Appendix C Early Coordination 100 North Senate Avenue PHONE: (317) 234-5168 Eric Holcomb, Governor Room N642 Joe Mcguinness, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Commissioner

Home , Pigeon Creek (Indiana)

Appendix C Early Coordination 100 North Senate Avenue PHONE: (317) 234-5168 Eric Holcomb, Governor Room N642 Joe McGuinness, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Commissioner

August 24, 2020

RE: Des. No. 2000514, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile north of SR 66, Vanderburgh, County, IN.

Environmental Reviewer,

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) intend to proceed with a bridge improvement project in Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana. The project is located on US 41 and involves Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile north of SR 66, on the north side of the City of Evansville. 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 project’s environmental impacts.

INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is a single span, metal Parker through truss structure built in 1940. The bridge was not included in the Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory (HBI), conducted by Mead & Hunt on INDOT's behalf, because at the time of the HBI efforts, the bridge was programmed for replacement (Des. No. 0100957). Consultation for Des. No. 0100957 under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) resulted in a determination that the bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C as a good example of an ISHC-designed Parker through truss. However, the replacement project did not move forward to completion, and the bridge was later reprogrammed for a rehabilitation project (Des. No. 1400191). The rehabilitation work was completed in 2019.

The purpose of this project under Des. No. 2000514 is to restore the crossing over Pigeon Creek. The need for the project is due to the damage done when a truck hit the bridge on January 21, 2020. Inspections revealed multiple complete fractures, partial cracks, and significant deformation of the steel (which could contain micro-cracks) in nearly all of the upper, mid, and lower connections – significantly impairing the bridge’s ability to bear normal traffic loads. Because of the significance of damage, the bridge has been closed indefinitely. Based on the Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis (WSP USA, May 2020), the preliminary preferred alternative involves replacement of the bridge along with associated scour protections. Letting is currently slated for March 2021.

It is anticipated that all work will occur within existing right-of-way. No relocation of residents or businesses will be required for this project. Some tree removal is anticipated. The maintenance of traffic (MOT) plan will utilize Diamond Avenue exit from southbound US 41. Two lanes of traffic have been maintained at all times and will still be utilized as the MOT.

The project qualifies for the application of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) range-wide programmatic informal consultation for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat and project information will be provided to the USFWS for review separately. The site has been investigated for archaeological and historic resources for compliance with Section 106 and coordination with INDOT Cultural Resources staff and Consulting Parties is ongoing.

www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer Appendix C - 1

Information specific to your agency’s area of expertise concerning the effects of the project should be forwarded to Erin Mulryan, Green 3 LLC, 1104 Prospect Street, Indianapolis, IN 46203 or by email, [email protected]. If you have any questions or comments regarding this request, please contact me at (317) 634-4110 or the above email. The INDOT Project Manager, Brian Malone, may also be contacted at (812) 836-2112 or [email protected]. Your response is requested within 30 days, and we will incorporate any of your comments into a study of the project’s environmental impacts. 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.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Erin Mulryan, MPA President Green 3, LLC

Enclosures: Early Coordination Mailing List Project Graphics Project Photographs

www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer Appendix C - 2 Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek Des. No. 2000514 Early Coordination Notice sent to the Following Agencies:

Environmental Coordinator IDNR, Div. of Fish & Wildlife Vanderburgh County MS4 Coordinator [email protected] Randy Gerth [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bloomington, Indiana Office Vanderburgh County Surveyor [email protected] Jeffrey Mueller, [email protected]

Indiana Geological Survey Evansville MPO Online Submission: [email protected] https://igws.indiana.edu/eAssessment/ City of Evansville Levee Authority IDEM [email protected] Online Submission https://www.in.gov/idem/5284.htm City of Evansville Street Maintenance Greg Bryant, Superintendent FHWA [email protected] [email protected] Lloyd Winnecke, City of Evansville Mayor Regional Environmental Noah Stubbs, Director of Communications for the Mayor Coordinator [email protected] Midwest Regional Office National Park Service City of Evansville Engineer [email protected] Brent Schmitt, [email protected]

US Dept. of HUD City of Evansville Building Commissioner (Local Floodplain Chicago Office Administrator) [email protected] Dave Bellow, [email protected]

Manager, Public Hearings City of Evansville Parks INDOT [email protected] [email protected]

Environmental Mngr. IDEM Groundwater Section INDOT Vincennes District https://www.in.gov/idem/cleanwater/pages/wellhead/ [email protected] (Several points along alignment were checked on 8/14/2020 and no wellhead protection areas or source water areas were found) NRCS [email protected]

INDOT Aviation [email protected]

Vanderburgh Co. Highway Scot Wichser, Superintendent [email protected]

Vanderburgh Co. Commissioners [email protected]

Vanderburgh County Engineer John Stoll, [email protected]

Appendix C - 3 Organization and Project Information

Project ID: Des 2000514 Des. ID: Des 2000514 Project Title: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh Co. Name of Organization: Green 3 LLC Requested by: GREEN 3 LLC

Environmental Assessment Report

1. Geological Hazards: Potential Mine Subsidence (CMIS) High liquefaction potential Floodway 2. Mineral Resources: Bedrock Resource: High Potential Sand and Gravel Resource: None documented in the area 3. Active or abandoned mineral resources extraction sites: Petroleum Exploration Wells Underground Coal Mines

*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: 420 N. Walnut St., Bloomington, IN 47404 Email: [email protected] Phone: 812 855-7428 Date: August 14, 2020

Copyright © 2015 The Trustees of Indiana University, Copyright Complaints Privacy Notice Metadata: https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Petroleum_Wells.html https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Coal_Mines_Underground.html https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Seismic_Earthquake_Liquefaction_Potential.html https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Hydrology/Floodplains_FIRM.html https://maps.indiana.edu/metadata/Geology/Bedrock_Geology.html

Appendix C - 6

Subject: Re: Des 2000514, US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh Co. Date: Monday, August 24, 2020 at 11:26:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Schmi, Brent A. To: Erin Mulryan CC: Ballew, David

Erin,

I will review, and have copied Dave Ballew our ﬂoodplain manager on this response.

Respecully Brent

Brent A. Schmi, P. E. City Engineer City of Evansville Email: Baschmi@evansville.in.gov Phone: (812)-436-4990

On Aug 24, 2020, at 9:05 AM, Erin Mulryan wrote:

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Dear Environmental Reviewer, Hello, aached is early coordinaon project informaon for the abovemenoned project on the north side of Evansville, Vanderburgh County, IN for review and comment. Please also forward me the contact informaon for the city of Evansville Floodplain Administrator, if there is such an appointed person.

Please feel free to contact me via phone or email. Your response is kindly requested within 30 days.

Thank You, Erin Mulryan, MPA Green 3 LLC 317-634-4110 (Due to the coronavirus, I am working from home and can be reached on my cell, 317-525-1192 if needed) green3studio.com

Appendix C - 7 Monday, August 24, 2020 at 10:44:43 Eastern Daylight Time

Subject: RE: Des 2000514, US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh Co. Date: Monday, August 24, 2020 at 10:33:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Ballew, David To: Erin Mulryan Aachments: image001.png

Erin,

Thank you for the informaon.

Just to clarify, I am the Building Commissioner and the Floodplain Administrator.

Thank you,

David Ballew, CFM Building Commissioner/Floodplain Admininstrator Evansville-Vanderburgh County Building Commission 1 NW MLK Blvd Rm 310 Evansville, IN 47708 812 436-7872 Oﬃce 812 483-5630 Mobile

From: Erin Mulryan Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:06 AM To: Ballew, David Subject: Des 2000514, US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh Co.

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Dear Environmental Reviewer, Hello, aached is early coordinaon project informaon for the abovemenoned project on the north side of Evansville, Vanderburgh County, IN for review and comment. Please let me know if you are the Floodplain Administrator for the city.

Please feel free to contact me via phone or email. Your response is kindly requested within 30 days.

Thank You, Erin Mulryan, MPA Green 3 LLC 317-634-4110

Appendix C - 8 Appendix C - 9 Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 08:04:05 Eastern Daylight Time

Subject: RE: Des 2000514, US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh Co. Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 7:53:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Courtade, Julian To: Erin Mulryan Aachments: image002.png, image003.png, image004.png, image005.png, image006.png, image007.png, image008.png

Erin –

Aer reviewing the Early Coordinaon Leer, I have determined that if any object, obstrucon, or equipment will exceed 90 . in height, further coordinaon will be required with our oﬃce. This is due to the close proximity of Evansville Airport and the need for any obstrucons within 5 miles to meet a 100:1 glideslope to the nearest runway. Please let me know if you have any quesons!

Best,

Julian L. Courtade Chief Airport Inspector 100 North Senate Ave, N955 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Cell: (317) 954-7385 Email: [email protected]

From: Erin Mulryan Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:23 AM To: Courtade, Julian Subject: Des 2000514, US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh Co.

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Dear Environmental Reviewer,

Appendix C - 10 Appendix C - 11 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT State of Indiana DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Fish and Wildlife Early Coordination/Environmental Assessment DNR #: ER-19233-1 Request Received: August 14, 2020

Requestor: Green 3 LLC Erin Mulryan 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203

Project: US 41 bridge (#041-82-03286HSBL; NBI #014310) replacement over Pigeon Creek (due to structural damage from a truck), 0.37 mile north of SR 66, Evansville; Des #2000514 County/Site info: Vanderburgh The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the above referenced project per your request. Our agency offers the following comments for your information and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

If our agency has regulatory jurisdiction over the project, the recommendations contained in this letter may become requirements of any permit issued. If we do not have permitting authority, all recommendations are voluntary. Regulatory Assessment: This proposal will require the formal approval for construction in a floodway under the Flood Control Act, IC 14-28-1. Please submit a copy of this letter with the permit application. Natural Heritage Database: The Natural Heritage Program's data have been checked. A southern bottomlands mesic upland forest community has been documented within 1/2 mile northeast of the project area. The Division of Nature Preserves recommends that construction activity be confined as much as possible at the east end of the project area to minimize the potential impacts to this high quality natural community. Fish & Wildlife Comments: Avoid and minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources to the greatest extent possible, and compensate for impacts. The following are recommendations that address potential impacts identified in the proposed project area:

1) Bank Stabilization & Wildlife Passage: The bridge was inspected during the review process for the permit for rehabilitation of the bridge (FW-29143). The inspection along with the photos submitted on August 27, 2020, for this review revealed little or no riprap on the banks under the bridge. This allows unimpaired wildlife use of and movement along the bank under the bridge. Riprap for runoff (turnouts or gullies created by runoff from the bridge) was supposed to be covered in a smooth-surfaced material such as #53 to avoid impairing wildlife passage under the bridge; however, the photos seem to show riprap extending to the top of the bank with no #53 applied. The final, revised plans for the previous rehabilitation permit (FW-29143), which showed shaded areas for riprap versus no shading for riprap-free areas, including a hatched zone for the riprap in the stormwater outfall to be covered in smaller stone/#53, need to be incorporated into the new bridge design.

The new, replacement, or rehabbed structure, and any bank stabilization under the structure, should not create conditions that are less favorable for wildlife passage under the structure compared to current conditions. Placing additional riprap on the banks will further impair wildlife passage compared to current conditions. Facilitating wildlife passage under high-speed, heavy traveled roads is a high priority for the Division of

Appendix C - 12 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT State of Indiana DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Fish and Wildlife Early Coordination/Environmental Assessment Fish & Wildlife.

Minimize the use of riprap and use alternative erosion protection materials whenever possible. Riprap must not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes fish or aquatic organism passage (riprap must not be placed above the existing streambed elevation). Where riprap must be used, we recommend placing only enough riprap to provide stream bank toe protection, such as from the toe of the bank up to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The banks above the OHWM should be restored, stabilized, and revegetated using geotextiles and a mixture of grasses, sedges, wildflowers, shrubs, and trees native to the area and specifically for stream bank/floodway stabilization purposes as soon as possible upon completion.

Where hard armoring is needed, wildlife passage can be facilitated by using a smooth-surfaced material instead of riprap, such as articulated concrete block mats, fabric-formed concrete mats or other similar smooth-surfaced materials as these materials will not impair wildlife movement.

Information about bioengineering techniques can be found at http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20120404-IR-312120154NRA.xml.pdf. Also, the following is a USDA/NRCS document that outlines many different bioengineering and other bank stabilization techniques: http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/17553.wba.

2) Riparian Habitat: We recommend a mitigation plan be developed (and submitted with the permit application) for any unavoidable habitat impacts that will occur. The DNR's Habitat Mitigation guidelines (and plant lists) can be found online at: http://iac.iga.in.gov/iac/20200527-IR-312200284NRA.xml.pdf.

Impacts to non-wetland forest of one (1) acre or more should be mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio. If less than one acre of non-wetland forest is removed in a rural setting, replacement should be at a 1:1 ratio based on area. Impacts to non-wetland forest under one (1) acre in an urban setting should be mitigated by planting five trees, at least 2 inches in diameter-at-breast height (dbh), for each tree which is removed that is 10" dbh or greater (5:1 mitigation based on the number of large trees) or by using the 1:1 replacement ratio based on area depending on the type of habitat impacted (individual canopy tree removal in an urban streetscape or park-like environment versus removal of habitat supporting a tree canopy, woody understory, and herbaceous layer). Impacts under 0.10 acre in an urban area may still involve the replacement of large diameter trees but typically do not require any additional mitigation or additional plantings beyond seeding and stabilizing disturbed areas. There are exceptions for high quality habitat sites however.

The mitigation site should be located in the floodway, downstream of the one (1) square mile drainage area of that stream (or another stream within the 8-digit HUC, preferably as close to the impact site as possible) and adjacent to existing forested riparian habitat.

The additional measures listed below should be implemented to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources: 1. Revegetate all bare and disturbed areas with a mixture of native grasses, sedges, wildflowers, and also native hardwood trees and shrubs if any woody plants are disturbed during construction as soon as possible upon completion. Do not use any varieties of Tall Fescue or other non-native plants, including prohibited invasive species (see 312 IAC 18-3-25). 2. Minimize and contain within the project limits inchannel disturbance and the clearing

Appendix C - 13 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT State of Indiana DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Fish and Wildlife Early Coordination/Environmental Assessment of trees and brush. 3. Do not work in the waterway from April 1 through June 30 without the prior written approval of the Division of Fish and Wildlife. 4. Do not cut any trees suitable for Indiana bat or Northern Long-eared bat roosting (greater than 5 inches dbh, living or dead, with loose hanging bark, or with cracks, crevices, or cavities) from April 1 through September 30. 5. Do not excavate in the low flow area except for the placement of piers, foundations, and riprap, or removal of the old structure. 6. Do not construct any temporary runarounds, access bridges, causeways, cofferdams, diversions, or pumparounds. 7. Use minimum average 6 inch graded riprap stone extended below the normal water level to provide habitat for aquatic organisms in the voids. 8. Plant native hardwood trees along the top of the bank and right-of-way to replace the vegetation destroyed during construction. 9. Post "Do Not Mow or Spray" signs along the right-of-way. 10. 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. 11. Seed and protect all disturbed streambanks and slopes not protected by other methods that are 3:1 or steeper with erosion control blankets that are heavy-duty, biodegradable, and net free or that use loose-woven / Leno-woven netting to minimize the entrapment and snaring of small-bodied wildlife such as snakes and turtles (follow manufacturer's recommendations for selection and installation); seed and apply mulch on all other disturbed areas. Contact Staff: Christie L. Stanifer, Environ. Coordinator, Fish & Wildlife Our agency appreciates this opportunity to be of service. Please contact the above staff member at (317) 232-4080 if we can be of further assistance.

Date: September 11, 2020 Christie L. Stanifer Environ. Coordinator Division of Fish and Wildlife

Appendix C - 14 Firefox https://apps.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/roadwayletter.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

Indiana Dept. of Transportation Green 3, LLC Erin Mulryan 3650 South U.S. Highway 41 1104 Prospect St. Vincennes , IN 47591 Indianapolis , IN 46203 Date

To Engineers and Consultants Proposing Roadway Construction Projects:

RE: The bridge project (Des. 2000514) involves the bridge on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile north of SR 66, in the City of Evansville.The structure carries southbound only traﬃc over Pigeon Creek, with a bridge to the west that carries the Diamond Ave exit and a bridge to the east that carries northbound US 41 traﬃc. Due to damage to the bridge structure in January 2020, the proposed preferred alternative is replacement. No tree removal over three inches in diameter at breast height is anticipated. Approximately one acre of other vegetation removal will be needed for access. All work will occur within the existing right-of-way. This letter from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) serves as a standardized response to enquiries inviting IDEM comments on roadway construction, reconstruction, or other improvement projects within existing roadway corridors when the proposed scope of the project is beneath the threshold requiring a formal National Environmental Policy Act-mandated Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. As the letter attempts to address all roadway-related environmental topics of potential concern, it is possible that not every topic addressed in the letter will be applicable to your particular roadway project.

For additional information on speciﬁc roadway-related topics of interest, please visit the appropriate Web pages cited below, many of which provide contact information for persons within the various program areas who can answer questions not fully addressed in this letter. Also please be mindful that some environmental requirements may be subject to change and so each person intending to include a copy of this letter in their project documentation packet is advised to download the most recently revised version of the letter; found at: http://www.in.gov/idem/5283.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/5283.htm).

To ensure that all environmentally-related issues are adequately addressed, IDEM recommends that you read this letter in its entirety, and consider each of the following issues as you move forward with the planning of your proposed roadway construction, reconstruction, or improvement project:

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 ﬁll 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 Department of Environmental Management.

Appendix C - 15 1 of 7 9/15/20, 3:29 PM Firefox https://apps.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/roadwayletter.aspx

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 Oﬃce 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 Oﬃce (502-315-6733).

Additional information on contacting these U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District Oﬃces, 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 Certiﬁcation from the IDEM Oﬃce of Water Quality Wetlands Program. To learn more about the Wetlands 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 water body 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 Oﬃce of Water Quality (OWQ) is required for any activity that results in the discharge of dredged or ﬁll materials into isolated wetlands. To learn more about isolated wetlands, contact the OWQ Wetlands Program at 317-233-8488.

4. If your project will involve over a 0.5 acre of wetland impact, stream relocation, or other large-scale alterations to water bodies such as the creation of a dam or a water diversion, you should seek additional input from the OWQ Wetlands Program staﬀ. Consult the Web at: http://www.in.gov/idem/4384.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4384.htm) for the appropriate staﬀ contact to further discuss your project.

5. Work within the one-hundred year ﬂoodway of a given water body is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. The Division issues permits for activities regulated under the follow statutes: IC 14-26-2 Lakes Preservation Act 312 IAC 11 IC 14-26-5 Lowering of Ten Acre Lakes Act No related code IC 14-28-1 Flood Control Act 310 IAC 6-1 IC 14-29-1 Navigable Waterways Act 312 IAC 6 IC 14-29-3 Sand and Gravel Permits Act 312 IAC 6 IC 14-29-4 Construction of Channels Act No related code

For information on these Indiana (statutory) Code and Indiana Administrative Code citations, see the DNR Web site at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/9451.htm (http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/9451.htm) . Contact the DNR Division of Water at 317-232-4160 for further information.

Appendix C - 16 2 of 7 9/15/20, 3:29 PM Firefox https://apps.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/roadwayletter.aspx

The physical disturbance of the stream and riparian vegetation, especially large trees overhanging any aﬀected 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.

6. 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 the Oﬃce of Water Quality – Watershed Planning Branch (317/233-1864) regarding the need for of a Rule 5 Storm Water Runoﬀ 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 ﬁrst 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 deficient will require re-submittal. If the plan is sufficient you will be notified and instructed to submit the verification to IDEM as part of the Rule 5 Notice of Intent (NOI) submittal. Once construction begins, staff 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 runoﬀ. 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) oﬃces in each county or from IDEM.

7. For projects involving impacts to ﬁsh and botanical resources, contact the Department of Natural Resources - Division of Fish and Wildlife (317/232-4080) for addition project input.

8. For projects involving water main construction, water main extensions, and new public water supplies, contact the Oﬃce of Water Quality - Drinking Water Branch (317-308-3299) regarding the need for permits.

9. For projects involving eﬄuent discharges to waters of the State of Indiana , contact the Oﬃce of Water

Appendix C - 17 3 of 7 9/15/20, 3:29 PM Firefox https://apps.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/roadwayletter.aspx

Quality - Permits Branch (317-233-0468) regarding the need for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

10. For projects involving the construction of wastewater facilities and sewer lines, contact the Oﬃce of Water Quality - Permits Branch (317-232-8675) regarding the need for permits.

AIR QUALITY The above-noted project 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 (http://www.in.gov/idem/4148.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4148.htm)) under speciﬁc conditions. You also can seek an open burning variance from IDEM.

However, 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 ﬁnished 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) onsite, although burying large quantities of such material can lead to subsidence problems, later on.

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.

Additionally, 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 3-5 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 3-5 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.

2. The U.S. EPA and the 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/4145.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4145.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, EPA recommends a follow- up test. If the second test conﬁrms that radon levels are 4 pCi/L, or higher, EPA recommends the installation of radon-reduction measures. (For a list of qualiﬁed 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).) It 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 (http://www.in.gov/isdh/regsvcs/radhealth/radon.htm), http://www.in.gov

Appendix C - 18 4 of 7 9/15/20, 3:29 PM Firefox https://apps.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/roadwayletter.aspx

/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).

3. With respect to asbestos removal: all facilities slated for renovation or demolition (except residential buildings that have (4) four 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 notiﬁcation 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 off of pipes, less than 160 square feet of RACM off of other facility components, or less than 35 cubic feet of RACM off 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.

However, 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 http://www.in.gov/icpr/webﬁle/formsdiv/44593.pdf (http://www.in.gov/icpr/webﬁle/formsdiv/44593.pdf).

Anyone submitting a renovation/demolition notification form will be billed a notification 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. All notification remitters will be billed 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).

4. With respect to lead-based paint removal: IDEM encourages all efforts to minimize human exposure to lead- based paint chips and dust. IDEM is particularly concerned that young children exposed to lead can suffer from learning disabilities. Although lead-based paint abatement efforts 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 notification requirements. For more information about lead-based paint removal visit: http://www.in.gov/isdh/19131.htm (http://www.in.gov /isdh/19131.htm).

5. 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 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)).

6. If your project involves the construction of a new source of air emissions or the modiﬁcation of an existing source of air emissions or air pollution control equipment, it will need to be reviewed by the IDEM Oﬃce of Air Quality (OAQ). A registration or permit may be required under 326 IAC 2 (View at: 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.

7. For more information on air permits visit: http://www.in.gov/idem/4223.htm (http://www.in.gov

Appendix C - 19 5 of 7 9/15/20, 3:29 PM Firefox https://apps.idem.in.gov/IDEMWebForms/roadwayletter.aspx

/idem/4223.htm), or to initiate the IDEM air permitting process, please contact the Oﬃce of Air Quality Permit Reviewer of the Day at (317) 233-0178 or OAMPROD atdem.state.in.us.

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 Oﬃce 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 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. See: http://www.in.gov/idem/4999.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/4999.htm).

FINAL REMARKS Should you need to obtain any environmental permits in association with this proposed project, please be mindful that IC 13-15-8 requires that you notify all adjoining property owners and/or occupants within ten days your submittal of each permit application. However, if you are seeking multiple permits, you can still meet the notiﬁcation requirement with a single notice if all required permit applications are submitted with the same ten day period.

Should the scope of the proposed project be expanded to the extent that a National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required, IDEM will actively participate in any early interagency coordination review of the project.

Meanwhile, please note that this letter does not constitute a permit, license, endorsement or any other form of approval on the part of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management regarding any project for which a copy of this letter is used. Also note that is it the responsibility of the project engineer or consultant using this letter to ensure that the most current draft of this document, which is located at http://www.in.gov/idem/5284.htm (http://www.in.gov/idem/5284.htm), is used.

Signature(s) of the Applicant I acknowledge that the following proposed roadway project will be ﬁnanced in part, or in whole, by public monies.

Project Description

Appendix C - 20 6 of 7 9/15/20, 3:29 PM

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

In Reply Refer To: September 08, 2020 Consultation Code: 03E12000-2020-I-2499 Event Code: 03E12000-2020-E-10252 Project Name: Des. No. 2000514, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) Improvement- US 41 over Pigeon Creek

Subject: Concurrence verification letter for the 'Des. No. 2000514, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) Improvement- US 41 over Pigeon Creek' 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 to verify that the Des. No. 2000514, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) Improvement- US 41 over Pigeon Creek (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, and 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 non- federal 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,

Appendix C - 22 Service Field Offices may request additional information that is necessary to verify inclusion of the proposed action under the PBO.

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 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 contact this Service Office.

Appendix C - 23 Project Description The following project name and description was collected in IPaC as part of the endangered species review process.

Name Des. No. 2000514, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) Improvement- US 41 over Pigeon Creek

Description This bridge project is in Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana. The project is located on US 41 and involves Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile north of SR 66, on the north side of the City of Evansville. INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is a single span, metal Parker through truss structure built in 1940 and has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The existing structure is 204 feet, ten inches in length with a 27-foot wide clear roadway width and 2.5-foot wide shoulders. The structure carries southbound only traffic over Pigeon Creek, with a bridge to the west that carries the Diamond Ave exit and a bridge to the east that carries northbound US 41 traffic. Due to damage to the bridge structure in January 2020, the proposed preferred alternative is replacement. A three-span prestressed concrete beam type structure with a 40-foot clear roadway width and zero-degree skew. The three spans will be 80 foot, 90 foot, and 80 foot. There is also a outfall culvert in the southwest quadrant of the bridge; the headwall for this structure may be replaced as part of this project. The existing bridge is currently closed, with traffic detouring on to the Diamond Ave exit to cross Pigeon Creek; this will also be the maintenance of traffic during construction of the preferred alternative. Project letting is anticipated for March 2021. Land use in the vicinity of the project includes commercial development to the south and west, a golf course to the east, and agricultural land to the north. The project area consists of overgrown vegetation such as invasive Johnsongrass, white heath aster, common mugwort, and late boneset. Some small ash saplings were growing up adjacent to the bridges. No permanent lighting is currently proposed; existing permanent lighting in the vicinity of the project bridge will not be removed, replaced, or relocated. The use of temporary lighting is anticipated. A review of the USFWS database completed on May 19, 2020 did not indicate the presence of endangered bat species in or within the 0.5 mile search radius of the project area. A site inspection on August 21, 2020 did not find evidence of the presence of bats. There is suitable habitat along the riparian corridor and US 41 and Diamond Ave exit roadways and bridges but none adjacent to the project bridge. No tree removal over three inches in diameter at breast height is anticipated. Approximately one acre of other vegetation removal will be needed to access the existing structure for demolition and to construct the new bridge. All work will occur within the existing right-of-way of US 41.

Appendix C - 24 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 non- construction activities include: bridge/abandoned structure assessments, surveys, planning and technical studies, property inspections, and property sales)

[1] Construction refers to activities involving ground disturbance, percussive noise, and/or lighting. No

5. Does the project include any activities that are greater than 300 feet from existing road/ rail surfaces[1]?

[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

Appendix C - 25 6. Does the project include any activities within 0.5 miles of a known 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 Service’s summer survey guidance for our current definitions of suitable habitat.

[2] The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR Section 402.02). Further clarification is provided by the national consultation FAQs.

Yes

9. Will the project remove any suitable summer habitat[1] and/or remove/trim any existing trees within suitable summer habitat?

[1] See the Service’s summer survey guidance for our current definitions of suitable habitat. No

10. Does the project include activities within documented Indiana bat habitat[1][2]?

[1] Documented roosting or foraging habitat – for the purposes of this consultation, we are considering documented habitat as that where Indiana bats and/or NLEB have actually been captured and tracked using (1) radio telemetry to roosts; (2) radio telemetry biangulation/triangulation to estimate foraging areas; or (3) foraging areas with repeated use documented using acoustics. Documented roosting habitat is also considered as suitable summer habitat within 0.25 miles of documented roosts.)

[2] For the purposes of this key, we are considering documented corridors as that where Indiana bats and/or NLEB have actually been captured and tracked to using (1) radio telemetry; or (2) treed corridors located directly between documented roosting and foraging habitat.

Appendix C - 26 11. Does the project include activities within documented NLEB habitat[1][2]?

12. Does the project include wetland or stream protection activities associated with compensatory wetland mitigation? No

13. Does the project include slash pile burning? No

14. Does the project include any bridge removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities (e.g., any bridge repair, retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation work)? Yes

15. Is there any suitable habitat[1] for Indiana bat or NLEB within 1,000 feet of the bridge? (includes any trees suitable for maternity, roosting, foraging, or travelling habitat)

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

Appendix C - 27 16. Has a bridge assessment[1] been conducted within the last 24 months[2] to determine if the bridge is being used by bats?

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

[2] Assessments must be completed no more than 2 years prior to conducting any work below the deck surface on all bridges that meet the physical characteristics described in the Programmatic Consultation, regardless of whether assessments have been conducted in the past. Due to the transitory nature of bat use, a negative result in one year does not guarantee that bats will not use that bridge/structure in subsequent years.

Yes SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS ▪ Bat Inspection Form Des 2000514 8.21.2020 CULVERT.pdf https://ecos.fws.gov/ ipac/project/36MHQKCQJVEMPPQFLFIPJGAQVM/ projectDocuments/23182672 ▪ Bat Inspection Form Des 2000514 8.21.2020 BRIDGE.pdf https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ project/36MHQKCQJVEMPPQFLFIPJGAQVM/ projectDocuments/23182676 ▪ 12 facing north from under project bridge.HEIC https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/ 36MHQKCQJVEMPPQFLFIPJGAQVM/ projectDocuments/23182760 ▪ 13 facing SW to culvert headwall.HEIC https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/ 36MHQKCQJVEMPPQFLFIPJGAQVM/ projectDocuments/23182761

17. Did the bridge assessment detect any signs of Indiana bats and/or NLEBs roosting in/under the bridge (bats, guano, etc.)[1]?

[1] If bridge assessment detects signs of any species of bats, coordination with the local FWS office is needed to identify potential threatened or endangered bat species. Additional studies may be undertaken to try to identify which bat species may be utilizing the bridge prior to allowing any work to proceed.

Note: There is a small chance bridge assessments for bat occupancy do not detect bats. Should a small number of bats be observed roosting on a bridge just prior to or during construction, such that take is likely to occur or does occur in the form of harassment, injury or death, the PBO requires the action agency to report the take. Report all unanticipated take within 2 working days of the incident to the USFWS. Construction activities may continue without delay provided the take is reported to the USFWS and is limited to 5 bats per project.

Appendix C - 28 18. Will the bridge removal, replacement, and/or maintenance activities include installing new or replacing existing permanent lighting? No

19. 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

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

21. Is there any suitable habitat within 1,000 feet of the location(s) where temporary lighting will be used? Yes

22. Will the project install new or replace existing permanent lighting? No

23. 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

24. 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. No

25. Are all project activities that are not associated with habitat removal, tree removal/ trimming, bridge and/or structure activities, temporary or permanent lighting, or use of percussives, limited to actions that DO NOT cause any additional stressors to the bat species?

Examples: lining roadways, unlighted signage , rail road crossing signals, signal lighting, and minor road repair such as asphalt fill of potholes, etc. Yes

Appendix C - 29 26. Will the project raise the road profile above the tree canopy? No

27. 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

28. Is the bridge removal, replacement, or maintenance activities portion of this project consistent with a No Effect determination in this key? Automatically answered Yes, because the bridge has been assessed using the criteria documented in the BA and no signs of bats were detected

29. 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

30. Lighting AMM 1 Will all temporary lighting be directed away from suitable habitat during the active season?

Yes

Project Questionnaire 1. Have you made a No Effect determination for all other species indicated on the FWS IPaC generated species list? N/A

2. Have you made a May Affect determination for any other species on the FWS IPaC generated species list? N/A

3. Please describe the proposed bridge work:

Appendix C - 30 Replacement of metal truss bridge with a concrete beam structure. The headwall around an adjacent culvert may also be replaced.

4. Please state the timing of all proposed bridge work: spring/summer 2021

5. Please enter the date of the bridge assessment: 8/21/2020

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

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

LIGHTING AMM 1 Direct temporary lighting away from suitable habitat during the active season.

Appendix C - 31 Determination Key Description: FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Consultation For Transportation Projects Affecting NLEB Or Indiana Bat This key was last updated in IPaC on December 02, 2019. 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 may require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the threatened Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis).

This decision key should only be used to verify project applicability with the Service’s February 5, 2018, FHWA, FRA, FTA Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Projects. The programmatic biological opinion covers limited transportation activities that may affect either bat species, and addresses situations that are both likely and not likely to adversely affect either bat species. This decision key will assist in identifying the effect of a specific project/activity and applicability of the programmatic consultation. The programmatic biological opinion is not intended to cover all types of transportation actions. Activities outside the scope of the programmatic biological opinion, or that may affect ESA-listed species other than the Indiana bat or NLEB, or any designated critical habitat, may require additional ESA Section 7 consultation.

Appendix C - 32 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

In Reply Refer To: September 05, 2020 Consultation Code: 03E12000-2020-SLI-2499 Event Code: 03E12000-2020-E-10238 Project Name: Des. No. 2000514, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) Improvement- US 41 over Pigeon Creek

Subject: Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The attached species list identifies any federally threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project or may be affected by your proposed project. The list also includes designated critical habitat if present within your proposed project area or affected by your project. This list is provided to you as the initial step of the consultation process required under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, also referred to as Section 7 Consultation.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies not jeopardize federally threatened or endangered species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. To fulfill this mandate, Federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representative) must consult with the Service if they determine their project “may affect” listed species or critical habitat.

Under 50 CFR 402.12(e) (the regulations that implement Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally. You may verify the list by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ at regular intervals during project planning and implementation and completing the same process you used to receive the attached list. As an alternative, you may contact this Ecological Services Field Office for updates.

Please use the species list provided and visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Region 3 Section 7 Technical Assistance website at - http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/ s7process/index.html. This website contains step-by-step instructions which will help you

Appendix C - 33 determine if your project will have an adverse effect on listed species and will help lead you through the Section 7 process.

For all wind energy projects and projects that include installing towers that use guy wires or are over 200 feet in height, please contact this field office directly for assistance, even if no federally listed plants, animals or critical habitat are present within your proposed project or may be affected by your proposed project.

Although no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, be aware that bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq), as are golden eagles. Projects affecting these species may require measures to avoid harming eagles or may require a permit. If your project is near an eagle nest or winter roost area, see our Eagle Permits website at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ midwestbird/EaglePermits/index.html to help you determine if you can avoid impacting eagles or if a permit may be necessary.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment(s):

▪ Official Species List

Appendix C - 34 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

Appendix C - 35 Project Summary Consultation Code: 03E12000-2020-SLI-2499

Event Code: 03E12000-2020-E-10238

Project Name: Des. No. 2000514, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) Improvement- US 41 over Pigeon Creek

Project Type: TRANSPORTATION

Project Description: This bridge project is in Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana. The project is located on US 41 and involves Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile north of SR 66, on the north side of the City of Evansville. INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is a single span, metal Parker through truss structure built in 1940 and has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The existing structure is 204 feet, ten inches in length with a 27-foot wide clear roadway width and 2.5-foot wide shoulders. The structure carries southbound only traffic over Pigeon Creek, with a bridge to the west that carries the Diamond Ave exit and a bridge to the east that carries northbound US 41 traffic. Due to damage to the bridge structure in January 2020, the proposed preferred alternative is replacement. A three-span prestressed concrete beam type structure with a 40-foot clear roadway width and zero-degree skew. The three spans will be 80 foot, 90 foot, and 80 foot. There is also a outfall culvert in the southwest quadrant of the bridge; the headwall for this structure may be replaced as part of this project. The existing bridge is currently closed, with traffic detouring on to the Diamond Ave exit to cross Pigeon Creek; this will also be the maintenance of traffic during construction of the preferred alternative. Project letting is anticipated for March 2021. Land use in the vicinity of the project includes commercial development to the south and west, a golf course to the east, and agricultural land to the north. The project area consists of overgrown vegetation such as invasive Johnsongrass, white heath aster, common mugwort, and late boneset. Some small ash saplings were growing up adjacent to the bridges. No permanent lighting is currently proposed; existing permanent lighting in the vicinity of the project bridge will not be removed, replaced, or relocated. The use of temporary lighting is anticipated. A review of the USFWS database completed on May 19, 2020 did not indicate the presence of endangered bat species in or within the 0.5 mile search radius of the project area. A site inspection on August 21, 2020 did not find evidence of the presence of bats. There is suitable habitat along the riparian corridor and US 41 and Diamond Ave exit roadways and bridges but none adjacent to the project bridge. No tree removal over three inches

Appendix C - 36 in diameter at breast height is anticipated. Approximately one acre of other vegetation removal will be needed to access the existing structure for demolition and to construct the new bridge. All work will occur within the existing right-of-way of US 41.

Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/38.00404008906208N87.5385805977437W

Counties: Vanderburgh, IN

Appendix C - 37 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: ▪ 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.

Appendix C - 38 Appendix D Section 106 of NHPA Appendix D-1 • We recommend that the final sentence in Stipulation III. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERY be revised to include a reference to 312 IAC 22.

Unless another consulting party disagrees with the finding documentation or the language of the draft MOA, it might be appropriate now to make any revisions and finalize the MOA and circulate it for signature.

If you have questions regarding our deal review of the aforementioned project, please contact DHPA. Questions about archaeological issues should be directed to Wade T. Tharp at (317) 232-1650 or [email protected]. Questions about buildings or structures pertaining to this review should be directed to Danielle Kauffmann at (317) 232-0582 or [email protected].

For the benefit of those recipients of a copy of this letter who are not Section 106 consulting parties, please be aware that the documents discussed here can be found online in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/. From there, search by this project’s designation number: 2000514.

Anyone receiving an e-mailed copy of this letter who does not wish to receive future copies of our correspondence about this bridge project is asked to reply to [email protected] and so advise us.

In all future correspondence regarding the dual review of this bridge project on US 41 over Pigeon Creek in Vanderburgh County (Des. No. 2000514), please continue to refer to DHPA No. 25252.

Very truly yours,

Beth K. McCord Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

BKM:DMK:WTT:dmk

EMC to federal and state agency or consultant staff members: Kari Carmany-George, FHWA Anuradha Kumar, INDOT Mary Kennedy, INDOT Shaun Miller, INDOT Susan Branigin, INDOT Scott Henley, SJCA, Inc. Karen Wood, SJCA, Inc. Danielle Kauffmann, INDNR-DHPA Chad Slider, INDNR-DHPA Wade T. Tharp, INDNR-DHPA

EMC to Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Members: J. Scott Keller, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Anne Shaw Kingery, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Daniel Kloc, AIA, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Jason Larrison, AIA, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Chandler Lighty, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board April Sievert, PhD, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Christopher Smith, Deputy Director, INDNR, and Chairman, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Beth McCord, Deputy SHPO and Director, INDNR-DHPA

EMC to consulting parties and potentially interested persons: Vanderburgh County Commissioners Vanderburgh County Engineer Vanderburgh County Highway Department

Appendix D-2 Mayor, City of Evansville City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development, Historic Preservation Vanderburgh County Historian Vanderburgh County Historical Society Candace Croix, Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Field Office James L. Cooper, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, DePauw University Paul Brandenburg, Historic Spans Task Force Tony Dillon, Historic Hoosier Bridges Nathan Holth, Historicbridges.org Kitty Henderson, Historic Bridge Foundation Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization

Appendix D-3 Public Notice Des. No. 2000514

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is planning to undertake a bridge project, funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The project is located on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana.

Under the preliminary preferred alternative, the proposed project would involve the removal the existing bridge and construct a new bridge on essentially the same alignment as existing. The new southbound bridge would consist of two 12 ft. lanes bordered by a 10 ft. shoulder to the right and a 4 ft. shoulder to the left with FT type concrete bridge railing to provide a bridge clear roadway width of 38 ft. The new bridge is anticipated to be a 275 ft. long three-span prestressed concrete beam structure similar to the northbound bridge to the east of the structure.

The existing southbound US 41 structure over Pigeon Creek, INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 014310), is a single span, metal Parker through truss built in 1940. It was previously determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C under engineering significance as a good example of an ISHC- designed Parker through truss. Because INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is neither a “Select” or “Non-Select” bridge, the project does not fall under the terms of the “Programmatic Agreement Regarding Management and Preservation of Indiana’s Historic Bridges” (Historic Bridge PA).

INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is the only property listed in or eligible for the NRHP located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) . The proposed action impacts properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. The FHWA has issued an “Adverse Effect” finding for the project because the project will diminish the integrity of the characteristics that qualify INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL for inclusion in the NRHP. 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)(2), the documentation specified in 36 CFR 800. 11(e) can be viewed electronically by accessing INDOT’s Section 106 document posting website IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents. Persons with limited internet access may request project information be mailed by notifying the contact listed below. This documentation serves as the basis for the “Adverse Effect” finding. The views of the public on this effect finding are being sought. Please reply with any comments to Scott Henley, Green 3, LLC, 1104 Prospect Street, Indianapolis, IN 46203, 317.634.4110 or [email protected] no later than November 12,2020.

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 Brian Malone, INDOT, 812-836-2112 or [email protected].

Appendix D-4 Appendix D-5 Appendix D-6 Appendix D-7 Adverse Effect Finding

Public Comments & Responses (In response to Public Notice published on 10/11/2020)

Appendix D-8 Monday, October 19, 2020 at 11:35:44 Eastern Daylight Time

Subject: FW: Pigeon Creek-US 41 Bridge - comment from public noce Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 at 11:30:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Karen Wood To: Erin Mulryan CC: Sco Henley Aachments: image001.png, image002.png, image003.png, image004.jpg, image005.png, image007.png

Sincerely,

Karen Wood SJCA Inc. T (317) 634-4110 C (317) 847-9856 [email protected]

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:22 AM To: Grant DiDomizio Cc: Malone, Brian ; Watson, George C. ; Karen Wood ; Sco Henley ; Kauﬀmann, Danielle M Subject: RE: Pigeon Creek-US 41 Bridge

Thank you for your interest in this bridge, Mr. DiDomizio. Yes, based on the results of a thorough Historic Bridge Alternaves Analysis (HBAA), replacement of the bridge is the preferred alternave. Due to the extensive damage sustained, it does not appear viable to rehabilitate the bridge in a manner that maintains its historic integrity. Too many pieces of the bridge would have to be replaced. The bridge is being marketed for a limited me for anyone who may want to step forward to claim it for reuse somewhere else. We are currently nearing the end of a historic review process called Secon 106. The Secon 106 process involves efforts to idenfy historic properes potenally affected by the undertaking, to assess the undertaking’s effects and to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or migate any adverse effects on historic properes. For more informaon regarding the protecon of historic resources, please see the Advisory Council on Historic Preservaon’s guide: Protecng Historic Properes: A Cizen’s Guide to Secon 106 Review available online at hps://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017-01/CizenGuide.pdf.

Because the bridge is historic, INDOT will have to migate for its replacement. We currently are circulang migaon ideas in a dra memorandum of agreement (MOA). If you want to become a consulng party in the Secon 106 process, please let us know and we can add you to the list. You will then receive informaon as we wrap up the process. The dra MOA is available for review in our Secon 106 portal, IN SCOPE, at hp://erms.indot.in.gov/Secon106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most eﬃcient search term, once in IN SCOPE; the Des. No. for this project is 2000514).

Appendix D-9 Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642-ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Oﬃce, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: hps://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

From: Grant DiDomizio Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:19 AM To: Kennedy, Mary Subject: Pigeon Creek-US 41 Bridge

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Hello Ms Kennedy, I hope this email ﬁnds you well! I have just read that the pigeon creek-US 41 bridge in Evansville, IN that was hit by an oversized load will have to be replaced. As a concerned cizen, what can I do to ensure this historic landmark is at least preserved in some form for the future? I understand this queson is very vague, but I just wanted to state my love for the decency and care INDOT gives to its historic bridges! Thank you very much for your me, Grant DiDomizio

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essenals. Click here to report this email as spam.

Appendix D-10 Section 106 of NHPA Adverse Effect Finding Documentation

Appendix D-11 Scott Henley

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 10:22 AM To: Scott Henley Cc: Karen Wood; Watson, George C.; Chen, Emily A.; Branigin, Susan; Malone, Brian Subject: RE: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek-signed finding Attachments: Pages from US41PigeonCrk_2000514_800.11finding_2020-09-29-signed.pdf; US41PigeonCrk_ 2000514_800.11finding_2020-09-29-signed.pdf

Thanks for the corrected version, Scott. Per our call this morning, I updated a couple of places in the 800.11 doc to say the MOA is forthcoming. I’ve attached excerpted pages with that text highlighted & also the entire document with those changes made but no highlights. To speed things up, I went ahead & posted & released the attached version of the entire document to IN SCOPE. If you can update the letter and email text to indicate the MOA is forthcoming & not attached, that would be great. When they’re ready, you can go ahead & send them out.

Thanks to everyone for their patience in continuing to work through the various historic issues on this project!

Have a nice weekend!

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

From: Scott Henley Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:20 PM To: Kennedy, Mary Cc: Karen Wood ; Watson, George C. ; Chen, Emily A. ; Branigin, Susan ; Malone, Brian Subject: RE: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek‐signed finding

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Good afternoon Mary,

Please find the 800.11 document with the correct pages for Appendix C and the FHWA signature page. I hope you find it in order.

1 Appendix D-12 US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project Evansville, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana Des. No. 2000514

800.11(e) Documentation and Effects Finding

September 2020

Prepared for: WSP USA 115 W. Washington St., Suite 1270S Indianapolis, IN 46204 By:

Scott Henley Historian/QP Green 3, LLC 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203

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

Appendix D-13 )('(5$/+,*+:$<$'0,1,675$7,21 6 6(&7,21 ) &203/,$1&(5(48,5(0(176 )25+,6725,&3523(57,(6 $1' 6(&7,21),1',1*6$1''(7(50,1$7,216 $5($2)327(17,$/())(&7 (/,*,%,/,7<'(7(50,1$7,216())(&7),1',1* 86RYHU3LJHRQ&UHHN%ULGJH ,1'27%ULGJH12+6%/1%, 3URMHFW (YDQVYLOOH&HQWHU7RZQVKLS9DQGHUEXUJK&RXQW\,QGLDQD 'HV1R '+3$12

$5($2)327(17,$/())(&7 $3( 3XUVXDQWWR&)56HFWLRQ D

7KH$3(RIWKHSURMHFWLQFOXGHVDOOSURSHUWLHVDGMDFHQWWRWKHSURMHFWDQGWKRVHZLWKDSUR[LPDWHYLHZVKHG RIWKHSURMHFW7KH$3(FRQVLVWVRIDJULFXOWXUDOILHOGVIRUHVWHGDUHDVDQGWZRKRWHOV)URPWKHFHQWHURI WKHEULGJHWKH$3(H[WHQGVHDVWPLOHWRWKHVRXWKPLOHWRWKHZHVWPLOHDQGWRWKHQRUWK PLOH3OHDVHVHH$SSHQGL[$IRUDPDSRIWKH$3(

(/,*,%,/,7<'(7(50,1$7,216 3XUVXDQWWR&)5 F

2QHSURSHUW\KDVEHHQGHWHUPLQHGHOLJLEOHIRUOLVWLQJLQWKH1DWLRQDO5HJLVWHURI+LVWRULF3ODFHV 15+3 ,1'27%ULGJH1R+6%/ 1%,

,1'27%ULGJH1R+6%/ 1%, LVDVLQJOHVSDQPHWDO3DUNHUWKURXJKWUXVVWKDWZDV GHVLJQHGE\WKH,QGLDQD6WDWH+LJKZD\&RPPLVVLRQ ,6+& DQGEXLOWLQ7KHEULGJHLVHOLJLEOHIRU WKH1DWLRQDO5HJLVWHURI+LVWRULF3ODFHV 15+3 XQGHU&ULWHULRQ&DVDJRRGH[DPSOHRIDQ,6+&GHVLJQHG 3DUNHUWKURXJKWUXVV

())(&7),1',1*

,1'27%ULGJH1R+6%/ 1%, ±$GYHUVH(IIHFW

)+:$KDVGHWHUPLQHGDQ³$GYHUVH(IIHFW´ILQGLQJLVDSSURSULDWHIRUWKLVXQGHUWDNLQJ)+:$UHVSHFWIXOO\ UHTXHVWVWKH,QGLDQD6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFHUSURYLGHZULWWHQFRQFXUUHQFHZLWKWKH6HFWLRQ GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RIHIIHFW IRU WKH ,1'27%ULGJH 1R+6%/ 1%, DQG WKH SURMHFW¶V RYHUDOOILQGLQJ

6(&7,21 ) &203/,$1&(5(48,5(0(176 IRUKLVWRULFSURSHUWLHV

,1'27%ULGJH1R+6%/ 1%, 7KLVUHVRXUFHLVXVHGIRUWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSXUSRVHV 7KLVXQGHUWDNLQJZLOOKDYHDQ³$GYHUVHHIIHFW´RQ,1'27%ULGJH1R+6%/ 1%, D6HFWLRQ I KLVWRULFSURSHUW\WKH)+:$KDVGHWHUPLQHGWKHDSSURSULDWH6HFWLRQILQGLQJLV$GYHUVH (IIHFW DQG WKHUHIRUH D 6HFWLRQ I HYDOXDWLRQ PXVW EH FRPSOHWHG IRU ,1'27 %ULGJH 1R +6%/ 1%,

&RQVXOWLQJSDUWLHVZLOOEHSURYLGHGDFRS\RIWKHSURMHFWILQGLQJDQGGHWHUPLQDWLRQLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK )+:$DQG,1'27¶V6HFWLRQSURFHGXUHV&RPPHQWVZLOOEHDFFHSWHGIRUGD\VXSRQUHFHLSWRI ILQGLQJV KARSTIN MARIE Digitally signed by KARSTIN MARIE CARMANY-GEORGE CARMANY- Date: 2020.09.29 14:35:54 GEORGE -04'00' BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIRU 0D\HOD6RVD 'LYLVLRQ$GPLQLVWUDWRU )+:$,QGLDQD

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $SSURYDO'DWH

Appendix D-14 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENTATION OF SECTION 106 FINDING OF “ADVERSE EFFECT” SUBMITTED TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER PURSUANT TO 36 CFR Section 800.6(a)(3) US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge (INDOT Bridge NO. 041-82-03286HSBL, NBI 14310) Project Evansville, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana Des. No. 2000514 DHPA NO. 25252

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE UNDERTAKING

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, plans to proceed with a project for INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana. The proposed undertaking is on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66, in Vanderburgh County, Indiana. It is within the City of Evansville in Center Township, on the Evansville North USGS Topographic Quadrangle, in Section 16 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West.

INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is a single span, metal Parker through truss that was designed by the Indiana State Highway Commission (ISHC) and built in 1940. The bridge was not included in the Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory (HBI), conducted by Mead & Hunt on INDOT's behalf, because at the time of the HBI efforts, the bridge was programmed for replacement (Des. No. 0100957). Consultation for Des. No. 0100957 under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) resulted in a determination that the bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C as a good example of an ISHC-designed Parker through truss. However, the replacement project did not move forward to completion, and the bridge was later reprogrammed for a rehabilitation project (Des. No. 1400191). The rehabilitation project resulted in a “no adverse effect” finding under Section 106. The rehabilitation work was completed in 2019.

On January 21, 2020, an oversized truck struck and damaged the bridge. The bridge was closed so that INDOT bridge engineers could inspect the structure and determine the extent of the damage. Inspections revealed multiple complete fractures, partial cracks, and significant deformation of the steel (which could contain micro-cracks) in nearly all of the upper, mid, and lower connections – significantly impairing the bridge’s ability to bear normal traffic loads. Because of the significance of damage, the bridge will remain closed. INDOT has installed a traffic bypass using the Diamond Avenue exit from southbound US 41 to go around the bridge. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a crossing carrying US 41 SB over Pigeon Creek that can meet the structural capacity design standards for vehicular traffic of HS-20 or better to enable the reopening of the bridge to traffic.

Because INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is neither a “Select” or “Non-Select” bridge, the project does not fall under the terms of the “Programmatic Agreement Regarding Management and Preservation of Indiana’s Historic Bridges” (Historic Bridge PA). Thus, full Section 106 review and consultation under 36 CFR Part 800 is required for the project.

Appendix D-15 east of the structure. The vertical profile would be raised to increase the area of the waterway below the structure and eliminate the use of the floodgate during flood events. The new southbound bridge would carry two 12-foot-lanes, a 10-foot-wide right shoulder and a 4-foot-wide left shoulder with FT type concrete bridge railing to provide a clear roadway width of 38 ft.

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. The APE consists of agricultural fields, forested areas, and two hotels. From the center of the bridge, the APE extends east 0.05 mile, to the south 0.18 mile, to the west 0.07 mile, and to the north 0.39 mile. Please 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) and the Indiana Historic Buildings, Bridges, and Cemeteries Map, showing results of the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (IHSSI) were consulted. The only property identified is Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL, US 41 southbound over Pigeon Creek, IHSSI No. 163-196-51435; HB-1689. The NPS HABS/HAER/HALS inventory was checked; there were no resources identified within the vicinity of the project. The Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory, Volume 2: Listing of Historic and Non-Historic Bridges (February 2009) by M & H Architecture, Inc. was reviewed; INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310) was previously determined eligible for the NRHP and is located within the APE.

On March 2, 2020, an early coordination letter was distributed to consulting parties, inviting them to participate in the Section 106 process for this project. Below is the list of invited consulting parties. Those identified in bold print are participating consulting parties.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) (automatic consulting party) Vanderburgh County Commissioners Vanderburgh County Engineer Vanderburgh County Highway Department Mayor of the City of Evansville City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development-Historic Preservation Vanderburgh County Historian Vanderburgh County Historical Society Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Field Office James Cooper Paul Brandenburg, Historic Spans Task Force Historic Hoosier Bridges Historicbridges.org Historic Bridge Foundation Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

Appendix D-16 On March 2, 2020 Nathan Holth of HistoricBridges.org accepted to become a consulting party.

On March 17, 2020, Candice Croix of Indiana Landmarks accepted to become a consulting party.

On March 26, 2020, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma accepted to be become a consulting party.

On April 13, 2020, the SHPO staff responded that they are not aware of any additional consulting parties to be invited; however, they did provide notification of the commencement of the dual review to members of the Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board and added members of the Review Board to the list of parties they intended to copy with their comment letters.

Along with conducting a literature review, Karen Wood and Scott Henley, qualified professional historians, conducted a site visit of the APE on June 11, 2020. Wood and Henley walked the APE and documented and photographed all contributing resources at least 50 years of age, and those that will be at least 50 years of age from the time of the project letting in 2021. No properties other than INDOT Bridge No. 041-82- 0386HSBL within the APE are recommended eligible for the National Register. Please see Appendix B for photos.

A Historic Property Report (HPR) was completed for the project (Wood, July 2020). The summary of the HPR is found in Appendix D.

With regards to archaeology, Christopher Jackson, M.S., RPA, conducted an archaeological assessment of the project area. In his review, he ascertained that the proposed replacement of the US Highway 41 Bridge over Pigeon Creek (Des 2000514) in Vandenburgh County will not likely affect archaeological resources based on the project scope and setting. The reason for this is because the proposed work will occur within the existing right-of-way, the bridge itself, and the off-ramp of the south bound lane of US 41. Disturbances include the drainage ditch in the median of US 41, the drainage ditch between the off ramp and the south bound lane of the highway, the drainage ditch along the off ramp, earthen berms for both the bridge and off ramp, underground utility easements, and fill material for grade separations. On January 21, 2020, the US Highway 41 Bridge SB over Pigeon Creek was hit by a permitted vehicle that was off of its approved route. The damage sustained from the collision was extensive and resulted in the closure of the bridge. The proposed work will entail replacing the bridge with a new structure enabling the reopening of the crossing to vehicular traffic. The setting is comprised of the bridge and existing right-of-way, which is disturbed. According to SHAARD and SHAARD GIS, which was examined on June 23, 2020, no archaeological sites have been recorded either in or in close proximity to the project area. In 2015, Archaeological Consultants of the Midwest did an archaeological records review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the US 41 Bridge over Pigeon Creek; the study was for Green 3, LLC. The report noted that because all of the proposed work was to occur within the existing right-of-way or on the bridge, which was ascertained to be disturbed. Therefore, it was recommended that fieldwork was not warranted (Jackson 2015). Because the proposed project is confined to the excavation work only occurring in previously disturbed soils, there are no archaeological concerns and no further work is recommended.

On August 24, 2020, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) staff commented in their letter that they concurred with the size of the area of potential effects (APE) and the conclusions of the HPSR. Regarding archaeological resources, the SHPO staff has “not identified any currently known archaeological resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the proposed project area. However, this identification is subject to the ground-disturbing project-related activities remaining within areas disturbed by previous construction of a recent and non-historical nature.”

Appendix D-17 None of the other consulting parties provided any additional comments regarding the early coordination letter, HPSR, or archaeological assessment. Please see appendix C for all consulting party correspondence.

3. DESCRIBE AFFECTED HISTORIC PROPERTIES

INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310) is a single span, metal Parker through truss that was designed by the Indiana State Highway Commission (ISHC) and built in 1940. The bridge was not included in the Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory (HBI), conducted by Mead & Hunt on INDOT's behalf, because at the time of the HBI efforts, the bridge was programmed for replacement (Des. No. 0100957). Consultation for Des. No. 0100957 under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) resulted in a determination that the bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C as a good example of an ISHC-designed Parker through truss. However, the replacement project did not move forward to completion, and the bridge was later reprogrammed for a rehabilitation project (Des. No. 1400191). The rehabilitation project resulted in a “no adverse effect” finding under Section 106. The rehabilitation work was completed in 2019. On January 21, 2020, the bridge was struck and damaged by an oversize vehicle. The bridge was closed so that INDOT bridge engineers could inspect the structure and determine the extent of the damage. Inspections revealed multiple complete fractures, partial cracks, and significant deformation of the steel (which could contain micro-cracks) in nearly all of the upper, mid, and lower connections – significantly impairing the bridge’s ability to bear normal traffic loads. Because of the significance of damage, the bridge will be closed indefinitely.

4. DESCRIBE THE UNDERTAKING’S EFFECT ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES

INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310). Due to the removal of the historic bridge from its original location, carrying US 41 over Pigeon Creek, the project will have an adverse effect on the bridge. Once removed, a new bridge will be constructed along the same alignment. The new bridge involves a 275- foot-long, three span prestressed concrete beam structure similar to the northbound bridge east of the structure. The vertical profile would be raised to increase the area of the waterway below the structure and eliminate the use of the floodgate during flood events. The new southbound bridge would carry two 12- foot-lanes, a 10-foot-wide right shoulder and a 4-foot-wide left shoulder with FT type concrete bridge railing to provide a clear roadway width of 38 ft.

5. EXPLAIN APPLICATION OF CRITERIA OF ADVERSE EFFECT – INCLUDE CONDITIONS OR FUTURE ACTIONS TO AVOID, MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS

According to 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1) “An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.”

INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310). The project will result in an adverse effect on the resource due to the proposed alternative of removing the bridge from its original location and building a new bridge along the same alignment.

Appendix D-18 Per 800.5(a)(2)(i), the undertaking will cause “Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property.” The bridge will be removed from its location.

Per 36 CFR 800.5(a)2(ii), the undertaking would result in an adverse effect if the “alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access” is found “not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and/or other applicable guidelines.” It is anticipated that an adverse effect will result since this project will significantly alter the resource in that it will be removed from its location and, even if reassembled elsewhere, may not necessarily be able to be rehabilitated or restored in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Per 36 CFR 800.5(a)2(iii), the undertaking will result in the “Removal of the property from its historic location.” The proposed alternatives involve the removal of the bridge from its original location.

Per 36 CFR 800.5(a)2(iv), the undertaking will result in the “Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance.” The proposed alternatives will remove the bridge from its location, which will change the character of the bridge’s use and the physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to the bridge’s historic significance.

Per 36 CFR 800.5(a)2(v), the undertaking will result in the “Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features” due to the proposed removal of the bridge from its original location.

Regarding actions to minimize or mitigate adverse effects, as indicated below in Section 6, the bridge is currently being offered for reuse. Regarding mitigation ideas, a draft memorandum of agreement (MOA) will be provided soon to consulting parties for review and comment.

6. SUMMARY OF CONSULTING PARTIES AND PUBLIC VIEWS

An Early Coordination letter was emailed to invited consulting parties (CP and SHPO (automatic consulting party) on March 2, 2020 by the INDOT Cultural Resources Office (CRO).

On March 2, 2020, Nathan Holth of HistoricBridges.org accepted consulting party status.

On March 17, 2020 Candice Croix of Indiana Landmarks asked what the scope of the project would be. INDOT CRO advised Candice later the same day via email that no preferred alternative had been selected yet.

On March 26, 2020, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma accepted consulting party status.

A Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis (HBAA) was prepared and distributed to consulting parties on May 18, 2020 for review and comment. Accompanied in the letter, consulting parties were invited to a Virtual Consulting Party Meeting to be held on June 3, 2020. The HBAA states that Alternative 5, which involves the disassembly and storage of the historic bridge for potential relocation and new bridge construction, “is only prudent if SHPO and consulting parties consider disassembly and storage of the bridge to be appropriate mitigation for INDOT to undertake. Given the high cost of repairs needed for the bridge to function at a new location, someone stepping forward to reuse the existing bridge may be unlikely.” (See Appendix E). 5 Appendix D-19 A virtual consulting party meeting was held on June 3, 2020 at 10:00am.

During the meeting, an overview of the Section 106 process and a brief history of the bridge was provided. An overview of the damage to the bridge was provided along with a description of the alternatives evaluated in the HBAA. It was explained that two alternatives meet the purpose and need. However, the alternative that includes disassembly and storage of the bridge, as opposed to demolition, is only prudent if the consulting parties think that type of mitigation is appropriate. Consulting parties were encouraged to submit comments on the HBAA and possible mitigation items by June 19, 2020.

The meeting minutes and enclosures were sent to consulting parties for review and comment on June 10, 2020. The meeting minutes can be found in Appendix C.

The SHPO staff responded in a letter dated June 15, 2020, commenting that they received the meeting summary of the virtual consulting party meeting and had no comments or corrections.

Regarding the HBAA, the SHPO staff agreed “that Alternative 5, Relocation of Historic Bridge and New Bridge Construction is a feasible alternative that meets the project’s purpose and need. However, due to the extreme damage of the bridge from the January 2020 collision, we understand that this alternative is no longer prudent as it was in 2005 when this bridge was part of an earlier replacement project and removal for storage was planned mitigation as a result of the Adverse Effect. Therefore, we agree that Alternative 6, Demolition of Historic Bridge and New Bridge Construction is the only alternative that is both feasible and prudent meeting the project’s purpose and need. However, if any consulting parties disagrees with any of the conclusions of the HBAA, or if a consulting party or responsible entity steps forward to take ownership of the bridge, understanding that necessary repairs are needed for it to function at a new location, further consultation would be necessary.”

No other consulting parties provided comments on the HBAA.

On July 27, 2020, Green 3, LLC distributed the Historic Property Short Report to all consulting parties. In the Report Distribution Letter that accompanied the email, consulting parties were advised “We also welcome at this time any comments and ideas that consulting parties have for mitigation for this project, anticipating that a finding of ‘Adverse Effect’ will be issued after gathering comments on the Historic Property Short Report.” Please see Appendix D for excerpts from the Historic Property Short Report.

On July 28, 2020, Nathan Holth of HistoricBridges.org commented on ways to protect bridges including “a headache bar . . . prevent[ing] damage to the historic bridge, and also protects the driver (and other people on the bridge at the same time) from a potential bridge collapse incident,” and “other options such as special sensors that detect overheight trucks approaching and light up digital message sings with a warning, or turn nearby stoplights leading to the bridge to a red phase.”

Regarding mitigation, Holth offered the following ideas such as “protecting one or more surviving examples of this bridge type to ensure the population is not further reduced by potential future truck incidents” and “develop[ing] a plan for protection of the surviving bridges of this type (particularly those identified as Select, and/or those recently rehabilitated).” Furthermore, Holth suggested it would be these surviving bridges “on roads that see a fair volume of truck traffic” that should be protected “through methods such as headache bars” as he previously mentioned.

Holth also commented on the disassembly and storage option; he questioned “the usefulness of putting the bridge in storage for reuse if it is the opinion of the engineers on this project that reuse is either unlikely and/or cost prohibitive due to the damage the bridge has sustained.” He suggested that “perhaps potential

Appendix D-20 third parties to relocate and restore the bridge could be sought at this time to ensure there is no interest in the bridge.”

Regarding mitigation ideas, the SHPO staff requested updated photographic and written documentation of the bridge pursuant to “Indiana DNR – Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology Minimum Documentation Standards.” They also expressed curiosity “about the feasibility of the implementation of headache bars that Nathan Holth suggested in his July 28, 2020 consulting party response letter. We are also curious about the feasibility of conducting a study to survey extant Parker Through Trusses remaining in the region or state or commitments to preserve other bridges of the same type due to their increasing decline. Are there any other Parker Through Trusses remaining in the county or southwest Indiana that can be rehabilitated as mitigation for the loss of this bridge?”

The SHPO staff also commented on the disassembly and storage option that they understood “that this alternative is no longer prudent as it is unlikely an interested party would be willing to take ownership of the bridge and make the extensive repairs needed.”

Response: Regarding the mitigation ideas, a draft MOA will be provided soon to consulting parties for review and comment.

Regarding SHPO’s question on if there are any other Parker Through Trusses remaining in the county or southwest Indiana; with regard to ISHC-designed Parker Through Trusses, there are no others in Vanderburgh County and two elsewhere in the Vincennes District, although now they are locally owned (Knox County No. 235 and Warrick County No. 371). Two other local examples of Parker Through Trusses in southwest Indiana are Crawford County No. 7 and Posey County No. 66, the latter of which was closed to traffic in 2014.

Regarding the preliminary alternative of disassembly and storage option, it should be noted that Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is currently listed as ‘available” on the INDOT Historic Bridge Marketing website the INDOT Historic Bridges Marketing Program website (https://www.in.gov/indot/2532.htm). Since 2019, the bridge was listed on the site as “preserved” due to its rehabilitation. However, the designation was changed to “available” on August 31, 2020 with the following information: INDOT rehabilitated for continued vehicular use in 2019, but it was struck by an oversize vehicle in early 2020. The bridge is currently closed to traffic due to the damage sustained. An alternatives analysis has determined continued vehicular use on US 41 is not prudent and feasible. INDOT is making the bridge available for an alternative use, provided a responsible party agrees to rehabilitate, maintain, and preserve the bridge. The alternatives analysis, which details the damage sustained by the bridge, can be found by searching for documents under Des. No. 2000514 at the follow website: http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ .

INDOT will offer the opportunity for a public hearing related to this project.

Appendix D-21 This finding will be advertised as a legal notice in a local paper, The Courier & Press (Evansville, IN) and the public will be given a 30-day period in which to comment on the finding of effects. This documentation will be revised to reflect any substantive comments received. Copies of all consulting party correspondence are found in Appendix C.

APPENDICES

A – Maps B – Photographs C – List of Consulting Parties and CP Correspondence D – Historic Property Short Report Summary E – Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis Summary F – Current Plan Sheets G – Marketing Measures

Appendix D-22 Photo Location and Orientation Map Bridge Project US 41 over Pigeon Creek Des. No. 2000514 Vanderburgh County, Indiana Source: Green 3, LLC Field SurveyHARLAN AV

16 Þ

15 Þ

17 Þ

CSXRR ¤£41 14 Þ

13 Þ

19 Þ OLMSTEAD 18 Þ AV 912

11 Þ Þ

Þ 10

Þ 20 Þ

2Þ

STANLEY AV Þ

3 Þ

5 MOLL AV Þ

4 NEGLEY AV Þ Þ

FARES

AVE 7 Þ 8 6Þ PL NationalAgricultureImageryProgram(NAIP),FarmServicesAgency(FSA),U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA),UITS,IndianaSpatialDataPortal

NEGLEY

Þ Photo Location 0 315 630 Project Area Feet APE

6/30/2020 Appendix D-23 Aerial Map: Project Area & Historic Property Boundary (1:2,988) Bridge Project US 41 Over Pigeon Creek Des. No. 2000514 Vanderburgh County, Indiana Source: NAIP 2016 Imagery

¤£41

CSX RR

STANLEY AV

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

Historic Property Boundary 0 170 340 Project Area Feet

6/30/2020 Appendix D-24 Des No. 2000514 Consulting Party List Participating consulting parties are highlighted CP Name Organization Email Danielle Kauffmann IDNR - DHPA/SHPO [email protected] Wade Tharpe IDNR - DHPA/SHPO [email protected] Ben Shoulders Vanderburgh County Commissioners [email protected] Jeff Hatfield Vanderburgh County Commissioners [email protected] Cheryl Musgrave Vanderburgh County Commissioners [email protected] Bailey Davis Vanderburgh County Commissioners [email protected] John Stoll, P.E. Vanderburgh County Engineer [email protected] Scot Wichser Vanderburgh County Highway Department [email protected] Lloyd Winnecke Mayor of the City of Evansville [email protected] Annette Ussery Mayor of the City of Evansville [email protected] Kelley Coures City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development‐Historic Preservation [email protected] Jane Reel City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development‐Historic Preservation [email protected] Kathy Cerklefskie City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development‐Historic Preservation [email protected] Terry Hughes Vanderburgh County Historian [email protected] Stan Schmitt Vanderburgh County Historical Society [email protected] Candice Croix Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Field Office [email protected] Dr. James Cooper [email protected] Paul Brandenburg Historic Spans Task Force [email protected] Tony Dillon Historic Hoosier Bridges [email protected] Nathan Holth Historicbridges.org [email protected] Kitty Henderson Historic Bridge Foundation [email protected] Seyed Shokouhzadeh Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization [email protected] Pamela S. Drach Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization [email protected]

Tribes: Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

Appendix D-25 Karen Wood

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:14 AM To: Slider, Chad (DNR); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; stanleya53 @juno.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'James L. Cooper'; Tony Dillon; 'Paul Brandenburg'; [email protected]; Kitty Henderson; [email protected]; pdrach; '[email protected]'; 'Diane Hunter'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Karen Wood; Watson, George C.; Wagner, Stephanie J.; Branigin, Susan; Malone, Brian; Miller, Shaun (INDOT); Allen, Michelle (FHWA) Subject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana - ECL Attachments: US41PigeonCrk_DesNo2000514_Section106ECL_2020-03-02.pdf

Des. No.: 2000514 Project Description: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL Location: 0.37 mile N of SR 66, City of Evansville, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, proposes to proceed with a project for INDOT Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana.

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 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation & Archaeology (IDNR,DHPA)/Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Vanderburgh County Commissioners Vanderburgh County Engineer Vanderburgh County Highway Department Mayor of the City of Evansville City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development‐Historic Preservation Vanderburgh County Historian Vanderburgh County Historical Society Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Field Office James Cooper Paul Brandenburg, Historic Spans Task Force Historic Hoosier Bridges Historicbridges.org Historic Bridge Foundation Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma

1 Appendix D-26 United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 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 attached letter, which is also 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.

Consulting parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this information to review and provide comments. If we do not receive a response from an invited consulting party within the time allotted, the project will proceed consistent with the proposed design. Therefore, if we do not receive a response within thirty (30) days, your agency or organization will not receive any further information on the project unless the scope of work changes.

Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317‐233‐6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317‐226‐7344.

Thank you in advance for your input,

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐5215 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

2 Appendix D-27 Appendix D-28 Appendix D-29 Appendix D-30

Evansville North quadrangle 0 .5 miles

Project Area

Evansville South quadrangle

A section of the USGS 1988 Evansville North and the 1999 Evansville South quadrangles (7.5’ topographic maps) showing the location of the project area.

Appendix D-31 Karen Wood

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 10:53 AM To: Nathan Holth Cc: Wagner, Stephanie J.; Malone, Brian; Watson, George C.; Karen Wood Subject: RE: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana - ECL

Nathan,

Thank you for the quick response to our invitation. I have copied the project team, so we can take your comments into consideration. We will be sure to include you as a consulting party as we move forward.

Regards,

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐5215 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

From: Nathan Holth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2020 10:42 AM To: Kennedy, Mary Subject: Re: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana ‐ ECL

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Please include me as a consulting party on this project.

I find it deeply disturbing that a bridge located on a MAJOR truck route (this bridge carries US-41 that ultimately becomes an Ohio River crossing and is thus a major route) was so painstakingly rehabilitated (which was a great success story) yet (apparently) left unprotected by a lack of headache bar or other device to protect the bridge from damage.

I hope in the course of this discussion we can see some detailed photos showing the extent of the damage. I had heard about this accident in the news but have yet to see any photos that clearly show the condition of the bridge. 1 Appendix D-32 If we are now looking at an adverse effect for this historic bridge, I would like to be a consulting party so as to ensure we have good mitigation for this project.

Thanks,

-Nathan Holth

======Nathan Holth Author/ Photographer/Webmaster -----HistoricBridges.org----- "Promoting the Preservation Of Our Transportation Heritage" ------269-264-4364 [email protected] www.historicbridges.org ======Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this communication or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners and users of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org communications or information. ======

------Original Message ------From: "Kennedy, Mary" To: "Slider, Chad (DNR)" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "[email protected]" ; "'James L. Cooper'" ; "Tony Dillon" ; "'Paul Brandenburg'" ; "[email protected]" ; "Kitty Henderson"

2 Appendix D-33 Karen Wood

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:18 PM To: Candice Croix Cc: Branigin, Susan; Karen Wood; Watson, George C.; Wagner, Stephanie J.; Malone, Brian Subject: RE: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana - ECL

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Hi Candice,

Thank you for the response to our invitation. We don’t have a recommended preferred alternative at this time. The engineers are still analyzing all of the information. Once we have more detailed information ready, we will send it out to consulting parties, and we anticipate a consulting parties meeting (or conference call) to discuss it. We will be sure you are included on our notification list moving forward.

Regards,

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐5215 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

From: Candice Croix Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 10:21 AM To: Kennedy, Mary Subject: Re: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana ‐ ECL

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

Hello Mary,

Is this a rehabilitation or demolition? It wasn't clear to me in the letter.

I'd be interested to see how many "good example[s] of an ISHC‐designed Parker through truss" bridges there are within the state and county, and if this particular bridge is a common bridge type or unusual variation.

1 Appendix D-34 Please keep me informed of further project developments. Thanks very much.

…………………………………. Candice Croix Director ……………………………… Indiana Landmarks Southwest Field Office P.O. Box 297 Evansville, IN 47702 Ph. 812‐423‐2988 www.indianalandmarks.org

Indiana Landmarks revitalizes communities, reconnects us to our heritage, and saves meaningful places.

Become a member I Subscribe to our e‐letter I Find us on Facebook I Follow us on Twitter

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 8:26 AM To: Candice Croix Subject: FW: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana ‐ ECL

FYI

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Monday, March 02, 2020 9:19 AM To: Mark Dollase Subject: FW: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana ‐ ECL

Hi Mark,

I sent the email below to the [email protected] address, but I noticed on the website that no staff person is listed for that office currently. So, I wanted to send it to someone else at Landmarks as well to avoid it getting lost in the shuffle.

Regards,

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐5215 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Monday, March 02, 2020 9:14 AM

2 Appendix D-35 Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 3410 P St. NW, Miami, OK 74354 ● P.O. Box 1326, Miami, OK 74355 Ph: (918) 541-1300 ● Fax: (918) 542-7260 www.miamination.com

Via email: [email protected]

March 26, 2020

Shaun Miller Archaeological Team Lead, Cultural Resources Office Indiana DOT 575 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh 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-referenced project at this time, as we are not currently aware of existing documentation directly linking a specific Miami cultural or historic site to the project site. However, as this project is within the aboriginal homelands of the Miami Tribe, if any human remains or Native American cultural items falling under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) or archaeological evidence is discovered during any phase of this project, the Miami Tribe requests immediate consultation with the entity of jurisdiction for the location of discovery. In such a case, please contact me at 918-541-8966 or by email at [email protected] to initiate consultation.

The Miami Tribe accepts the invitation to serve as a consulting party to the proposed project. In my capacity as Tribal Historic Preservation Officer I am the point of contact for consultation.

Respectfully,

Diane Hunter Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Appendix D-36 Appendix D-37 For the benefit of those recipients of a copy of this letter who are not Section 106 consulting parties, please be aware that a copy of INDOT’s March 2 letter can be found online at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/. From there, search by this project’s designation number: 2000514.

If you have questions regarding our dual review of the aforementioned project, please contact INDNR-DHPA. Questions about archaeological issues should be directed to contact Wade T. Tharp at (317) 232-1650 or [email protected]. Questions about historic buildings or structures pertaining to this review should be directed to Danielle Kauffmann at (317) 232-0582 or [email protected].

In all future correspondence regarding the dual review of this bridge project on US 41 over Pigeon Creek in Vanderburgh County (Des. No. 2000154), please refer to DHPA No. 25252.

Very truly yours,

Beth K. McCord Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Director, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology

BKM:DMK:dmk emc: Michelle Allen, FHWA Kari Carmany-George, FHWA Anuradha Kumar, INDOT Shaun Miller, INDOT Susan Branigin, INDOT Shirley Clark, INDOT Mary Kennedy, INDOT Wade T. Tharp, INDNR-DHPA Danielle Kauffmann, INDNR-DHPA

EMC to Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Members:

J. Scott Keller, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Anne Shaw Kingery, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Daniel Kloc, AIA, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Jason Larrison, AIA, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Chandler Lighty, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Beth McCord, Deputy State Historic Preservation Office, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Joshua Palmer, AIA, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board April Sievert, Ph.D., Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Christopher Smith, Deputy Director, Indiana Department of Natural Resources

EMC to potentially interested persons:

Vanderburgh County Commissioners Vanderburgh County Engineer Vanderburgh County Highway Department Mayor, City of Evansville City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development, Historic Preservation Vanderburgh County Historian Vanderburgh County Historical Society Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Field Office James L. Cooper, Professor Emeritus, DePauw University Paul Brandenburg, Historic Spans Task Force Historic Hoosier Bridges Historicbridges.org Historic Bridge Foundation Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization

Appendix D-38 Karen Wood

From: Karen Wood Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 12:36 PM To: Tharp, Wade; Kauffmann, Danielle M; Nathan Holth; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Miller, Shaun (INDOT); [email protected]; Branigin, Susan; Watson, George C.; Malone, Brian; Wagner, Stephanie J. Subject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana - HBAA

Des. No.: 2000514 Project Description: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL Location: 0.37 mile N of SR 66, City of Evansville, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, proposes to proceed with a project for INDOT Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana.

As part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis 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 as soon as you can.

Consulting parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this information to review and provide comment. Tribal consulting parties may enter the process at any time and are encouraged to respond to this notification with any comments or concerns at their earliest convenience. Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317‐233‐6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317‐226‐7344. Thank you in advance for your input,

Karen Wood Environmental and Cultural Resources Manager

"Let the science and research of the historian find the fact and let his imagination and art make clear its significance." George Trevelyan

1 Appendix D-39 Karen Wood

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 3:42 PM To: Diane Hunter Cc: Miller, Shaun (INDOT); Karen Wood Subject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana - HBAA and invite to CP meeting

Des. No.: 2000514 Project Description: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL Location: 0.37 mile N of SR 66, City of Evansville, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FHWA and INDOT are inviting you to attend a Consulting Party Meeting for this project. Due to COVID‐19, a virtual meeting using Microsoft Teams will be held on Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM EDT. The intent of the meeting is to discuss the damage done to the bridge, the proposed work, the proposed alternatives that are under analysis, and address any questions from consulting parties. A Teams Meeting Invitation will follow this email.

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, proposes to proceed with a project for INDOT Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana.

As part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis has been prepared and is ready for review and comment by consulting parties.

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐5215 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

1 Appendix D-40 100 North Senate Avenue PHONE: (317) 234-5168 Eric Holcomb, Governor Room N642 Joe McGuinness, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Commissioner

May 18, 2020

This letter was sent to the listed parties.

RE: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66 Vanderburgh County, Indiana Des. No. 2000514; DHPA No. 25252 DUAL REVIEW

Dear Consulting Party,

This letter is part of the Section 106 review process for this project. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic and archaeological properties. We are requesting comments from you regarding the possible effects of 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.

A Section 106 early coordination letter was distributed on March 2, 2020.

The proposed undertaking is on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66, in Vanderburgh County, Indiana. It is within the City of Evansville in Center Township, on the Evansville North USGS Topographic Quadrangle, in Section 16 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West.

On January 21, 2020, the bridge was struck and damaged by an oversize vehicle. The bridge was closed so that INDOT bridge engineers could inspect the structure and determine the extent of the damage. Inspections revealed multiple complete fractures, partial cracks, and significant deformation of the steel (which could www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer Appendix D-41 contain micro-cracks) in nearly all of the upper, mid, and lower connections – significantly impairing the bridge’s ability to bear normal traffic loads. Because of the significance of damage, the bridge will be closed indefinitely. INDOT has installed a traffic bypass using the Diamond Avenue exit from southbound US 41 to go around the bridge. Two lanes of traffic will be maintained at all times as a part of this detour. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a crossing carrying US 41 SB over Pigeon Creek that can meet the structural capacity design standards for vehicular traffic of HS-20 or better to enable the reopening of the bridge to traffic.

Based on the results of the Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis (HBAA; see below), Alternative 5, which involves the disassembly and storage of the historic bridge for potential relocation and new bridge construction, would meet the purpose and need of the proposed project. The HBAA states that “this alternative is only prudent if [State Historic Preservation Officer] SHPO and consulting parties consider disassembly and storage of the bridge to be appropriate mitigation for INDOT to undertake. Given the high cost of repairs needed for the bridge to function at a new location, someone stepping forward to reuse the existing bridge may be unlikely.” If disassembly and storage of the historic bridge is not pursued, then Alternative 6, which involves the demolition of historic bridge and new bridge construction, would also meet the purpose and need of the project.

Green 3, LLC is under contract with INDOT to advance the environmental documentation for the referenced project.

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2 (c), you were invited to become a consulting party as part of the Section 106 process, or you are hereby invited to become a consulting party as part of the Section 106 process. Entities that have previously accepted consulting party status--as well as additional entities that are currently being invited to become consulting parties--are identified in the attached list.

The Section 106 process involves efforts to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, to assess the undertaking’s effects and to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. For more information regarding the protection of historic resources, please see the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s guide: Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review available online at https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017-01/CitizenGuide.pdf.

Please note that, per the permanent rule issued by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources effective August 14, 2013 (312 IAC 20-4-11.5), INDOT is requesting that this project be subjected to “dual review”; that is, reviewed by the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology simultaneously under 54 U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106) and IC 14-21-1-18 (Indiana Preservation and Archaeology Law dealing with alterations of historic sites and structures requiring a Certificate of Approval). Pursuant to Section 11.5(f) of this rule, at the conclusion of the review process we anticipate that the Division Director would issue a letter of clearance exempting this project from obtaining a Certificate of Approval under IC 14-21-1-18.

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. At this time, no cultural resource investigations have occurred; however, the results of cultural resource identification and evaluation efforts, both above-ground and archaeological, will be forthcoming. Consulting parties will receive notification when these reports are completed.

www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer Appendix D-42 In response to the Section 106 early coordination letter, in an email dated March 2, 2020, Historicbridges.org requested photographs of the damage done to the bridge. Photos and a detailed description of the damage to the bridge are located in Appendix B of the HBAA.

In an email dated March 17, 2020, Indiana Landmarks – Southwest Regional Office asked if this project would be rehabilitation or demolition and requested to “see how many ‘good example[s] of an ISHC-designed Parker through truss’ bridges there are within the state and county, and if this particular bridge is a common bridge type or unusual variation.” INDOT replied to the first question in an email dated the same day, stating that there was no “recommended preferred alternative at this time” and that more information would be sent out once it became available. Information on the alternatives analyzed is contained in the HBAA document. Regarding the second inquiry, a table of extant ISHC-designed Parker through trusses is attached.

On March 26, 2020, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma accepted consulting party status.

In a letter dated April 13, 2020, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DNR-DHPA)/SHPO staff commented, in part, that they were not “aware of anyone who should be invited to become a consulting party for the purposes of the review of this project under Section 106, beyond those whom INDOT already has invited. For the purposes of Indiana Code 14-21-1-18 and 312 IAC 20- 4, we have added the members of the Review Board and additional, potentially interested parties to the list of parties we intend to copy with our comment letters..”

Copies of all consulting party correspondence received are attached to this letter.

The HBAA is available for review in IN SCOPE at http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/ (the Des. No. is the most efficient search term, once in IN SCOPE). You are invited to review these documents and to 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.

Additionally, FHWA and INDOT are inviting you to attend a Consulting Party Meeting for this project. Due to COVID-19, a virtual meeting using Microsoft Teams will be held on Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM EDT. The intent of the meeting is to discuss the damage done to the bridge, the proposed work, the proposed alternatives that are under analysis, and address any questions from consulting parties.

For questions concerning specific project details, you may contact Karen Wood of Green 3, LLC at 31-634- 4110 or [email protected] All future responses regarding the proposed project should be forwarded to Green 3, LLC at the following address:

Karen Wood Environmental and Cultural Resources Manager Green 3, LLC 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203 [email protected]

Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317-233-6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317-226-7344.

www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer Appendix D-43 Sincerely,

Anuradha V. Kumar, Manager Cultural Resources Office Environmental Services

Enclosures: Historicbridges.org to INDOT, email dated March 2, 2020 Indiana Landmarks email to INDOT, email dated March 17, 2020 Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to INDOT, letter dated March 26, 2020 DHPA / SHPO to INDOT, letter dated April 13, 2020 Table of extant ISHC-designed Parker through trusses

Distribution List: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation & Archaeology (IDNR, DHPA) / Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Field Office Historicbridges.org Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer Appendix D-44 Extant ISHC-Designed Parker Through Trusses

Historic ISHC National Date of No. of Length Bridge Bridge No. NBI No. Route/Crossing County INDOT District Standar Builder Register Notes Construction Spans of Spans Inventory d Plan Status Designation

SR 1 over the Gradle Brothers 001-68-03408B 300 Randolph Greenfield 1941 2 150' #1522 Eligible Select Rehabilitated in 2008 (INDOT Des. No. 0400303) Mississinewa River (Indianapolis, IN) SR 75 over Wildcat R. L. Schutt 075-08-03653B 24970 Carroll LaPorte 1947 1 175' #1551 Eligible Non-Select Proposed rehabilitation (INDOT Des. No. 1601029) Creek (Indianapolis, IN) SR 119 over the R. L. Schutt 119-66-03454A 25850 Pulaski LaPorte 1949 2 150' #1557 Eligible Non-Select Rehabilitated in 2010 (INDOT Des. No. 0900117) Tippecanoe River (Indianapolis, IN) L & K Contracting SR 49 over the 049-37-01938B 17940 Jasper LaPorte 1941 1 200' #1521 Company, Inc. (Terre Eligible Select Rehabilitated in 2014 (INDOT Des. No. 1173072) Kankakee River Haute, IN) Rehabilitated in 2017 (INDOT Des. No. 1296351); Bridge US 36 over the Wabash Robert H. King 036-83-03492A 11480 Vermillion Crawfordsville 1948 6 200' #1554 Eligible Select painting project scheduled to let in 2020 (INDOT Des. No. River (Danville, IN) 1800417) SR 119 over the East R. P. Olinger (11)31A-36-01677E 10250 Jackson Seymour 1941 2 200' #1521 Eligible Select Rehabilitated in 2014 (INDOT Des. No. 1298123) Fork White River (Huntingburg, IN) SR 26 over the Yost Brothers Proposed project - Section 106 process in progress (INDOT 026-38-03430A 7040 Jay Greenfield 1941 1 150' #1522 Eligible Non-Select Salamonie River (Decatur, IN) Des. No. 1600828) SR 46 over the I. E. Smith Proposed project - Section 106 process not yet started 046-15-01987A 17540 Dearborn Seymour 1938 5 175' #475A Eligible Non-Select Whitewater River (Richmond, IN) (INDOT Des. No. 1383721) SR 135 over Indian Bergen and Bergen Rehabilitation project scheduled to let in 2020 (INDOT Des. 135-55-01522A 26700 Morgan Seymour 1934 1 150' #472A Eligible Select Creek (Franklin, IN) No. 1600025)

Rehabilitated in 2019 (INDOT Des. No. 1400191); Struck by US 41 over Pigeon Vanderburg 041-82-03286GSBL 14310 Vincennes 1940 1 198' #1521 unknown Eligible N/A oversize vehicle in 2020 & currently closed due to damage; Creek h Project proposed (INDOT Des. No. 2000514)

Vincennes Bridge 042-11-03101A 15790 SR 42 over the Eel River Clay Crawfordsville 1938 1 175' #475A Company Listed Select Rehabilitated in 2015 (INDOT Des. No. 0800870) (Vincennes, IN) Vincennes Bridge Being relocated/rehabilitated for pedestrian use in Brown 046-11-01316A 17050 SR 46 over the Eel River Clay Crawfordsville 1934 2 198' #479A Company Listed Select County (INDOT Des. No. 0800910) (Vincennes, IN) Vincennes Bridge SR 163 over Brouilletts Not Proposed project - Section 106 process in progress (INDOT 163-83-01393A 28420 Vermillion Crawfordsville 1933 1 175' #475 Company N/A Creek Eligible Des. No. 1701589) (Vincennes, IN) Appendix D-45 Extant ISHC-Designed Parker Through Trusses

Ben Hur SR 256 over Construction Not 256-88-03369C 30830 Washington Seymour 1941 1 175' #475A N/A Thin deck overlay in 2017 (INDOT Des. No. 1401459) Muscatatuck River Company Eligible (Indianapolis, IN) Ben Hur SR 256 over Construction Not Proposed project - Section 106 process not yet started 256-36-3370B 30840 Jackson Seymour 1941 1 175' #475A N/A Muscatatuck River Company Eligible (INDOT Des. No. 1701511) (Indianapolis, IN) George R. Harvey Not Bridge deck overlay in 2015 (INDOT Des. No. 0710467 ); 042-67-03172B 15830 SR 42 over Mill Creek Putnam Crawfordsville 1940 1 175' #475A N/A (Danville, IN) Eligible Bridge painting in 2018 (INDOT Des. No. 1500642) Formerly US 24 over Hoagland Ditch in White County (#24- Prince William Rd. over E.R. Campbell Not Carroll County No. 25 0800021 Carroll LaPorte c1932 1 144.8' #422 N/A D-911); Was dismantled & moved to this location when Wildcat Creek (Sandborn, IN) Eligible ISHC replaced bridge on US 24 in 1968 Stein Construction Hazelton Rd. over Knox County No. 235 4200257 Knox Vincennes 1923 8 196' N/A Company Eligible N/A ISHC; Has been closed since 2004 White River/Local Rd. (Milwaukee, WI) B. E. Curry Building Marion County No. 82nd St. EB over White 4900027 Marion Greenfield 1942 2 174' #1551 Corp. (Bloomington, Listed Select ISHC; Rehabilitated in 2008 (INDOT Des. No. 0300019) 0501F River IN) Old US 31 over Wabash unknow Miami County No. 159 5200122 Miami Ft. Wayne 1939 3 200' unknown Eligible Select ISHC; Rehabilitated in 2019 (INDOT Des. No. 1383463) River n Warrick County No. Old SR 66 over Little unknow 8700170 Warrick Vincennes c1928 2 150' unknown Eligible Select ISHC 371 Pigeon Creek n CR 300 W over Wabash unknow Wells County No. 193 9000144 Wells Ft. Wayne c1933 2 150' unknown Eligible Select ISHC River n

Appendix D-46

Section 106 Consulting Party Meeting Summary

Meeting Date: June 3, 2020, 10:00 a.m. Project Sponsor: Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) Lead Federal Agency: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Work Type: Bridge Project Bridge No.: 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) Route: US 41 Over: Pigeon Creek Des. No.: 2000514 DHPA No.: 25252

Attended By:

FHWA: Kari Camany-George Jose Ortiz

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (staff of the State Historic Preservation Officer [SHPO]): Danielle Kauffmann

INDOT: Khalil Dughaish (Vincennes District – System Asset Manager) Cheryl Folz (Bridge Design) Jason Heile (Vincennes District – Bridge Asset Engineer) Mary Kennedy (Cultural Resources Office) Brian Malone (Project Manager) Jared Peterson (Vincennes District – Consultant Services Manager) Stephanie Wagner (Bridge Design)

Indiana Landmarks: Candice Croix

WSP: George Watson Alex Benedict

Green 3, LLC: Karen Wood

A Section 106 consulting party was held on June 3, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the proposed project and the impact on one historic resource: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310). The following is a summary of the meeting agenda items and ensuing discussions:

The meeting began with introductions and Mary Kennedy gave a brief overview of the Section 106 process. Ms. Kennedy explained the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and how the applicable Federal agency must take into account the effects of the undertaking on eligible or listed National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties and afford the Advisory Council (ACHP) the opportunity to consult. She explained that this is a four-step process that includes initiating the process through early coordination

Appendix D-47 efforts, the identification of historic properties, the assessment of effects of the undertaking on historic properties and the resolution of any adverse effects.

Ms. Kennedy further explained that Indiana has a Historic Bridge Programmatic Agreement (HBPA) when dealing with historic bridges as an alternate to the typical Section 106 process. This is an agreement between FHWA, INDOT, SHPO and the ACHP. The 2010 Historic Bridge Inventory (HBI) evaluated all publicly owned bridges through 1965 to determine what is NRHP eligible or listed. Eligible and / or listed bridges were classified as either Select or Non-Select and that classification dictates the process to be followed in the HBPA. A standard treatment for either rehabilitation or replacement is required after a preferred alternative has been selected, based on an in-depth alternative analysis.

Ms. Kennedy explained that the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge project is not following the HBPA because Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is not part of the HBI and has not been given a Select or Non-Select rating. Therefore, this project will follow the regular Section 106 process, but does include a Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis (HBAA).

Ms. Kennedy explained where this project is in the Section 106 process. Early Coordination Letters were sent out to consulting parties on March 2, 2020. The HBAA was sent out to consulting parties on May 18, 2020 for review and comment.

Ms. Kennedy gave a brief history of the bridge. Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL was built by the Indiana State Highway Commission (ISHC) in 1940 and is one of twenty-two extant Parker through trusses built by the ISHC. A list was enclosed with the transmittal letter that accompanied the HBAA. Under Des. No. 0100957, the bridge was determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Because the project was scoped for replacement, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) was drafted and signed in 2005. The HBI did not include the bridge in the statewide bridge inventory because of the MOA in place. The project under Des. No. 0100957 was not completed and the MOA expired in 2015. Under Des. No. 1400191, the bridge was reprogrammed for rehabilitation. The bridge followed the regular Section 106 process, resulting in a finding of No Adverse Effect. The bridge was rehabilitated in 2019.

George Watson explained the damage to Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL on January 21, 2020. The bridge was struck and damaged by an oversize vehicle that was off its route and proceeded through the truss, pulling the sway braces and verticals along with the truck. Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL was closed immediately and INDOT crews inventoried the site, assessing the damage. Through diagrams, Mr. Watson demonstrated the distortion, yielding at connection points of the gussets, and fractures on verticals. The yielded areas showed extensive damage: the steel had elongated at least 0.5” at upper rivet. If fixity is around the top of gusset plate 4.5” away, then the strain is in the order of magnitude >5%. Mr. Watson stated that the structural capacity of this bridge was compromised due to collision damage and is unable to support design live load until repaired.

Mr. Watson gave an overview of the Purpose & Need. Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is closed due to a highly reduced structural capacity due to the January 21, 2020 collision damage. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a crossing carrying US 41 SB over Pigeon Creek that can meet the structural capacity design standards for vehicular traffic of HS-20 or better to enable the reopening of the bridge to traffic.

Mr. Watson explained the alternatives explored in the Draft HBAA. The Do Nothing/No Build alternative is feasible but does not meet the purpose and need of the project. The Rehabilitation for Continued Vehicular Use meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation alternative includes the following: replacing vertical posts in kind, replacing portal and sway frame bracing, reconstructing gusset nodes, removing and reconstructing concrete railings, constructing and installing a temporary shoring and

Appendix D-48 jacking support system to realign trusses and disassemble the structure for offsite inspection, repair and replacement. While this alternative meets the purpose and need and is feasible, the cost of the rehabilitation would exceed the cost of replacing the structure due to the extent and the complexity of rehabilitation needed. The rehabilitation would be very complex compared to the recent rehabilitation in 2019. Thus, this alternative is not prudent.

Kari Carmany-George asked, “What is the percentage of the verticals and sway bracing that would need to be replaced?” Mr. Watson replied that the rehabilitation would require the replacement of 12 of the 16 vertical posts, all 8 sway braces or portal frames and at least 8 of the 68 gusset plates. "At least" is used because there may be more damage to the gusset plates that is not readily visible. For comparison, during the rehabilitation performed in 2019, the truss components replaced comprised of just one bearing gusset plate and 4 bottom low chord to horizontal lateral gusset plates.

Mr. Watson explained that the next alternative regarding the Rehabilitation for Continued Vehicular Use (one-way pair) was not considered because Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL is already part of a one-way pair. The Bypass (non-vehicular use/build new structure) alternative was not considered because of the existing off-ramp to the west and thus a bypass cannot be constructed to the west of the structure. A bypass to the east is not feasible due to the northbound US 41 bridge.

The Bypass (non-vehicular use/convert off ramp) alternative includes the widening of the off ramp to both the east and west sides to serve as the bypass structure and rehabilitating the existing structure for pedestrian use. This alternative is feasible but the conversion of the off ramp would create significant S-curves in roadway and placing a non-vehicular use bridge in center of the location would create an unsafe environment for pedestrians. Additionally, there is no existing pedestrian trail for the bridge to tie into, rendering the pedestrian bridge inaccessible.

Ms. Kennedy explained that as part of the HBPA, the HBAA template requires the designers to look at any possible alternative that is feasible and prudent, satisfying the purpose and need of the project. Although this project is not a part of the HBPA, the list of alternatives from the HBAA template used for HBPA projects was used as a starting point to be thorough She explained that in addition to Section 106 process, this project must also be in compliance with FHWA Section 4(f) policy. Section 4(f) dictates that before FHWA can “use” a historic property, any alternatives that don’t use the property must be examined.

Mr. Watson explained that the Relocation of Historic Bridge and New Bridge Construction alternative meets purpose and need and is feasible; however, this alternative is only prudent if SHPO and consulting parties consider disassembly and storage of the bridge to be appropriate mitigation for INDOT to undertake. Given the high cost of repairs needed for the bridge, this alternative is unlikely. The last alternative is Demolition and New Bridge Construction, which is feasible and prudent, and meets the purpose and need. Mr. Watson presented a table that showed the summary of the alternatives along with the cost estimates.

At this time the meeting was opened up for questions and discussion.

Danielle Kauffmann asked, “In the original 2005 project, what were the mitigation options as a result of that project?” Ms. Kennedy responded that the MOA included the following: a marketing plan, the bridge was to be dismantled and relocated to a holding facility, a disassembly plan would be sent to SHPO for review, and the bridge was to be photo documented.

Ms. Carmany-George asked, “Has the photo documentation had been completed?” Ms. Kennedy stated that she thought it had been completed. (INDOT Cultural Resources Office completed the photo documentation in 2012; the SHPO letter regarding this item is enclosed with this meeting summary). Karen Wood offered to include the MOA and any other relevant information in the appendices to the historic properties report

Appendix D-49 (HPR). After the meeting, it was decided that including the MOA as an attachment to this meeting summary instead was appropriate.

Candice Croix asked, “How often are the construction costs accurate? Are they good estimates?” Mr. Watson responded that the numbers are based on good data, years of similar items being bid along with long-term averages associated with them. While they are not exact, they are close. If off, then usually it is from larger market trends.

Ms. Croix asked, “What was considered close, $100,000 or $200,000?” Mr. Watson answered within 10% of the engineer’s estimates. Brian Malone added that it can vary if there is more than 3 bidders. Jason Heile stated that INDOT keeps a database of lettings and unit bid prices to base the estimates on projects. Additionally, Mr. Heile stated that if the new construction option was bid higher than the estimate, the rehabilitation alternative would also be bid higher because it is more of a workforce, contractor, and material cost issue, not the scope of work.

Ms. Wood made closing statements and asked for any additional questions. She explained the next steps of the Section 106 process. She stated that the comment period on the HBAA ends on June 19, 2020 and any written comments on the HBAA were welcome by that deadline in determining the preferred alternative. An HPR & archaeology report (SHPO & tribes only) will be distributed for review/comment (anticipated end of June). Then, a Section 106 finding & documentation will be distributed based on the preferred alternative. If the project has a finding of Adverse Effect, a draft MOA will be distributed as well.

Ms. Carmany-George asked, “When was the estimated date for the distribution of the Section 106 finding?” Ms. Wood responded that the finding is anticipated to be distributed in July or August.

This is our understanding of the items presented for discussion. Please inform WSP and Green3 in writing of any corrections/additions to the summary. If no written comments are received within seven (7) days of receipt of this summary, it will be considered finalized as written.

Enclosures: 2005 MOA for Des. No. 0100957 2012 SHPO letter confirming photo documentation was completed for MOA for Des. No. 0100957 June 3, 2020 Consulting Party Meeting Power Point Presentation Printout

Appendix D-50 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND THE INDIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURSUANT TO 36 C.F.R. Part 800 REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF U.S.41 BRIDGE OVER PIGEON CREEK IN EVANSVILLE, PIGEON AND CENTER TOWNSHIPS, VANDERBURGH COUNTY, INDIANA

WHEREAS the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") proposes to remove the Parker through-truss steel bridge for the U.S.41 Pavement Rehabilitation/Added Travel Lanes project in Evansville, Pigeon and Center Townships, Vanderburgh County, Indiana; and

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer ("Indiana SHPO"), has defined this Pavement Rehabilitation/Added Travel Lanes project's area of potential effects, as the term defined in 36 C.F.R. Section 800.16(d), to be the area from S.R. 66 (Division Street) North Junction with U.S.41 to 3.2 miles north of S.R.57 with a western boundary that extends to the Conrail tracks that run parallel to U.S.41 and an eastern boundary that extends at varying widths to include adjacent multiple building fronts of various businesses, the Evansville Regional Airport, and private residences.

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has found that the Parker through-truss steel bridge (Site #163-195-51435); Chicago & Eastern Illinois Repair Shop/Truss Railroad Bridge (Site #163-195-51648); and Republic Aviation Corporation U.S.41 (Site #163-195-51427) are within the area of potential effects; and

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has determined, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.4(c), that the Parker through-truss steel bridge (Site #163-195-51435); Chicago & Eastern Illinois Repair Shop/Truss Railroad Bridge (Site #163-195-51648); and Republic Aviation Corporation U.S.41 (Site #163-195-51427) are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places;

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has determined pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.5(a) that the Pavement Rehabilitation/Added Travel Lanes project will have an adverse effect on the Parker through-truss steel bridge; and

WHEREAS the FHWA has consulted with the Indiana SHPO in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. Section 470f) and its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800) to resolve the adverse effect on the Parker through-truss steel bridge; and

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has invited the Indiana Department of Transportation to participate in the consultation and to become a signatory to this memorandum of agreement; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA and the Indiana SHPO agree that, upon the submission of a copy of this executed memorandum of agreement, as well as the documentation specified in 36 C.F.R. Sections 800.11(e) and (f) to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ("Council" pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.6(b)(1)(iv)) and upon the FHWA's approval of the Pavement Rehabilitation/Added Travel Lanes project, the FHWA shall ensure that the following stipulations are implemented in order to take into account the effect of the Pavement Rehabilitation/Added Travel Lanes project on historic properties.

Appendix D-51 Stipulations

FHWA shall ensure the following stipulations are implemented.

I MARKETING PLAN

A. INDOT shall publish a public notice that shall offer the bridge for relocation and reassemble. The offer will be made to the public through a notice in a widely circulated Vanderburgh County newspaper, and an e-mail solicitation to potential parties.

The notice shall include the following types of information:

location of the bridge, by road, section, range, township, and county

request for any state or local government agency, or responsible private entity who might be interested in moving and rehabilitating the historic bridge for preservation purposes

the new owner must agree to maintain the bridge and features that gives it its historic significance

the recipient may be eligible to apply for reimbursement for up to 80% of the cost incurred in such activities as relocation, site preparation, reassemble, rehabilitation work, preparation of engineering plans, and any regulatory permits

the new owner must assume all future legal and financial responsibility for the bridge

whom to contact for additional information with address and telephone number

deadline for submitting a written proposal and the address to send the proposal

B. INDOT shall review all offers for the bridge in consultation with the SHPO prior to acceptance. The FHWA through the INDOT shall ensure that the bridge is moved in accordance with the approaches recommended in Moving Historic Buildings (John Obed Curtis. AASLH, published by the Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior in 1979).

C. If no offers are made INDOT shall dismantle the bridge and relocate to a temporary holding facility for a period of ten years.

D. INDOT shall ensure the Indiana SHPO is afforded 30 days to review and comment on the proposal to dismantle and relocate the bridge and on the new site for the bridge.

E. INDOT shall afford the SHPO the opportunity to reevaluate the property on its new site.

F. INDOT shall photographically document the Parker through-truss steel bridge in accordance to “State of Indiana Minimum Architectural Documentation Standards” as provided by the SHPO office prior to dismantling.

Appendix D-52

II DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Disagreement and misunderstanding about how this memorandum of agreement is or is not being implemented shall be resolved in the following manner:

A. If the Indiana SHPO or any invited signatory to this memorandum of agreement should object in writing to the FHWA regarding any action carried out or proposed with respect to the Pavement Rehabilitation/Added Travel Lanes project or implementation of this memorandum of agreement, then the FHWA shall consult with the objecting party to resolve this objection. If after such consultation the FHWA determines that the objection cannot be resolved through consultation, then the FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the objection to the Council, including the FHWA's proposed response to the objection. Within 45 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council shall exercise one of the following options: i. Provide the FHWA with a staff-level recommendation, which the FHWA shall take into account in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection; or ii. Notify the FHWA that the objection will be referred for formal comment pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.7(c), and proceed to refer the objection and comment. The FHWA shall take into account the Council's comments in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection. B. The FHWA shall take into account any Council comment or recommendations provided in accordance with this stipulation with reference only to the subject of the objection. The FHWA's responsibility to carry out all actions under the memorandum of agreement that are not the subjects of the objection shall remain unchanged.

III POST REVIEW DISCOVERY

In the event that one or more historic properties other than the -- Parker through-truss steel bridge -- are discovered or that unanticipated effects on historic properties are found during the implementation of this memorandum of agreement, the FHWA shall follow the procedure specified in 36 C.F.R. Section 800.13.

IV AMENDMENT

Any signatory to this memorandum of agreement may request that it be amended, whereupon the parties shall consult to consider the proposed amendment. Any such amendment shall be governed by 36 C.F.R. Section 800.6(c)(7).

V TERMINATION

c. If the terms of this memorandum of agreement have not been implemented by December 31, 2015, then this memorandum of agreement shall be considered null and void. In such an event, the FHWA shall so notify the parties to this memorandum of agreement and, if it chooses to continue with the Pavement Rehabilitation/Added Travel Lanes project, then it shall reinitiate review of the Pavement Rehabilitation/Added Travel Lanes project in accordance with 36 C.F.R. Sections 800.3 through 800.7. d. Any signatory to the memorandum of agreement may terminate it by providing thirty (30) days notice to the other parties, provided that the parties shall consult during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of termination, the FHWA shall comply with 36 C.F.R. Sections

Appendix D-53 Appendix D-54 Appendix D-55 6/10/2020

1 2

Consulting Party Meeting via Microsoft Teams

• June 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM EST • Des. No. 2000514 • INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. Agenda 014310) • Introductions (Green 3) • US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, • Brief Overview of Section 106/History of Previous Vanderburgh County, Indiana Projects (INDOT) • Brief Overview of Bridge Hit and Bridge Condition (WSP) • Explanation of Purpose & Need and Draft Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis (WSP) • Questions/Discussion (Everyone) • Review and Conclusion (Green 3) • Next Steps 2 1 2

3 4 What is Section 106? Section 106: Steps •National Historic Preservation Act • Establish that there is an undertaking… (1966): • Step 1: Initiate consultation • Federal agencies are to take into account the effects of the undertaking on • Step 2: Identify historic properties properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) • Step 3: Assess effects of the undertaking on historic properties • Afford the Advisory County on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the opportunity to • Step 4: Resolve any adverse effects consult (www. achp.gov)

3 4

5 6 Brief Overview of Bridge Hit and Bridge Condition US 41 over Pigeon Creek • INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) • Built by Indiana State Highway Commission (ISHC), 1940 • One of 22 extant Parker through trusses built by ISHC • Memorandum of Agreement for replacement, 2005 – INDOT Des. No. 0100957 • Not included in the Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory (HBI) • Not given Select or Non-Select determination • Later reprogrammed for a rehabilitation – INDOT Des. No. 1400191 • Rehabilitation completed in 2019 • January 21, 2020, the bridge was struck and damaged by an oversize vehicle

5 6

1 Appendix D-56 6/10/2020

7 8

East Truss, US (Upstream) West Truss, DS (Downstream)

East Truss (Downstream)

The large displacement of the six vertical posts was a result of the pulling force of the sway frame bracing

7 8

9 10 Yielded Areas show extensive damage Steel has elongated at least 0.5” at upper rivet –

If fixity is around top of gusset plate 4.5” away, then the strain is in the order of magnitude West Truss (Upstream) >5% L3U3 DS with Paint Loss and L6U6 US Location with Evidence of Yielding Fracture in Flange

9 10

11 12

Summary of Load Rating Purpose and Need

Load Rating: The structural capacity of this bridge was compromised due The existing structure is closed due to a highly reduced structural capacity due to to collision damage. The bridge is unable to support design live load until the January 21, 2020 collision damage. The need for this project is due to the repaired. structural deficiencies of the existing bridge, rendering it closed to all public Design Load: HS20 traffic pending corrective action. Operating Rating: Imminent Failure Condition (bridge closed) Inventory Rating: Imminent Failure Condition (bridge closed) The purpose of this project is to provide a crossing carrying US 41 SB over Pigeon H Rating: Imminent Failure Condition (bridge closed) Creek that can meet the structural capacity design standards for vehicular traffic Sufficiency Rating: 7.0 of HS-20 or better to enable the reopening of the bridge to traffic.

11 12

2 Appendix D-57 6/10/2020

13 14 Draft Historic Bridge Alternatives 1. Do Nothing/No Build Analysis 1. Do Nothing/No Build • The No Build/Do Nothing 2. Rehab to Sec. Standards alternative was considered as a possible solution. This alternative 3. Rehab for One-Way Pair involves no funds expended and 4. Bypass (Non-Vehicular Use/Convert Off-Ramp) no action to occur. 5. Replacement with Relocation • This alternative is feasible. 6. Replacement without Relocation However, it is not prudent because it does not meet the purpose and need as it does not address the structural capacity issues.

13 14

15 16 2. REHABILITATION FOR CONTINUED VEHICULAR 2. REHABILITATION FOR CONTINUED USE MEETING SECRETARY STANDARDS VEHICULAR USE CHALLENGES

A complex temporary shoring and jacking support system must be installed to realign the trusses and The repair of the truss structure deload the structure. would involve: This temporary support system will need to support both the upper and lower chords to • Replacing the vertical posts in remove collision-caused horizontal and vertical kind deflections. Replacing the portal and sway In order to replace the vertical members to • preserve the historic aesthetics and eliminate frame bracing splices within the areas immediately adjacent to the gusset plate fracture critical areas; each • Gusset nodes reconstruction connection node will need to be deloaded, disassembled, inspected for additional damage not • Potential additional damage visible during inspection, repaired, and uncovered during construction reassembled with new material where required. The sway bracing repairs will face similar • Concrete railings to be challenges. Once the support system is in place, removed to access the inside the bracings will need to be disassembled, of vertical posts and then connections to fracture critical members inspected for additional damage not visible during reconstructed. inspection, repaired, and reassembled with new material where required.

15 16

17 18 3. REHABILITATION FOR CONTINUED VEHICULAR USE (ONE-WAY PAIR 2. REHABILITATION FOR CONTINUED OPTION) – NOT CONSIDERED VEHICULAR USE – OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 4A. BYPASS (NON-VEHICULAR USE/BUILD NEW STRUCTURE) – NOT CONSIDERED

17 18

3 Appendix D-58 6/10/2020

19 20

4B. BYPASS (NON-VEHICULAR USE / WIDEN AND CONVERT 5. RELOCATION OF HISTORIC BRIDGE AND NEW BRIDGE OFF-RAMP) CONSTRUCTION

This alternative is feasible. However, the This alternative meets the project's purpose and need. This conversion of the off-ramp into the permanent alternative is feasible. However, this alternative is only prudent if US 41 SB route would introduce curves into the otherwise straight road alignment of the route. SHPO and consulting parties consider disassembly and storage of the bridge to be appropriate mitigation for INDOT to undertake. A pedestrian bridge located immediately adjacent Given the high cost of repairs needed for the bridge to function at a two National Highway System routes at this new location, someone stepping forward to reuse the existing location would not be sensible from a pedestrian bridge may be unlikely. safety standpoint. Additionally, there is no existing pedestrian trail for the bridge to tie into, rendering the pedestrian bridge inaccessible.

19 20

21 22

6. DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BRIDGE AND NEW BRIDGE SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION

This alternative was determined to be both feasible and prudent because it would Meets Life Cycle PV (75 years, 4% Alternative Purpose & Construction Cost annual discount rate, User Feasible & Prudent meet the purpose and need for the project. Need costs included)

1. No Build/Do Nothing No. $ 0.00 Cost Analysis not Feasible. Not Prudent. Does not meet purpose and performed. need. 2. Rehabilitation for Continued Yes. $ 3,564,703 $ 27,947,713 Feasible. Not prudent due to cost. Vehicular Use (mtg. S.O.I Stds) 3. Rehabilitation for Continued No. Cost Analysis not Cost Analysis not Not Feasible. One-way pair already exists. Vehicular Use One-Way Pair (mtg. performed. performed. S.O.I Stds) 4a. Bypass (Non-Vehicular Use/Build No. Cost Analysis not Cost Analysis not Not Feasible. Insufficient space for bypass. New Structure) performed. performed. 4b. Bypass (Non-Vehicular Use/Convert Yes. $ 3,564,703 (Min.) Cost Analysis not Feasible. Not prudent due to cost and inaccessibility of Off-Ramp) Rehabilitation Cost + performed. pedestrian bridge. Widening Cost 5. Relocate & Replace Yes. $ 3,447,110 Cost Analysis not No. Feasible but prudent only if SHPO and consulting (INDOT Cost) performed. parties consider disassembly and storage of the bridge $ 3,564,703 (Min.) to be appropriate mitigation for INDOT to undertake. (Responsible Party)

6. Demolish & Replace Yes. $ 3,169,610 $ 24,657,507 Yes.

21 22

23 24

Question & Answer Next Steps

23 24

4 Appendix D-59 Appendix D-60 If you have questions regarding our dual review of the aforementioned project, please contact INDNR-DHPA. Questions about archaeological issues should be directed to contact Wade T. Tharp at (317) 232-1650 or [email protected]. Questions about historic buildings or structures pertaining to this review should be directed to Danielle Kauffmann at (317) 232-0582 or [email protected].

In all future correspondence regarding the dual review of the US 41 Bridge over Pigeon Creek in Center Township, Vanderburgh County (Des. No. 2000514), please refer to DHPA No. 25252.

Very truly yours,

Beth K. McCord Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Director, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology

BKM:DMK:dmk

EMC to federal and state agency or consultant staff members: Kari Carmany-George, FHWA Anuradha Kumar, INDOT Mary Kennedy, INDOT Shaun Miller, INDOT Susan Branigin, INDOT Shirley Clark, INDOT Karen Wood, Green 3, LLC Wade T. Tharp, INDNR-DHPA Danielle Kauffmann, INDNR-DHPA

EMC to Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Members: J. Scott Keller, Review Board Anne Shaw Kingery, Review Board Daniel Kloc, AIA, Review Board Jason Larrison, AIA, Review Board Chandler Lighty, Review Board Beth K. McCord, INDNR-DHPA, Review Board Joshua Palmer, AIA, Review Board April Sievert, Ph.D., Review Board Christopher Smith, Deputy Director, INDNR, and Chairman, Review Board

EMC to potentially interested persons: Vanderburgh County Commissioners Vanderburgh County Engineer Vanderburgh County Highway Department Mayor, City of Evansville, City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development, Historic Preservation Vanderburgh County Historian Vanderburgh County Historical Society Candace Croix, Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Field Office James L. Cooper, Professor Emeritus, DePauw University Paul Brandenburg, Historic Spans Task Force Tony Dillon, Historic Hoosier Bridges Nathan Holth, Historicbridges.org Kitty Henderson, Historic Bridge Foundation Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization

Appendix D-61 Scott Henley

From: Scott Henley Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:40 PM To: Tharp, Wade; Kauffmann, Danielle M; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Karen Wood; Kennedy, Mary; Branigin, Susan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Allen, Michelle (FHWA) Subject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana

Des. No.: 2000514 Project Description: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL Location: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66, Evansville, Vanderburgh County, Indiana

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, proposes to proceed with a project for INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana, Des. No. 2000514. The Section 106 Early Coordination Letter for this project was originally distributed on March 2, 2020. A Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis was distributed on May 18, 2020.

As part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a Historic Property Short Report (HPSR) has been prepared and is ready for review and comment by consulting parties.

We also welcome at this time any comments and ideas that consulting parties have for mitigation for this project, anticipating that a finding of “Adverse Effect” will be issued after gathering comments on the Historic Property Short Report.

Consulting parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this information to review and provide comment. Tribal consulting parties may enter the process at any time and are encouraged to respond to this notification with any comments or concerns at their earliest convenience. Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317-233- 6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317-226-7344.

Thank you in advance for your input,

Scott Henley Cultural Resources Associate

1 Appendix D-62 Scott Henley

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:38 PM To: Diane Hunter Cc: Miller, Shaun (INDOT); Allen, Michelle (FHWA); Scott Henley Subject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana; HPR & archaeo assessment

Des. No.: 2000514 Project Description: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL Location: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66, Evansville, Vanderburgh County, Indiana ------The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, proposes to proceed with a project for INDOT Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana, Des. No. 2000514. The Section 106 Early Coordination Letter for this project was originally distributed on March 2, 2020. A Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis was distributed on May 18, 2020.

As part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a Historic Property Short Report (HPSR) has been prepared and is ready for review and comment by consulting parties. An archaeological assessment has also been provided in the report distribution letter.

Thank you in advance for your input,

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐5215 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

1 Appendix D-63 Appendix D-64 Appendix D-65 Appendix D-66 Appendix D-67 Appendix D-68 Nathan Holth 2575 Waldheim Drive Port Huron, Michigan 48060

269-290-2593 [email protected]

July 28, 2020

Subject: Section 106 Consulting Party Mitigation Comments, Des. No.: 2000514, US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Evansville, Indiana

To Whom It May Concern:

As a Section 106 Consulting Party I wish to offer the following comments in regards to the above listed project.

Firstly, I consider this project to be most unfortunate. This bridge, which was severely damaged by a truck is not a unique incident across the country. Sadly, many truck drivers are either irresponsible, improperly trained in the use of their trucks, or just simply stupid. Damage to historic bridges by trucks is sadly not uncommon. The real tragedy with this bridge is that this bridge had recently been rehabilitated in 2019. Nationwide, the majority of surviving historic bridges face a future of demolition and replacement. Thus, the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to preserve a historic bridge is a statistically uncommon event but one which is greatly appreciated by those of us with an interest and passion in seeing historic bridges preserved for the enjoyment of future generations. However, given the relative rarity of taxpayer dollars being expended for the purpose of preservation, we want to be absolutely sure that each dollar spent on historic bridges is done so in a manner that has a lasting effect. This bridge survived for less than a year following its rehabilitation before a truck nearly destroyed it. US-41 is a major highway and it is not a surprise that many trucks use it. Further, as I have stated above, it is not a new revelation that many truck drivers have no knowledge of, or totally disregard regulations like weight limits and height restrictions. I strongly feel greater effort should have been made on the part of InDOT to prevent this incident from occurring. The most powerful protection available for bridges in this situation is a headache bar. The theory is that if an overheight truck is going disregard the posted clearance signs, then a collision is inevitable. It is therefore better that the collision occurs against a headache bar rather than the bridge itself. This prevents damage to the historic bridge, and also protects the driver (and other people on the bridge at the time) from a potential bridge collapse incident. However, there are some other options such as special sensors that detect overheight trucks approaching and light up digital message signs with a warning, or turn nearby stoplights leading to the bridge to a red phase, as was done with the infamous Gregson Street Railroad Overpass in Durham, North Carolina.

The US-41 Bridge is an important historic bridge, but as a standard truss design it is not (yet) unique among surviving bridges in Indiana, although the population of similar bridges has been dropping at a rather alarming rate due to replacement projects. However, the documentation provided to date (page 12, of the Alternatives Analysis, Extant ISHC-Designed Parker Through Trusses) confirms that indeed some surviving examples do remain. Essentially, the “Adverse Effect” on this project is that a bridge must be replaced because it was not protected from overheight truck traffic. It seems to me that the adverse effect is best mitigated by protecting one or more surviving examples of this bridge type to ensure the population is not further reduced by potential future truck incidents. I would like to propose that the mitigation for this proposed adverse effect be to either develop a plan for protection of the surviving bridges of this type (particularly those identified as Select, and/or those recently rehabilitated).

Appendix D-69 Presumably, some bridges are on roads that carry higher volumes of truck traffic than others. It seems to me that a study of these surviving bridges and the traffic volumes on them could narrow the list down to Select and/or recently rehabilitated bridges that are on roads that see a fair volume of truck traffic. It is those bridges that I would propose for protection through methods such as headache bars.

Elsewhere in the documentation it was mentioned that for mitigation, the bridge could be put into storage and made available for reuse by a third party. While I am strongly supportive of Indiana’s bridge storage and reuse program and hope it will continue with other bridges, I question the usefulness of putting the bridge in storage for reuse if it is the opinion of the engineers on this project that reuse is either unlikely and/or cost prohibitive due to the damage the bridge has sustained. I would suggest that mitigation dollars are better spent on finding a way to protect and preserve other surviving examples of this bridge type, unless a third party with an understanding of the bridge’s problems is stepping forward at this point in the project. Perhaps potential third parties to relocate and restore the bridge could be sought at this time to ensure there is no interest in the bridge. If indeed someone had a plan and funding for relocating this bridge I would certainly support that first. But in general I think if the damaged bridge is put into storage it seems unlikely to find a new owner (keeping in mind I believe the department already has other spans of similar design such as one of the Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge spans in Lake County).

I look forward to continued discussion on mitigation for this proposed project.

Sincerely,

Nathan Holth

Author/Webmaster, HistoricBridges.org

Appendix D-70 Appendix D-71 that can be rehabilitated as mitigation for the loss of this bridge? We are open to and welcome further suggestions posed by other consulting or interested parties.

Additionally, based on the submitted information and the documentation available to the staff of the Indiana SHPO, we have not identified any currently known archaeological resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the proposed project area. However, this identification is subject to the ground-disturbing project-related activities remaining within areas disturbed by previous construction of a recent and non-historical nature. If archaeological deposits are encountered, they will be evaluated regarding their eligibility for the NRHP in consultation with the staff of the Indiana SHPO. Please contact our office if such deposits are encountered. The archaeological recording must be done in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation” (48 F.R. 44716) and a report of the archaeological documentation must be submitted to our office for review and comment.

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 Indiana Code 14-21-1-29) requires that the discovery be reported to Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (“INDNR-DHPA”), within two (2) business days. In that event, please call (317) 232-1646. Be advised that adherence to Indiana Code 14-21-1- 27 and Indiana Code 14-21-1-29 does not obviate the need to adhere to applicable federal statutes and regulations, including but not limited to 36 C.F.R. Part 800.

If you have questions regarding our dual review of the aforementioned project, please contact DHPA. Questions about archaeological issues should be directed to Wade T. Tharp at (317) 232-1650 or [email protected]. Questions about historic buildings or structures pertaining to this review should be directed to Danielle Kauffmann at (317) 232-0582 or [email protected].

Anyone receiving an e-mailed copy of this letter who does not wish to receive future copies of our correspondence about this bridge project is asked to reply to [email protected] and so advise us.

In all future correspondence regarding the dual review of this bridge project on US 41 over Pigeon Creek in Vanderburgh County (Des. No. 2000514), please continue to refer to DHPA No. 25252.

Very truly yours,

Beth K. McCord Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

BKM:DMK:WTT:wtt

EMC to federal and state agency or consultant staff members: Kari Carmany-George, FHWA Anuradha Kumar, INDOT Mary Kennedy, INDOT Shaun Miller, INDOT Susan Branigin, INDOT Karen Wood, Green 3, LLC Danielle Kauffmann, INDNR-DHPA Chad Slider, INDNR-DHPA Wade T. Tharp, INDNR-DHPA

EMC to Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Members: J. Scott Keller, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Anne Shaw Kingery, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Daniel Kloc, AIA, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Jason Larrison, AIA, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Chandler Lighty, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Joshua Palmer, AIA, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board April Sievert, PhD, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board Christopher Smith, Deputy Director, INDNR, and Chairman, Indiana Historic Preservation Review Board

Appendix D-72 Beth McCord, Deputy SHPO and Director, INDNR-DHPA

EMC to consulting parties and potentially interested persons: Vanderburgh County Commissioners Vanderburgh County Engineer Vanderburgh County Highway Department Mayor, City of Evansville City of Evansville, Department of Metropolitan Development, Historic Preservation Vanderburgh County Historian Vanderburgh County Historical Society Candace Croix, Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Field Office James L. Cooper, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, DePauw University Paul Brandenburg, Historic Spans Task Force Tony Dillon, Historic Hoosier Bridges Nathan Holth, Historicbridges.org Kitty Henderson, Historic Bridge Foundation Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization

Appendix D-73 Scott Henley

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 1:04 PM To: Scott Henley Cc: Karen Wood; Watson, George C.; Malone, Brian; Peterson, Jared D; Branigin, Susan; Chris Jackson Subject: RE: FHWA Project: Des. 2000514; US41 over Pigeon Crk, Vandenburgh County HPSR -INDOT comments Attachments: Pages from US41overPigeonCrk_Des2000514_HPSR_2020-7-24--INDOTcomments.pdf; US41overPigeonCrk_DesNo2000514_RDL_2020-7-24--INDOTcomments.pdf

Scott,

Thank you for the revisions and the updated GIS files. We have a couple of minor edits on the letter & HPR. For the HPR, probably the fact that we had comments within a paragraph that we were also asking to be moved caused some confusion & a couple of comments to fall through the cracks. The excerpted page is attached.

Because the edits are minor, we are ok with you submitting the revised documents directly to IN SCOPE. Once approved there, you can proceed to send the email to consulting parties, and the electronic and hard copy submission to SHPO. INDOT will notify the tribes.

Thanks,

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Office: (317) 232‐5215 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

From: Scott Henley Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 3:04 PM To: Kennedy, Mary Cc: Karen Wood ; Watson, George C. ; Malone, Brian ; Peterson, Jared D ; Branigin, Susan ; Chris Jackson Subject: RE: FHWA Project: Des. 2000514; US41 over Pigeon Crk, Vandenburgh County HPSR ‐INDOT comments

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****

1 Appendix D-74 US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project HISTORIC PROPERTY SHORT REPORT

Evansville, Center Township, Vandenburgh County, Indiana Des. No. 2000514

July 2020

Prepared for: WSP USA 115 W. Washington St., Suite 1270S Indianapolis, IN 46204

By:

Karen Wood Environmental and Cultural Resource Manager / Qualified Professional Green 3, LLC Historic Fountain Square 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203

p. 317.634.4110 f. 866.422.204 [email protected]

Appendix D-75 Management Summary

This report documents the identification and evaluation efforts for properties included in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66, in Center Township, Vandenburgh County, Indiana (Des. No. 2000514). Above-ground resources located within the project APE were identified and evaluated in accordance with Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and the regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800).

As a result of the NHPA, as amended, and CFR Part 800, federal agencies are required to take into account the impact of federal undertakings upon historic properties in the area of the undertaking. Historic properties include buildings, structures, sites, objects, and/or districts that are eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). As this project is receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), it is subject to a Section 106 review.

The APE contains no properties listed in the National Register. The APE contains one property that is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register: Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI no. 014310), carrying US 41 over Pigeon Creek. This report verifies that the bridge remains eligible for listing in the National Register.

Appendix D-76 8/31/2020 INDOT: US 41 over Pigeon Creek

INDOT Current Programs Green Initiatives US 41 over Pigeon Creek Historic Bridges Marketing Program US 41 over Pigeon Creek

County Road Over Number Other Location Information Location:

Vanderburgh U.S. 41 Pigeon Creek 41-82-3286 GSBL .37 mile north of Diamond Avenue (S.R.66 North Junction)

Year Owner Length Width Type Built

State of 200 ft. 26 ft. 1940 Parker Through Truss Indiana

INDOT rehabilitated for continued vehicular use in 2019, but it was struck by an oversize vehicle in early 2020. The bridge is currently closed to traffic due to the damage sustained. An alternatives analysis has determined continued vehicular use on US 41 is not Statistics: prudent and feasible. INDOT is making the bridge available for an alternative use, provided a responsible Builder: Status: party agrees to rehabilitate, maintain and preserve the bridge. The alternatives analysis, which details the damage sustained by the bridge, can be found by searching for documents under Des. No. 2000514 at the following website: http://erms.indot.in.gov/Section106Documents/

Comments:

Name E-mail Address Phone Contact: [email protected] INDOT, 100 N. Senate Ave., IGCN N642-ES, Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317)232-5215 Mary Kennedy

https://www.in.gov/indot/2565.htm Appendix D-77 1/2 Final Memorandum of Agreement

Appendix D-78 Appendix D-79 rehabilitation project resulted in a “no adverse effect” finding under Section 106. The rehabilitation work was completed in 2019.

On January 21, 2020, the bridge was struck and damaged by an oversize vehicle. The bridge was closed so that INDOT bridge engineers could inspect the structure and determine the extent of the damage. Inspections revealed multiple complete fractures, partial cracks, and significant deformation of the steel (which could contain micro-cracks) in nearly all of the upper, mid, and lower connections – significantly impairing the bridge’s ability to bear normal traffic loads. Because of the significance of damage, the bridge will be closed indefinitely. INDOT has installed a traffic bypass using the Diamond Avenue exit from southbound US 41 to go around the bridge. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a crossing carrying US 41 SB over Pigeon Creek that can meet the structural capacity design standards for vehicular traffic of HS-20 or better to enable the reopening of the bridge to traffic.

Based on the results of the Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis (HBAA), Alternative 5, which involves the disassembly and storage of the historic bridge for potential relocation and new bridge construction, would meet the purpose and need of the proposed project. The HBAA states that “this alternative is only prudent if [State Historic Preservation Officer] SHPO and consulting parties consider disassembly and storage of the bridge to be appropriate mitigation for INDOT to undertake. Given the high cost of repairs needed for the bridge to function at a new location, someone stepping forward to reuse the existing bridge may be unlikely.” If disassembly and storage of the historic bridge is not pursued, then Alternative 6, which involves the demolition of historic bridge and new bridge construction, would also meet the purpose and need of the project. The new bridge construction involves a 275-foot-long, three span prestressed concrete beam structure similar to the northbound bridge east of the structure. The vertical profile would be raised to increase the area of the waterway below the structure and eliminate the use of the floodgate during flood events. The new southbound bridge would carry two 12-foot-lanes, a 10-foot-wide right shoulder and a 4-foot-wide left shoulder with FT type concrete bridge railing to provide a clear roadway width of 38 ft.

It should be noted that an additional roadway pavement project under Des. No. 2001766 has been bundled under the same contract for Des. No. 2000514. While the project limits for the roadway pavement project overlap the bridge project (Des. No. 2000514), the roadway pavement project will have separate environment documentation and a separate Section 106 review.

SJCA (formerly Green 3, LLC) is under contract with INDOT to advance the environmental documentation for the referenced project.

Appendix D-80 The “Programmatic Agreement Regarding Management and Preservation of Indiana’s Historic Bridges” (Historic Bridges PA) does not apply in this project It will, however proceed under the guidelines set forth by the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FHWA Project that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges (https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/legislation/section4f/4f_bridges.aspx).

Please note that, per the permanent rule issued by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources effective August 14, 2013 (312 IAC 20-4-11.5), INDOT is requesting that this project be subjected to “dual review”; that is, reviewed by the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology simultaneously under 54 U.S.C. 306108 (Section 106) and IC 14- 21-1-18 (Indiana Preservation and Archaeology Law dealing with alterations of historic sites and structures requiring a Certificate of Approval). Pursuant to Section 11.5(g) of this rule, at the conclusion of the review process we anticipate that the Division Director would issue a letter of clearance exempting this project from obtaining a Certificate of Approval under IC 14-21-1-18.

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, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL, carrying US 41 over Pigeon Creek, IHSSI No. 163-196-51435; HB-1689 is the only property within the APE recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Concerning archaeological resources, Christopher Jackson, M.S., RPA, an INDOT Qualified Professional archaeologist, review the proposed project area and ascertained that the proposed replacement of the US Highway 41 Bridge over Pigeon Creek (Des 2000514) in Vandenburgh County will not likely affect archaeological resources based on the project scope and setting. The reason for this is because the proposed work will occur within the existing right- of-way, the bridge itself, and the off-ramp of the south bound lane of US 41. Disturbances include the drainage ditch in the median of US 41, the drainage ditch between the off ramp and the south bound lane of the highway, the drainage ditch along the off ramp, earthen berms for both the bridge and off ramp, underground utility easements, and fill material for grade separations. On January 21, 2020, the US Highway 41 Bridge SB over Pigeon Creek was hit by a permitted vehicle that was off of its approved route. The damage sustained from the collision was extensive and resulted in the closure of the bridge. The proposed work will entail replacing the bridge with a new structure enabling the reopening of the crossing to vehicular traffic. The setting is comprised of the bridge and existing right-of-way, which is disturbed. According to SHAARD and SHAARD GIS, which was examined on June 23, 2020, no archaeological sites have been recorded either in or in close proximity to the project area. In 2015, Archaeological Consultants of the Midwest did an archaeological records review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the US 41 Bridge over Pigeon Creek; the study was for Green 3, LLC. The report noted that because all of the proposed work was to occur within the existing right-of-way or on the bridge, which was ascertained to be disturbed. Therefore, it was recommended that fieldwork was not warranted (Jackson 2015). Because the proposed project is confined to the excavation work only occurring in previously disturbed soils, there are no archaeological concerns and no further work is recommended. However, state law (Indiana Code 14-21-1-27 and -29) requires that if any prehistoric or historic archaeological artifacts or human remains are uncovered during construction, demolition, or earth moving activities, the discovery must be report to the Department of Natural Resources within two (2) business days.

Comments received on the determination of “Adverse Effect” and draft MOA are provided below with the correspondence attached.

On October 19, 2020, a member of the public emailed INDOT-CRO with the follow comments regarding the project: “As a concerned citizen, what can I do to ensure this historic landmark is at least preserved in some form for the future? I understand this question is very vague, but I just wanted to state my love for the decency and care INDOT gives to its historic bridges!”

Appendix D-81

The same day, INDOT-CRO responded, in part, that based on the results of a the HBAA, replacement of the bridge is the preferred alternative. Due to the extensive damage sustained, it does not appear viable to rehabilitate the bridge in a manner that maintains its historic integrity. Too many pieces of the bridge would have to be replaced. INDOT-CRO explained that the bridge is being marketed for a limited time for anyone who may want to step forward to claim it for reuse somewhere else. It was also explained that an MOA was currently under comment for mitigation ideas and information on how to access it was provided. No further comments have been received from that member of the public. Indiana Landmarks (IL) provided a letter dated October 20, 2020 with several questions and comments, which are summarized as follows.

IL question: Does Stipulation I.A. intend for the draft feasibility study to be completed within twelve months or simply that funding will be made available within twelve months for the study? IL suggests the former should occur.

INDOT Response: We agree that a draft feasibility study can be completed within twelve months. It should be noted that final approvals could add coordination time and may exceed that twelve-month time frame. This stipulation has been updated for clarification.

IL question: Regarding Stipulation I.A.1., are examples of in-service Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Warning Systems to be confined to the State of Indiana or will they be throughout the US?

INDOT Response: Generally, we were planning to evaluate systems in neighboring states in order to keep the study relevant to Indiana (similar topography, types of structures, available suppliers). However, keeping the language as-is is more flexible so that any relevant example can be examined. No change to the MOA was made regarding this comment.

IL question: With regard to Stipulation I.A.4., is there any guarantee these recommendations will in fact be added to the INDOT list of approved suppliers? Recommendations are great, but this section will not have much of an impact if none are officially added to INDOT’s approved list.

INDOT Response: Generally, adding custom pay items is not difficult if the unique special provision (USP) related to it is approved. The pay items are available for a couple months but expire if unused and need to be reactivated. Adding recurring special provisions (RSPs) and approved materials is much more difficult and not something we can guarantee. The information provided in this study should facilitate the USP and custom pay item process. As such, no change to the MOA was made regarding this comment.

IL question: In Stipulation I.A., it says the study will be made available to Indiana Local Public Agencies. What does that entail? Will any bridge owners be contacted directly? Would suggest direct contact and a brief explanation of the events that transpired regarding US 41 and the subsequent importance of vehicle warning systems.

INDOT Response: The intent was to place the study on INDOT's website for anyone to access and to announce its availability on INDOT’s Environmental and Design listservs. We can also directly contact, likely via email, the county engineers/highway departments where the bridges identified in the study are located. The MOA has been edited for clarification.

IL question: Do any of the four bridges mentioned in Stipulation I.B. already have established timelines for rehabilitation?

INDOT Response: Yes, which is why they were included after discussion with INDOT’s bridge asset engineers. As stated in that stipulation, these bridges have rehabilitation projects planned or likely will have some rehabilitation work

Appendix D-82 programmed for them within the next ten years. More specifically, the first two bridges have projects currently in our system; the second two will likely have projects programmed in the near future. Especially in the current economic climate, we cannot provide any more specific timeframes or dates in the MOA. That is why in Stipulation I.D., we reexamine the list in ten years and determine if a list of alternate bridges needs to be identified. As such, no edits to the MOA have been made regarding this comment.

IL comment: As far as Stipulation I.A.5. is concerned, suggest that a list or chart of ISHC-designed Parker through truss bridges within Indiana be included in the draft feasibility study for reference, perhaps as an appendix. This list or chart should include basic information such as year constructed and eligibility, similar to the Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory.

INDOT Response: The intent of that stipulation is to identify historic structures where vertical clearance violations have the potential to cause significant damage to the structure. This might not be the case for all Parker through trusses. That being said, adding a list of all historic through trusses to the appendix would not be a high level of effort. We see no reason why a table should be narrowed down to only Parker through trusses, however. We are not limiting the study to any specific truss type. We can add a list of the through trusses identified as National Register-listed or eligible through the Historic Bridge Inventory that are extant at the time of the study, specifying which ones have vertical clearance concerns. Based on the results of the research, criteria will be set out in the study to determine the bridges for which vertical clearance violations have the potential to cause significant damage to the structure. A slight edit has been made to the MOA to clarify.

IL comment: Regarding the signatory for IL, suggest the Director of the Southwest Field Office be listed as the signatory instead of the President.

INDOT Response: We have noted IL’s signatory preference for this MOA and have updated it accordingly.

The Indiana SHPO provided a response letter dated October 29, 2020. It concurred with the finding of “Adverse Effect” for the project and contained two comments regarding the MOA as summarized below.

SHPO comment: We note that the marketing period outlined in Stipulation I.E is a shorter timeline that typically provided for marketing bridges as part of the Indiana Historic Bridges PA, but understand that since this bridge was not included in the Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory, it does not necessarily need to follow every step of the Marketing Provisions section within the Project Development Process.

INDOT Response: It is correct that since this bridge is not subject to the Indiana Historic Bridges PA, the marketing outlined therein is not required. Additionally, we have provided the maximum amount of marketing we think we can afford for this bridge given the accelerated nature of this project’s schedule in order to reopen US 41 at this location as quickly as possible. No change to the MOA is required.

SHPO comment: We recommend that the final sentence in Stipulation III. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERY be revised to include a reference to 312 IAC 22.

INDOT Response: This edit has been made to the MOA.

In an email on October 30, 2020, Nathan Holth of HistoricBridges.org stated that he is in strong support of the proposed MOA, and he is supportive of moving forward with a final MOA with the proposed mitigation.

Other edits to the MOA since the previous version include updating the previously highlighted “whereas” clauses and adding a review and comment period on the draft study for signatories and concurring parties to the MOA in Stipulation I.A. Additionally, the FHWA signature page has been updated to reflect personnel changes.

Appendix D-83

The Final MOA, now dated November 16, 2020, is ready for signature by all parties and is being provided concurrently for all parties to sign, aside from FHWA. After all other parties have signed, it will be provided to FHWA for signature.

Please review the enclosed information and sign the MOA at your convenience, but no later than thirty (30) calendar days upon receipt. After all signatures have been obtained, the executed MOA will be sent to participating consulting parties, uploaded to IN SCOPE, and sent to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for their files.

We respectfully request the Indiana SHPO provide a “Director’s Letter of Clearance” for Bridge No. 041-82- 03286HSBL pursuant to Section 11.5(g) of the “dual review,” which states that such a letter can be issued concurrently with the execution of an MOA.

For questions concerning specific project details, you may contact Karen Wood of SJCA at (317)-634-4110 or [email protected]. All future responses regarding the proposed project should be forwarded to SJCA at the following address:

Karen Wood Environmental and Cultural Resources Manager SJCA 1104 Prospect St. Indianapolis, IN 46203 [email protected]

Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317-233-6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317-226-7344.

Sincerely,

Anuradha V. Kumar, Manager Cultural Resources Office Environmental Services

Enclosures: Final MOA Correspondence from consulting parties regarding “Adverse Effect” finding and draft MOA

Distribution List: Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer [email protected], [email protected] Indiana Landmarks, Southwest Regional Office [email protected] Historicbridges.org [email protected] Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

Appendix D-84 Monday, November 30, 2020 at 08:44:35 Eastern Standard Time

Subject: FW: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana- Final MOA Date: Monday, November 23, 2020 at 7:47:35 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Sco Henley To: Erin Mulryan CC: Karen Wood Aachments: image002.png, image003.png, image004.png, image005.jpg, image006.png, image001.png

Erin,

Below is the INDOT email to Tribal CPs for the Final MOA.

Sco

Scott Henley Cultural Resources Associate SJCA Inc 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203 T (317) 566-0629 [email protected]

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 7:54 AM To: Diane Hunter Cc: Miller, Shaun (INDOT) ; Allen, Michelle (FHWA) ; Carmany-George, Karsn (FHWA) ; Sco Henley Subject: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana-Final MOA

Des. No.: 2000514 Project Descripon: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL Locaon: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66, Evansville, Vanderburgh County, Indiana

The Indiana Department of Transportaon (INDOT), with funding from the Federal Highway Administraon, proposes to proceed with a project for INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI No. 014310) on US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana, Des. No. 2000514.

The Secon 106 Early Coordinaon Leer for this project was originally distributed on March 2, 2020. The Historic Bridge Alternave Analysis (HBAA) was distributed to consulng pares on May 18, 2020 for review and comment. A consulng party meeng was held on June 3, 2020. A leer distributed on June 10, 2020 noﬁed consulng pares that the consulng party meeng minutes were available for review and comment. A Historic Property Short Report was distributed to consulng pares on July 27, 2020 for review and comment. FHWA signed a determinaon of “Adverse Eﬀect” for this Secon 106 undertaking, which was distributed for review and comment on October 2, 2020. A dra memorandum of agreement (MOA) was

Page 1 of 2 Appendix D-85 distributed for review and comment on October 2, 2020. A dra memorandum of agreement (MOA) was distributed for review and comment on October 9, 2020.

Regarding acons to minimize or migate adverse eﬀects, the bridge is currently being oﬀered for reuse. Regarding migaon ideas, the Final MOA is now ready for review and signature by the invited signatories and concurring pares.

You can find the final MOA by accessing INDOT’s Secon 106 document posng website IN SCOPE at hp://erms.indot.in.gov/Secon106Documents/ (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 soon as you can.

Consulng pares have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this informaon to review and provide comment. Tribal consulng pares may enter the process at any me and are encouraged to respond to this noﬁcaon with any comments or concerns at their earliest convenience. Tribal contacts may contact Shaun Miller at [email protected] or 317-233-6795 or Michelle Allen at FHWA at [email protected] or 317- 226-7344.

Thank you in advance for your input,

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N758-ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Email: [email protected] Cell: 317-694-3607* *Please note new phone number!

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Oﬃce, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: hps://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essenals. Click here to report this email as spam.

Page 2 of 2 Appendix D-86 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND THE INDIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURSUANT TO 36 C.F.R. Section 800.6(b)(iv) REGARDING THE US 41 OVER PIGEON CREEK BRIDGE PROJECT IN EVANSVILLE, CENTER TOWNSHIP, VANDERBURGH COUNTY, INDIANA DES. NO. 2000514

WHEREAS the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") proposes to remove the existing Indiana Department of Transportation (“INDOT”) Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310) and construct a new bridge along essentially the same alignment for the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project in Evansville, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana; and

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer ("Indiana SHPO"), has defined the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project 's area of potential effects (“APE”), as the term is defined in 36 C.F.R. Section 800.16(d), to be the area from the center of the bridge, the APE extends east 0.05 mile, to the south 0.18 mile, to the west 0.07 mile, and to the north 0.39 mile.; and

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has found that INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310) is within the APE; and

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has determined, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.4(c), that INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310) is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (“National Register”); and

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has determined pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.5(a) that the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project will have an adverse effect on INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310); and

WHEREAS the FHWA has consulted with the Indiana SHPO in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 306108) and its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. Section 800) to resolve the adverse effect on INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL (NBI 14310); and

WHEREAS the public was given an opportunity to comment on the undertaking's adverse effect in a notice published on October 11, 2020 in the Courier & Press (Evansville, IN); and

WHEREAS the FHWA has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“Council”) of the adverse effect and invited the Council's participation in the project, pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.6(a)(1), in an email dated October 9, 2020; and

WHEREAS the Council declined to participate in consultation in a letter dated November 16, 2020; and

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 1 of 13 Appendix D-87 WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has invited INDOT to participate in the consultation and to become a signatory to this memorandum of agreement; and

WHEREAS the FHWA, in consultation with the Indiana SHPO, has invited Indiana Landmarks and HistoricBridges.org to participate in the consultation and to become concurring parties to this memorandum of agreement; and

WHEREAS the FHWA has consulted with the Indiana SHPO in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) and its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800) concerning the scope of work as presented in the materials and plans dated September 29, 2020, and has agreed to proceed with the project as proposed; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA and the Indiana SHPO agree that, upon the submission of a copy of this executed memorandum of agreement, as well as the documentation specified in 36 C.F.R. Section 800.11(e) and (f) to the Council pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.6[b][1][iv]) and upon the FHWA's approval of the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project, the FHWA shall ensure that the following stipulations are implemented in order to take into account the effect of the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project on historic properties.

I. MITIGATION STIPULATIONS

The FHWA, in coordination with INDOT, shall ensure that the following measures are carried out: A. Within twelve (12) months of signing this agreement, INDOT will prepare a statewide, draft, feasibility study to provide information for the design and potential implementation of oversize/overweight vehicle warning systems in an effort to help reduce the risk of future damage to historic bridges.

This INDOT Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Warning System study will be made available to Indiana Local Public Agencies, who own and maintain the majority of historic, low-clearance, bridge structures, for consideration for future rehabilitation designs on those bridges, should they choose to pursue such systems. INDOT will provide the study on its website and announce its availability through INDOT listservs, as well as directly contact relevant LPAs.

The INDOT Bridge Asset Engineers will use this INDOT Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Warning System study to aid in making decisions about maintenance and protection systems for state-owned bridge assets, should they choose to pursue such systems.

Prior to its finalization, a draft of the study will be provided to the signatories and concurring parties of this agreement for a review and comment period of thirty (30) days. INDOT shall provide a written response to any comments before proceeding. If comments are not received within thirty (30) days, INDOT may assume agreement from the parties on the draft submitted.

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 2 of 13 Appendix D-88 The proposed oversize/overweight vehicle warning system feasibility study will include the following:

1. Examples of in-service Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Warning Systems. 2. An examination of different Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Warning Systems and their efficacy in preventing historic bridge strikes, such as: x Risks and benefits and current or potential cost of commercially available systems - including height sensors linked to enhanced visual signage (flashing signs) and audible warnings. x Risks and benefits and current or potential cost of sacrificial signage, including flexible solutions for alerting oversize/overweight vehicles without damaging the vehicle. x Risks and benefits and current or potential cost of hard headache solutions, including potential liability implications of adding inflexible obstructions above the roadway. 3. Information for Indiana asset owners to try to protect structures: x Design recommendations for placement of advance warning signage, sensors, pull-off and turn-around areas, and detour markers. x Instructions on how to contact Waze, Google Maps, and others to remove low-clearance, low-capacity bridge structures from suggested alternative routes for trucks. x A process to determine the benefits versus cost including considerations of the location, traffic volume, percentage of large vehicles, etc. x Describe the currently available signing options for bridges. 4. Recommendations for the addition of standard pay items and suppliers for oversize/overweight vehicle warning systems to the INDOT list of approved suppliers. 5. List of extant historic through trusses in Indiana, identifying structures where vertical clearance may be a concern, based on the criteria established in the study, and may benefit from the installation of oversize/overweight vehicle warning systems, should the owners choose to pursue such systems. 6. Incorporation of pertinent information from the GIS-based oversize/overweight permitting system currently under development between INDOT and the Indiana Department of Revenue, Motor Carrier Services Division. 7. Brief information regarding how the described warning systems might be adaptable to other structure types (such as low clearance railroad overpasses) or for other deficiencies (such as narrow or load-rated bridges).

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 3 of 13 Appendix D-89 B. Within ten (10) years of signing this agreement, INDOT will consider the installation of an oversize/overweight vehicle warning system for the following bridges, which currently have rehabilitation projects planned or which likely will have some rehabilitation work programmed for them within the next ten (10 years): 1. INDOT Bridge No. 135-55-01522 B, NBI No. 026700, SR 135 over Indian Creek, Morgan County 2. INDOT Bridge No. 075-08-03653B, NBI No. 024970, SR 75 over Wildcat Creek, Carroll County 3. INDOT Bridge No. 119-66-03454B, NBI No. 025850, SR 119 over Tippecanoe River, Pulaski County 4. INDOT Bridge No. 049-37-01938C, NBI No. 017940, SR 49 over Kankakee River, Jasper County

C. Upon installation of an oversize/overweight vehicle warning system for any of the bridges listed in Stipulation I.B., INDOT will provide a report of the completion to the other signatories and concurring parties. The report shall describe what type of system was installed and when it was installed. The report shall also provide photographs of the installed system.

D. If within ten (10) years of signing this agreement, INDOT has not installed an oversize/overweight vehicle warning system for any of the bridges listed in Stipulation I.B., INDOT shall notify the other signatories and concurring parties of this fact in writing, and shall provide an explanation of why such systems were not installed. INDOT shall include in the notification a list of alternate bridges that may be good candidates at that time for such a system to be installed.

E. INDOT will market INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL as part of INDOT’s Historic Bridge Marketing Program as available to interested parties that may wish to take ownership of the bridge and make the necessary repairs to reuse the bridge; the bridge was noted as available on INDOT’s Historic Bridge Marketing Program’s website beginning on August 31, 2020. It will remain on the website for a period of approximately 3.5 months, ending on December 15, 2020.

F. Should a qualified recipient come forward to accept ownership of INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL before December 15, 2020, the following stipulations shall apply: 1. The qualified recipient of the structure shall be required to provide a written proposal to INDOT, FHWA, and Indiana SHPO for review and approval. The proposal shall include photographs and mapping depicting the proposed relocation site for INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL and demonstrate sufficient funding to carry out the project in an appropriate manner. The recipient shall agree to perform archaeological investigations, as needed, at the proposed relocation site, in consultation

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 4 of 13 Appendix D-90 with the Indiana SHPO. The qualified recipient shall be permitted to change the relocation site in order to avoid an archaeological site.

2. The qualified recipient of the bridge shall agree to the following terms through a written agreement with INDOT prior to accepting ownership of INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL: a. Accept all ownership rights and responsibilities connected now or in the future with the bridge; b. Assume future legal and financial responsibility for the bridge; c. Leave the bridge open to the public; and d. Maintain the features that give the structure its historical significance for a minimum period of twenty-five (25) years from the date from which the qualified recipient takes title of the bridge.

3. If INDOT, FHWA, and Indiana SHPO agree that the offer and the recipient are suitable and satisfactory to all parties, the transfer of INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL may proceed.

4. If INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL is to be dismantled, then INDOT shall prepare a disassembly plan for the bridge, which shall be submitted to the Indiana SHPO for a 30-day review and comment period prior to beginning dismantling. The plan shall include match-marking and mapping the bridge’s components to facilitate the structure’s reassembly at the relocation site. INDOT shall provide a written response to Indiana SHPO comments before proceeding. If comments are not received within thirty (30) days, INDOT may assume agreement from the Indiana SHPO on the plan submitted.

5. If INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL is to be temporarily stored, at a facility provided by the qualified recipient, as part of the dismantling and reassembly, larger components shall be placed on blocks or railroad ties stored off the ground to discourage deterioration of bridge members. Smaller components (e.g., bearings, bracing rods, etc.) and other detached members shall be stored indoors in a secured facility.

6. The qualified recipient shall rehabilitate INDOT Bridge No. 041-82- 03286HBSL adhering as much as possible to the applicable rehabilitation standards and guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (“Standards”). The qualified recipient shall submit detailed reassembly and rehabilitation plans for INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL to the Indiana SHPO for a 30-day review and comment period prior to reassembly and rehabilitation. The qualified recipient s will provide a written response to the Indiana SHPO comments before proceeding. If comments are not received within thirty (30) days, the qualified recipient may assume agreement from the Indiana SHPO on the plans submitted.

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 5 of 13 Appendix D-91

G. If no qualified recipient comes forward to accept ownership of INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL during the period outlined in Stipulation I.E., INDOT shall be allowed to proceed with the demolition of INDOT Bridge No. 041-82- 03286HBSL.

H. Prior to disassembly or demolition of INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HBSL, INDOT shall complete photographic and written documentation pursuant to “Indiana DNR – Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology Minimum Architectural Documentation Standards.” The documentation shall be prepared by a qualified professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Such documentation shall include:

1. Archival research to gather specific historic information from appropriate data sources; a brief report describing the history and significance of the bridge and surrounding area will be prepared. 2. Digital photo documentation of the bridge shall include images showing the bridge’s structural elements and details, surrounding environmental settings, views from each approach, and any other significant, character- defining details. A compact disc (“CD”) or DVD containing the electronic data files saved in uncompressed TIF format and a digital photo log shall be provided. No photographic prints will be made. 3. If available, a copy of the original construction plans or other field plans or drawings maintained about the bridge shall be included. If satisfactory plans are not available, measured drawings of the structure will be prepared by an architect or architectural historian experienced in producing measure drawings. Drawings must be reduced to 8.5” x 11” or scanned into a readily available viewing program. 4. INDOT shall submit one draft of the completed documentation to the Indiana SHPO for a 30-day review period prior to any demolition or construction activities at the site. Upon notification of the approval by the Indiana SHPO, one set of the documentation shall be provided to the Indiana State Archives, and one set of the documentation shall be provided to a public or not-for-profit entity in Vanderburgh County that will retain the documentation permanently for access by the public. The Indiana SHPO shall be notified of the final transmittal.

II. OBJECTION RESOLUTION PROVISION

Disagreement and misunderstanding about how this memorandum of agreement is or is not being implemented shall be resolved in the following manner:

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 6 of 13 Appendix D-92 with the objecting party to resolve this objection. If after such consultation the FHWA determines that the objection cannot be resolved through consultation, then the FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the objection to the Council, including the FHWA's proposed response to the objection. Within 45 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council shall exercise one of the following options: 1. Provide the FHWA with a staff-level recommendation, which the FHWA shall take into account in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection; or 2. Notify the FHWA that the objection will be referred for formal comment pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.7(c), and proceed to refer the objection and comment. The FHWA shall take into account the Council's comments in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection. B. If comments or recommendations from the Council are provided in accordance with this stipulation, then the FHWA shall take into account any Council comment or recommendations provided in accordance with this stipulation with reference only to the subject of the objection. The FHWA's responsibility to carry out all actions under the memorandum of agreement that are not the subjects of the objection shall remain unchanged.

III. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERY

In the event that one or more historic properties--other than INDOT Bridge No. 041-82- 03286HSBL (NBI 14310) are discovered or that unanticipated effects on historic properties are found during the implementation of this memorandum of agreement, the FHWA shall follow the procedure specified in 36 C.F.R. Section 800.13, as well as IC 14-21-1-27 and IC 14-21-1-29, by stopping work in the immediate area and informing the Indiana SHPO and the INDOT Cultural Resources Office of such unanticipated discoveries or effects within two (2) business days. Any necessary archaeological investigations will be conducted according to the provisions of IC 14-21-1, 312 IAC 21, 312 IAC 22, and the most current Guidebook for Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory – Archaeological Sites.

IV. AMENDMENT

Any signatory to this memorandum of agreement may request that it be amended, whereupon the parties shall consult to consider the proposed amendment. 36 C.F.R. 800.6(c)(7) shall govern the execution of any such amendment.

V. TERMINATION

A. If the terms of this memorandum of agreement have not been implemented by December 31, 2030, then this memorandum of agreement shall be considered null and void. In such an event, the FHWA shall so notify the parties to this memorandum of agreement and, if it chooses to continue with the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project, then it shall reinitiate review of the US 41 over

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 7 of 13 Appendix D-93 Pigeon Creek Bridge Project in accordance with 36 C.F.R. Sections 800.3 through 800.7. B. Any signatory to this memorandum of agreement may terminate it by providing thirty (30) days notice to the other parties, provided that the parties shall consult during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of termination, the FHWA shall comply with 36 C.F.R. Sections 800.3 through 800.7 with regard to the review of the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project. C. In the event that the FHWA does not carry out the terms of this memorandum of agreement, the FHWA shall comply with 36 C.F.R. Sections 800.3 through 800.7 with regard to the review of the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project.

The execution of this memorandum of agreement by the FWHA, the Indiana SHPO, and HistoricBridges.org the submission of it to the Council with the appropriate documentation specified in 36 C.F.R. Section 800.11(e) and (f), and the implementation of its terms evidence that the FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project and its effect on historic properties and that the FHWA has taken into account the effects of the US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project on historic properties.

SIGNATORIES (required): FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION INDIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

INVITED SIGNATORY: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

INVITED CONCURRING PARTIES: INDIANA LANDMARKS HISTORICBRIDGES.ORG

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 8 of 13 Appendix D-94 REQUIRED SIGNATORY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

KARSTIN MARIE Digitally signed by KARSTIN MARIE CARMANY-GEORGE CARMANY- Date: 2020.12.22 11:59:47 -05'00' By: ______GEORGE for Date: ______12/22/20 Jermaine Hannon, Acting Division Administrator

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 9 of 13 Appendix D-95 REQUIRED SIGNATORY

INDIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

By: ______Date: ______12/14/2020 Beth K. McCord, Deputy Indiana Historic Preservation Officer

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 10 of 13 Appendix D-96 INVITED SIGNATORY

INDIANANA DEPADEPARTMENTR OF TRANSPORTATION

By:______Date: ______12/21/2020 LLauraaura Hilden,Hild Environmental Services Director

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 11 of 13 Appendix D-97 CONCURRING PARTY

INDIANA LANDMARKS

By: ______Date: ______11/25/2020 Candice Croix, Director, Southwest Field Office

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 12 of 13 Appendix D-98 CONCURRING PARTY

HISTORICBRIDGES.ORG

By: ______Date: ______Nathan Holth, Author/Webmaster

Des. No.: 2000514, Final MOA, 2020-11-16 Version Page 13 of 13 Appendix D-99 Appendix D-100 Appendix D-101 Appendix D-102 Draft Memorandum of Agreement

Consulting Party Comments & Responses

Appendix D-103 Scott Henley

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 2:07 PM To: Scott Henley Cc: Karen Wood; Watson, George C.; Malone, Brian; Branigin, Susan Subject: RE: US 41 MOA--ready to send out draft Attachments: US41PigeonCrk_Des2000514_DraftMOA_2020-10-08.docx; US41PigeonCrk_Des2000514_DraftMOA_ 2020-10-08.pdf

Hi Scott,

In talking with Brian and George, we think 12 months is the best timeframe for the MOA item mentioned below. I have updated the draft MOA accordingly – Word & PDF format attached. Can you please upload the PDF version to IN SCOPE & once approved there, please email it to the consulting parties & submit it electronically & in hard copy to the SHPO? INDOT will then notify tribes. When selecting a comment deadline for it, please use 11/02/2020 since that is the deadline listed in IN SCOPE for the 800.11 document. I’ve reworded the email text you can use (below) to reflect this deadline.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you!

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642‐ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Office, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: https://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Des. No.: 2000514 Project Description: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041‐82‐03286HSBL Location: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66, Evansville, Vanderburgh County, Indiana

The Section 106 Early Coordination Letter for this project was originally distributed on March 2, 2020. The Historic Bridge Alternative Analysis (HBAA) was distributed to consulting parties on May 18, 2020 for review and comment. A consulting party meeting was held on June 3, 2020. A letter distributed on June 10, 2020 notified consulting parties that 1 Appendix D-104 October 20, 2020

Scott Henley Cultural Resources Associate SJCA Inc 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203

RE: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Des. No. 2000514; Draft MOA Review

To Whom It May Concern:

While the draft Memorandum of Agreement for the US-41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project appears to be fairly comprehensive and satisfactory in regards to mitigation for the likely removal of the historic bridge, below are a few questions and points of clarification regarding its contents:

• IA: “Within twelve (12) months of signing this agreement, INDOT will fund the development of a state-wide, draft, feasibility study.” Does this imply the draft feasibility study will be completed within twelve months or that funding will merely be made available within twelve months? Would suggest the former. • IA1: “Examples of in-service Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Warning Systems.” Will examples be confined to the State of Indiana or will they be throughout the US? • IA4: “Recommendations for the addition of standard pay items and suppliers for oversize/overweight vehicle warning systems to the INDOT list of approved suppliers.” Is there any guarantee these recommendations will in fact be added to the INDOT list of approved suppliers? Recommendations are great, but this section will not have much of an impact if none are officially added to INDOT’s approved list. • IA5: “List of structures where vertical clearance is a concern in Indiana and may benefit from the installation of oversize/overweight vehicle warning systems, should the owners choose to pursue such systems.” Section IA says the study will be made available to Indiana Local Public Agencies, what does that entail? Will any bridge owners be contacted directly? Would suggest direct contact and a brief explanation of the events that transpired regarding US-41 and the subsequent importance of vehicle warning systems. • IB: Do any of the four bridges mentioned have already established timelines for rehabilitation?

Appendix D-105 As far as IA5 is concerned, I would also suggest that a list or chart of ISHC-designed Parker Through Truss bridges within Indiana be included in the draft feasibility study for reference, perhaps as an appendix. This list or chart should include basic information such as year constructed and eligibility, similar to the Indiana Historic Bridge Inventory.

Finally, regarding the signatory for Indiana Landmarks, as Indiana Landmarks’ Southwest Field Office was the consulting party for this Section 106 Review, I suggest that I sign as the Director of the Southwest Field Office instead of the President. It seems unusual to require the signature of the President as he has not been directly involved in this particular project.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

Candice Croix Director, Southwest Field Office Indiana Landmarks

Appendix D-106 Scott Henley

From: Nathan Holth Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 5:56 AM To: Scott Henley; Tharp, Wade; Kauffmann, Danielle M; [email protected] Cc: Karen Wood; Kennedy, Mary; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: FHWA Project: Des. No. 2000514; US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana; Attachments: image001.png

As a Consulting Party I would like to state for the record that I am in strong support of the proposed MOA and am supportive of moving forward with with a final MOA with the proposed mitigation.

Thanks, Nathan Holth

======Nathan Holth Author/ Photographer/Webmaster -----HistoricBridges.org----- "Promoting the Preservation Of Our Transportation Heritage" [email protected] www.historicbridges.org ======Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this communication or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners and users of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org communications or information. ======

On 10/9/2020 6:57:44 PM, Scott Henley wrote:

Des. No.: 2000514

Project Description: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL

Location: US 41 over Pigeon Creek, 0.37 mile N of SR 66, Evansville, Vanderburgh County, Indiana

1 Appendix D-107 Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 13:34:37 Eastern Standard Time

Subject: FW: FHWA-IN Project: Noﬁcaon of Adverse Eﬀect-Des. No. 2000514; US 41 Bridge over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:05:25 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Sco Henley To: Erin Mulryan CC: Karen Wood Aachments: image001.png, image002.png, image003.png, image004.jpg, image005.png, US41PigeonCrk_E106ACHPform_2020-10-08.docx, US41PigeonCrk_E106ACHPform_2020-10- 08.pdf, image006.png

Good morning Erin,

I believe this is the email you needed. If not, let me know.

Sco

Scott Henley Cultural Resources Associate SJCA Inc 1104 Prospect Street Indianapolis, IN 46203 T (317) 566-0629 [email protected]

From: Kennedy, Mary Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 8:06 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Carmany-George, Karsn (FHWA) ; Kumar, Anuradha ; Branigin, Susan ; Kauffmann, Danielle M ; Sco Henley Subject: FHWA-IN Project: Noficaon of Adverse Effect-Des. No. 2000514; US 41 Bridge over Pigeon Creek, Vanderburgh County, Indiana

Dear ACHP,

On behalf of FHWA-Indiana Division, please find aached the e106 form for the US 41 Bridge over Pigeon Creek project in Vanderburgh County, Indiana. Per 36 C.F.R. 800.6(a)(1), we are hereby nofying the ACHP of the adverse effect finding for this project. The adverse effect determinaon was made because the preferred alternave involves construcon of a new structure. This bridge is currently closed due to the damage sustained from a hit from an oversize vehicle in January 2020. The bridge is currently being marketed for potenal reuse elsewhere. If no interested party comes forward within the specified markeng period, the truss bridge will be demolished. Therefore, an adverse effect finding was made and a dra MOA has been developed. Proposed migaon includes documentaon of the bridge before disassembly or demolion, and

Page 1 of 2 Appendix D-108 development of a feasibility study to provide informaon for the design and potenal implementaon of oversize/overweight vehicle warning systems in an eﬀort to help reduce the risk of future damage to historic bridges.

In addion to the e106 form aached, the full 800.11 documentaon and Dra MOA have been posted on INDOT’s Secon 106 electronic coordinaon website-IN SCOPE at hp://erms.indot.in.gov/Secon106Documents/. The Des. No. (2000514) is the most eﬃcient search term once in IN SCOPE.

Thank you for assisng us with this noﬁcaon of adverse eﬀect. If you have any quesons or require our further assistance, please contact me at (317) 232-5215 or [email protected] or Kari Carmany-George at (317)-226-7475 or [email protected].

Regards,

Mary E. Kennedy Historic Bridge Specialist 100 N. Senate Ave., Room N642-ES Indianapolis, IN 46204 Email: [email protected]

*For the latest updates from INDOT’s Cultural Resources Oﬃce, subscribe to the Environmental Services listserv: hps://www.in.gov/indot/3217.htm

Page 2 of 2 Appendix D-109 November 16, 2020

Ms. Kari Carmany-George Planning and Environmental Specialist Federal Highway Administration Indiana Division 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 254 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Ref: Proposed US 41 over Pigeon Creek Bridge Project Evansville, Center Township, Vanderburgh County, Indiana INDOT Bridge No. 041-82-03286HSBL; INDOT Des. No. 2000514 ACHP Project Number: 16045

Dear Ms. Carmany-George:

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has received your notification and supporting documentation regarding the adverse effects of the referenced undertaking on a property or properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Based upon the information provided, we have concluded that Appendix A, Criteria for Council Involvement in Reviewing Individual Section 106 Cases, of our regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800), does not apply to this undertaking. Accordingly, we do not believe that our participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects is needed. However, if we receive a request for participation from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), affected Indian tribe, a consulting party, or other party, we may reconsider this decision. Additionally, should circumstances change, and it is determined that our participation is needed to conclude the consultation process, please notify us.

Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(b)(1)(iv), you will need to file the final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), developed in consultation with the Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and any other consulting parties, and related documentation with the ACHP at the conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of the MOA, and supporting documentation with the ACHP is required in order to complete the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Thank you for providing us with the notification of adverse effect. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact Mandy Ranslow at (202) 517-0218 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

LaShavio Johnson Historic Preservation Technician Office of Federal Agency Programs

Appendix D-110