts to minimize human exposure to lead-based paint chips and dust. IDEM is particularly concerned that young children exposed to lead can su er from learning disabilities. Although lead-based paint abatement e orts are not mandatory, any abatement that is conducted within housing built before January 1, 1978 , or a child-occupied facility is required to comply with all lead-based paint work practice standards, licensing and noti cation requirements. For more information about lead-based paint removal, visit http://www.in.gov/idem/permits/guide/waste/leadabatement.html (http://www.in.gov/idem/permits/guide/waste/leadabatement.html). 6. Ensure that asphalt paving plants are permitted and operate properly. The use of cutback asphalt, or asphalt emulsion containing more than seven percent (7%) oil distillate, is prohibited during the months of April through October. See 326 IAC 8-5-2 , Asphalt Paving Rule (http://www.ai.org/legislative/iac/T03260/A00080.PDF (http://www.ai.org/legislative/iac/T03260/A00080.PDF)). 7. If your project involves the construction of a new source of air emissions or the modi cation of an existing source of air emissions or air pollution control equipment, it will need to be reviewed by the IDEM O ce of Air Quality (OAQ). A registration or permit may be required under 326 IAC 2 ( C - 10 https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
5/7
9/26/2018
https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
www.ai.org/legislative/iac/t03260/a00020.pdf (http://www.ai.org/legislative/iac/t03260/a00020.pdf).). New sources that use or emit hazardous air pollutants may be subject to Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and corresponding state air regulations governing hazardous air pollutants. 8. For more information on air permits, visit http://www.in.gov/idem/4223.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4223.htm), or to initiate the IDEM air permitting process, please contact the O ce of Air Quality Permit Reviewer of the Day at (317) 233-0178 or oamprod at idem.in.gov.
LAND QUALITY In order to maintain compliance with all applicable laws regarding contamination and/or proper waste disposal, IDEM recommends that: 1. If the site is found to contain any areas used to dispose of solid or hazardous waste, you need to contact the O ce of Land Quality (OLQ) at 317-308-3103. 2. All solid wastes generated by the project, or removed from the project site, need to be taken to a properly permitted solid waste processing or disposal facility. For more information, visit http://www.in.gov/idem/4998.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4998.htm). 3. If any contaminated soils are discovered during this project, they may be subject to disposal as hazardous waste. Please contact the OLQ at 317-308-3103 to obtain information on proper disposal procedures. 4. If Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are found at this site, please contact the Industrial Waste Section of OLQ at 317-308-3103 for information regarding management of any PCB wastes from this site. 5. If there are any asbestos disposal issues related to this site, please contact the Industrial Waste Section of OLQ at 317-308-3103 for information regarding the management of asbestos wastes. (Asbestos removal is addressed above, under Air Quality.) 6. If the project involves the installation or removal of an underground storage tank, or involves contamination from an underground storage tank, you must contact the IDEM Underground Storage Tank program at 317-308-3039( http://www.in.gov/idem/4999.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4999.htm)).
FINAL REMARKS Should the applicant need to obtain any environmental permits in association with this proposed project, please be mindful that IC 13-15-8 requires that they notify all adjoining property owners and/or occupants within ten days of your submittal of each permit application. Applicants seeking multiple permits, may still meet the noti cation requirement with a single notice if all required permit applications are submitted with the same ten day period. Please note that this letter does not constitutes a permit, license, endorsement, or any other form of approval on the part of either the Indiana Department of Environmental Management or any other Indiana state agency. Should you have any questions relating to the content or recommendations of this letter, or if you have additional questions about whether a more complete environmental review of your project should be conducted, please feel free to contact Steve Howell at (317) 232-8587, snhowell@idem.in.gov. Â https://portal.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/enviroletter.aspx
C - 11 6/7
C - 12
INDIANA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Organization and Project Information Project ID: Des. ID: Project Title: Name of Organization: Requested by:
Des 1601197 Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Green3, LLC Kevin McLane
Environmental Assessment Report 1. Geological Hazards: Moderate liquefaction potential
2. Mineral Resources: Bedrock Resource: Moderate Potential Sand and Gravel Resource: Low Potential
3. Active or abandoned mineral resources extraction sites: None documented in the area *All map layers from Indiana Map (maps.indiana.edu)
DISCLAIMER: This document was compiled by Indiana University, Indiana Geological Survey, using data believed to be accurate; however, a degree of error is inherent in all data. This product is distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. No attempt has been made in either the design or production of these data and document to define the limits or jurisdiction of any federal, state, or local government. The data used to assemble this document are intended for use only at the published scale of the source data or smaller (see the metadata links below) and are for reference purposes only. They are not to be construed as a legal document or survey instrument. 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 Survey Address: 611 N. Walnut Grove Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-2208 Email: IGSEnvir@indiana.edu Phone: 812 855-7428 Copyright Š 2015 The Trustees of Indiana University, Copyright Complaints
Date: September 26, 2018 C - 13 Privacy Notice
C - 14 Copyright © 2015 The Trustees of Indiana University, Copyright Complaints
Privacy Notice
Metadata: 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/Geology/Bedrock_Geology.html
C - 15 Copyright Š 2015 The Trustees of Indiana University, Copyright Complaints
Privacy Notice
Kevin McLane From: Sent: To: Subject:
Wright, Mary <MWRIGHT@indot.IN.gov> Wednesday, September 26, 2018 12:10 PM Kevin McLane RE: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination
Early Coordination and Creating a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) We have received your early coordination notification packet for the above referenced project(s). Our office prefers to be notified at the early coordination stage in order to encourage early and ongoing public involvement aside from the specific legal requirements as outlined in our Public Involvement Manual http://www.in.gov/indot/2366.htm . Seeking the public’s understanding of transportation improvement projects early in the project development stage can allow the opportunity for the public to express their concerns, comments, and to seek buy‐in. Early coordination is the perfect opportunity to examine the proposed project and its impacts to the community along with the many ways and or tools to inform the public of the improvements and seek engagement. A good public involvement plan, or PIP, should consider the type, scope, impacts, and the level of public awareness that should, or could, be implemented. In other words, although there are cases where no public involvement is legally required, sometimes it is simply the right thing to do in order to keep the public informed. The public involvement office is always available to provide support and resources to bolster any public involvement activities you may wish to implement or discuss. Please feel free to contact our office anytime should you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for notifying our office about your proposed project. We trust you will not only analyze the appropriate public involvement required, but also consider the opportunity to do go above and beyond those requirements in creating a good PIP. Rickie Clark, Manager 100 North Senate Avenue, Room N642 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317‐232‐6601 Email: rclark@indot.in.gov Mary Wright, Hearing Examiner Phone: 317‐234‐0796 Email: mwright@indot.in.gov From: Kevin McLane [mailto:kevin@green3studio.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:23 PM To: Clark, Rickie <RCLARK@indot.IN.gov> Cc: Wright, Mary <MWRIGHT@indot.IN.gov> Subject: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination Greetings, Attached for your review and comment is the Early Coordination packet for the Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 in Johnson County, IN. Please let me know if you have any issues with the attachment or have any questions or concerns. Your response is requested in 30 days.
Kevin McLane Ecologist 1
C - 16
Kevin McLane From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
Bailey Joe - Surveyor Office <jbailey@co.johnson.in.us> Wednesday, September 26, 2018 9:26 AM Kevin McLane Cantwell Gregg - Surveyor; Mastin, Lucas - Highway Dept FW: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination image002.png; Fairview and Peterman Des 1601197 Early Coordination.pdf
Mr. McLane, Thank you for reaching out to us concerning the Fairview Rd/Peterman Rd (Des 1601197) project. We have no environmental concerns regarding this project. We do, however, like to let all interested parties know that we have a section corner in this intersection that we would like to recover. In the past the Johnson County Highway has written into the specifications a "line item" stating the contractor will need to spend a couple hours excavating for and setting a new monument at our section corner location. Joe Bailey Johnson County Surveyor's Office jbailey@co.johnson.in.us ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Cantwell Gregg ‐ Surveyor Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 7:05 AM To: Bailey Joe ‐ Surveyor Office Subject: FW: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination ________________________________________ From: Kevin McLane [kevin@green3studio.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:23 PM To: Cantwell Gregg ‐ Surveyor Subject: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination Greetings, Attached for your review and comment is the Early Coordination packet for the Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 in Johnson County, IN. Please let me know if you have any issues with the attachment or have any questions or concerns. Your response is requested in 30 days. Kevin McLane Ecologist [cid:3A83E159‐D696‐4E42‐87B4‐33DC26811EE0@green3llc.com]
1
C - 17
Kevin McLane From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Smith, Cassidy L <CLSmith@idem.IN.gov> Friday, September 28, 2018 10:57 AM Kevin McLane kathy-haste@iaswcd.org RE: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination
Understood. Thank you for reaching out. I can make several recommendations for how this site can minimize off‐site sedimentation. Pleasant Run Creek is located nearby the project site. It is possible that conveyances on‐site discharge into the creek. It is recommended to find out if any inlets or conveyances on‐site discharge into the creek and to pay close attention to these inlets and conveyances in particular. One or more sediment control measures will be necessary for all inlets on‐ site. A measure that allows water to enter the inlet while filtering it is preferred to minimize ponding. Maintaining an adequate construction entrance will minimize tracking and keep the nearby residents happy. Also, it may be helpful to anticipate potential tracking during key construction months and have a plan to get a sweeper quickly in the event that tracking occurs. Perimeter protection will be necessary. It appears that run‐off from the road flows into residential yards. Rule 5 requires that a self‐monitoring program is implemented which includes a trained individual performing a written evaluation of the project site by the end of the next business day following each measurable storm event and at a minimum of one time per week. Because this project is located in a high density residential area, I highly recommend that at least one "trained individual" is on‐site daily while construction activities are occurring in order to quickly respond to issues and thus minimize complaints. Again, thank you for reaching out and please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you have as project planning continues. Thank you, Cassidy Smith Storm Water Specialist Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Water Quality 100 North Senate Avenue IGCN Room 1255 Indianapolis, IN 46024 Office Phone: 317‐233‐1517 CLSmith@idem.IN.gov (Email is often the best way to contact me) ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kevin McLane [mailto:kevin@green3studio.com] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:51 AM To: Smith, Cassidy L <CLSmith@idem.IN.gov> Cc: kathy‐haste@iaswcd.org Subject: RE: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination 1
C - 18
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** ________________________________ Cassidy/Kathy, No it is not. Early Coordination is the first step of the NEPA Process, to inform and get the input of regulatory agencies and other stakeholders before the project has begun and is still in planning and design. Any responses/comments/recommendations will be included in the final Environmental Document and can become commitments that the project must follow during design/construction. Permitting does not occur until much later, when the Environmental Document has been approved by INDOT/FHWA and the final project plans have been designed. It is common for us to get responses that mention the possibility of certain permits and lists of Best Management Practices that an agency encourages during design/construction. We also get responses that state no concerns or comments at this time during the early planning phases of a project, but sometimes request future contact. Let me know if you have any further questions on this matter. Kevin McLane Ecologist ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Smith, Cassidy L <CLSmith@idem.IN.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:33 AM To: Kevin McLane <kevin@green3studio.com> Cc: kathy‐haste@iaswcd.org Subject: Re: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 Early Coordination Hi Kevin, Is the early coordination packet intended to be your Rule 5 storm water pollution prevention plan? As I was reviewing it I noticed that it doesn’t have many of the requirements outlined in Section 6.5 of Rule 5. Let me know and please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns you may have. Thank you, Cassidy Smith > On Sep 26, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Kathy Haste <kathy‐haste@iaswcd.org> wrote: > > **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open > attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. > **** ________________________________ Please advise if you want to handle this one or if I need to send our standard non‐review letter‐Thanks! > > From: Kevin McLane [mailto:kevin@green3studio.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 5:01 PM > To: kathy‐haste@iaswcd.org > Subject: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des > 1601197 Early Coordination > > Greetings, 2
C - 19
> Attached for your review and comment is the Early Coordination packet for the Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement, Des 1601197 in Johnson County, IN. Please let me know if you have any issues with the attachment or have any questions or concerns. Your response is requested in 30 days. > > Kevin McLane > Ecologist > [cid:3A83E159‐D696‐4E42‐87B4‐33DC26811EE0@green3llc.com] > > > [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon‐envelope‐tick‐round‐orange‐animated‐no‐repeat‐ v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig‐email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig‐ email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus‐free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig‐ email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig‐email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> > <image002.png> > <Fairview and Peterman Des 1601197 Early Coordination.pdf>
3
C - 20
C - 21
C - 22
C - 23
Indiana Department of Environmental Management We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 100 N. Senate Avenue • Indianapolis, IN 46204 (800) 451-6027 • (317) 232-8603 • www.idem.IN.gov Eric J. Holcomb Governor
Bruno Pigott Commissioner
December 13, 2018 66-33 Green 3, LLC Attention: Victoria Veach 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46203 Dear Victoria Veach, RE:
Wellhead Protection Area Proximity Determination Des No 1601197 Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement, Johnson County, Indiana
Upon review of the above referenced project site, it has been determined that the proposed project area is located within a Wellhead Protection Area. If the contact information is needed for the WHPA, please contact the reference located at the bottom of the letter for the appropriate information. The information is accurate to the best of our knowledge; however, there are in some cases a few factors that could impact the accuracy of this determination. Some Wellhead Protection Area Delineations have not been submitted, and many have not been approved by this office. In these cases we use a 3,000 foot fixed radius buffer to make the proximity determination. To find the status of a Public Water Supply System’s (PWSS’s) Wellhead Protection Area Delineation please visit our tracking database at http://www.in.gov/idem/cleanwater/2456.htm and scroll to the bottom of the page. Note: the Drinking Water Branch has launched a new self service feature which allows one to determine wellhead proximity without submitting the application form. Use the following instructions: 1. Go to http://idemmaps.idem.in.gov/whpa2/ 2. Use the search tool located in the upper left hand corner of the application to zoom to your site of interest by way of city, county, or address; or use the mouse to click on the site of interest displayed on the map. 3. Once the site of interest has been located and selected, use the print tool to create a .pdf of a wellhead protection area proximity determination response. In the future please consider using this self service feature if it is suits your needs. If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me at the address above or at (317) 233-9158 and aturnbow@idem.in.gov. Sincerely,
Alisha Turnbow, Environmental Manager Ground Water Section Drinking Water Branch Office of Water Quality C - 24 Please Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Victoria Veach From: Sent: To: Subject:
Turnbow, Alisha <ATurnbow@idem.IN.gov> Tuesday, December 18, 2018 10:21 AM Victoria Veach RE: Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement, Johnson County, Des 1601197
Hi Victoria, Here is the contact information for Indiana American Water – Johnson County is Christina Gosnell and she can be reached at christina.gosnell@amwater.com or (317) 885‐2408. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alisha Turnbow Environmental Manager Office of Water Quality Drinking Water Branch, Ground Water Section
(317) 233‐9158 • aturnbow@idem.IN.gov _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
|
|
|
From: Victoria Veach [mailto:victoria@green3studio.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 3:16 PM To: Turnbow, Alisha <ATurnbow@idem.IN.gov> Subject: RE: Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement, Johnson County, Des 1601197
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** Hi Alisha, Thank you for this. I actually used the wellhead proximity locator webservice before contacting you last week. When I called you, I was looking for the contact information of owner/operator of the wellhead in the area of the project. Can you please provide that information? Thank you, Victoria From: Turnbow, Alisha <ATurnbow@idem.IN.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 10:42 AM To: Victoria Veach <victoria@green3studio.com> Subject: RE: Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement, Johnson County, Des 1601197 Dear Victoria Veach, Find attached to this email a response to your proximity request for the area surrounding Des No 1601197. An official copy will also be sent in the mail. Let me know if in the future you don’t want to receive a paper copy in the mail and are ok with just receiving email copies of the proximity response letters. Please let me know if you have any questions. Alisha Turnbow Environmental Manager 1
C - 25
Indiana American Water 2501 Endress Place Greenwood, IN 46143
December 18, 2018 Ms. Victoria Veach Green 3, LLC 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203 RE: DES. No. 1601197, Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement, Johnson County Dear Ms. Veach: Indiana American Water appreciates you contacting us regarding construction project DES. No. 1601197. This project is within our 1 year Time of Travel Zone. This means any contamination to the soil has the potential to reach our source water wells within one year. This is obviously worrisome as we provide quality drinking water to more than 82,000 residents in Johnson County, Indiana. Wellhead protection is an essential part of what we do and ensures future generations continue to have the same high quality water we enjoy today. To ensure our source water remains protected Indiana American Water would like to see the following management controls utilized throughout the construction process: Prior to commencement of construction, provide a list of chemicals to be used and/or stored to Indiana American Water. Also, provide a contingency plan outlining response procedures should a release occur. All chemicals on-site must have proper labels and be stored in secondary containment capable of holding 110% of the volume. The contractor should complete and document weekly inspections of all chemical tanks and secondary containment structures. Immediately notify Indiana American Water of a chemical spill or leak onto the ground or into a waterway. Emergency #: 317-300-4779. All solid waste generated by clearing and grubbing, demolition or other construction practices be moved to locations outside of the wellhead protection area at the end of each day. The following items are prohibited: o Fertilizer, pesticide, or herbicide application o Re-fueling of equipment on-site o Explosives or any type of blasting to remove o Concrete truck or other wash out areas stone or other material Indiana American Water would also like to have the right to do site visits during construction at any time to ensure compliance with these management controls. Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have relative to these management measures. Sincerely,
Katie Jamriska Water Quality and Environmental Compliance Lead Indiana American Water- Central Indiana Operations 317.300.4779 katherine.jamriska@amwater.com
C - 26
USFWS Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat
C - 27
Kevin McLane From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Mathas, Marlene <MMathas@indot.IN.gov> Tuesday, October 2, 2018 8:35 AM Kevin McLane Dye, David RE: USFWS Database Check Request - Des.1601197 Fairview and Peterman RAB Johnson County
Kevin – Sorry it took a while to get back to you on this. DES 1601197 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. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! Marlene Marlene Mathas, CHMM Site Assessment & Management (SAM) Team Lead Environmental Policy Office INDOT Environmental Services Division (317) 232‐5113 The most current RFI Report and Map Templates can be found at http://www.in.gov/indot/2523.htm. Be sure to review your RFI documents using the 2018 RFI Guidance also found at this link before submitting to INDOT ES HazMat. From: Kevin McLane [mailto:kevin@green3studio.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 2:03 PM To: Dye, David <DDYE@indot.IN.gov> Subject: USFWS Database Check Request ‐ Des.1601197 Fairview and Peterman RAB Johnson County
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** David, I am requesting a USFWS Database check for bats for the Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Project (Des. 1601197), in Johnson County, in Greenwood for use with the RFI document and IPaC process. The project is a planned roundabout at the intersection of Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd, approximately 1.87 mile east of SR 37 and 1 mile south of the Marion/Johnson County line. Thanks and let me know if you need additional information. 1
C - 28
United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Indiana 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
November 21, 2018 In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 03E12000-2019-I-0182 Event Code: 03E12000-2019-E-01008 Project Name: Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197 Subject: Concurrence verification letter for the 'Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197' project 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 Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197 (Proposed Action) may rely on the concurrence provided in the 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, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and/or the threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). The Service has 14 calendar days to notify the lead Federal action agency or designated nonfederal representative if we determine that the Proposed Action does not meet the criteria for a NLAA determination under the PBO. If we do not notify the lead Federal action agency or designated non-federal representative within that timeframe, you may proceed with the Proposed Action under the terms of the NLAA concurrence provided in the PBO. This verification period allows Service Field Offices to apply local knowledge to implementation of the PBO, as we may identify a small subset of actions having impacts that were unanticipated. In such instances, Service Field Offices may request additional information that is necessary to verify inclusion of the proposed action under the PBO.
C - 29
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 is modified, or new information reveals that it may affect the Indiana bat and/or Northern long-eared bat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the PBO, further review to conclude the requirements of ESA Section 7(a)(2) may be required. If the Proposed Action may affect any other federally-listed or proposed species, and/or any designated critical habitat, additional consultation 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 contact this Service Office.
C - 30
Project Description The following project name and description was collected in IPaC as part of the endangered species review process. Name Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197 Description Johnson County and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) intend to proceed with an intersection improvement project involving Fairview Road and Peterman Road in White River Township, Johnson County, IN. This project is located at the intersection of Fairview Road and Peterman Road (CR 400 W) in Greenwood, IN. The project area is approximately 0.97 mile south of the Johnson County and Marion County line and approximately 1.83 miles east of SR 37. This intersection is currently a 4-way stop in a residential area. The project need arises from high traffic volumes at the intersection causing significant queues for motorists. The purpose of the project is to improve the traffic capacity of the intersection. The current proposed project would construct a single-lane roundabout at the intersection with sidewalk crossings. The project will require the relocation of various utilities near the intersection and coordination will occur with the utility companies. It is anticipated that over 0.5 acre of right-of-way will be acquired from the neighboring parcels. The proposed method of traffic maintenance will be a road closure with a detour that will utilize Smith Valley Road, SR 135, and Morgantown Road. All work will occur in previously disturbed soils. It is anticipated that under 0.10 acre of tree/shrub removal combined will be necessary from the neighboring properties. New lightning will be installed to illuminate the roundabout for motorists and pedestrians. Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2021 and last approximately 60 days. It is anticipated that acquisition of over 0.5 acre of permanent and temporary right-of-way will be required.
C - 31
Determination Key Result Based on your answers provided, this project(s) may affect, but is not 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 concurrence 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 Interview 1. Is the project within the range of the Indiana bat[1]? [1] See Indiana bat species profile Automatically answered
Yes 2. Is the project within the range of the Northern long-eared bat[1]? [1] See Northern long-eared bat species profile Automatically answered
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[1] activities only? (examples of nonconstruction 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]? [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
C - 32
6. Does the project include any activities within 0.5 miles of an Indiana bat and/or NLEB hibernaculum[1]? [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[1] summer habitat for Indiana Bat or NLEB within the project action area[2]? (includes any trees suitable for maternity, roosting, foraging, or travelling habitat) [1] See the Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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[1] and/or remove/trim any existing trees within suitable summer habitat? [1] See the Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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
C - 33
11. Have presence/probable absence (P/A) summer surveys[1][2] been conducted[3][4] 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][2]? [1] Documented roosting or foraging habitat â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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
C - 34
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]? [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][2]? [1] Documented roosting or foraging habitat â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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? No 21. Are all trees that are being removed clearly demarcated? Yes
C - 35
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 maintenance of the surrounding landscape at existing facilities (e.g., rest areas, stormwater detention basins)? No 24. Does the project include wetland or stream protection activities associated with compensatory wetland mitigation? No 25. Does the project include slash pile burning? No 26. Does the project include any bridge removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities (e.g., any bridge repair, retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation work)? No 27. 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 28. Will the project involve the use of temporary lighting during the active season? No 29. Will the project install new or replace existing permanent lighting? Yes 30. Is there any suitable habitat within 1,000 feet of the location(s) where permanent lighting will be installed or replaced? Yes 31. 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? Yes
C - 36
32. Will the activities that use percussives (not including tree removal/trimming or bridge/ structure work) and/or increase noise levels above existing traffic/background levels be conducted during the active season[1]? [1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates.
Yes 33. Will any activities that use percussives (not including tree removal/trimming or bridge/ structure work) and/or increase noise levels above existing traffic/background levels be conducted during the inactive season[1]? [1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates.
Yes 34. Are all project activities that are not associated with habitat removal, tree removal/ trimming, bridge or structure removal, replacement, and/or maintenance, lighting, or use of percussives, limited to actions that DO NOT cause any stressors to the bat species, including as described in the BA/BO (i.e. activities that do not involve ground disturbance, percussive noise, temporary or permanent lighting, tree removal/trimming, nor bridge/ structure activities)? 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 use percussives (not including tree removal/trimming or bridge/structure work) consistent with a Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination in this key? Automatically answered
Yes, because the activities are within 300 feet of the existing road/rail surface, greater than 0.5 miles from a hibernacula, and are not within documented habitat 37. Are the project activities that use percussives (not including tree removal/trimming or bridge/structure work) and/or increase noise levels above existing traffic/background levels consistent with a No Effect determination in this key? Automatically answered
Yes, because the activities are within 300 feet of the existing road/rail surface, greater than 0.5 miles from a hibernacula, and conducted during the inactive season
C - 37
38. Is the habitat removal portion of this project consistent with a Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination in this key? Automatically answered
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 39. Is the habitat removal portion of this project consistent with a Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination in this key? Automatically answered
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 40.
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 41.
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[1] 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
C - 38
42.
Tree Removal AMM 2
Can all tree removal activities be restricted to when Indiana bats are not likely to be present (e.g., the inactive season)[1]? [1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates. Automatically answered
Yes 43.
Tree Removal AMM 2
Can all tree removal activities be restricted to when Northern long-eared bats are not likely to be present (e.g., the inactive season)[1]? [1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates. Automatically answered
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 45.
Tree Removal AMM 4
Can the project avoid cutting down/removal of all (1) documented[1] Indiana bat or NLEB roosts[2] (that are still suitable for roosting), (2) trees within 0.25 miles of roosts, and (3) documented foraging habitat any time of year? [1] The word documented means habitat where bats have actually been captured and/or tracked. [2] Documented roosting or foraging habitat â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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.)
Yes
C - 39
46.
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 47.
Lighting AMM 2
Does the lead agency use the BUG (Backlight, Uplight, and Glare) system developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society[1][2] to rate the amount of light emitted in unwanted directions? [1] Refer to Fundamentals of Lighting - BUG Ratings [2] Refer to The BUG Systemâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;A New Way To Control Stray Light
Yes 48.
Lighting AMM 2
Will the permanent lighting be designed to be as close to 0 for all three BUG ratings as possible, with a priority of "uplight" of 0 and "backlight" as low as practicable? Yes
Project Questionnaire 1. Have you made a No Effect determination for all other species indicated on the FWS IPaC generated species list? Yes 2. Have you made a May Affect determination for any other species on the FWS IPaC generated species list? No 3. How many acres[1] 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.
0.10
Avoidance And Minimization Measures (AMMs) These measures were accepted as part of this determination key result:
C - 40
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. LIGHTING AMM 2
When installing new or replacing existing permanent lights, use downward-facing, full cut-off lens lights (with same intensity or less for replacement lighting); or for those transportation agencies using the BUG system developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society, be as close to 0 for all three ratings with a priority of "uplight" of 0 and "backlight" as low as practicable. TREE REMOVAL AMM 1
Modify all phases/aspects of the project (e.g., temporary work areas, alignments) to avoid tree removal. TREE REMOVAL AMM 2
Apply time of year restrictions for tree removal when bats are not likely to be present, or limit tree removal to 10 or fewer trees per project at any time of year within 100 feet of existing road/ rail surface and outside of documented roosting/foraging habitat or travel corridors; visual emergence survey must be conducted with no bats observed. 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). TREE REMOVAL AMM 4
Do not remove documented Indiana bat or NLEB roosts that are still suitable for roosting, or trees within 0.25 miles of roosts, or documented foraging habitat any time of year.
C - 41
Determination Key Description: FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Consultation For Transportation Projects Affecting NLEB Or Indiana Bat This 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 Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 - 42
Kevin McLane From: Sent: To: Subject:
Dye, David <DDYE@indot.IN.gov> Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:38 AM Kevin McLane RE: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Project, Des. 1601197 IPaC Determination
Kevin, The concurrence verification letter for this project can be found in IPaC. Please keep in mind the USFWS has 14 days to respond with any concerns. In addition please follow the guidance “Using USFWS’s IPaC System for Listed Bat Consultation for INDOT Projects” which can be found on the INDOT Environmental Services website (https://www.in.gov/indot/files/IPaC%20for%20INDOT%20projects.pdf) to determine which letters are to be included in the NEPA document. The current guidance is: 10. Environmental Document: Include the appropriate letter in the environmental document. a. For NE, include the consistency letter. b. For MA‐NLAA, include the consistency letter and the verification letter. c. For LAA, include the consistency letter and the USFWS response letter. Let me know if you have questions or need anything further. David Dye Environmental Scoping Manager 185 Agrico Lane Seymour, IN 47274 Office: (812) 524‐3723 Email: ddye@indot.in.gov
From: Kevin McLane [mailto:kevin@green3studio.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 11:41 AM To: Dye, David <DDYE@indot.IN.gov> Subject: Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement Project, Des. 1601197 IPaC Determination
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** David, I have completed the IPaC determination key for the Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement project in Johnson County (Des. 16001197). A NLAA determination has been made and ready for your review and comment. The locator number is 878‐14591220. Please let me know if you have any questions, issues, or changes. Thanks, 1
C - 43
United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Indiana 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
IPaC Record Locator: 878-14591220
November 14, 2018
Subject: Consistency letter for the 'Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197' project (TAILS 03E12000-2019-R-0182) 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 Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197 (Proposed Action) may rely on the concurrence 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 (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, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and/or the threatened Northern longeared 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 - not 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 nonfederal representative with a request for its review, and as the agency deems appropriate, to submit for concurrence verification through the IPaC system. The lead Federal action agency or designated non-federal representative should log into IPaC using their agency email account and click "Search by record locator". They will need to enter the record locator 878-14591220.
C - 44
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 - 45
Project Description The following project name and description was collected in IPaC as part of the endangered species review process. Name Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197 Description Johnson County and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) intend to proceed with an intersection improvement project involving Fairview Road and Peterman Road in White River Township, Johnson County, IN. This project is located at the intersection of Fairview Road and Peterman Road (CR 400 W) in Greenwood, IN. The project area is approximately 0.97 mile south of the Johnson County and Marion County line and approximately 1.83 miles east of SR 37. This intersection is currently a 4-way stop in a residential area. The project need arises from high traffic volumes at the intersection causing significant queues for motorists. The purpose of the project is to improve the traffic capacity of the intersection. The current proposed project would construct a single-lane roundabout at the intersection with sidewalk crossings. The project will require the relocation of various utilities near the intersection and coordination will occur with the utility companies. It is anticipated that over 0.5 acre of right-of-way will be acquired from the neighboring parcels. The proposed method of traffic maintenance will be a road closure with a detour that will utilize Smith Valley Road, SR 135, and Morgantown Road. All work will occur in previously disturbed soils. It is anticipated that under 0.10 acre of tree/shrub removal combined will be necessary from the neighboring properties. New lightning will be installed to illuminate the roundabout for motorists and pedestrians. Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2021 and last approximately 60 days. It is anticipated that acquisition of over 0.5 acre of permanent and temporary right-of-way will be required.
C - 46
Determination Key Result Based on your answers provided, this project(s) may affect, but is not 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 concurrence 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 Interview 1. Is the project within the range of the Indiana bat[1]? [1] See Indiana bat species profile Automatically answered
Yes 2. Is the project within the range of the Northern long-eared bat[1]? [1] See Northern long-eared bat species profile Automatically answered
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[1] activities only? (examples of nonconstruction 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]? [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
C - 47
6. Does the project include any activities within 0.5 miles of an Indiana bat and/or NLEB hibernaculum[1]? [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[1] summer habitat for Indiana Bat or NLEB within the project action area[2]? (includes any trees suitable for maternity, roosting, foraging, or travelling habitat) [1] See the Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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[1] and/or remove/trim any existing trees within suitable summer habitat? [1] See the Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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
C - 48
11. Have presence/probable absence (P/A) summer surveys[1][2] been conducted[3][4] 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][2]? [1] Documented roosting or foraging habitat â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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
C - 49
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]? [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][2]? [1] Documented roosting or foraging habitat â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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? No 21. Are all trees that are being removed clearly demarcated? Yes
C - 50
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 maintenance of the surrounding landscape at existing facilities (e.g., rest areas, stormwater detention basins)? No 24. Does the project include wetland or stream protection activities associated with compensatory wetland mitigation? No 25. Does the project include slash pile burning? No 26. Does the project include any bridge removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities (e.g., any bridge repair, retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation work)? No 27. 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 28. Will the project involve the use of temporary lighting during the active season? No 29. Will the project install new or replace existing permanent lighting? Yes 30. Is there any suitable habitat within 1,000 feet of the location(s) where permanent lighting will be installed or replaced? Yes 31. 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? Yes
C - 51
32. Will the activities that use percussives (not including tree removal/trimming or bridge/ structure work) and/or increase noise levels above existing traffic/background levels be conducted during the active season[1]? [1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates.
Yes 33. Will any activities that use percussives (not including tree removal/trimming or bridge/ structure work) and/or increase noise levels above existing traffic/background levels be conducted during the inactive season[1]? [1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates.
Yes 34. Are all project activities that are not associated with habitat removal, tree removal/ trimming, bridge or structure removal, replacement, and/or maintenance, lighting, or use of percussives, limited to actions that DO NOT cause any stressors to the bat species, including as described in the BA/BO (i.e. activities that do not involve ground disturbance, percussive noise, temporary or permanent lighting, tree removal/trimming, nor bridge/ structure activities)? 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 use percussives (not including tree removal/trimming or bridge/structure work) consistent with a Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination in this key? Automatically answered
Yes, because the activities are within 300 feet of the existing road/rail surface, greater than 0.5 miles from a hibernacula, and are not within documented habitat 37. Are the project activities that use percussives (not including tree removal/trimming or bridge/structure work) and/or increase noise levels above existing traffic/background levels consistent with a No Effect determination in this key? Automatically answered
Yes, because the activities are within 300 feet of the existing road/rail surface, greater than 0.5 miles from a hibernacula, and conducted during the inactive season
C - 52
38. Is the habitat removal portion of this project consistent with a Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination in this key? Automatically answered
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 39. Is the habitat removal portion of this project consistent with a Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination in this key? Automatically answered
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 40.
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 41.
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[1] 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
C - 53
42.
Tree Removal AMM 2
Can all tree removal activities be restricted to when Indiana bats are not likely to be present (e.g., the inactive season)[1]? [1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates. Automatically answered
Yes 43.
Tree Removal AMM 2
Can all tree removal activities be restricted to when Northern long-eared bats are not likely to be present (e.g., the inactive season)[1]? [1] Coordinate with the local Service Field Office for appropriate dates. Automatically answered
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 45.
Tree Removal AMM 4
Can the project avoid cutting down/removal of all (1) documented[1] Indiana bat or NLEB roosts[2] (that are still suitable for roosting), (2) trees within 0.25 miles of roosts, and (3) documented foraging habitat any time of year? [1] The word documented means habitat where bats have actually been captured and/or tracked. [2] Documented roosting or foraging habitat â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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.)
Yes
C - 54
46.
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 47.
Lighting AMM 2
Does the lead agency use the BUG (Backlight, Uplight, and Glare) system developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society[1][2] to rate the amount of light emitted in unwanted directions? [1] Refer to Fundamentals of Lighting - BUG Ratings [2] Refer to The BUG Systemâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;A New Way To Control Stray Light
Yes 48.
Lighting AMM 2
Will the permanent lighting be designed to be as close to 0 for all three BUG ratings as possible, with a priority of "uplight" of 0 and "backlight" as low as practicable? Yes
Project Questionnaire 1. Have you made a No Effect determination for all other species indicated on the FWS IPaC generated species list? Yes 2. Have you made a May Affect determination for any other species on the FWS IPaC generated species list? No 3. How many acres[1] 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.
0.10
Avoidance And Minimization Measures (AMMs) These measures were accepted as part of this determination key result:
C - 55
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. LIGHTING AMM 2
When installing new or replacing existing permanent lights, use downward-facing, full cut-off lens lights (with same intensity or less for replacement lighting); or for those transportation agencies using the BUG system developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society, be as close to 0 for all three ratings with a priority of "uplight" of 0 and "backlight" as low as practicable. TREE REMOVAL AMM 1
Modify all phases/aspects of the project (e.g., temporary work areas, alignments) to avoid tree removal. TREE REMOVAL AMM 2
Apply time of year restrictions for tree removal when bats are not likely to be present, or limit tree removal to 10 or fewer trees per project at any time of year within 100 feet of existing road/ rail surface and outside of documented roosting/foraging habitat or travel corridors; visual emergence survey must be conducted with no bats observed. 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). TREE REMOVAL AMM 4
Do not remove documented Indiana bat or NLEB roosts that are still suitable for roosting, or trees within 0.25 miles of roosts, or documented foraging habitat any time of year.
C - 56
Determination Key Description: FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Consultation For Transportation Projects Affecting NLEB Or Indiana Bat This 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 Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 - 57
USFWS Endangered Species List (updated 4/17/2019)
C - 58
United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Indiana 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
April 17, 2019 In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 03E12000-2019-SLI-0182 Event Code: 03E12000-2019-E-04028 Project Name: Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197 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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;may affectâ&#x20AC;? 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
C - 59
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): â&#x2013;Ş Official Species List
C - 60
Official Species List This 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 620 South Walker Street Bloomington, IN 47403-2121 (812) 334-4261
C - 61
Project Summary Consultation Code: 03E12000-2019-SLI-0182 Event Code:
03E12000-2019-E-04028
Project Name:
Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Des. 1601197
Project Type:
TRANSPORTATION
Project Description: Johnson County and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) intend to proceed with an intersection improvement project involving Fairview Road and Peterman Road in White River Township, Johnson County, IN. This project is located at the intersection of Fairview Road and Peterman Road (CR 400 W) in Greenwood, IN. The project area is approximately 0.97 mile south of the Johnson County and Marion County line and approximately 1.83 miles east of SR 37. This intersection is currently a 4way stop in a residential area. The project need arises from high traffic volumes at the intersection causing significant queues for motorists. The purpose of the project is to improve the traffic capacity of the intersection. The current proposed project would construct a single-lane roundabout at the intersection with sidewalk crossings. The project will require the relocation of various utilities near the intersection and coordination will occur with the utility companies. It is anticipated that over 0.5 acre of right-of-way will be acquired from the neighboring parcels. The proposed method of traffic maintenance will be a road closure with a detour that will utilize Smith Valley Road, SR 135, and Morgantown Road. All work will occur in previously disturbed soils. It is anticipated that under 0.10 acre of tree/ shrub removal combined will be necessary from the neighboring properties. New lightning will be installed to illuminate the roundabout for motorists and pedestrians. Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2021 and last approximately 60 days. It is anticipated that acquisition of over 0.5 acre of permanent and temporary right-of-way will be required. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/39.62007577358949N86.17745292176356W
C - 62
Counties: Johnson, IN
C - 63
Endangered Species Act Species There 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 Fisheries1, 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.
Mammals NAME
STATUS
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis
Endangered
There 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
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: â&#x2013;Ş 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
Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
C - 64
Des No 1601197 Appendix D Section 106 of the NHPA
D-1
State Historic Preservation Office "No Historic Properties Affected" Effect Finding Concurrence Letter
D-2
D-3
D-4
“No Historic Properties Affected” Effect Finding Documentation
D-5
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 Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Project White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana Des. No. 1601197; DHPA 23089 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. At its widest point, on the north side, the APE expands approximately 823 feet from the centerline of the project. 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.
Susan R. Branigin for
___________________________ Anuradha V. Kumar, for FHWA Manager INDOT Cultural Resources
February 7, 2019
___________________________ Approval Date
D-6
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) Fairview Road and Peterman Road Roundabout Project White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana Des. No. 1601197; DHPA 23089
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE UNDERTAKING The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Johnson County plan to proceed with the Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvement Project, Des. No. 1601197. The project is located at the intersection of Fairview and Peterman roads in White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana. Specifically, the project is located in the Bargersville quadrangle (7.5) map, Section 27, Township 14 North, Range 3 East. The project will improve the existing four-way stop controlled intersection to a modern single-lane roundabout. The profile of the roadways will remain nearly the same as they are today. Sidewalk and crosswalks will be added at each quadrant. Landscaping and lighting improvements are planned. Rightof-way will be needed from the four parcels in each quadrant of the roundabout. An official detour route is planned to utilize Smith Valley Road, SR 135 and Morgantown Road with anticipated duration of closure of 60 days. The need for the project is inadequate capacity of the intersection, congestion, and transportationrelated emissions. The purpose of the project is to improve Level of Service at the intersection, improve air quality, reduce transportation-related emissions, reduce delay and add capacity while improving safety. No relocations are anticipated as a result of this project. Permanent right-of-way will be acquired from the four parcels in each quadrant of the roundabout. The property in the southeast corner of the project owns the land to the centerline of the road (this is not common in rural areas); therefore, this land will be purchased. At this time, it is estimated that the total right-of-way required will be just over one-half acre, which includes purchasing the roadway in the southeast corner. Excluding the roadway purchase, the amount of right-of-way acquired will be less than one-half acre. 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. At its widest point, on the north side, the APE expands approximately 823 feet from the centerline of the project. See Appendix A for a map of the APE.
2. EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY HISTORIC PROPERTIES The NRHP, Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures (State Register), the Indiana Historic Buildings, Bridges, and Cemeteries Map, which displays the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (IHSSI) information and the State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database
D-7
(SHAARD) were consulted. No previously surveyed resources were identified within the APE. No resources are shown as listed on the NRHP or State Register within the APE. The Johnson County Interim Report (1985) produced from the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (IHSSI), was reviewed, no resources were identified in the APE. There are no HABS/HAER/HALS resources identified within the vicinity of the project. The Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory, Volume 2: Listing of Historic and NonHistoric Bridges (February 2009) by M & H Architecture, Inc. was reviewed and no historic bridges were listed within the APE. A Historic Property Short Report (HPSR) was prepared and contained the results of this survey and literature review. Connie Zeigler conducted a site visit of the project area on August 23, 2018. The APE was investigated for the existence of any historic properties, structures, objects, or districts listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The historian drove the entire project alignment and the APE. She took general photographs of the project area. All resources that will be 50 years of age by the time of project letting (expected 2021, 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 early coordination information with a Historic Property Short Report (HPSR) on October 2, 2018. The HPSR recommended no properties within the APE as eligible or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation officer received a paper copy of the HPSR. Others were invited to view the information on INSCOPE http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/. The State Historic Preservation Officer (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, Central Office Johnson County Historian Johnson County Historical Society/Museum Restore Old Town White River Township Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Johnson County Commissioners Mayor of White River Township White River Township Street Superintendent Johnson County Highway Department Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians
In a letter dated October 30, 2018, Indiana Landmarks Central Regional Office responded to the ECL and HPSR. In the letter, Indiana Landmarks agreed to serve as a consulting party, and agreed with the APE and the findings of the HPSR. In a letter dated November 1, 2018, the SHPO staff concurred with the recommendations of the HPSR. The letter stated, “We agree that none of the buildings or structures identified in the HPSR appears to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.”
D-8
In a letter dated November 7, 2018, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma wrote that “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.” The letter requested immediate consultation if any human remains or cultural items falling under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act or any archaeological evidence is uncovered. A Phase Ia Archaeological Investigation was conducted and an Archaeological Short Report (Jackson 11/26/2018) was prepared and located no archaeological resources in the project area. No further archaeological work was recommended. A paper copy of the archaeology report was mailed to the SHPO on November 27, 2018. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, which accepted CP status, was sent an email notification that the report was available on INSCOPE for review. In a letter dated December 21, 2018, the SHPO staff concurred with the finding of the archaeological short report stating, “we have not identified any currently known archeological resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (“NRHP”) within the project area; and we concur . . . that no further archaeological investigations appear necessary at this proposed project area.” 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 Indianapolis Star 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-9
“No Historic Properties Affected” Effect Finding Public Notice and Publisher’s Affidavit
D - 10
D - 11
D - 12
D - 13
Public Notice Des. No. 1601197 Johnson County is planning to undertake a roundabout project funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The project is located at the intersection of Fairview and Peterman Roads in White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana. This project will replace a four-way stop intersection with a roundabout to improve congestion and eliminate high-speed right-angle collisions. The profile of the roadways will remain nearly the same as they are today. Sidewalk and crosswalks will be added at each quadrant. Landscaping and lighting improvements are planned. Right-of-way will be needed from the four parcels in each quadrant of the roundabout. An official detour route is planned to utilize Smith Valley Road, SR 135 and Morgantown Road with anticipated duration of closure of 60 days. The proposed action does not impact properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), on behalf of the FHWA, has issued a “No Historic Properties Affected” finding for the project due to the fact that no historic properties are present within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the views of the public are being sought regarding the effect of the proposed project on the historic elements as per 36 CFR 800.2(d), 800.3(e) and 800.6(a)(4). Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), the documentation specified in 36 CFR 800. 11(d) is available for inspection in Green 3, LLC’s office. Additionally, this documentation can be viewed electronically by accessing INDOT’s Section 106 document posting website IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents. This documentation serves as the basis for the “No Historic Properties Affected” finding. The views of the public on this effect finding are being sought. Please reply with any comments to Connie Zeigler, Green 3, LLC, 1104 Prospect Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46203, 317.634.4110, or email to connie@green3studio.com, no later than March 15. 2019. In accordance with the “Americans with Disabilities Act”, if you have a disability for which INDOT needs to provide accessibility to the document(s) such as interpreters or readers, please contact Daniel Johnston at 317-887-5230, johnstond@greenwood.in.gov.
D - 14
Consulting Party Correspondence
D - 15
Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 9:32:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Subject:
Fw: FHWA Project: Des. No. 1601197; Fairview and Peterman Roads IntersecAon Improvements, Johnson County, Indiana Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 8:47:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Connie Zeigler To: Erin Mulryan AGachments: image001.png, image002.png, image003.png, image004.png, image005.jpg, image006.png
From: Ross, Anthony <ARoss3@indot.IN.gov> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 1:58 PM To: dhunter@miaminaAon.com Cc: Connie Zeigler; Branigin, Susan; Allen, Michelle (FHWA); Miller, Shaun (INDOT); Kumar, Anuradha; Mankin, Travis; nvantrees@co.johnson.in.us Subject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 1601197; Fairview and Peterman Roads IntersecAon Improvements, Johnson County, Indiana
Des. No.: 1601197 Project DescripLon: Fairview and Peterman Roads IntersecLon Improvements LocaLon: IntersecLon of Fairview and Peterman Roads Johnson County, with funding from the Federal Highway AdministraAon (FHWA) and administraAve oversight from the Indiana Department of TransportaAon (INDOT), proposes to proceed with the Fairview and Peterman Roads IntersecAon Improvements, Des. No. 1601197. INDOT, on behalf of FHWA, has signed a determinaAon of No Historic ProperAes Affected for this SecAon 106 undertaking. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(d), you and the other consulAng parAes that responded to the early coordinaAon leber are being provided the documentaAon for this finding. You can view the determinaAon of No Historic ProperAes Affected electronically by accessing INDOT’s SecAon 106 document posAng website IN SCOPE at hbp://erms.indot.in.gov/SecAon106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE). If a hard copy of the materials is needed, please respond to this email with your request within seven (7) days.
erms.indot.in.gov erms.indot.in.gov Section 106 Consultation and Outreach Portal Enterprise - (IN SCOPE) Project Info Search; Document Type Search; Project Name: DES Number: Municipality:
ConsulAng parAes have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this informaAon to review and provide comment. Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at smiller@indot.in.gov or 317-233-6795 or D - 16
Michelle Allen at FHWA at michelle.allen@dot.gov or 317-226-7344. Thank you in advance for your input, Anthony Ross, Ph.D.
Historian Cultural Resources OďŹ&#x192;ce Environmental Services 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642-ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 OďŹ&#x192;ce: (317) 234-0142 Email: aross3@indot.in.gov
**Updated Historic Property Report (HPR) guidelines can be found here
D - 17
D - 18
D - 19
Connie Zeigler From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Miller, Shaun (INDOT) <smiller@indot.IN.gov> Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:57 PM thpo@estoo.net; Diane Hunter; lpappenfort@peoriatribe.com; mathew.bussler@pokagonbandnsn.gov Ross, Anthony; Connie Zeigler; Michelle Allen FHWA Project: Des. No. 1601197, Intersection Improvement, Roundabout, Fairview Road and Peterman Road, Johnson County, Indiana
Des. No.: 1601197 Project Description: Intersection Improvement, Roundabout, Fairview Road and Peterman Road Location: White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana The City of Greenwood, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation, proposes to proceed with the Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvements Project, Johnson County, Indiana: Des. No. 1601197. The Section 106 Early Coordination Letter for this project was originally distributed on September 11, 2018. As part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, an archaeology short report has been prepared and is ready for review and comment by consulting parties. 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 smiller@indot.in.gov or 317‐233‐6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at michelle.allen@dot.gov or 317‐226‐7344. Thank you in advance for your input, Shaun Miller Archaeological Team Lead INDOT, Cultural Resources Office smiller@indot.in.gov (317) 233‐6795
Note to reader: This email erroneously states that the City of Greenwood is the project sponsor; the correct project sponsor is Johnson County. The "No Historic Properties Affected" effect finding and Public Notice for the effect finding both include the correct project sponsor. Refer to Appendix D-5 through D-13.
1
D - 20
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
November 7, 2018 Shaun Miller Archaeological Team Lead Cultural Resources Office Indiana DOT 575 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Re: Des. No. 1601197, Greenwood, Johnson 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 site 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 dhunter@miamination.com 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 - 21
D - 22
D - 23
October 30, 2018 Connie Zeigler Green3 LLC Historic Fountain Square 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203 Re:
Des. No. 1601197, Fairview Road and Peterman Road Improvements Project, Greenwood, Johnson County, Indiana
Ms. Zeigler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Des. No. 1601197. Indiana Landmarks agrees to serve as a consulting party for the undertaking. We concur with the boundaries selected for the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Area of Potential Effects (APE), and we concur with the finding that there are no properties individually listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the APE. We likewise concur that there are no districts listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP within the APE. Sincerely,
Sam Burgess Community Preservation Specialist
D - 24
October 2, 2018 This letter was sent to the listed parties. Re: Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvements Project, Johnson County, Indiana: Des. No. 1601197 Dear Consulting Party, Johnson County, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), proposes to proceed with the Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvements Project, Johnson County, Indiana: Des. No. 1601197. Green 3, LLC is under contract with INDOT 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 at the intersection of Fairview and Peterman roads, White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana. Specifically, the project is located in the Bargersville USGS Topographic Quadrangle, Section 27, Township 14 North, Range 3 East. The project will improve the existing four-way stop controlled intersection to a modern single-lane roundabout. Plans are not yet available for this project. A small amount of right-of-way is anticipated, but at this point the total amount is not yet known. The need for the project is inadequate capacity of the intersection. The purpose of the project is to improve Level of Service to at least â&#x20AC;&#x153;Câ&#x20AC;? at the intersection. Land use around the project is residential. Land use is not anticipated to change because of this project. Plans are not yet available for this project.
D - 25
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, 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 is conducting a survey of archaeological 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 Short 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 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 connie@green3studio.com. All future responses regarding the proposed project should be forwarded to Green 3, LLC at the following address: Connie Zeigler Architectural Historian/Historian Green 3 LLC 1104 Prospect Street
D - 26
Indianapolis, IN 46203 connie@green3studio.com Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at smiller@indot.in.gov or 317- 233-6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at michelle.allen@dot.gov or 317-226-7344. Sincerely,
Anuradha V. Kumar, Manager Cultural Resources Office Environmental Services
Enclosures: Topographic Project Area Map Preliminary Drawing Distribution List: C: Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer Indiana Landmarks, Central Office Johnson County Historian Johnson County Historical Society/Museum Restore Old Town Greenwood Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Johnson County Commissioners Mayor of Greenwood Greenwood Street Superintendent Johnson County Highway Director Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians
D - 27
Invited consulting parties Chad Slider Assistant Director of Environmental Review Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 402 W. Washington Street, W274 Indianapolis, IN 46204 cslider@dnr.in.gov
Mark Dollassee Vice President of Preservation Services mdollase@indianalandmarks.org
Max Fitzpatrick Johnson County Historian 975 Smock Drive Greenwood, IN 46143 maxlois@sbcglobal.net
David Pfeiffer Director Johnson County Historical Society/Museum 135 N.Main St. Franklin, IN 46131 dpfeiffer@co.johnson.in.us
Restore Old Town Greenwood 370 N. Valley LN Greenwood, IN 46142 restoregreenwood@gmail.com
Anna Gremling Executive Director Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization 200 E. Washington St. Suite 1922, City/County Bldg. Indianapolis, IN 46204 anna.gremling@indy.gov
Sean Northup Assistant Director Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization 200 E. Washington St. Suite 1922, City/County Bldg. Indianapolis, IN 46204 sean.northup@indy.gov
Brian Baird Chairman Johnson County Commissioners bbaird@co.johnson.in.us
Kevin Walls Commissioner Johnson County Commissioners kwalls@co.johnson.in.us
Ron West Commissioner Johnson County Commissioners rwest@co.johnson.in.us
Nancy Bunch Administrative Asst Johnson County Highway Department nbunch@co.johnson.in.us
Mark W. Myers Mayor of Greenwood mayor@greenwood.in.gov
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Kenny Duncan Greenwood Street Superintendent duncank@greenwood.in.gov
Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians
Eastern Shawnee Tribe
D - 28
Connie Zeigler From: Sent: To:
Cc: Subject:
All,
Connie Zeigler Tuesday, October 2, 2018 5:33 PM 'rhwest2001@aol.com'; mdollase@indianalandmarks.org; maxlois@sbcglobal.net; dpfeiffer@co.johnson.in.us; restoregreenwood@gmail.com; anna.gremling@indy.gov; sean.northup@indy.gov; bbaird@co.johnson.in.us; kwalls@co.johnson.in.us; rwest@co.johnson.in.us; nbunch@co.johnson.in.us; mayor@greenwood.in.gov; duncank@greenwood.in.gov 'Ross, Anthony' RE: FHWA Project: Des. No. 1601197, Greenwood, Johnson County, Indiana
Note to reader: This email was revised and resent to reflect the correct project sponsor, Johnson County; the previous email had listed a different project sponsor.
Please see the revised email below. This is a county project. The Early Coordination Letter states the property sponsor, but my previous email misstated the City rather than the County as sponsor. Sorry for the confusion. Des. No.: 1601197 Project Description: Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvements Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Johnson County with funding from the Federal Highway Administration and administrative oversight from the Indiana Department of Transportation, proposes to proceed with the Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvements Project, Des. No. 1601197. 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 Landmarks Johnson County Historian Johnson County Historical Society/ Museum Restore Old Town Greenwood Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Johnson County Commissioners Johnson County Highway Department Greenwood Street Superintendent Mayor of Greenwood Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians 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), and respond with your 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 a hard copy of the materials is needed, please respond to this email with your request within seven (7) days.
1
D - 29
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 smiller@indot.in.gov or 317-233-6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at michelle.allen@dot.gov or 317-226-7344. Thank you in advance for your input,
Connie Zeigler Architectural Historian connie@green3studio.com
2
D - 30
Archaeology Report Summary & Conclusions
D - 31
INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SHORT REPORT
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ARCHAEOLOGY 402 West Washington Street, Room W274 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2739 Telephone Number: (317) 232-1646 Fax Number: (317) 232-0693 E-mail: dhpa@dnr.IN.gov
State Form 54566 (1-11)
Where applicable, the use of this form is recommended but not required by the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.
Author:
Christopher Jackson Date (month, day, year): November 21, 2018
Project Title:
A Phase Ia Archaeological Records Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Fairview Road and Peterman Road Roundabout in White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana.
PROJECT OVERVIEW The project need arises from high traffic volumes at the intersection causing significant queues for motorists. The purpose of the project is to improve the traffic capacity of the intersection. The current proposed project would construct a single-lane roundabout at the intersection with sidewalk crossings.
Project Description:
INDOT Designation Number/ Contract Number: 1601197 DHPA Number: Prepared For:
23089
Project Number:
Approved DHPA Plan Number:
CrossRoad Engineers
Contact Person: Mark Beck Address: 3417 Sherman Drive City:
Beech Grove
Telephone Number:
State: 317-780-1555
IN
E-mail Address:
ZIP Code: 46107 mbeck@crossroadengineers.com
Principal Investigator: Christopher Jackson Signature: Company/Institution: Address: City:
Green 3
1104 Prospect Street
Indianapolis
Telephone Number:
State: 317-634-4110
IN
E-mail Address:
ZIP Code: 46203 chris@green3studio.com
D - 32
Shovel probes were excavated in those areas that were not visually disturbed. The shovel probes were 30 cm in diameter. Due to the small area outside of the existing right-of-way, only one shovel probe was excavated in each quadrant. If intact undisturbed soils were encountered, then the soilis were screened through .25-inch hardware mesh. All shovel probes were documented. This consisted of the stratrigraphy (soil color, texture, and depth/thickness) of each shovel probe. The UTM coordinates of each shovel probe was determined via a hand held GPS unit Attach photographs documenting disturbances below Describe Disturbances: Comments:
existing roads, right-of-ways, drainage ditches. fill material (determined from two of the shovel probes).
The weather at the time of the survey was cold and overcast; rain had fallen prior to the fieldwork. The temperature was approximately 40 degrees F. The weather had no impact on the field investigation.
RESULTS Archaeological records check has determined that the project area does not have the potential to contain archaeological resources. Archaeological records check has determined that the project area has the potential to contain archaeological resources. Phase Ia reconnaissance has located no archaeological resources in the project area. Phase Ia reconnaissance has identified landforms conducive to buried archaeological deposits. Actual Area Surveyed hectares:
.3
acres:
.7
The project area was divided into quadrants. The following is a description of each quadrant beginning with the northwest and proceeding in a clockwise manner. Northwest quadrant: The ground cover consisted of a yard with a couple of large trees located adjacent and/or in the proposed project area. Surface visibility was 0 percent. The terrain consisted of fairly level moraine. Due to the non-existent visibility, a shovel probe was excavated. Visual disturbances were comprised of drainage ditches, a waterline, and a paved driveway.
Comments:
One shovel probe was excavated. The shovel probe was situated at UTM coordinates E570585 N435933. The soil profile consisted of a very dark gray (10YR3/1) slit clay with pea gravels that was 18 cm in depth. This was followed by a fill material of dark yellow brown (10YR3/4) and yellowish red (5YR5/8) clay with pea gravels. It should be noted that compact gravels were encountered at the base of the shovel probe; excavation of the shovel probe was terminated at 30 cm due to the gravels. Northeast quadrant: The vegetation entailed a yard with three trees that are located either in or immediately adjacent to the project area. Surface visibility was 0 percent. Because of the lack of visibility, a shovel probe was excavated. The topography was composed of level moraine. Visual disturbances entailed the drainage ditch and a paved driveway. One shovel probe was excavated, which was located at UTM coordinates E570622 N4385941. The soil profile was comprised of a dark gray brown (10YR4/2) silt clay loam that was 19 cm in depth. This was followed by a brown (10YR5/3) silt loam. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 50 cm and subsoil was not encountered. Southeast quadrant: The ground cover consisted of a yard with 0 percent surface visibility. Because of the non-existent visibility, a shovel probe was excavated. The terrain consisted of level moraine. Visual disturbances entailed drainage ditches, underground utilities, paved driveway, and a D - 33
landscaped yard that slightly sloped toward the ditches. One shovel probe, located at UTM coordinates E570616 N4385901, was excavated in this quarter. An inspection of the soil profile indicated that this area was disturbed via fill. The stratigraphy was comprised of a very dark gray (10YR3/1) slit clay that was 28 cm in depth. This was followed by a fill material of dark yellow brown (10YR3/4) and yellowish red (5YR5/8) clay with pea gravels. Excavated of the shovel probe was terminated at 35 cm. Southwest quadrant: The vegetation was composed of a yard with 0 percent surface visibility. As a result of the lack of visibility, a shovel probe was excavated. The shovel probe was situated at UTM coordinates E570587 N4385906. The soil profile entailed a brown (10YR5/3) silt loam that was 45 cm in depth. This was followed by a pale brown (10YR6/3) clay loam subsoil. Excavation of the shovel probe was stopped at 53 cm. Visual disturbances were comprised of drainage ditches, paved drive, and landscaped yard that sloped toward the drainage ditches. Because all of the shovel probes were negative, no sites were documented by this investigation. It was also ascertained that the northwestern and southeastern quadrants have been disturbed via fill material, while the southwestern and northeastern quadrants appear to have intact soils.
RECOMMENDATION The archaeological records check has determined that the project area has the potential to contain archaeologic resources and a Phase Ia archaeological reconnaissance is recommended. The archaeological records check has determined that the project area does not have the potential to contain archaeological resources and no further work is recommended before the project is allowed to proceed. The Phase Ia archaeological reconnaissance has located no archaeological sites within the project area and it is recommended that the project be allowed to proceed as planned. The Phase Ia archaeological reconnaissance has determined that the project area includes landforms which have the potential to contain buried archaeological deposits. It is recommended that Phase Ic archaeological subsurface reconnaissance be conducted before the project is allowed to proceed. The Phase Ia archaeological reconnaissance has determined that the project area is within 100 feet of a cemetery and a Cemetery Development Plan is required per IC-14-21-1-26.5. Cemetery Name: Other Recommendations/Commitments: Pursuant to IC-14-21-1, if any archaeological artifacts or human remains are uncovered during construction, demolition, or earthmoving activities, state law (Indiana Code 14-21-1-27 and 29) requires that the discovery must be reported to the Department of Natural Resources within two (2) business days. In that event, please call (317) 232-1646.
Attachments Figure showing project location within Indiana. USGS topographic map showing the project area (1:24,000scale). Aerial photograph showing the project area, land use and survey methods. Photographs of the project area. Project plans (if available) D - 34
Excerpts from Historic Property Report (Green 3, LLC, September 2018)
D - 35
Fairview Road and Peterman Road Intersection Improvements Project HISTORIC PROPERTY SHORT REPORT Greenwood, Johnson County, Indiana Des. No. 1601197 September 25, 2018
Prepared for: Crossroads Engineers 3417 Sherman Dr. Beech Grove, IN 46017 By:
Connie Zeigler Green3 LLC Historic Fountain Square 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203
p. 317.634.4110
f. 866.422.2046
connie@green3studio.com
D - 36
Management Summary The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and City of Greenwood plan to proceed with the Fairview Road and Peterman Road Roundabout Project, Des. No. 1601197. The proposed undertaking is at the intersection of Fairview and Peterman roads, Greenwood, White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana. The project will provide a roundabout intersection improvement at the intersection of Fairview Road and Peterman Road. The area of potential effects (APE) of the project includes all properties adjacent to the project and those with a proximate viewshed of the project. Development shields the project from view of most of the surrounding area. Connie Zeigler, a qualified professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards, evaluated properties in the APE and prepared the Historic Property Short Report. There are no previously surveyed resources within the APE. No resource within the APE is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No resource is recommended eligible for the NRHP.
Note to reader: The HPR erroneously stated that the City of Greenwood is the project sponsor; the correct project sponsor is Johnson County. The "No Historic Properties Affected" effect finding and Public Notice for the effect finding both include the correct project sponsor. Refer to Appendix D-5 through D-13.
D - 37
Figure 2: Area of Potential Effects Map
D - 38
Des No 1601197 Appendix E Red Flag Investigation
E-1
Date:
October 2, 2018
To:
Site Assessment & Management Environmental Services Indiana Department of Transportation 100 N Senate Avenue, Room N642 Indianapolis, IN 46204
From: Kevin McLane Seymour District (project location) 1104 Prospect St Indianapolis, IN 46203 kevin@green3studio.com Re:
RED FLAG INVESTIGATION DES # 1601197, Local Project Intersection Improvement Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd. Johnson County, Indiana
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Brief Description of Project: An intersection improvement is being proposed at the intersection of Fairview road and Peterman Road in the City of Greenwood, White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana (Des. 1601197). The local project sponsor is the City of Greenwood and it is also funded through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program from the Federal Highway Administration. The project plans to address the inadequate capacity of the intersection by improving the existing four-way stop controlled intersection to a modern single-lane roundabout. Bridge and/or Culvert Project: Yes ☐ No ☒ Structure # 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 Permanent ☒ # Acres Anticipated that over 0.5 acre of combined temporary and permanent ROW will be required. Type of excavation: Excavation will be limited to roadway reconstruction and associated drainage structures. Maximum estimated depth is approximately 4 feet. Maintenance of traffic: Anticipated road closure and detour using Smith Valley Rd, SR 135, and Morgantown Rd. Work in waterway: Yes ☐ No ☒ Above ordinary high water mark: Yes ☐ No ☒ State Project: ☐ LPA: ☒ Any other factors influencing recommendations: N/A
E-2
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:
1In
Religious Facilities
N/A
Recreational Facilities
N/A
1
Airports Cemeteries
N/A 2
Pipelines Railroads
2 N/A
Hospitals
N/A
Trails
N/A
Schools
N/A
Managed Lands
N/A
order to complete the required airport review, a review of public airports within 3.8 miles (20,000 feet) is required.
Explanation: Pipelines: Two (2) natural gas pipelines are located within the 0.5 mile search radius. The closest pipeline, marked as owned by Indiana Gas Co. (now Vectren Gas), travels under the planned roundabout. Utility coordination has already begun and coordination with Vectren will occur. Cemeteries: Two (2) cemeteries are located within the 0.5 mile search radius. The closest cemetery is the Messersmith Cemetery located approximately 0.49 mile south of the project area. No impacts are 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 Karst Springs Canal Structures â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Historic NPS NRI Listed NWI-Lines IDEM 303d Listed Streams and Lakes (Impaired) Rivers and Streams
N/A N/A N/A N/A 4
Canal Routes - Historic NWI - Wetlands Lakes Floodplain - DFIRM Cave Entrance Density
N/A 2 1 16 N/A
3
Sinkhole Areas
N/A
8
Sinking-Stream Basins
N/A
Explanation: NWI-Lines: Four (4) NWI-Lines are located within the 0.5 mile search radius. The closest NWI-Line, Pleasant Run Creek, is located approximately 0.35 mile north of the project area. No impacts are expected. IDEM 303d Listed Streams and Lakes (Impaired): Three (3) streams are listed as impaired within the 0.5 mile search radius. The closest stream, Pleasant Run Creek, is located approximately 0.35 mile north of the project area and is listed as impaired for E. Coli and Impaired Biotic Communities. No impacts will occur. Rivers and Streams: Eight (8) stream segments are located within the 0.5 mile search radius. The closest stream, Pleasant Run Creek, is located approximately 0.35 mile north of the project area. No impacts are expected.
E-3
NWI-Wetlands: Two (2) NWI-Wetlands are located within the 0.5 mile search radius. The closest wetland is a pond located approximately 0.25 mile northwest of the project area, no impacts are expected. Lakes: One (1) lake is located within the 0.5 mile search radius. This lake is also mapped as a wetland and is located approximately 0.29 mile southeast of the project area. No impacts are expected. Floodplains: Sixteen (16) floodplains are located within the 0.5 mile search radius. The closest floodplain is along Pleasant Run Creek and is located approximately 0.23 mile northwest of the project area. No impacts are expected. URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY SUMMARY Explanation: This project lies within the Greenwood Urban Area Boundary. Post construction Storm Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) may need to be considered. An early coordination letter with topographic and aerial maps showing the project area should be sent to the Greenwood MS4 Coordinator, at 300 S. Madison Ave., Greenwood, IN, 46143 and the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Director at 86 West Court St., Franklin, IN 46131. 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 Mines â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Surface
N/A N/A
Mineral Resources Mines â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Underground
N/A N/A
Explanation: There are no mining or mineral resources mapped within the 0.5 mile search radius of the project area. 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 RCRA Generator/ TSD
N/A N/A
Manufactured Gas Plant Sites Open Dump Waste Sites
N/A N/A
RCRA Corrective Action Sites State Cleanup Sites Septage Waste Sites Underground Storage Tank (UST) Sites Voluntary Remediation Program
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Restricted Waste Sites Waste Transfer Stations Tire Waste Sites Confined Feeding Operations (CFO) Brownfields
Construction Demolition Waste Solid Waste Landfill
N/A N/A
Institutional Controls NPDES Facilities
N/A N/A
Infectious/Medical Waste Sites Leaking Underground Storage (LUST) Sites
N/A
NPDES Pipe Locations
N/A
N/A
Notice of Contamination Sites
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Explanation: There are no Hazardous Material Concerns mapped within the 0.5 search radius of the project area.
E-4
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION SUMMARY The Johnson 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 not 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 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 Consulting (IPaC) website indicated the project area is mapped within the historic range for the Rusty Patched Bumble bee, but is not within the high potential zone. No impact is expected. RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION Include recommendations from each section. If there are no recommendations, please indicate N/A: INFRASTRUCTURE: Due to the presence of one (1) pipeline in the project area, marked as owned by Indiana Gas Co. (now Vectren Gas), coordination will occur with Vectren Gas during utility coordination. WATER RESOURCES: N/A URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY: This project lies within the Greenwood Urban Area Boundary. Post construction Storm Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) may need to be considered. An early coordination letter with topographic and aerial maps showing the project area should be sent to the Greenwood MS4 Coordinator, at 300 S. Madison Ave., Greenwood, IN, 46143 and the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Director at 86 West Court St., Franklin, IN 46131. MINING/MINERAL EXPLORATION: N/A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CONCERNS: N/A ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION: Coordination with USFWS and IDNR will occur. 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”. INDOT Environmental Services concurrence: Prepared by: Kevin McLane Ecologist Green 3, LLC
(Signature)
December 12, 2018
E-5
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: YES MINING/MINERAL EXPLORATION: N/A HAZMAT CONCERNS: N/A
E-6
Fairview Rd. & Peterman Rd. Intersection Improvement Des. No. 1601197 Johnson County, Indiana General Location Map
Project Location
White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana
00.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 Kilometers Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © E-7 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 Esri 6 7 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
O
Red Flag Investigation - USGS Topographic Map Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement - Des. 1601197 Johnson County, Indiana
MARION
JOHNSON
ยบ 0.5 0.25 0 Sources: Non Orthophotography Data - Obtained from the State of Indiana Geographical Information Office Library Orthophotography - Obtained from Indiana Map Framework Data (www.indianamap.org) Map Projection: UTM Zone 16 N Map Datum: NAD83 This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation only. This information is not warranted for accuracy or other purposes.
0.5 Miles
{NAME} QUADRANGLE INDIANA 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) E-8
Red Flag Investigation - Infrastructure Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement - Des. 1601197 Johnson County, Indiana AY KRISTI W
EAS Y
O O D CR
PRIMROSE CT
RAMBLIN RD
PRIMROSE PATH
ROCKINGCHAIR RD
K EE W O O
C AY THW
SAN RICARDO CT
LN
LN
VALL E
Y
DR
RE
RE
SU
MO
Z LA
OD
I LE
WO
DR
SAN CARLOS DR
D
Y WA Y CT
LUCKY LN
CR
DR
TRANQUIL TR
CT
TH W AY
I NE W AY
K
O DR
U SO
SO U
SUNS H
EE
SAN RICARD
REDMAN DR
RIDGE RD
CT
NONCHALANT CT
SILVER HILL DR
C HI
RY KO
WOOD CREEK PL
SI LV E
R
CR
DR
VALLEY WAY RD
SP
S
W
ER LV I S
NG RI
EE
K
CT
ST
I LE
VILLAS DR
SU
R
E
C
AD SH
T
Y
LN
SAN MARCOS DR
T
SHADOW RD
DS
OVAL PLACE
IND
DR
WINDSOR CT
0.15
0.075
0
Sources: Non Orthophotography Data - Obtained from the State of Indiana Geographical Information Office Library Orthophotography - Obtained from Indiana Map Framework Data (www.indianamap.org) Map Projection: UTM Zone 16 N Map Datum: NAD83
This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation only. This information is not warranted for accuracy or other purposes.
0.15 Miles
0 p
Religious Facility Airport
Ý
Cemeteries
® v
Hospital
m n
School
CAREFREE CT
WAY OO
_
Recreation Facility Pipeline
Railroad Trails
Managed Lands
County Boundary
º
IN ERM
AY DW
R OA M
RO
IDLE
AM
IN CT
IN D
R
WAY CT
SERENITY WAY
W
NEV
INDIANA RR CO
T
SOUTHWIND LN
N 400 W WEST WING VIEW
SOU THW
HILLENDALE DR
WIND SONG LN
ADRIENNE LN
N RD RUNYO
NU
AY W
N RY L UNT
W AL
ER
DR
D
SOUTHWIND TER
D LN
CT
IN SOUTHW
TR
D DR SS
HI L L
SERENITY CT
CT
LL
CT
RIPPLEWOO
RUNYON CT
ME
ERS
H MIT
OW
N
SOUTHWIND
MI
HAZY
SHA D
EA
CI R
M
ISE
ND WI
SHADOWHILL LN
HAZY LN
CO
R SUN
HILL DR
WINDVIEW CIR
LAKE CT
W SHADO
LEANING TREE RD
RD
SUMMIT RIDGE RD
I NE W AY
LS CT
T ES
JASM
R
CR
BITTERSWEET LN
GREEN HIL
FAIRVIEW RD
LAKE D
TARA CT
TYLER CT
JOHNSON
SANTA CLARA DR
AN W
D
ER
Project Area
AY W
Half Mile Radius Toll
Interstate
State Route US Route
Local Road
E-9
Red Flag Investigation - Water Resources Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement - Des. 1601197 Johnson County, Indiana
LA KE
GS D
R
CT
C HI
RY KO
CT
ST
SUNS H
W O O D CR
NONCHALANT CT
ER
SPRIN
WOOD CREEK PL
V SIL
SILVE R
EAS Y
RAMBLIN RD
AY KRISTI W
I NE W AY
EE K
U SO
CT
C AY THW
SAN RICARDO CT
TRANQUIL TR
PRIMROSE CT
LN
LN
VALL E
Y
DR
AD SH
RE
RE
SU
MO
Z LA
OD
I LE
WO
DR
E
SAN CARLOS DR
D
Y WA Y CT
O
DR
O
DG RI
TH W AY
ROCKINGCHAIR RD
W
T SO U
PRIMROSE PATH
K EE
RIDGE RD
LUCKY LN
CR
OSIN C
O DR
MOC C
SAN RICARD
REDMAN DR
VALLEY WAY RD
CT
SILVER HILL DR
I LE
VILLAS DR
SU
R
E
C
T
Y
LN
SAN MARCOS DR
T
SHADOW RD
T
W
OO
DS
DR
OVAL PLACE
WINDSOR CT
0.15
0.075
0
Sources: Non Orthophotography Data - Obtained from the State of Indiana Geographical Information Office Library Orthophotography - Obtained from Indiana Map Framework Data (www.indianamap.org) Map Projection: UTM Zone 16 N Map Datum: NAD83
This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation only. This information is not warranted for accuracy or other purposes.
0.15 Miles
\
òW WX X
º
IDLE
AM
IN D
R
WAY CT
AN W
D
ER
AY W
Wetlands
Project Area
Karst Spring
Lake
Half Mile Radius
NWI- Line
Floodplain - DFIRM
W W WCave Entrance Density W< W< WSinkhole Area < River <Ü <Ü <Sinking-Stream Basin Ü Canal Structure - Historic Canal Route - HistoricÜ Ü ÜCounty Boundary
" NPS NRI listed
0
AY DW
NWI - Point
! ! Impaired_Stream_Lake "
MIN
RO
SERENITY WAY
NU
INDIANA RR CO
W AL
SOUTHWIND LN
N RY L UNT
RUNYO
N RD
CO
SS
WEST WING VIEW
ADRIENNE LN
D DR
RUNYON CT
ME
ERS
H MIT
DR
CAREFREE CT
WAY SOU THW
AY W
IND
ER
SOUTHWIND TER
ER NEV
D LN
N 400 W
D
IN SOUTHW
TR
CT
SERENITY CT
CT
LL
CT
HI L L
N
SOUTHWIND
MI
HAZY
RIPPLEWOO
HAZY LN
OW
EA
CI R
ND WI
SHADOWHILL LN
SHA D
M
ISE
HILL DR
WIND SONG LN
R SUN
HILLENDALE DR
LAKE CT
W SHADO
LEANING TREE RD
RD
SUMMIT RIDGE RD
I NE W AY
WINDVIEW CIR
LS CT
T ES
JASM
R
CR
BITTERSWEET LN
GREEN HIL
FAIRVIEW RD
LAKE D
TARA CT
TYLER CT
JOHNSON
SANTA CLARA DR
Toll Interstate State Route US Route Local Road
E - 10
Red Flag Investigation - Urbanized Area Boundary Fairview Rd and Peterman Rd Intersection Improvement - Des. 1601197 Johnson County, IN EASY ST
O O D CR
CT
PRIMROSE CT
ROCKINGCHAIR RD
W O O
U SO
CT
C AY THW
SAN RICARDO CT
LN
LN
VALL E
Y
DR
RE
RE
SU
MO
Z LA
OD
I LE
WO
DR
E
SAN CARLOS DR
D
Y WA Y CT
LN
PRIMROSE PATH
K EE
DR
LUCKY
CR
DG RI
TH W AY
I NE W AY
K
IN CT
O DR
C OS
SO U
SUNS H
EE
VALLEY WAY RD
W
REDMAN DR
SAN RICARD
MOC
RIDGE RD
CT
RAMBLIN RD
C HI
RY KO
NONCHALANT CT
R
TRANQUIL TR
GS D
WOOD CREEK PL
SPRIN
SILVER HILL DR
SILVE R
I LE
VILLAS DR
SU
R
E
C
T
AD SH
Y
LN
SAN MARCOS DR
T
CAREFREE CT
INDIANA RR CO WAY IND
AY W
SOU THW
TARA CT HILLENDALE DR
SHADOW RD
ER
N 400 W
D
WIND SONG LN
N
R
ALLISON CT
YD
0.15
OVAL PLACE
WINDSOR CT
0.075
0
0.15 Miles
Sources: Non Orthophotography Data - Obtained from the State of Indiana Geographical Information Office Library Orthophotography - Obtained from Indiana Map Framework Data (www.indianamap.org) Map Projection: UTM Zone 16 N Map Datum: NAD83
This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation only. This information is not warranted for accuracy or other purposes.
NU
T
W
OO
UAB
County Boundary Project Area Half Mile Radius
DS
DR
RM SUGA
APL E
ยบ
CT
IDLE
SERENITY WAY
ER I HO
N RY L UNT
W AL
WHITE OAK LN
RS
WEST WING VIEW
SSE
N
CT
ADRIENNE LN
D DR
RUNYON CT
ME
H MIT
DR
SOUTHWIND LN
LEANING TREE RD
EA
SOUTHWIND TER
D LN
CT
M
TR
RIPPLEWOO
HI L L
IN SOUTHW
LL
CT
OW
CT
MI
HAZY
SHA D
SERENITY CT
RO
CO
RUNYON RD
LS CT
R
SOUTHWIND
ND WI
SHADOWHILL LN
HAZY LN
VA N
CI R
HILL DR
WINDVIEW CIR
RD
ISE
AI LS
LAKE CT
R SUN
TR
SUMMIT RIDGE RD
W SHADO
I NE W AY
NG
RD
LL I
GREEN HIL
LAKE D
T ES
BITTERSWEET LN
JASM
FAIRVIEW RD
CR
JOHNSON
RO
TYLER CT
L AY P THW SOU
SANTA CLARA DR
Toll
Interstate
State Route US Route
Local Road
E - 11
AM
IN D
WAY CT
R
!
" ## $! % & #& '" # (
!" " # $%$
# ' () "
&
+ # "
&
&
*
&
*
*
$ # ,
&
&
" # -
% ( ( (
&
! ) ' *# + #*# (
- . % )
/ -
- #0. # , # . .)
#
+ #1 )
&
2-
-
% !
- ( $ 1 % .
! "
' .1 % .
# #
&
*
-
3% # #% %
-
#0 # # ' .)
&
'
#
-
$
- #
&
&
-
-
$
$0
%& &
-
' & &
- ()0( . # 0
-
(
+
*
-
(
4
-
&
*
- 5.
)
' # #
&
-
"
#
# -
&
*
*
*
&
6
*
- . -
&
&
*
# -
&
*
7 # - ( ,"
7 # ' 8 & 8 ! ! 7 # 8 % $ ( # ( $% ! ( " ! " 9
: #; ; > +;
> +;
< # #= < #= & < ( # # = 8 < % % # # < # #= < #= < = & < % ( % ( ( ( = 2 < % #= < ( = < . ( ' ); < ( ( " $% # "= < $% # "= < ( $$ "= * < . # % # # # " . $ ( ( = < . # % # # # "= 6 < ) #= 2 < ( = ? < ( )= < $ ( ) ' ); < ( ( " $% # = < $% # = < ( $$ = * < . # % # # # . $ ( ( = < ( = ' < ( = 2 < % #= - < # = 6 < ) #= < ) #= > < # ) # E - 12
!
'
! -
( # -
&
>$ ( - #
&
, # -# !+
& , / 0
&
$ # #
& &
*
*
,
#
$ +
& $
$
#
*
-
-
*
&
>$ (
*
8 . " @ . 4
.
' # #. #
. / # #
/ 0 " 0
0$ ( : #% :
/ 0 0 $ (
' # $ 8 "0$ ( 3% # : ' # $ , ( 3% # : & ( $ %
/ 0 $ ( ) 0
7 # ' 8 & 8 ! ! 7 # 8 % $ ( # ( $% ! ( " ! " 9
: #; ; > +;
> +;
6
3
< # #= < #= & < ( # # = 8 < % % # # < # #= < #= < = & < % ( % ( ( ( = 2 < % #= < ( = < . ( ' ); < ( ( " $% # "= < $% # "= < ( $$ "= * < . # % # # # " . $ ( ( = < . # % # # # "= 6 < ) #= 2 < ( = ? < ( )= < $ ( ) ' ); < ( ( " $% # = < $% # = < ( $$ = * < . # % # # # . $ ( ( = < ( = ' < ( = 2 < % #= - < # = 6 < ) #= < ) #= > < # ) # E - 13
Des No 1601197 Appendix F Water Resources
F-1
P
CR
SAN RICARDO DR
National Wetlands Inventory Map N DR REDMA Roundabout Construction Fairview Road and Peterman Road Des. No. 1601197 Johnson County, Indiana Source: USFWS NWI Wetlands of Indiana (2014)
EE O
D IN
O
SAN RICARDO CT
VILLAS DR
R
FAIRVIEW RD
SHADOW RD
N 400 W
HILLENDALE DR
WIND SONG LN
IR
CI R
EC
LI L
RIS
ND WI
LL MI
SHADOWHILL LN
TR
SHA
DO
WH
I LL
U SO
TH
W
D IN
AY W
CT National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), FarmSOUTHW ServicesIND Agency TER(FSA), U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), UITS, Indiana Spatial Data Portal
HAZY LN
0.07
SUN
AC
L DR
D
/ 0
LAKE CT
SOUTHWIND CT
TR
OW HIL
ES
SUMMIT RIDGE RD
R
SHAD
CR ROLLING TRAILS RD
PUBGx
LAKE D
TARA CT
SANTA CLARA DR
TYLER CT
SAN MARCOS DR
DR
LN
RE
H
RD
RE
MO
GC
R AI
U IS LE
SD
OD
C
CO
LO
PUBGh
RO
N KI
RR
AR
WO
NA
DR
IA
D
NC
RO
TH PA
KW
SA
M RI
SE
0.14 Miles
Project Location
Lake
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Other
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond
Riverine
F-2
PR
CR
SAN RICARDO DR
EE O
D IN
O
SAN RICARDO CT
VALLEY WAY RD
OW HIL
SUMMIT RIDGE RD
D IN
LL MI
SHADOW RD
N 400 W
HILLENDALE DR WIND SONG LN
IR
W
/
EC
RD
RIS
LS
SUN
AI
LAKE CT
L DR
TR
R
SHAD
IN G
LAKE D
TARA CT
SAN MARCOS DR
FAIRVIEW RD
D
LL
TR
SHADOWHILL LN
SHA
DO
WH
I LL
SO
CT
Project Location 0.07
UT
HW
D IN
Y WA
IND TER SOUTHW National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), Farm Services Agency (FSA), U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), UITS, Indiana Spatial Data Portal
HAZY LN
0
LN
SANTA CLARA DR
TR
RO
RE
CO
DR
TYLER CT
LN
U IS LE
RR
RE
VILLAS DR
R
ES
SW EET
SD
MO
CR
BITTER
LO
NA
DR
AR
OD
IA
D
NC
SE
KW
WO
SA
IM
RO
TH PA
SOUTHWIND CT
Floodplain Map AN DR Roundabout REDM Construction Fairview Road and Peterman Road Des. No. 1601197 Johnson County, Indiana Source: IDNR FIRM (2018)
0.14 Miles
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0.2% Annual Chance, Protected by Levee
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
F-3
570400
570500
570600
570700
570800
570900 4386300
4386300
39° 37' 25'' N
4385500
4385500
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
570500
570600
570700
570800
570900 86° 10' 24'' W
570400 86° 10' 51'' W
39° 36' 58'' N
4385600
4385600
4385700
4385700
4385800
4385800
4385900
4385900
4386000
4386000
4386100
4386100
4386200
4386200
39° 37' 25'' N
86° 10' 24'' W
86° 10' 51'' W
Soil Map—Johnson County, Indiana
Map Scale: 1:4,030 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
N
Meters 300 Feet 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84
0
50
Natural Resources Conservation Service
100
200
Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey
F-4
4/17/2019 Page 1 of 3
39° 36' 58'' N
Soil Mapâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Johnson County, Indiana
MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp
MAP INFORMATION Spoil Area Stony Spot
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800.
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography
Mine or Quarry
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Johnson County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 26, Sep 7, 2018
Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Rock Outcrop
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 28, 2014
Saline Spot Sandy Spot
Jun 27, 2014â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Aug
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey
F-5
4/17/2019 Page 2 of 3
Soil Mapâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Johnson County, Indiana
Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Br
Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
0.4
0.5%
FoA
Fox loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
1.9
2.6%
FoB2
Fox loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
6.6
9.3%
FxC2
Fox complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded
0.1
0.1%
ObaA
Ockley loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
22.0
30.6%
OcB2
Ockley loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
11.7
16.3%
Re
Rensselaer silty clay loam
23.0
32.1%
Wh
Whitaker silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
6.1
8.4%
71.8
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/17/2019 Page 3 of 3
F-6
Des No 1601197 Appendix G Public Involvement (In accordance with the INDOT Public Involvement Office, the opportunity to request a public hearing will be offered; therefore, this appendix will be updated with all public involvement documentation after the public hearing)
G-1
July 17, 2018 NOTICE OF SURVEY
RE:
Project and Survey Notification W Fairview Road & Peterman Road
Dear Property Owner: Our information indicates that you own or occupy property near this proposed road improvement project. CrossRoad Engineers, P.C. will be doing a survey of the project area in the near future. It may be necessary to come onto your property to complete this work. This is allowed by law by Indiana Code IC 8-23-7-26. We will show you identification, if you are available, before coming onto the property. If you have sold this property, or it is occupied by someone else, please let us know the name and address of the new owner or current occupant so we can contact them about the survey. At this stage we generally do not know exactly what effect, if any, our project may eventually have on your property. As we continue with the development of the project, we will continue to keep property owners and the general public informed on the schedule and project details. The survey work will include mapping the location of features such as trees, buildings, fences and drives, and obtaining ground elevations. The survey is needed for the proper planning and design of this roadway improvements project. Please be assured of our sincere desire to cause you as little inconvenience as possible during this survey. If you have any questions, please contact me at the phone number or address shown below.
Sincerely yours,
Trent E. Newport, P. E., L. S. President
3417 SHERMAN DR, BEECH GROVE, IN 46107 // 317.780.1555 // CROSSROADENGINEERS.COM
G-2
Des No 1601197 Appendix H Air Quality
H-1
Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) State Preservation and Local Initiated Projects FY 2018 - 2021 SPONSOR
CONTR
STIP
ACT # /
NAME
ROUTE
WORK TYPE
LOCATION
DISTRICT
MILES
FEDERAL
Estimated
CATEGORY
Cost left to
LEAD
Complete
DES
Project*
Johnson County
39641 / 1601196
Init.
VA 1031
Railroad Crossing
Installation of active warning devices at RR grade crossings along IN/Louisville
Seymour
0 STP
Johnson County
39641 / 1601196
A 14
VA 1031
Railroad Crossing
Installation of active warning devices at RR grade crossings along IN/Louisville
Seymour
0 Safety
PROGRAM
PHASE
FEDERAL
MATCH
2018
2019
2020
2021
CN
$0.00
$486,000.00
$486,000.00
CN
-$225,000.00
$0.00
($225,000.00)
100% Local Funds
PE
$0.00
$25,000.00
100% Local Funds
CN
$0.00
-$25,000.00
Indianapolis MPO
PE
$225,000.00
$0.00
100% Local Funds
RW
$0.00
$163,000.00
100% Local Funds
CN
$0.00
$233,800.00
$233,800.00
Indianapolis MPO
CN
$935,200.00
$0.00
$935,200.00
Safety Construction
CN
$51,200.00
$12,800.00
$64,000.00
Safety Consulting
PE
$40,000.00
$10,000.00
Safety Construction
CN
$205,600.00
$51,400.00
Safety Consulting
PE
$120,000.00
$30,000.00
Road Construction
CN
$736,000.00
$184,000.00
Road Consulting
PE
$120,000.00
$30,000.00
$150,000.00
$1,899,707.00 Bridge Consulting
PE
$0.00
$0.00
($250,000.00)
$1,020,678.00 Road Construction
CN
$796,542.40
$199,135.60
PE
$20,000.00
$5,000.00
100% Local Funds $4,860,000.00 Indianapolis MPO
$25,000.00
($25,000.00)
$225,000.00
Comments:Add PE phase to STIP and amend CN phase. Indy MPO TIP Modification 18-05.1 dated 2/12/2018. Johnson County
Indiana Department of Transportation
Indiana Department of Transportation
Indiana Department of Transportation
Indiana Department of Transportation
39642 / 1601197
39737 / 1600830
39737 / 1600878
39910 / 1600866
39910 / 1701096
Init.
Init.
Init.
Init.
M 09
IR 1032
US 31
US 31
SR 44
SR 44
Intersection Improvement, Roundabout
Median Construction
Other Intersection Improvement
Road Reconstruction (3R/4R Standards)
Replace Superstructure
Intersection Roundabout at Fairview and Peterman Road
At Simon Road
at Tracy Rd in New Whiteland
0.11 miles W of I-65 to 0.15 miles E of I-65
Seymour
Seymour
Seymour
Seymour
0 STP
0 NHPP
0 NHPP
.26 NHPP
03.33 miles E of I-65 at Sugar Creek Overflow
Seymour
0 STP
0.15 mile E of I-65 to 3.56 miles E of I-65 (Johnson/Shelby CL)
Seymour
2.971 STP
$163,000.00
$50,000.00
$257,000.00
$150,000.00
$920,000.00
$250,000.00
Comments:Move PE phase from FY 2018 to FY 2019. No MPO. Indiana Department of Transportation
39910 / 1701364
A 06
SR 44
HMA Overlay, Preventive Maintenance
Road Consulting
$995,678.00
$25,000.00
Comments:New Project with 2018 PE Funding and 2021 CN funding to secure consultant to perform design work and extend the service life of the roadway. IMPO resolution number 17-IMPO-007 approved 8/23/2017
Page 319 of 837
Report Created:3/25/2019 2:27:58PM
*Estimated Costs left to Complete Project column is for costs that may extend beyond the four years of a STIP. This column is not fiscally constrained and is for information purposes.
H-2
IndyMPO - Project Info*
Project Overview
https://mitip.indympo.org/project_info.asp?project_id=1011673&v...
Funding History Amendment History
<<Go Back
Fairview/Peterman Road Intersection Improvement (1601197) Des Number
1601197
Lead Agency Johnson County
Amendment
18-00 IRTIP
Exempt Category
Exempt
Est Total Project Cost
$1,489,000
Neil VanTrees Contact (ERC) 3173464643
INDOT District
Seymour
County
Johnson Johnson Co.
Letting Date
Functional Classification
Major Collector
Bike/Ped Component(s) No
Project Type
Intersection or Intersection Groups
Title
Fairview/Peterman Road Intersection Improvement
Limits
Primary Crossstreet: Fairview Road, Secondary Crossstreet: Peterman Road
Description
Improve the existing 4-way STOP controlled intersection at Fairview and Peterman Road to a modern single lane roundabout.
Phase
Fund Source
PE
LOCAL - Other Total Preliminary Engineering
RW
LOCAL - Other Total Right of Way
Prior SFY
01/13/2021
SFY2018
-
$157,000
-
$157,000
SFY2019
SFY2020
SFY2021
SFY2022
Future SFY
Total
-
-
-
-
-
$157,000
-
-
-
-
-
$157,000
-
-
$163,000
-
-
-
-
$163,000
-
-
$163,000
-
-
-
-
$163,000 $835,200
CN
FEDERAL - CMAQ
-
-
-
-
$835,200
-
-
CN
LOCAL - Other
-
-
-
-
$208,800
-
-
$208,800
-
-
-
-
$1,044,000
-
-
$1,044,000 $100,000
Total Construction CE
FEDERAL - CMAQ
-
-
-
-
$100,000
-
-
CE
LOCAL - Other
-
-
-
-
$25,000
-
-
$25,000
Total Construction Engineering
-
-
-
-
$125,000
-
-
$125,000
Total Programmed
-
-
$1,169,000
-
-
$1,489,000
$157,000
$163,000
Map data ©2019 Google Report a map error
1 of 1
H-3 4/12/19, 1:16 PM
Des No 1601197 Appendix I Additional Studies and Information
I-1
0120121304
5678ÿ678ÿ 6 ÿ 7 6 7ÿ 78ÿ 6 6 6 ÿ 78 676ÿ ÿ 7 6
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ abcÿdefgÿhcfijkcÿjlÿmjnojnpÿqrsÿetqrsÿuqfcÿkvqlrfclÿenoÿkqnicfljqnlÿqmÿmcocfevvwÿxfqsckscoÿxefglÿsbenÿcicfÿtcmqfcy zrsÿnqÿqncÿgnq{lÿ|rlsÿbq{ÿuenw}ÿlqÿ~niclsjpesc clsÿkquxjvcoÿsbjlÿoesetelc}ÿ{bjkbÿvjlslÿcicfwÿ ÿpfens tcs{ccnÿ ÿenoÿ }ÿelÿeÿlsefsjnpÿxqjnsyÿ vjkgÿeÿkqvrunÿbceocfÿsqÿfc lqfsÿsbcÿsetvcyÿ vjkg lbjmsÿsqÿeooÿeÿlckqnoefw lqfsy
1)+ 1&ÿ+2ÿ+7)ÿ 0123)4+ÿ0%,)
5'6+)1ÿ+7)ÿ6'*+8ÿ9 7 7
ÿ
,;<=>ÿ'.ÿ? )@ABA=> 0K4ÿ#ÿLLL
,;<=>ÿ&<BA MN ÿ O PN5QM ÿRQST
]^[ÿ#ÿU
9VOMWVMÿ V_MP`ÿRQST# ROQWNÿ
*CD=ED; MN ÿ O PN5QM ÿRQST UVQS 9VOMWVMÿ V_MP`ÿRQST UVQS
<=> HA<; 4DF=>G *><>A ,; %BDF=> %CC;DIAJ 9VOMWVM M X0YZ333 33 0[\]
HA<; 4DBC@A>AJ 0[\Y
+GCA $ 76 7
9VOMWVM M
0[4K
! $ 7
X^[Z3^3 33 0[43
%& '&()*+',%+)-)*+ .%+%ÿ0123)4+
I-2
22 7 286 62! "2 67 # 7 $!
021
Environmental Justice Analysis for Fairview Road and Peterman Road Roundabout (Des. 1601197) COC
AC1 Census Tract 6106.03, Johnson Johnson County, County, Indiana Indiana B 17001001
LOW-INCOME Population for whom poverty status is determined: Total
B 17001002
Population for whom poverty status is determined:Income in past 12 months below poverty Percent Low-Income 125 Percent of COC Potential Low-Income EJ Impact?
B 03002001 B 03002002 B 03002003 B 03002004 B 03002005 B 03002006 B 03002007 B 03002008 B 03002009 B 03002010 B 03002011 B 03002012 B 03002013 B 03002014 B 03002015 B 03002016
MINORITY Total population: Total Total population: Not Hispanic or Latino Total population: Not Hispanic or Latino; White alone Total population: Not Hispanic or Latino; Black or African American alone Total population: Not Hispanic or Latino; American Indian and Alaska Native alone Total population: Not Hispanic or Latino; Asian alone Total population: Not Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Total population: Not Hispanic or Latino; Some other race alone Total population: Not Hispanic or Latino; Two or more races Total population: Hispanic or Latino Total population: Hispanic or Latino; White alone Total population: Hispanic or Latino; Black or African American alone Total population: Hispanic or Latino; American Indian and Alaska Native alone Total population: Hispanic or Latino; Asian alone Total population: Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Total population: Hispanic or Latino; Some other race alone
B 03002017
Total population: Hispanic or Latino; Two or more races Number Non-White/Minority (P007001-P007003) Percent Non-White/Minority 125 Percent of COC Potential Minority EJ Impact?
146,807
6,677
13,820
84
9.4% 11.8%
1.3% AC<125% COC No
149,359 144,184 134,849 3,406 260 4,221 0 162 1,286 5,175 2,659 111 28 0 16 1,979
6,693 6,639 6,533 4 0 90 0 0 12 54 54 0 0 0 0 0
382
0
14,510 160 9.7% 2.4% 12.1% AC<125% COC No
I-3
Des 1601197 EJ Map
Legend Your Selections 2017 boundaries were used to map 'Your Selections'
Selection Results No Legend
2017 Boundaries Census Tract Block Group
Project Location
I-4 1 of 1
12/26/2018
B03002
HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE Universe: Total population 2013-2017 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 and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.
Johnson County, Indiana
Total: Not Hispanic or Latino: White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races: Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races Hispanic or Latino: White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races: Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races
Estimate 149,359 144,184 134,849 3,406 260 4,221 0 162 1,286 161 1,125
Margin of Error ***** ***** +/-78 +/-155 +/-227 +/-242 +/-27 +/-106 +/-409 +/-188 +/-351
5,175 2,659 111 28 0 16 1,979 382 319 63
***** +/-735 +/-175 +/-34 +/-27 +/-27 +/-745 +/-271 +/-263 +/-66
Census Tract 6106.03, Johnson County, Indiana Estimate Margin of Error 6,693 +/-391 6,639 +/-394 6,533 +/-421 4 +/-9 0 +/-16 90 +/-84 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 12 +/-24 0 +/-16 12 +/-24 54 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+/-80 +/-80 +/-16 +/-16 +/-16 +/-16 +/-16 +/-16 +/-16 +/-16
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. The value 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 error and 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 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.
I-5 1 of 2
12/26/2018
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 the ACS 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. A statistical 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 calculated because 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
B17001
POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY SEX BY AGE Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined 2013-2017 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 and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.
Johnson County, Indiana
Total: Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: Male: Under 5 years 5 years 6 to 11 years 12 to 14 years 15 years 16 and 17 years 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years and over Female: Under 5 years 5 years 6 to 11 years 12 to 14 years 15 years 16 and 17 years 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years and over Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: Male: Under 5 years
1 of 2
Estimate 146,807 13,820 6,239 1,038 130 1,097 174 61 99 746 756 579 586 649 200 124 7,581 588 128 853 419 119 222 1,165 1,433 734 684 611 341 284 132,987
Margin of Error +/-345 +/-1,399 +/-782 +/-274 +/-85 +/-348 +/-91 +/-51 +/-79 +/-185 +/-231 +/-263 +/-151 +/-255 +/-91 +/-68 +/-860 +/-230 +/-70 +/-200 +/-172 +/-78 +/-120 +/-270 +/-314 +/-205 +/-184 +/-178 +/-124 +/-107 +/-1,430
65,552 3,920
+/-810 +/-316
Census Tract 6106.03, Johnson County, Indiana Estimate Margin of Error 6,677 +/-390 84 +/-71 16 +/-25 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 16 +/-25 0 +/-16 68 +/-56 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 22 +/-36 0 +/-16 0 +/-16 14 +/-23 0 +/-16 17 +/-27 15 +/-23 6,593 +/-386 3,202 250
+/-285 +/-135
I-7 12/26/2018
Johnson County, Indiana
5 years 6 to 11 years 12 to 14 years 15 years 16 and 17 years 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years and over Female: Under 5 years 5 years 6 to 11 years 12 to 14 years 15 years 16 and 17 years 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years and over
Estimate 1,269 5,455 2,771 1,124 1,976 5,018 8,809 9,930 9,218 7,741 5,346 2,975 67,435 4,040 945 5,588 2,354 984 1,930 4,969 8,427 9,449 9,544 8,654 6,246 4,305
Margin of Error +/-235 +/-449 +/-317 +/-200 +/-210 +/-256 +/-357 +/-302 +/-246 +/-288 +/-127 +/-110 +/-853 +/-249 +/-201 +/-373 +/-356 +/-198 +/-239 +/-374 +/-366 +/-253 +/-244 +/-226 +/-178 +/-188
Census Tract 6106.03, Johnson County, Indiana Estimate Margin of Error 57 +/-66 209 +/-90 117 +/-63 85 +/-97 81 +/-53 198 +/-111 252 +/-114 488 +/-124 596 +/-121 433 +/-125 323 +/-91 113 +/-56 3,391 +/-305 92 +/-64 78 +/-87 261 +/-96 142 +/-86 62 +/-44 115 +/-70 290 +/-138 373 +/-163 470 +/-122 563 +/-123 557 +/-146 262 +/-82 126 +/-56
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. The value 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 error and 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 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 the ACS 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. A statistical 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 calculated because 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-8 2 of 2
12/26/2018