1

Re-evaluation of the Proposed US-31 Freeway Connection from

Napier Avenue North to I-94 and Reconstruction of I-94 from the

new US-31/I-94/I-94BL East to I-196 in Charter Township of Benton,

Berrien County, Michigan

JN’s 130008, 205792

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in consultation with the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is requesting approval to proceed with

the contract letting for construction of the US-31 Freeway connection from Napier

Avenue northwest to the proposed US-31/I-94/I-94BL Interchange and

reconstruction of I-94 from the new interchange east to the I-196/US-31 North

interchange. For this Major Action project, federal rules require MDOT to consult

with FHWA prior to requesting any major approvals or grants to establish

whether the approved Supplemental Record of Decision (SROD) remains valid for

the requested Administration Action (23 C.F.R. 771.129 (c)).

General Project Description

The work includes the construction of a new interchange (at about the location

where the Highland Avenue bridge crosses over I-94) connecting I-94, the

extended US-31 and I-94BL/E. Main Street (I-94BL). The work on I-94BL includes

reconstruction and realignment from Euclid Avenue to the new interchange. I-

94BL will be reconstructed from a four-lane divided to a three-lane roadway with

a roundabout at the Crystal Avenue intersection. I-94 is proposed to be

reconstructed and widened into the median, including concrete median-barrier

and enclosed drainage. An auxiliary lane will be added on EB I-94 between I-94

BL and I-196.

Also, there is work on bridges within the limits which includes the removal of the

Highland Avenue and I-94BL/I-94 bridges, replacement of Territorial Road bridge,

and rehabilitation of Benton Center Rd bridge.

US-31 is proposed to be extended from where it presently ends north of Napier

Avenue to the proposed new interchange with new bridges constructed over E.

Britain Avenue and S. Benton Center Road. Cul-de-sacs are to be constructed on

Empire Avenue where it is divided by the new US-31 alignment. County roads,

Benton Center Road, Hillandale Road, and Britain Avenue will be reconstructed

to accommodate the additional traffic due to the closure of Empire Avenue at the

new US-31. The fix will be a 2-inch overlay with 2 foot widening on both sides of

Benton Center Road. The county roads being used as detour routes, Benton Center

Road, Highland Avenue, Paul Avenue, and Britain Avenue will be repaved with

a 2-inch overlay. Figure 1 shows the project limits and associated bridge work

locations.

2

FIGURE 1

3

NEPA History

Project’s Environmental, and Operational Documentation History

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ..........July 7, 1978

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) ...........June 9, 1981

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (SDEIS) ............................................................October 10, 2002

IACR (New Ramps for US-31 to tie into I-94 BL) .......March 11, 2004

Supplemental Final Environmental Impact

Statement (SFEIS) .............................................................April 21, 2004

Supplemental Record of Decision (SROD) ...................August 31, 2004

Note-to-File (Relocation of Natural gas

and Petroleum Pipelines) ................................................April 19, 2019

IACR (Updated Alternative and Interchange)

- Under FHWA Review (submitted May 2020)

Associated Projects

A Note-to-File clearance was completed for utility relocation project (JN 205792)

for the relocation of natural gas and petroleum pipelines that cross the proposed

US-31 roadway. This relocation will require work within MDOT right-of-way for

the proposed US-31 roadway and erosion control and stabilization of work areas

will be completed by the Contractor doing the pipe relocations.

Purpose and Need for the Project

The purpose and need for the new US-31 Freeway Extension from Napier Avenue

to I-94 and reconstruction of I-94 and I-94BL in the Charter Township of Benton in

Berrien County, Michigan is still valid.

Purpose (From FSEIS)

The purpose of the proposed US-31 Freeway Extension northwest to I-94 and new

US-31/I-94/I-94BL interchange and reconstruction of I-94 is to:

Minimize impacts to the surrounding environment.

Reduce construction costs from those estimated for the 1981 FEIS

alignment.

Improve the efficiency of north-south vehicular traffic and the movement

of goods and services throughout the entire US-31 corridor.

Improve local access within Berrien County by providing greater

accessibility between the rural southern and more urbanized northern

portions of the county.

Provide transportation improvements that are supportive of other

economic development efforts within the Benton Harbor area.

4

Need (From FSEIS)

The need for completing the US-31 freeway north to I-94 is supported by several

factors including:

• System connectivity and linkage.

• Relief of traffic congestion on Napier Avenue that would exist under the

No-Build Alternative.

• The need for improved access to I-94 and I-94BL to assist economic

development initiatives in the economically depressed Benton Harbor area.

• The inadequacy of local roads to provide adequate capacity and a free flow

movement for traffic wishing to access I-94, I-94BL, and I-196/US-31 north

from the existing US-31 freeway.

• The inability of alternate modes of transportation to meet through traffic

and commercial travel demands.

This Re-evaluation will document the project changes that were identified during

the design phase and not covered in the FSEIS or SROD. They are:

Project Changes:

• Change in Project limits – The project limits along the I-94BL (Main Street) are

extended to just west of Urbandale Street and the roadway will be

reconstructed from a four-lane divided roadway to a three-lane section to

match Main Street Cross section west of Urbandale Street. The project limits

on US-31 are extended south of Napier Avenue to allow removal of concrete

median barrier within the median and stabilization of the disturbed area. An

intelligent transportation system (ITS) station will also be installed on the east

side of US-31 just south of Napier Avenue where the concrete median barrier

will be removed. The I-94 project limits are extended east of the I-196/US-31

North interchange to allow installation of a median cross-over. Figure 2 shows

the extended study limits

• The new US-31/I-94/I-94BL interchange was changed from a full cloverleaf

design in the SROD to the current partial cloverleaf design due to traffic

projections and reduced environmental impacts. The partial cloverleaf design

is safer than the full cloverleaf design because there are fewer conflict points at

free flow ramps. Changing to the partial cloverleaf design also significantly

reduced the project wetland impacts because one of the ramps no longer

proposed was entirely wetland.

5

• The SROD reconstruction on I-94 included 3 travel lanes in each direction with

an auxiliary lane in each direction for US-31 through traffic between the new

US-31/I-94BL interchange and the I-196/US-31 North interchange. The current

alternative includes 3 travel lanes in each direction and an auxiliary lane only

on EB I-94. The Operational analysis using the future projected traffic volumes,

showed the westbound auxiliary lane did not improve operations or safety;

therefore, it was omitted. Additionally, with elimination of the cloverleaf

interchange, it also eliminated the weave/merge under the new interchange.

The outside lane (third lane) in the new design effectively acts as an auxiliary

lane for the SB I-196/US-31SB traffic.

FIGURE 2 – Environmental Study Area

• ROW Impacts - Most of the ROW required for the new US-31 freeway has been

acquired and is the same as that was required with the SROD Alternative. No

additional relocations are required with the proposed project changes. Three

partial take property purchases still need to be purchased but the size is smaller

than that required with the SROD alignment. A permit to Grade Drive not

6

covered in the SROD is required on the north side of Territorial Road to relocate

a residential drive to allow construction of the new US-31 bridge over

Territorial Road.

Changes in Laws or Regulations

In July 2010, Code of Federal Regulations Title 23 Part 772 (23 CFR 772) Procedures

for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise was revised. This

revision in noise policy and procedures was implemented on July 13, 2011 through

revised FHWA guidance, and MDOT’s Highway Noise Analysis and Abatement

Handbook. The new regulations require a noise impact and abatement analysis for

new or significantly altered highway projects (i.e., new interchange or adding

capacity to the interstate). A new noise analysis was completed in 2019 due to

significant interchange design change and the extension of project limits along the

I-94BL route into Benton Harbor.

On April 2nd, 2015, the northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis; NLEB)

was listed as federally threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On

the same date, an interim 4(d) rule was published that described customized

protections under the listing. A final rule was later published on January 14th,

2016 that changed the interim 4(d) rule. Tree removals for this project must be

done between October 1 and March 31 to reduce potential impacts to protected bat

species.

New legislation, “Fixing Americas Surface Transportation” (FAST Act) was

authorized on December 4, 2015. FAST Act provides funding, policies and

programs for investments that are vital for the transportation infrastructure. The

FAST Act replaces the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-

21) which was authorized in 2012. The US-31 Freeway Extension to I-94 and I-94

reconstruction project is in compliance with FAST Act legislation.

The Snuffbox mussel became federally listed on February 14, 2012, which was after

the Supplemental Record of Decision (SROD) was issued for this project on August

31, 2004. This project will not impact the Snuffbox mussel as no suitable habitat is

present within the project limits.

On September 30th, 2016, the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (EMR) was listed as

threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The EMR

occupies wetlands and adjacent uplands throughout the lower peninsula of

Michigan as well as Bois Blanc Island. The snake is regulated under the ESA if a

project location falls into regulated areas delineated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS). The US-31 Freeway Extension north to I-94 project was reviewed

by MDOT endangered species staff and no Tier 1 or Tier 2 EMR regulated habitat

were found within the project area. No further review or coordination is needed

with FWS as a result of the recent listing.

7

Project Updates

MDOT environmental, cultural, and social specialist reviewed the project and the

following factors were found to have no impact or substantial changes from the

SROD: Archaeology, Socio-Demographic, Coastal Zone, Indirect/Cumulative

Impacts.

Agriculture

Coordination has taken place with the USDA/NRCS and the completed farmland

form is available in Appendix B. There are no PA Act 451, Part 361 (former PA

116) directly affect by this project. The PA 116 properties can’t be used for borrow

material and no excess material is to be deposited on them. Figure 3 shows PA

116 properties near the proposed project.

FIGURE 3 - PA116 Properties

Wetlands

The original FEIS noted that the preferred alternative was expected to impact 12.2

acres of wetlands at 17 locations. While the project is being developed as a design-

build and the final design is not complete, the current preliminary design suggests

18.5 acres of wetlands may be impacted at 16 locations. The substantial increase in

acreage occurred due to natural succession over the course of three decades. Upon

acquisition of right-of-way, various land management activities ended (e.g.,

tilling, mowing, etc.) and the corridor began to revert to a more natural condition.

In early 2019, recognizing the land had changed considerably, MDOT contracted

AECOM to re-delineate wetlands within the study area. The resulting delineation

8

found several new wetlands while amending some of the older wetland

boundaries. Preliminary plans were then evaluated for avoidance and

minimization opportunities and to determine new wetland impacts. Avoidance

measures included steepening side slopes to 2:1 while maintaining hydraulic

connectivity with equalizer culverts where possible.

The wetland mitigation planned for the revised project impacts is the same as what

was identified in the original FEIS. Wetland mitigation will take place via wetland

preservation at both the Tamarack Swamp and Blue Creek Fen Preservation Sites

at a mitigation ratio of 10:1. There is enough existing wetland acreage at both

locations to cover the additional wetland mitigation need due to the increase in

project impacts. The Tamarack Swamp Preservation Site is fee-owned and

managed by the Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy (SWMLC). The SWMLC

has entered into a Long-Term Management Plan Agreement with MDOT to

manage this site in perpetuity. The Blue Creek Fen Preservation Site is fee-owned

by both MDOT and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). It is anticipated that the

SWMLC will take fee ownership of the TNC portion of this site, and MDOT will

maintain fee ownership of their portion and enter into a Long-Term Management

Plan Agreement with the SWMLC to manage this entire site in perpetuity.

Streams

The impacts to streams are consistent with the original FEIS. Culvert replacements

are expected at the warmwater crossing of Carmichael-Closson County Drain (or

Sand Creek) at BL-94, Carmichael-Closson Drain at I-94, and two unnamed

tributary crossings of Yellow Creek at I-94. A new culvert installation is needed

at the Carmichael-Closson Drain under the new alignment of US-31/I-94. No work

is expected within Blue Creek which is classified as a coldwater trout stream or

the BL-94 crossing of Barnes and Hamilton North Branch Extension County Drain.

All of the culvert replacements noted above will require a Part 301 permit from

EGLE (Department of the Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy).

Floodplains

The floodplain impacts expected with the current preliminary design are

consistent with the original FEIS. There is limited regulated FEMA floodplain

within the project area, with only small areas associated with the I-94 crossing of

Blue Creek and the BL-94 crossing of Carmichael-Closson County Drain (or Sand

Creek). Only minimal encroachment is expected in these areas. The other streams

drain less than two square miles and therefore are not regulated in Part 31 of the

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Public Act 451 or 1994. All

the impacts and mitigation presented in the FEIS remain valid.

9

Water Quality

This project will create new impervious surface by adding a new US-31 freeway

from Napier Avenue northwest to the proposed US-31/I-94/I-94BL interchange,

widen both EB and WB I-94 roadways, and add a weave/merge lane along EB I-94

between the proposed US-31/I-94/I-94BL interchange and I-196. Stormwater

requirements will include Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that will address

sediment removal and retention of additional stormwater runoff created from

additional project pavement. Stormwater runoff will be outletted into the I-94

outside vegetated ditches and US-31 vegetated median and outside ditches. The

runoff will be treated by filtering through vegetated ditches prior to being

outletted into adjacent drains. The US-31 and I-94 roadways and reconstructed US-

31/I-94/I-94BL interchange will be reviewed during final design to determine

where project detention/retention basins are needed to address the increased

impervious surface and run-off from the new US-31 roadway and reconstructed I-

94 and I-94BL roadways.

Air Quality

The project area is in attainment/maintenance for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard

and in non-attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The area is in

attainment for all other critical pollutants. The project is included in the Twin

Cities Area Transportation Study (TWINCATS) 2020-2023 transportation

improvement program (TIP). The project meets the transportation conformity

requirements as stated under 40 CFR 51 and 93.

Highway Noise

The project required a noise analysis due to significant interchange design changes

and the extension of the project limits from the selected alternative in the 2004

FSEIS. The full noise technical report accompanies this document and can also be

found on MDOT’s US-31 Connection to I-94 Study webpage1. The 2004 noise

analysis studied one potential barrier and found it did not meet the MDOT

feasibility and reasonableness criteria. The 2019 noise analysis completed for this

Re-evaluation analyzed four potential noise barriers for the selected alternative

and found no barriers meet the MDOT feasibility and reasonableness criteria. No

noise abatement is required for this project. However, a noise abatement reanalysis

will occur if there is a substantial change in the project alignment during the

Design/Build phase.

1https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_53088_53099---,00.html

10

Contamination

A Project Area Contamination Survey was included in the original FEIS and

summarized in its Appendix. A new Project Area Contamination Survey (PACS)

was performed for the project area located east of Benton Harbor and Benton

Heights and north of Sodus Township, within Berrien County. A new PACS was

completed and supersedes the original PACS and is found in Appendix C.

A search of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy

(EGLE), Remediation and Redevelopment Division’s Leaking Underground

Storage Tank (LUST) and Part 201 databases, revealed two known Part 201, eight

Part 211 (Active UST) and five Part 213 LUST sites. The field review resulted in

eleven additional sites of potential contamination within the project limits. All

known and potential sites of contamination have been provided for review.

Based on research of the EGLE databases, a field review and scope of work for this

project, there is a potential to encounter contaminated soils. Inclusion of special

provision pay item for removal and disposal of hazardous materials is

recommended for the site with an assigned MEDIUM risk (Vacant Lot at 177

Frederick Street). Up to 200 yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated material handling

and disposal for this site can be used as an estimated quantity under the special

provisions pay item. A PSI will be appropriate if excavation is expected to exceed

200 yd3 per site. A PSI will characterize the potential lead impacted soil and

provide information on proper storage and disposal.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Fauna - A few noteworthy changes have resulted from surveys or listings since the

original FEIS. First, an acoustic survey was performed for Indiana Bat (Myotis

sodalis) and Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) during the summer

of 2019 within the project area. The survey could not establish probable absence

of M. sodalis – overlapping call signals between Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus)

and Indiana Bat required the site be treated as occupied by Indiana Bat. This result

triggered formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the

removal of 133 acres of woods and a new road through potentially occupied

Indiana Bat habitat. It’s important to note when the project was originally

developed the amount of wooded cover was substantially less due to agriculture

and regular maintenance (e.g., mowing). The project corridor succeeded

ecologically over the course of multiple decades which slowly changed the land

cover. The formal consultation package was submitted in late November by

FHWA to FWS which addressed adverse effects to Indiana Bat. The primary

mitigation measure proposed to FWS was the winter removal of trees during the

inactive period of Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat. A draft biological

opinion (BO) was reviewed by MDOT on February 18, 2020 and the final BO was

signed on February 28, 2020 (see Appendix D). The FWS indicates in the BO that

11

the proposed I-94/ US-31 project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of the Indiana bat. However, due to the delay in receiving the signed BO the early

tree cutting described in the BO will not occur. MDOT’s letter to FWS reporting

the tree cutting delay is in Appendix E. FWS will be kept well-informed of any

future changes as this project progresses and submittals by the design-builder

necessitate.

Since the original FEIS, additional federal species listings have occurred. These

listings include the federally threatened Northern Long-Eared Bat (M.

septentrionalis) and Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus), as well as

the federally endangered Snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra) and Rayed Bean

mussel (Villosa fabalis). Probable absence was established for the Northern Long-

Eared Bat through the aforementioned acoustic bat survey. No regulated Tier 1 or

Tier 2 habitat exists within the project area for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake

(S. catenatus), although the project does contain a relatively limited amount of

threat exclusion zone (TEZ). The TEZ is a wildlife friendly erosion control zone

agreed to by MDOT, FHWA, and FWS through the Range-wide Programmatic

Agreement for the Conservation and Management of the Eastern Massasuga

Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus) in Michigan. Within these areas, only materials

friendly to wildlife may be used to stabilize disturbed soils. Because the likelihood

was limited for S. catenatus within the TEZ, MDOT and the FWS agreed to require

wildlife friendly erosion control throughout the new alignment and interchange

areas. This strategy will better protect wildlife in the most vulnerable places,

mainly where most of the wetland fill or dredge will take place.

No records, regulated habitat, or suitable habitat is present in the project area for

Snuffbox mussel (E. triquetra) and Rayed Bean mussel (V. fabalis). The project is

expected to have no effect on these two mussel species. All the other threatened

and endangered species analysis in the FEIS remains valid for this project.

Flora – The I-94 and US-31 project corridor was field surveyed in 2019 for all state

and federally listed plant species. During the surveys they discovered 4 listed

plant species at six different locations. Design has looked at all these locations and

has determined the project can be built without impacting any of these

locations. For more information regarding the listed plant species and

environmental clearance for this project please see the document entitled

Environmental Constraints/Requirements/Mitigation for the I-94/US-31 Design Build

Project in Appendix F.

Since there are no impacts to any listed species no MDNR permits are required for

this project. All protected plant areas will be fenced prior to tree removal or other

grading work adjacent to the protected plant areas.

12

Historic Properties –

The 2004 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) identified

2 National Register-eligible properties. Both were surveyed as part of the

"Reconnaissance Survey of Above-Ground Resources Proposed US-31 Freeway

Connection to I-94, Benton Township, Berrien County, Michigan" (Survey)

completed in 2002. For this Re-Evaluation of the SFEIS, MDOT reviewed all

buildings within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this Re-

Evaluation is different than the area covered by the 2002 Survey (see Figure 4).

The difference between the current APE and the 2002 Survey is due to coverage of

areas that were not included in the 2002 Survey and new project limits that extend

along I-94BL and I-94.

First, all properties within the original 2002 survey area and within the Re-

Evaluation APE were reviewed. In the intervening 17 years since the 2002 Survey

completion, MDOT has purchased the right-of-way (ROW) required for the new

freeway connection, but otherwise, the existing conditions remain very similar.

All the buildings determined ineligible remain ineligible for the same reasons. The

2 eligible properties, the barn at 3893 Territorial Road and a migrant worker

cottage at 645 Blue Creek Road, remain eligible. Several buildings were not

assessed by the 2002 Survey as they were not 50 years old. The Point O' Woods

Golf Course & Country Club at 1516 Roslin Road, opened in 1958, is the only

property within the 2002 Survey area that is now eligible for listing on the National

Register. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was provided with the

intensive-level survey for Point O' Woods and concurred it was National Register

eligible (See Figure 5).

Second, all buildings within the APE but outside the 2002 Survey boundaries were

surveyed. The SHPO was provided with all the survey information, including

intensive-level survey of 7 properties. None of the properties were eligible for

listing on the National Register.

The 2004 Supplemental FEIS did not include a SHPO letter with a formal effect

determination for the proposed project, but the analysis presented a no adverse

effect determination. For this Re-Evaluation, the proposed project will have no

adverse effect on the 3 National Register-eligible properties. The SHPO was sent

documentation of the no adverse effect determination. The determination is based

on no changes occurring at the barn at 3893 Territorial Road, which is located

roughly 1500 feet from the I-94 freeway ROW. The area between the barn and the

freeway is wooded vacant property, so any work within the ROW will have no

visual or audible impact. For the migrant workers cottages, only one is still extant.

The relationship between the proposed US-31 freeway and the remaining cottage

matches what was described in the 2004 FEIS. The distance between the freeway

ROW and the cottage is roughly 900 feet, and it is far enough away that the project

13

effect will not be adverse. For the Point O' Woods Golf Course & Country Club,

all I-94 work will remain within the existing ROW. The Golf Course was designed

and constructed at the same time the adjacent segment of I-94 was being designed

and constructed, so they have always been near each other, and work within the

ROW will be no adverse effect. Documentation of no adverse effect

determinations was sent to SHPO, per Programmatic Agreement among MDOT,

SHPO and FHWA. This documentation is in Appendix G

FIGURE 4 - Survey area and Re-evaluation APE for Historical Properties

14

FIGURE 5 - Historic Properties (3) Locations

Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources

The original determination that there are no recreational 4(f) properties impacted

remains valid. There is one property within the extended construction limits that

is owned by the public-school system. It is located on the south side of the I-94BL,

between Walnut and Urbandale Streets. There are no proposed impacts to this

property.

Public Information Meeting

A public information meeting was held on January 15, 2020 for this project with

approximately 40 people attending. The public meeting was held to update the

public on project changes including the elimination of the proposed US-31 bridge

over Empire Avenue and cul-de-sac of Empire at the US-31 crossing that was

included in the previous SROD. Also discussed was resurfacing of local roads to

be used for current Empire Road traffic to get across the new US-31 Freeway and

local road resurfacing for planned traffic detours during construction. There were

15

some negative comments concerning additional travel time to get across the new

US-31 Freeway and what will happen to the money saved by not constructing the

US-31/Empire Avenue structure. There were some positive comments about local

roads being resurfaced and US-31 through traffic being removed from Napier

Avenue resulting in lower traffic volumes and easier access. No significant

controversy was presented at the public meeting.

Mitigation Follow-Up

This project will follow the new MDOT Mitigation Follow-up Procedures for

Major Action (EA/EIS) projects. This process begins after this Re-evaluation is

issued. The mitigation measures are presented in the Re-evaluation Project

Mitigation Summary Green Sheet Addendum (Appendix A). The new procedures

required by FHWA include signing off on mitigation measures as the project

proceeds through the design, real estate, construction, and maintenance phases.

The Mitigation Summary Form 0348 and the Mitigation Sign-Off Form 0349 will

be prepared by the Project Manager and the Environmental Services Section (ESS)

Mitigation Specialist to include project specific mitigation requirements. The

Mitigation Sign-Off Form will indicate who will sign-off on mitigation for each

project phase and will include electronic signatures by MDOT staff to verify

completion of required mitigation. The mitigation Sign-Off Form along with

project mitigation documentation will be kept in MDOT’s ProjectWise.

16

MDOT’s Recommendation

For this Re-evaluation, MDOT has reviewed the project changes identified in the design

process and has determined these changes to be minor and sufficient mitigation measures

are included in the project design. MDOT requests FHWA’s concurrence with this re-

evaluation to proceed with construction of this project.

____________________________ _____________________________ Date Harold Zweng, P.E., Manager

MDOT-Environmental Services Section

FHWA has determined that there have been no substantive design or regulatory changes

affecting this phase of the project, and the project still meets its original purpose and need.

Based on this re-evaluation of the project, FHWA further determines there are no

significant changes that would warrant preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA

document. Therefore, the SFEIS/SROD remain valid.

____________________________ _____________________________________ Date Russell L. Jorgenson, P.E.

Division Administrator

Appendix A

Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet Addendum

Project Mitigation Summary “Green Sheet Addendum”

For the Preferred Alternative

May 18, 2020

Re-evaluation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

And Supplemental Record of Decision

Proposed Widening and Re-construction of I-94, and New US-31 Four-Lane

Divided Freeway from Napier Avenue northwest to I-94/I-94BL, Re-

construction of I-94 BL into Benton Harbor, and Reconstruction of I-94

from the new US-31 interchange east to the I-196/US-31 North Interchange

in Charter Township of Benton,

Berrien County, Michigan

This Project Mitigation Summary “Green Sheet Addendum” contains

project specific mitigation measures for the above project. These

mitigation items may be modified during the final design, right-of-way

acquisition, or construction phases of this project. The project mitigation

will be tracked and sign-off on the mitigation commitments will occur as

the project progresses through the various phases of design, right-of-way,

construction, and maintenance.

I. Social and Economic Environment

A. Right-of-Way (ROW)/Grading Permits – The acquisition of three partial

take parcels and the Consent to grade for driveway grading at the north

end of Territorial Road will be obtained prior to start of construction in

those areas.

B. Maintaining Traffic – A Motorist Information Plan (electronic message

signs) will be developed and implemented during construction to identify

lane closures and alternative routes. Coordination with local officials will

occur to facilitate emergency services (police, fire, and ambulance) and

school bus routes. Traffic will be maintained on I-94 and I-196 with a

minimum of 2 lanes in each direction with reductions to 1 lane as

construction requires. I-94BL will maintain 1 lane in each direction with

closures between Crystal Avenue and I-94 and exit and entrance ramps

to/from I-94 at varying time as construction requires. All local roads will

maintain 1 lane in each direction with closures for through traffic

occurring as construction requires. Access for local traffic will always be

maintained. The details of the preliminary MOT plan are in the Design-

Build RFP Book 2. The MOT may be adjusted during the Design-Build

process. MDOT Project Manager and contractors working on other

projects in the vicinity will coordinate prior to closing any roads or ramps,

and prior to making any changes to signing, pavement markings, lanes,

barricades, or closure locations, to avoid conflicts. The Design-Builder

may have to adjust work hours, work locations, or work sequences in

order to coordinate with other contracts in the vicinity.

C. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources –During construction, the parking of vehicles

or storage of equipment and materials on the public-school property is

prohibited.

II. Natural Environment

A. Stream Crossing/Lakes/Streams – Work in water restrictions will apply to

a few streams in the project area, including the following warmwater

streams: proposed US-31 crossing of Wright-Woodley County Drain (or

Ox Creek), BL-94 crossing of Carmichael-Closson County Drain (or Sand

Creek), and the I-94 crossing of Carmichael-Closson County Drain (or

Sand Creek). The in-water work restriction at these structures is from

May 1 – June 30. In addition, there are restrictions at additional stream

crossings that currently have no work in the water expected. The BL-94

crossing of Barnes and Hamilton North Branch County Drain has a May 1

– June 30 work restriction and Blue Creek at I-94 requires an October 1st –

April 30th closure.

An Act 451, Part 31 (Water Quality) and Part 301 (Inland Lakes and

Streams) permit will be required from the Michigan Department of

Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). MDOT and EGLE staff

field reviewed this project in 2019 to discuss the project during the pre-

application permit process. Any further requirements, not known at this

time, will be stated in the permit.

B. Floodplains – There are regulated floodplains within the project limits

associated with the BL-94 crossing of Carmichael-Closson County Drain

(or Sand Creek) and the I-94 crossing of Blue Creek. Limited floodplain

work is expected at these two crossings. However, floodplain fill

exceeding 300 cubic yards will require compensatory cut sections. The

drainage area of the other associated small streams and drains within the

project limits are under 2 square miles and are not regulated by EGLE.

An Act 451, Part 31 (Floodplains) permit will be required from EGLE for

any work within the two regulated floodplains.

C. Wetlands - All permanent wetland impacts will be mitigated using

preservation wetland credits from acquired fen properties at a 10:1 ratio.

The actual amount may be subject to change dependent on the final impact

analysis with mitigation remaining at a 10:1 ratio. Any additional wetland

mitigation requirements will be addressed in the required EGLE Act 451,

Part 303 (Wetlands) permit.

D. Water Quality – Additional lane widening will occur in the I-94 median

and concrete median barrier with enclosed runoff will be constructed. The

stormwater will be piped and outletted into the I-94 outside vegetated

ditches. The runoff will be treated by filtering through vegetated ditches

prior to be outletted into adjacent drains. The new US-31/I-94/I-94BL

interchange and reconstructed I-94/I-196 interchange will be reviewed

during final design to determine retention/detention basin locations to

address the increased impervious surface and run-off from the new I-94

lanes with enclosed median drainage and the new US-31 freeway.

E. Threatened/Endangered Species – This corridor is within the range of the

federally endangered Indiana bat and threatened northern long eared bat.

Tree removals must occur between October 1 to March 31. Formal

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been

completed. As per the BO, the FHWA or MDOT shall notify the FWS, in

writing (digital format), regarding the projected and actual start dates,

progress, and completion of the project and verify that the timing and

acreage of forest clearing was not exceeded, and all conservation measures

were followed in a report, by December 31st of each year until

December 31, 2022. The Tree Removal Special Provision (12SP-202A-

02) will be included in the project. The construction staff and the

contractor must report any sick, injured, or dead bats observed in the field

to Jeff Grabarkiewicz, (517) 335-2633, and not to handle them.

Eastern Box Turtle is a Michigan Species of Concern that is known from

the project area. If turtles are encountered during any stage of

construction, they must be photographed and moved out of the work zone

in the direction they are traveling. The location where they are found and

moved to should be provided as stationing, points on an aerial, or GPS

points. This information, as well as the photograph, must be provided to

the MDOT Construction who will provide it to the MDOT Ecologist.

Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake – No FWS Tier 1 or Tier 2 EMR habitat

is present within the project limits. Wildlife friendly erosion controls

(loose mulch, modified mulch blanket, bonded fiber matrix, or other

material approved by the MDOT Ecologist) will be used along all

disturbed areas adjacent to US-31 freeway and new US-31/I-94/I-94BL

interchange to provide protection for all reptiles and amphibians.

State Threatened plant species have been identified within the project

corridor. These plant areas are identified in contract documents and will

be protected by installing protective fence around the plants that includes a

10’ buffer zone. The protective fencing will be installed prior to any tree

removal or grading adjacent to the protected plant areas.

F. Tree Removals – Tree removals are required along I-94 and along the new

US-31 roadway. All tree removals will occur between October 1 and

March 31. Tree replacements will be reviewed in design and a

landscaping plan will be developed as part of the Design/Build contract.

The Region Resource Analyst will coordinate with the MDOT Roadside

Development Unit to determine where tree replacements or landscaping

can be placed.

G. Agriculture – No impacts to adjacent PA 451, Part 361 (formerly PA 116)

parcels are expected and no borrow from or disposal of material on these

properties is allowed.

III. Cultural Environment

A. Historic - The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has determined

that the proposed work will have no adverse effect on three adjacent

historic properties. All work adjacent to the newly identified historic

property (golf course) will occur on MDOT ROW.

IV. Hazardous/Contaminated Materials

A. Project Contamination - The updated Project Area Contamination Survey

(PACS) recommends that the “Non-Hazardous Contaminated Material

Handling and Disposal” Special Provision be included in the project

proposal and a miscellaneous quantity of 200 cubic yards be set up on the

project as a precaution. A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) is being

done for all contaminated properties listed as a “Medium” or “High” risk.

B. Contamination Exposure - A Workers Health and Safety Plan will be

prepared if any asbestos, lead, or other contamination is identified.

V. Construction

A. Construction Staging Areas – The Special Provision for “Construction

Staging Areas” must be included in the project proposal to prevent

material or vehicles being stored on recreational properties. Staging areas

will also be reviewed to ensure no wetland or floodplain impacts.

B. Construction Permits - Permits under Act 451, Parts 31, 301, and 303 are

required from the EGLE for this project. Coverage under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is administered

by EGLE, is also required.

C. Time Restrictions – Tree removals must occur between October 1 and

March 31 to avoid impacts to protected bat species. Work in water

restriction dates are dependent on waterway and are detailed in the green

sheet Natural Environment section under Stream Crossing/Lakes/Streams

(II.A.).

D. Soil Erosion/Sedimentation Control – Strict soil erosion and sedimentation

controls will be set up and maintained during construction for work

affecting the drain culvert replacements, drain enclosures, and wetlands.

E. Construction Air Quality - Construction equipment should be kept clean,

tuned up, and in good operating condition. MDOT’s Standard

Construction Specification Sections 107.15(A) and 107.19 would apply to

control of fugitive dust during construction and cleaning of haul roads.

All MDOT vehicles and equipment must follow MDOT Guidance #10179

(2-15-2009) Vehicle and Equipment Engine Idling.

F. Construction Noise and Vibration - Construction noise will be minimized

by measures such as requiring construction equipment to have mufflers,

that portable compressors meet federal noise-level standards for that

equipment, and that all portable equipment be placed away from or

shielded from sensitive noise receptors. All local noise ordinances will be

adhered to unless the contractor is granted a variance by the City of

Benton Harbor for night-time work for bridge deck pours.

To document potential vibration damage from construction activities,

structure foundation surveys will be offered in areas where vibration

impacts could occur. Structures within 150 to 200 feet of construction

operations such as bridge/pavement removal or piling/steel sheeting

installation will be identified during final design. The “Monitoring

Vibration” Special Provision will be included in the project proposal.

Appendix B

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (NRCS-CPA-106)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURENatural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO

4.Sheet 1 of

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

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATINGFOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

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

5. Major Crop(s)

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

Alternative Corridor For SegmentCorridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services

C. Total Acres In Corridor

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

A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

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

1. Area in Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

MaximumPoints

1510

20

2010

2557. Availablility Of Farm Support Services

8. On-Farm Investments

9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

20

25

10

160TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

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

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

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

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

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

YES NO

DATE

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

NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse)

CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration connecting two distantpoints, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and floodcontrol systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor - type site or design alternative for protection as farmlandalong with the land evaluation information.

(1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?More than 90 percent - 15 points 90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)Less than 20 percent - 0 points

(2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?More than 90 percent - 10 points90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)Less than 20 percent - 0 points

(3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last10 years?More than 90 percent - 20 points90 to 20 percent - 19 to 1 point(s)Less than 20 percent - 0 points

(4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?Site is protected - 20 pointsSite is not protected - 0 points

(5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit in the County ?(Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census ofAgriculture, Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)As large or larger - 10 pointsBelow average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average - 9 to 0 points

(6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns?Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 pointsAcreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 1 to 24 point(s)Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points

(7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?All required services are available - 5 pointsSome required services are available - 4 to 1 point(s)No required services are available - 0 points

(8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit treesand vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?High amount of on-farm investment - 20 pointsModerate amount of on-farm investment - 19 to 1 point(s)No on-farm investment - 0 points

(9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm supportservices so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 25 pointsSome reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 1 to 24 point(s)No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted - 0 points

(10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely tocontribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 10 pointsProposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 9 to 1 point(s)Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland - 0 points

Appendix C

PACS Report

DATE: July 31, 2019

TO: Dharmesh Valsadia Cost and Scheduling Engineer Southwest Region Ofice

FROM: Mary J. George Southwest Region Resource Analyst

SUBJECT: Project Area Contamination Survey CS 11016 - JN 130008 CS 11112 - JN 205792

These projects are located eest of Benton Harbor and Benton Heights and north of Sodus Township, within Berrien County. The limits for JN 130008 extend 5.415 miles from 0.3 miles east of Britain Avenue to 0.3 miles west of I-196. The limits for JN 205792 extend 1.904 miles from north of Napier Avenue (Exit 24) to I-94. Obtaining ROW is necessary. A description of the work is provided below:

- JN 130008 (Britain Avenue to I-196): Reconstructing I-94 to an urban section from west of Britain Avenue to east of the I-196 interchange and constructing auxillary lanes on EB and WB I-94 between BL-94 and I-196. Associated with this work is the construction of two new bridges, two bridge replacements and three bridge removals.

- JN 205792 (north of Napier Road to I-94): Constructing a new freeway.

The project area was investigated in June and July of 2019, to determine if known or potential sites of environmental contamination exist which could affect the project’s design, cost, or schedule. Each site identified was evaluated for relative risk of encountering contamination as follows:

Low Risk: Known leaking underground storage tank (LUST) or Part 201 sites that have been remediated and are officially closed; other facilities that may store petroleum products (e.g. auto repair shops and other small commercial or industrial sites), and sites with known contamination where the source is at a great distance from the project or where deep excavation is not anticipated.

Medium Risk: Open LUST site, unremediated Part 201 sites, facilities that have been identified as former gas stations, large industrial facilities where there is no information based on testing, and known sites where remediation is occurring that may affect the project to some degree.

High Risk: Open LUST sites with free product, unremediated large Part 201 or EPA Superfund sites (e.g. landfill sites, heavy industrial areas, former gasoline stations with potential for underground tanks to be present), or areas where contaminates may have been buried. Site will likely affect the project and further investigations (PSI) may be recommended.

A search of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), Remediation and Redevelopment Division’s Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and Part 201 databases, revealed two known Part 201, eight Part 211 (Active UST) and five Part 213 LUST sites. The field review resulted in eleven additional sites of potential contamination within the project limits. All known and potential sites of contamination have been provided for review.

- KNOWN SITES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION -

A. Part 201 Site(s)

Vacant Lot - 177 Frederick Street (Part 201 Site ID 11000417)

Site Information: Appears to be a vacant lot within a small residential area. Historical use of this site is unknown. According to the EGLE Environmenal Mapper dtabase this site is a known site of environmental contamination from benzene. No additional information found. This site is located approximately 50-100 feet southeast of the NB N. Crystal Avenue entrance ramp to EB W. Main Street.

Risk for project: MEDIUMRecommendations: Include a pay item for removal of contaminated soil is recommended. If

groundwater is encountered it should be considered contaminated and needs to be disposed of or treated.

Vacant Lot - 1395 Territorial Road (Part 201 Site ID 11000414; Restrictive Covenant RC-RRD-213-13-047)

Site Information: Vacant lot owned by Benton Charter Township, adjacent to former Kayo Oil Company, Store #22003 associated with a Part 213 LUST site. Known site of environmental contamination from hazardous substances including ethylbenzene, xylenes, 1.2.4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethlbenzene, and naphthalene. The retrictive covenant prohibits unrestricted use of the property due to levels of groundwater contamination detected in a shallow water-bearing zone.

Risk for project: LOW – Site is approximately 1300 ft north of the project limits. Recommendations: No action due to distance from proposed work.

B. Part 211 – Active or Former Site with UST (no known releases)

Vacant Lot – 3614 E. Napier Road (Part 211 Site ID 50000973)

Site Information: Historical use of this site is unknown. Curently, appears the land is being utilized as farmland. One former non-registered UST was installed on site. No reported releases. Potential site of environmental contamination from storage of gasoline. Tank status unknown

Vaacnt Lot – 3615 E. Napier Road (Part 211 Site ID 50000972)

Site Information: Historical use of this site is unknown. Curently, appears the land is being utilized as farmland. One former non-registered UST was installed on site. No reported releases. Potential site of environmental contamination from storage of gasoline. Tank status unknown.

Napier Ave/US-31 Interchange – 3510 E. Napier Avenue (Part 211 Site ID 50000975)

Site Information: Historical satellite Google Earth images indicate this site was once used for crop production. Curently, location of Napier Avenue & US-31 inersection with one former non-registered UST installed on site. No reported releases. Potential site of environmental contamination from storage of gasoline. Tank status unknown.

US-31 South of Napier Ave – 3428 E. Napier Road (Part 211 Site ID 50000966)

Site Information: Historical satellite Google Earth images indicate this site was once used for crop production. Curently, location of US-31 approximately 1,100 feet south of Napier Avenue. One former non-registered UST installed on site. No reported releases. Potential site of environmental contamination from storage of gasoline. Tank status unknown.

Culby’s Lanscape Supplies– 1010 Blue Creek Road (Part 211 Site ID 00003071)

Site Information: Active landscaping supply store with two registered UST. No reported releases. Potential site of environmental contamination from storage of diesel fuel and kerosene. Reportedly, both tanks previously installed have been removed.

Benton Harbor Engineering – 2200 E. Empire Avenue (Part 211 Site ID 00035879)

Site Information: Current engineering firm with one former UST installed on site. No reported releases. Potential site of environmental contamination from storage of hydraulic oil. Reportedly, the UST previously installed has been removed.

Vacant Lot – 3249 Territorial Road (Part 211 Site ID 00004830)

Site Information: This address is associated with a vacant lot, whereas the lat/lon coordinates provided on Environmental Mapper show the site to be located at 3329 Territorial Road, an active flourist shop known as Happy Thoughts. The facility name documented on EGLE’s website is Douglas

Steiner with three recorded former registered USTs installed on site. No reported releases. Potential site of environmental contamination from storage of gasoline and kerosene. Reportedly, all USTs previously installed have been removed.

Harris Trucking Inc. – 3471 Territorial Road (Part 211 Site ID 00008779)

Site Information: Active carrier operating under USDOT Number 370135 hauling general freight. Three former registered USTs were installed on site. No reported releases. Potential site of environmental contamination from storage of diesel fuel and an unknown substance. Reportedly, all three USTs previously installed have been removed.

Risk for project: LOW – Risk applies to each site listed in the above section, B. Part 211 - Active or Former Site with UST (no known releases).

Recommendations: No Action.

C. Part 213 - EGLE OPEN and CLOSED LUST Sites (Confirmed Releases)

An OPEN LUST site is a location in which a release has occurred from an underground storage tank system and has not had corrective actions completed to meet the appropriate land use criteria. A CLOSED LUST site has had corrective actions completed to meet established criteria. LUST sites may have more than one confirmed release and are monitored by the EGLE.

McCoy’s Old Landmark COGIC – 1960 Highland Avenue (Part 213 Site ID 00039940)

Site Information: Current Religious Organization, with one OPEN Part 213 Release (reported 1999). Known site of environmental contamination from an unknown substance. The site previously contained three USTs known for storage of gasoline and fuel oil. According to the EGLE database all tanks have been removed from the site.

Risk for project: LOW - Site is approx. 850 ft west and 1,000 ft south of the project limits. Recommendations: No action due to distance from proposed work.

Point Blank Sports Club Former Blues Marathon Station – 1350 Territorial Road (Part 213 Site ID 00038794, Restrictive Covenants RC-RRD-213-04-724 & RC-ERD-213-97-007)

Site Information: Active club and shooting range (1340 Territorial Road). Former Blues Marathon Station, a retail gas station, with two CLOSED Part 213 Releases (reported 1995/1995, closed 1997/1997). Known site of environmental contamination from petroleum products. There are two restrictive covenants associated with this site that require any soil or groundwater removed from site to be appropriately tested and disposed of properly. The site previously contained six USTs for storage of gasoline and diesel fuel. According to the EGLE database, all tanks have been removed from the site.

Risk for project: LOW

Recommendations: No action due to distance from proposed work.

Vacant Lot – 1403 Territorial Road (Red Arrow Highway) (Part 213 Site ID 00019351, Restrictive Covenants RC-RRD-213-13-047 & RC-RRD-213-13-046)

Site Information: Former Kayo Oil Coompany (Stoe #22003) with one CLOSED Part 213 Release (reported 2001, closed 2013). Known site of environmental contamination from hazardous substances including ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, and napthalene. There are two restricitive covenants associated with this site that prohibit construction of wells, dewatering and removal of soils without proper testing. The site previously contained four USTs. According to the EGLE database, all have been removed from the site.

Risk for project: LOWRecommendations: No action due to distance from proposed work.

Benton Charter Township – 1725 Territorial Road (Part 213 Site ID 00001733)

Site Information: Active Benton Charter Township Police Department with one CLOSED Part 213 Release (reported 1989, closed 1994). Known site of environmental contamination from an unknown substance. The site previously contained three USTs used to store gasoline and diesel fuel. According to te EGLE database, all three tanks have been closed and remain in the ground.

Risk for project: LOW - Site is approximately 800 feet north of project limits. Recommendations: No action due to distance to proposed work.

Citgo Gas Sation – 2091 Territorial Road (Part 213 Site ID 00015778)

Site Information: Active retail gas sation, formerly known as Singh Self Service with one OPEN Part 213 Release (reported 1995). Known site of environmental contamination from gasolines. According to EGLE database, the site contains three USTs and all are currently in use.

Risk for project: LOW – Site is approximately 825 feet north of project limits. Recommendations: No action due to distance to proposed work.

- ADDITIONAL SITES OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION -

A. Bridge Structures Within Project Limits

Structure No. S02-11081 (Euclid Ave over I-94 BL/Main Street) Site Information: Bridges themselves, as well as, the soil and sediment surrounding stuctures

present an environmental concern due to historical use of lead-based paint. This structure was constructed and painted in 1968 with Steel I-beams and lead-based paint.. Elevated concentrations of lead may be present in soil.

Risk for project: HIGH – Characterization of lead impacted soil along with proper storage and disposal.

Recommendations: Completion of a PSI, including soil sample collection and laboratory analysis from select locations, within the project area is recommended. A special provision should be added to the plans to cover the cost of proper storage and disposal of lead-impacted soil, sediments and spent abraisives from paint removal operations.

Structure No. S07-11016 (Highland Road over I-94) Structure No. S08-11016 (I-94 BL/Main Street over I-94) Structure No. S09-11016 (Territorial Road over I-94)Structure No. S10-11016 (Benton Center Road over I-94)Site Information: Bridges themselves, as well as, the soil and sediment surrounding stuctures

present an environmental concern due to historical use of lead-based paint. These structures were constructed of either concrete tee beams or steel I-beams. The I-beam structures were painted in 2011 with non-lead paint.

Risk for project: LOW – Due to no paint coating or non-lead paint from 2011. Recommendations: No action.

Structure No. S06-11111 (Britain Road over I-94) Structure No. S01-1-11111 (NB I-196 over I-94) Structure No. S01-2-11111 (SB I-196 over I-94) Structure No. S06-11112 (Npaier Avenue over US-31) Site Information: These structures were constructed in 2011/2005/2005/2000 of prestressed

concrete I-beams. There is no paint coating. Risk for project: LOW – Due to no paint coating for each structure and no proposed work

for each structure. Recommendations: No action.

B. Other Sites

Calvary’s Lighthouse Church – 2561 E. Main StreetSite Information: Active religious organization. Historical use is unknown. The southwest

portion of the property appears to have an old loading dock; purpose unknown. No reported releases.

ANR Company Pipeline (Euclid Ave over I-94 BL/Main Street) Site Information: A commercial natural gas pipeline that runs through the project limits,

which poses a physical hazard and should be handled further in the planning stages.

Risk for project: LOW – Risk applies to each site listed in the above section of Additional Sites of Potential Contamination Category - Section B. Other Sites.

Recommendations: No action.

- CONCLUSION -

Based on research of the EGLE databases, a field review and scope of work for this project, there is a potential to encounter contaminated soils. Inclusion of special provision pay item for removal and disposal of hazardous materials is recommended for the site with an assigned MEDIUM risk (Vacant Lot at 177 Frederick Street). Up to 200 cyd of non-hazardous contaminated material handling and disposal for this site can be used as an estimated quantity under the special provisions pay item. A PSI will be appropriate if excavation is expected to exceed 200 cyd per site. Additionally, a PSI is recommended for Structure No. S02-11081 (Euclid Ave over I-94/Main Street). This structure has a historical use of lead based paint. A PSI will characterize the potential lead impacted soil and provide information on proper storage and disposal.

The attached bibliography refers to sources used to prepare this report. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 269-337-3945 or georgem5@michigan.gov.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Region Resource Analyst

- 8 -

- BIBLIOGRAPHY -

Bridge Management and Inspection System – MiBRIDGE. (2019). Michigan Department of Transportation.

Environmental Mapper (Electronic database). (2019). Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. Available at http://web1.mcgi.state.mi.us/environmentalmapper/mcgi.aspx#.

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Site Search. (2019). Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. Available at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/sid-web/LUST_Search.aspx.

On-Scene Coordinator. Midwest Metallurgical Laboratory. (2019). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=6058

Technical Memorandum – Project Area Contamination Survey Report for US-31 Freeway/Connection to I-94. (2002). Wilbur Smith Associates Inc. & Soils and Materials Engineers Inc. Prepared for U.S. Department of Tansportation, Federal Highway Administration and Michigan Department of Transportation.

Underground Tank Active List, as of Sept. 13, 2017. (2017). Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Storage Tank Division. Available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Copy_of_UST_LIST_Active_545316_7.xls

Appendix D

Fish and Wildlife Biological Opinion Letter

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101

East Lansing, Michigan 48823-6360

February 28, 2020

Russell L. Jorgenson

Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

315 Allegan Street, Room 201

Lansing, MI 48933

RE: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for the FHWA, U.S. 31 Connection to I-

94, Berrien County, Michigan, 20- R3-MIFO-02.

Dear Mr. Jorgenson:

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion

(Opinion) based on our review of the U.S. 31 connection to I-94, Berrien County, Michigan and

its effects on the federally endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis pursuant to section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1536), and the ESA’s implementing

regulations (50 CFR 402.14). Your request for formal consultation was received on November

27, 2019.

This Opinion is based on information provided in the November 27, 2019 biological assessment

(BA), the April 2004 environmental impact statement, telephone conversations, and other

sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the

Service's Michigan Ecological Services Field Office.

Species Likely To Be Adversely Affected By the Proposed Action

Indiana Bat

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental baseline for the action

area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion

that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

With respect to the ESA’s compliance, all aspects of the project description are binding. The

Reasonable and Prudent Measures and the accompanying Terms and Conditions provided within

the enclosed biological opinion are nondiscretionary and are designed to minimize incidental

take of listed species.

Mr. Jorgenson 2

We appreciate the opportunity to cooperate with the FHWA in conserving endangered species.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Matt Ihnken, of this office,

at 517-351-8474, or matthew_ihnken@fws.gov.

Sincerely,

Scott Hicks

Field Supervisor

cc: Dan Kennedy, MDNR, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI

Mike O’Malley, MDOT, Environmental Section, Lansing, MI

Appendix E

Letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service

on the Tree Removal Schedule Change

RICK SNYDER

GOVERNOR

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LANSING

KIRK T. STEUDLE

DIRECTOR

MURRAY D. VAN WAGONER BUILDING • P.O. BOX 30050 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 www.michigan.gov • (517) 373-2090

LH-LAN-0 (01/03)

26 March 2020

Scott Hicks, Supervisor

Fish and Wildlife Service

East Lansing Field Office

2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101

East Lansing, Michigan 48823-6360

Dear Mr. Hicks,

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), is providing an update for the US-31 Freeway Connection to I-94 in

Berrien County. Formal consultation was initiated for this project on November 27th, 2019

by FHWA and the Biological Opinion (BO) was issued on February 28th, 2020. Within this

timeframe, unforeseen events during project development and advertisement have changed

the project schedule. The initial 39.9 acres of tree removal activities scheduled to occur prior

to March 31, 2020 have been postponed. We anticipate these removals will now occur during

the inactive season of 2020-21. The Service will be kept well-informed of any future changes

as this project progresses and submittals by the design-builder necessitate.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this change, please feel free to contact

me at your earliest convenience at 517-896-7650 or GrabarkiewiczJ@michigan.gov.

Sincerely,

Jeff Grabarkiewicz

CC: Tom Hanf

Mike O’Malley

Nick VanWoert

Matt Ihnken

Ruth Hepfer

Mark Lewis

Sarah Fedders

Dharmesh Valsadia

Appendix F

Environmental Constraints/Requirements/Mitigation

for the I-94/US-31 Design Build Project

Environmental Constraints/Requirements/Mitigation for Design/Build Projects

Specialty Area: Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

Project Overview:

There are four state listed plant species within the project corridor that are protected by

Michigan’s Endangered Species Act they include:

1. Western Mugwort (Artemisia ludoviciana) – State Threatened

2. Wild Potato Vine (Ipomoea pandurate) – State Threatened

3. Hollow Stemmed Joe Pye Weed (Eutrochium fistulosum) – State Threatened

4. Frost Grape (Vitis vulpine) – State Threatened

These species and their locations are shown on a GIS layer that has been provided by Stantec.

With proper planning there will be no impacts to any of these species and a MDNR Threatened

and Endangered Species Permit will not be required. Please see the attached GIS data and final

field report for this project for more information.

Regulatory Agency Coordination

After meeting with the project team and looking at the preliminary slope stake lines for the

project, it appears that all locations and plants can be avoided. All species located within the

project corridor are state listed species that are protected under Michigan’s Endangered Species

Act. Impacts to any of these species at any location will require a Michigan Department of

Natural Resources Endangered Species Permit prior to completing any work. These permits can

take 90 days to obtain so avoiding impacts at these locations is important to the project and its

schedule. This project has been discussed with the MDNR and at this time there are no proposed

impacts and a permit is not required.

Project Requirements for Environmentally Sensitive Areas

The plants are found in six different locations within the project corridor. These areas will be

called Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and will require protection throughout

construction to avoid all impacts. Within these ESA’s no access or disturbance of any kind is

allowed except as noted below. This will also eliminate the need for a MDNR permit for this

project.

The areas to be protected will be delineated and shown on the plans as “Environmentally

Sensitive Area - Do Not Enter.” (See example below). Non-compliance with this requirement

will result in the issuance of a Notice of Non-Compliance with contract requirements and

potential involvement of the state regulatory agencies for violation of state environmental laws

and regulations. The Contractor is liable for any fines and penalties for violations.

This is an example of a typical plan sheet illustrating Environmentally Sensitive Areas within a

project corridor. Specific plan notes should also be used to remind the contractor that they are

not allowed to have any disturbance of any form within an Environmentally Sensitive Area. See

the lower right corner of the plan sheet above and specific plan note below.

Protective fencing will be used at all six locations to buffer all plants from construction activities.

This fence will be 4-foot tall orange snow fencing secured with metal T-stakes and zip ties as

shown to form a continuous protective barrier around each ESA. After the fence has been

installed, place signs on the fence labelled with “Environmentally Sensitive Area - Do Not

Enter” at 100-foot intervals, as shown on the plans or as directed by the Engineer. These must

remain in place throughout construction and can only be removed with the engineer’s approval at

the end of the project. Below you will see two pictures illustrating the proper installation of the

fencing and signage.

Picture One: Proper fence installation for an Environmentally Sensitive

Area using T-posts, 4-foot tall orange snow fencing and zip-ties.

Picture Two: Proper sign installation on the protective fencing within an

Environmentally Sensitive Area. These signs should be placed every

100 feet and should follow the specifications detailed below.

The signs measure 24 inches by 24 inches and are readable from at least 50 feet away. Once the

fencing and signage has been installed notify the Engineer to inspect and approve the installation

prior to the start of any project activities.

Signage details: Please use the words “Environmentally Sensitive Area – Do Not Enter” not

“Environmentally Protected Area – Do Not Enter” as shown above.

The Engineer is responsible to assure that no access, disturbance, or work of any type occurs

within the ESA including: earthwork, grading, stockpiling of materials, construction equipment,

vehicle parking, tree or shrub cutting, mowing, spraying or the alteration of the natural

vegetation or ground in any manner. The Engineer will ensure the protective fencing and

signage is inspected and maintained until final project acceptance.

All ESA’s, fencing, signage, work restrictions and timing of fence installation as detailed in this

document and shown on the plans must be discussed at the preconstruction meeting with the

contractor.

The six ESA’s within this project corridor will be discussed individually below. These areas are

shown on the maps provided by the consultant and within the GIS file. The areas that are shown

will need to have a polygon established around them which will serve as the boundary to install

the protective fencing described above. This will provide a suitable buffer for the plant species

throughout construction to assure they will not be impacted.

Area One:

Species: Hollow Stemmed Joe Pye Weed

Location: Northwest quadrant of Empire Road and the proposed US-31 freeway

connection (new alignment).

This population will be impacted by the pipeline when it is relocated. The utility

companies’ environmental consultant has already coordinated this project and the impacts

with the MDNR and they have obtained their clearance at this location. They collected

seed from these plants as mitigation and will be using that to seed the area after the

pipeline has been moved. They will also be stockpiling the topsoil at this location to

preserve the seedbank if the species exists within it. Following construction these soils

will be spread back out and hopefully the species will repopulate the area. Since MDOT

will also be working at this location we need to coordinate with the utility company to

have these soils remain in the stockpiled location until all pipeline and MDOT

construction has been completed for the project (in this area). Then the topsoil can be

spread so the seeds can sprout from the seedbank. These areas should be seeded with an

annual cover which will allow the Spotted Joe Pye Weed to germinate easily.

Area One: Northwest quadrant of Empire Road and the proposed US-31 freeway connection

(new alignment).

Area Two:

Species: White Sage

Location: Northwest quadrant of the East Brittan Ave and South Benton Center Road

interchange.

The White Sage at this location is found within a small group of trees. The plants at this

site should be buffered with an additional 25-foot perimeter and then fenced and signed

throughout construction. This will eliminate all impacts to this population and a MDNR

permit will not be required.

Area Two: Northwest quadrant of the East Brittan Ave and South Benton Center Road

interchange.

Area Three:

Species: Wild Potato Vine

Location: I-94 on the west side of the highway along the ROW fence just south of the I-

196 Interchange.

This is a large population of Wild Potato Vine growing on the west side of the highway

along the ROW fence. This entire area should be buffered by 20 feet in all directions.

Then protective fencing and signage should be installed prior to the start of any work

activities. The highway project will not impact this species as no construction work will

occur within this ESA. However, the ROW fence replacement could impact this species.

To avoid all impacts this work will need to be completed in January and February (of any

year) when the ground is frozen to protect the dormant rootstock of this species. All

work will need to be completed by hand although one small skid steer (with tracks) can

be used. No excavation of any type is permitted. The fencing needs to be removed and

replaced with minimal ground disturbance.

Area Three: I-94 on the west side of the highway along the ROW fence just south of the I-196

Interchange.

Area Four

Species: White Sage

Location: West Main Street and North Crystal Ave interchange, northeast quadrant

outside the interchange loop

This is a small patch of White Sage located just off the pavement of the off-ramp. This area will

need to be protected with a 10-foot buffer placed around all existing plants. Then it needs to be

fenced and signed throughout construction to protect the species.

Area Four: West Main Street and North Crystal Ave interchange, northeast quadrant outside the

interchange loop.

Area Five

Species: White Sage

Location: West Main Street and North Crystal Ave interchange, southeast quadrant

outside the interchange loop

This is a small patch of White Sage located just off the pavement of the on-ramp. This area will

need to be protected with a 10-foot buffer placed around all existing plants. Then it needs to be

fenced and signed throughout construction to protect the species.

At this point in time there is one small group of plants shown within the disturbed area (inside

the green line). This will need to be avoided or a MDNR Endangered Species Permit will be

required. This will cause delays to the project and should be avoided during the design process.

Area Five: West Main Street and North Crystal Ave interchange, southeast quadrant outside the

interchange loop.

Area Six:

Species: Frost Grape

Location: Along the existing I-94 corridor just north of East Empire Ave on the east side

of the highway.

This area will need to be buffered with a 15-foot perimeter and then have fencing and signage

installed. The project will not impact this species however ROW fence replacement could. The

design team proposed to gap out this small section of ROW fence replacement so there will be

no impacts at this location.

Area Six: Along the existing I-94 corridor just north of East Empire Ave on the east side of the

highway.

This report has been prepared by:

David W. Schuen on December 19, 2019

MDOT Endangered Species Specialist

425 West Ottawa Street

Lansing, Michigan, 48909

Schuend@michigan.gov

Office Phone (517) 335-4390

Appendix G

Historical – Documentation of No Adverse Effect Determination

1

Bergland, Sigrid (MDOT)

From: Bergland, Sigrid (MDOT)

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 11:08 AM

To: Grennell, Brian (MSHDA)

Cc: Kolokithas, Kathrine (MSHDA)

Subject: US-31 at I-94 Connector No Adverse Effect determination documentation (ER02-341)

Attachments: JN 130008 Historic APE map.pdf; JN 130008 map of historic properties.pdf; US-31 at I-94 Connector SHPO e-mails.pdf

Hi Brian, this is the no adverse effect determination documentation for the Re-Evaluation of the 2004 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the US-31 Connector to I-94 in Berrien County. You’ll see my write-up below for the Re-Evaluation, and it summarizes the situation. I’m copying Katie because (a) the APE for this Re-Evaluation doesn’t match up to what was surveyed back in 2002, meaning I looked at a lot of additional properties; and (b) she was very kind and looked at 3 of the properties in advance (thanks again!). I have attached our e-mail correspondence.

For some reason there is not a SHPO letter with a final determination for the Supplemental FEIS. I think what may have happened is the archaeology survey came in after the above-ground survey, and as it was no adverse effect, the follow up wasn’t a hot topic and it was simply forgotten. Whatever happened, I’m making sure this time everything is documented, and it will hopefully be for the last time as the construction will be moving forward in 2020.

Attached is first a map of the APE for the Re-Evaluation, the original FEIS study area, and the 2002 Survey area. It is pretty easy to see what wasn’t covered by the 2002 Survey. It also shows where the new project limits are extended beyond what the FEIS studied. I have this as a shape file and will be happy to provide it in that format as well. Second are maps of the 3 eligible historic properties.

I cannot attach the Re-Evaluation additional survey with intensive-level evaluations of 8 properties as the file size is too large, but I have placed it into ProjectWise (Katie has access) in the Berrien County folder. It will be available in both Word and PDF formats. The survey determined only the Point O’ Woods Golf Course (P60784) was eligible, and as noted, Katie concurred. According to the Berrien County GIS website, the Course is a total of just under 180 acres, but this does not include about 2.8 acres in the middle where the cottages are located. So everything together is just under 183 acres.

Any questions please let me know.

Re-Evaluation Write-up: The 2004 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) identified 2 National Register-eligible properties. Both were surveyed as part of the “Reconnaissance Survey of Above-Ground Resources Proposed US-31 Freeway Connection to I-94, Benton Township, Berrien County, Michigan” (Survey) completed in 2002. For this Re-Evaluation of the FEIS, MDOT Historian Sigrid Bergland reviewed all buildings within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this Re-Evaluation is different than the area covered by the 2002 Survey (see map of the original Survey area and Re-Evaluation APE). The difference between the current APE and the 2002 Survey is due to coverage of areas that were not included in the 2002 Survey and new project limits that extend along I-94BL and I-94.

2

First, all properties within the original 2002 survey area and within the Re-Evaluation APE were reviewed. In the intervening 17 years since the 2002 Survey completion, MDOT has purchased much of the right-of-way (ROW) required for the new freeway connection, but otherwise, the existing conditions remain very similar. All the buildings determined ineligible remain ineligible for the same reasons. The 2 eligible properties, the barn at 3893 Territorial Road and a migrant worker cottage at 645 Blue Creek Road, remain eligible. A number of buildings were not assessed by the 2002 Survey as they were not 50 years old. The Point O’ Woods Golf Course & Country Club at 1516 Roslin Road, opened in 1958, is the only property within the 2002 Survey area that is now eligible for listing on the National Register. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was provided with the intensive-level survey for Point O’ Woods and concurred it was National Register eligible (see map of all 3 historic properties).

Second, all buildings within the APE but outside the 2002 Survey boundaries were surveyed. The SHPO was provided with all the survey information, including intensive-level survey of 7 properties. None of the properties were eligible for listing on the National Register.

The 2004 Supplemental FEIS did not include a SHPO letter with a formal effect determination for the proposed project, but everything pointed to a no adverse effect determination. For this Re-Evaluation, the proposed project will have no adverse effect on the 3 National Register-eligible properties. The SHPO was sent documentation of the no adverse effect determination. The determination is based on no changes occurring at the barn at 3893 Territorial Road, which is located roughly 1500 feet from the I-94 freeway ROW. The area between the barn and the freeway is wooded vacant property, so any work within the ROW will have no visual or audible impact. For the migrant workers cottages, only one is still extant. The relationship between the proposed US-31 freeway and the remaining cottage matches what was described in the 2004 FEIS. The distance between the freeway ROW and the cottage is roughly 900 feet, and it is far enough away that the project effect will not be adverse. For the Point O’ Woods Golf Course & Country Club, all I-94 work will remain within the existing ROW. The Golf Course was designed and constructed at the same time the adjacent segment of I-94 was being designed and constructed, so they have always been in close proximity to each other, and work within the ROW will be no adverse effect.

Sigrid JJ Bergland Historian Environmental Section Michigan Department of Transportation 425 W. Ottawa PO Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone (517) 335-4229 Fax (517) 335-5696

US-31 at I-94 Connector in Berrien County (JN 130008) Map of Historic Properties

1

Map showing the project limits and the 3 historic properties (green stars).

US-31 at I-94 Connector in Berrien County (JN 130008) Map of Historic Properties

2

1. 1516 Roslin Rd., Point O’ Woods Golf & Country Club.

US-31 at I-94 Connector in Berrien County (JN 130008) Map of Historic Properties

3

2. 3893 Territorial Road, a barn built by the Israelite House of David.

US-31 at I-94 Connector in Berrien County (JN 130008) Map of Historic Properties

4

3. 645 Blue Creek Road, migrant worker cottage.

1

Bergland, Sigrid (MDOT)

From: Kolokithas, Kathrine (MSHDA)

Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 10:51 AM

To: Bergland, Sigrid (MDOT)

Subject: RE: US-31 at I-94 Connector, Berrien Co., 3 properties

Hi Sigrid, Writing to let you know that I concur with your recommendations of eligibility for the Bard School (P60782, not eligible), the Point O’Woods Golf Course (P60784, eligible), and the house at 2333 E. Britain Avenue (P60785, not eligible).

Do you have these in word documents? That would make it easier to get in to the database. Also, do you have the acreage for the golf course? I have included the site number from the database above so you can reference them as we continue to talk about this project!

If you need more than that, let me know!

Thank you,

Katie KolokithasSurvey Coordinator State Historic Preservation OfficeMichigan Economic Development Corporation300 N. Washington Square | Lansing, MI 48913 Office: 517.335.9840 | Desk: 517.241.6062kolokithask1@michigan.gov

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message. Thank you very much

From: Bergland, Sigrid (MDOT) <BerglandS@michigan.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 4:14 PM To: Kolokithas, Kathrine (MSHDA) <KolokithasK1@michigan.gov> Subject: RE: US-31 at I-94 Connector, Berrien Co., 3 properties

2

Thanks for the note—I totally understand you’re packing up! I wish that my timing was different . . . shockingly I don’t have control over project schedules.

� But, next week is just fine, and this is higher priority for me compared to the earlier e-mail on the survey forms. I can always backtrack on the survey forms, but this US-31 schedule is moving forward no matter what. And so it goes. Hang in there.

Sigrid JJ Bergland Historian Environmental Section Michigan Department of Transportation 425 W. Ottawa PO Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone (517) 335-4229 Fax (517) 335-5696

From: Kolokithas, Kathrine (MSHDA) <KolokithasK1@michigan.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 2:18 PM To: Bergland, Sigrid (MDOT) <BerglandS@michigan.gov> Subject: RE: US-31 at I-94 Connector, Berrien Co., 3 properties

Hi Sigrid, I got these and I’m working on reviewing them! I’ll get back to you next week. I’ll also respond to your earlier email tomorrow or next week too!

Trying to balance packing and regular work

Katie KolokithasSurvey Coordinator State Historic Preservation OfficeMichigan Economic Development Corporation300 N. Washington Square | Lansing, MI 48913 Office: 517.335.9840 | Desk: 517.241.6062kolokithask1@michigan.gov

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message. Thank you very much

From: Bergland, Sigrid (MDOT) <BerglandS@michigan.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 1:16 PM

3

To: Kolokithas, Kathrine (MSHDA) <KolokithasK1@michigan.gov> Subject: US-31 at I-94 Connector, Berrien Co., 3 properties

Katie, I mentioned this to you in person, but to reiterate, MDOT is currently doing a Re-evaluation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the US-31 at I-94 connector, and with a Re-eval, it isn’t a formal document, its purpose is to analyze changes since the EIS and to determine if any supplemental EIS documents are required. Jim doesn’t have any properties on the archaeology side, so I’m not going to do a formal letter (saving everyone time, hooray!).

Using the current process, I’ll be sending everything in a lump to both you and Brian G. as documentation of the no adverse effect determination. It is a pretty big area between what was originally surveyed, what was missed by the surveys, and what is along segments that have been added to the project. In all, though, the impacts are the same or less than what was originally studied.

In advance of it all getting tied up in a neat little bow, I’d like to see if you agree with my assessment of 3 properties, attached, within the additional survey area. The rest are all pretty clearly ineligible—these 3, 2 ineligible (one house, one school) and 1 eligible (golf course) are the most intensive of the evaluations, and I would appreciate your feedback.

Note: I didn’t do any forms for these 3 right now, but can certainly do so once the form parameters have been ironed out.

Any questions please let me know! Thanks very much.

Sigrid JJ Bergland Historian Environmental Section Michigan Department of Transportation 425 W. Ottawa PO Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone (517) 335-4229 Fax (517) 335-5696