Significant transportation projects are designed and built, but that’s not the end of the story. Wetland and stream mitigation efforts, including monitoring and maintenance, may continue for a decade. This presentation will showcase INDOT mitigation sites—from their creation a decade ago to the awesome results—for projects like US-31. We’ll share timelines, photos, quality data, and challenges identified and addressed over the years

Elmore, Summer R

English

Purdue E-Pubs

             l)\c 'l1DI~ Nl~lf IJS !I I . . . ~ t•l.1YllfJIJTH '11) S()IJ'l1H IIENI) A Decade Later – US 31 Mitigation Presented by: Summer Elmore, PWS March 16, 2022 Purdue Road School 1                                             A Decade Later – US 31 Mitigation 1) Introductions 2) Outline of Presentation 3) US 31 Plymouth to South Bend Project Background 4) Stream and Wetland Impacts5) Mitigation Design and Construction6) Mitigation Monitoring and Maintenance Resultsa) River Preserveb) Roosevelt Roadc) LaPorted) Miller Road7) Gains and losses in the impact/mitigation process? 8) Lessons learned9) Credits 2                                    US 31 Project Background The US 31 Improvement Project from Plymouth to South Bend in Marshall and St. Joseph Counties in Indiana consists of a corridor which is approximately 20 miles in length, running from the southern terminus at US 30, near Plymouth, to the northern terminus at the south junction with US 20, near South Bend. The project involves upgrading US 31 to meet three (3) overall goals:  Reduce congestion and construction on US 31 by providing the capacity to meet the forecasted travel demand for 2030.  Improve safety on US 31 between US 30 and US 20. • Consistency with statewide (INDOT) and regional (MACOG) transportation plans. A Record of Decision (ROD) was published for the proposed project on June 26, 2006,which approved the Preferred Alternative as described in the FEIS. 3  South Bend Plymouth 4  South Bend Plymouth 5  South Bend Plymouth 6    CELEBRATING 1),YE~.R~ .• . Cl II\ I 11 • US 31 Project Background Project Start – 5/21/2007 Contract 1 – letting 9/4/2008 Contracts total - 22 Construction Completion – 2015* Estimated Cost - $378.3M Right of Way – 1,061 acres Table 7.l0A Right-of-\'\ a . ' . ' Land Use - (acres) Agricultural ro crop I 537 Commercial I 23 Church/Religious I 2 Herbaceous Co er I 53 Open Water I < l Pasture I 4 Transportation I 226 Residential I 82 Scrub/ hrub 37 Woodland • • Total 1061 7      US 31 Stream and Wetland Impacts Kankakee Watershed 8-digit HUC 07120001 • A total of 25.31 acres of wetland will be impacted • Stream impacts total 3,530 linear feet St. Joseph Watershed 8-digit HUC 04050001 • A total of 5.94 acres of wetland will be impacted • Stream impacts total 1,505 linear feet Individual Section 404 Permit (US Army Corps of Engineers), Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Indiana Department of Environmental Management), and Isolated Wetland Permits were required (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). 8      US 31 Stream and Wetland Impacts  Kankakee Totals  Impact(Acre) Ratio  Recommended  Mitigation  (Acre) In-Kind Forested 11.52 4 46.08 Forested Scrub shrub 1.02 3 3.06  Scrub Shrub Jurisdictional Emergent 9.01 2 18.02 Emergent  Open Water 0.31 1 0.31 Emergent Total 21.86 67.47 Forested  (Class 2) 0.14 2.5 0.35  Forested  Class 2 Forested  (Class 3) 0.34 3 1.02  Forested  Class 3  Non-Forested  (Class 1) 2.70 1 2.70  Class 2 (0.36ac  SS/2.34 EM) Isolated  Non-Forested  (Class 2)  Class 1 exemptions 0.71 -0.44 2 n/a 1.42 -0.44  Class 2 (1.00ac  SS/0.42 Site 12 EM)  Class 2 exemptions 0.00 n/a 0.00 none  Private  Pond exemptions -0.24 n/a -0.24  Sites 15, 16 Total 3.45 5.05 9      US 31 Stream and Wetland Impacts  Impact St  Joseph Totals (Acre) Ratio  Recommended  Mitigation  (Acre) In-Kind Forested 0.63 4 2.52 Forested Scrub shrub 0.47 3 1.41  Scrub Shrub Emergent 4.50 2 9.00 Emergent Jurisdictional  Open Water 0.00 1 0.00 n/a Total 5.60 12.93  Forested  (Class 2) 0.00 2.5 0.00 n/a  Forested  (Class 3) 0.00 3 0.00 n/a Isolated  Non-Forested  (Class 1) 0.34 1 0.34  Class  2 (0.22 EM/0.12 SS)  Non-Forested  (Class 2) 0.00 2 0.00 n/a  Private  Pond exemption -0.05 n/a -0.05 Site 51 Total 0.34 0.34 10    US 31 Mitigation Design • LaPorte Mitigation Site (Des. No. 0710796) – 200 acres of farmland were restored to forested, shrub, and emergent wetland in the floodplain adjacent to the Little Kankakee river in 2011. • River Preserve Mitigation Site (Des. No. 1005554) – 21 acres of forested and emergent wetland were created in the floodplain adjacent to the Elkhart River in 2011. • Roosevelt Road Mitigation Site (Des. No. 0710754) – 2,400-foot stream and riparian buffer were created in St Joseph County in 2011. • Miller Road Mitigation Site (Des. No. 0710754) – 7 acres of farmland were restored to a forested and emergent wetland in a depressional area in 2016. 11    I I I I La Porte County I ----------J---~--~ I I I I >, •• e-.. C CI:::, ll I O ul~ j I;;; .. .c "' I'! ui I~ : I I * Mitgation Sites US 31 Alignment Comity Bounda1y US 31 Mitigation Design 12    US 31 LaPorte Mitigation Located in LaPorte County at the confluence of the Kankakee River and Little Kankakee River (2011 aerial). • 39.76 acres restored as forested wetlands • 4.42 acres restored as scrub-shrub wetlands • 8.06 acres restored as emergent wetlands • Enhancement of existing farmed wetlands is 13.99 acres • Enhancement of existing upland forest is 30.77 acres • 3,830 linear feet of stream mitigation with a 26.5 acre riparian buffer • 18.13 acres upland prairie buffer • 7+ acres of wetland contingency 13     US 31 LaPorte Mitigation Before Construction 14    II II Project Boundary • Wetland Delineation Boundary Contingency Wetland Emergent Wetland ♦ Tree Plot Wetland Area ♦ Tree Plot in Riparian Area Quad in Wetland Area Quad In Riparian Area Photo Point Monitoring Well Enhancement Emergent Wetland Forested Wetland Prairie Buffer !S88] Presen-ation Area Shmb Wetland US 31 LaPorteMitigation 15    US 31 LaPorte Mitigation Construction May to July 2011 • Planted 20,445 trees and shrubs at 435 trees per acre, 80 percent bare-root and 20 percent 3-gallon container • 2,075 shrubs • 10,868 plugs • 120 acres of native seeding 16        US 31 LaPorte Mitigation 2012 – First Year of Monitoring 17        S 31 LaPorte MitigationU 2021 – 10th Year of Monitoring 18                                    • • ················································································································•·························································································· • • • US 31 LaPorte Mitigation FQI Trend Analysis for Wetland Mitigation - LaPorteFQI (with adventives) 45 40 35 30 25 20 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year Tree shrub survival Tree survivalNumber of (436 stems per acre (200 stems/ SupplementalYear Total FQI Mean C species target) acre target) planting Details 2012 26.70 2.50 117 566 417 2013 24.50 2.60 88 396 341 2014 33.40 3.30 104 457 389 yes 1000 bareroot 2015 33.90 3.00 127 366 229 2016 33.20 3.20 105 725 687 yes 889 3-gallon, 616 bareroot 2017 35.10 3.20 123 370 154 2018 36.30 3.20 130 366 162 2019 36.80 3.40 134 411 213 yes 2911 3-gallon 2020 42.20 3.40 151 462 209 yes 300 bareroot 2021 42.90 3.40 160 464 214 19 -- -I I ■ I • ■ 400 300 US 31 LaPorte Mitigation Tree Density by Plot 1000 900 800 70 700 Tree Density by Species 60 600 DENSITY (STEMS/ACRE)500 40 DENSITY (STEMS/ACRE) 50 40 30 High Low Median Tree Height Range 20 200 35 100 030 25 710 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 TREE PLOT ID 15 16 17 18 19 21 20 0 15 10 5 SPECIES NAME 0 TREE HEIGHT (FEET) TREE SPECIES 20     US 31 River Preserve Mitigation Located in Elkhart County along the Elkhart River within River Preserve County Park (2005 aerial). • • • • • • 2.52 acres created as forested wetlands 1.53 acres created as scrub-shrub wetlands 4.89 acres created as emergent wetlands Enhancement of 4.32 acres wetland 3 acres upland prairie buffer 1.33 acres of wetland contingency 21      US 31 River Preserve Mitigation Before Construction 22     [i] '!) oject Boundary Photo Points Monitoring Wells e 21 ,,. ♦ CJ Contingency Emergent CJ Contingency Forested D Emergent Wetland r:::;·:).J Emergent Wetland Enhancement D Forested\Vetland D n US 31 River Preserve Mitigation 23     US 31 River Preserve Mitigation Construction Aug. to Dec. 2011 • Planted 1,100 trees and shrubs • • • • • • at 376 trees per acre, 80 percent bare-root and 20 percent 3-gallon container 625 shrubs 10,868 plugs 13.45 acres of native seeding Spring 2012 Flood Warranty replant Construction change to install riprap at natural river overflow 24         US 31 River Preserve Mitigation 2018 – 7th Year of Monitoring 25                                   US 31 River Preserve Mitigation     • • ··························•···········································································································•·························· • • FQI Wetland Mitigation FQI (with adventives) 45 40 35 30 25 20 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Tree shrub Survival Tree survivalNumber of (436 stems/ acre (200 stems/ SupplementalYear Total FQI Mean C species target) acre target) planting Detail 2012 22.80 2.30 97 622 436 2013 28.40 3.00 87 1487 1202 yes 1400 bareroot, warranty planting 2014 32.10 3.30 96 2201 2430 2015 37.10 3.70 101 4604 4297 2016 40.20 3.00 174 2429 1845 2017 36.50 3.30 124 2242 1452 2018 33.40 3.20 109 1246 605 *green ash and cottonwoods were counted early years, not included in 2018 26     US 31 River Preserve Mitigation 5 10 15 STEMS/ACRE)                  l -->($' ~($' ~($' b'l> ~'l> ~" ·.,..'o-'l," ~o' J'" ·'o-'l," f,. '::-..v" ;._,o ~<:. ~,$' 0($' f$'0 .~'l> ~'I> ~o • e,O ~vc; o" ~e; o~.::,. ,.::,. ·O .'o,'l,<:'- 'Q"- 'o,~ ~'I> 'l,($' (;e; ~ 'o,e; ~'I> ·,$' rt- e,v <l, .::.e; Q ->' ~¢o ~,.,~- ~($' ~<.; ~" o<J '::-..v" f,.<J ->' ,'I> f,.<:'- ~" -::::.fl,+ ~" ,:::; ~e; f,.c.; 'l,($' ,.,.::,. ,§<:'-rt- c.,0 f,.<:'- 'xo~ CY ~e; ~+ ~~ ~<.; c.,0 'l><:'- CY ->'l> ~ c.,'I> 'x'-'I> ~¢o fl, ~+ c.,'I> 00000001 2 3 4 5 6 7TREE PLOT ID050100150DENSITY(SPECIES NAMEDENSITY (STEMS/ACRE) Tree Density by Plot 2500 2000 Tree Density by Species 400 350 300 250 200 14 Tree Height Range12 TREE HEIGHT (FEET) 10 8 6 4 High 2 Low Median 0 TREE SPECIES 27       US 31 River Preserve Mitigation 28 2020 aerial photo     US 31 Roosevelt Road Mitigation Located in St. Joseph County along the new US 31 Highway, connecting to Auten Ditch (2005 aerial). • 2,434 feet of stream creation • 3.07 acres riparian buffer • 1.32 acres wetland preservation • 5.67 acres upland preservation 29      US 31 Roosevelt Road Mitigation Before Construction 30     Project Boundary Tree Transect Quad C Photo Points US 31 Roosevelt Road Mitigation 31     US 31 Roosevelt Road Mitigation Construction Aug. to Dec. 2011 • Planted 950 trees and shrubs at 307 trees per acre, 80 percent bare-root and 20 percent 3-gallon container • 3.07 acres of native seeding 32                                                  US 31 Roosevelt Road Mitigation • Supplemental seeding Nov.2013 due to significant bare soiland dominance of non-nativeannual species • Identified additional wetlandimpacts than permitted, due todrainage design for US 31contract occurring after permitsubmittal • Inspection revealed thattemporary crossing overmitigation stream was notremoved 2012 – First Year of Monitoring 33         2018 – 7th Year of Monitoring US 31 Roosevelt Road Mitigation 34     US 31 Roosevelt Road Mitigation       . . . ·············· ······································································· . ···························································· FQI of Riparian BufferFQI (with adventives) 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year  Tree  shrub  densityNumber  (175  stems per acre Supplemental Year  Total FQI  Mean C  of species target) planting Detail 2012 14.10 1.80 65 334 2013 14.00 2.10 44 269  fall  supplemental seeding 2014 22.90 2.60 76 281 2015 23.80 3.00 64 348 2016 25.50 2.90 107 856 yes  375 3-gallon 2017 24.00 2.70 79 280 35                  -- - -I I 1 2 3 4TREE PLOT IDSPECIES NAME500 Tree Density by Plot 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 DENSITY (STEMS/ACRE) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 DENSITY (STEMS/ACRE) Tree Density by Species 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 TREE HEIGHT (FEET) Tree Height RangeHigh Low Median TREE SPECIES     US 31 Roosevelt Road Mitigation 36     US 31 Miller Road Mitigation Located in St. Joseph County along the new US 31 Highway (2005 aerial photo). • 1.84 acres restored as forested wetlands • 1.73 acres restored as emergent wetlands • 0.58 acre wetland enhancement • 2.43 acres upland prairie buffer 37     US 31 Miller Road Mitigation US 31 Highway construction disrupted drainage network in the remnant parcel (2011 aerial photo), flooding is visible. 38         US 31 Miller Road Mitigation 2014 – prior to restoration activities 39     Photo Point Planting Areas Deep Emergent (0.79 acres) Forested Wetland (2.81 acres) Prairie Buffer (2.60 acres) US 31 Miller Road Mitigation 40     US 31 Miller Road Mitigation Construction June to Nov. 2016 • Planted 1,152 trees and shrubs at 436 trees per acre, 80 percent bare-root and 20 percent 3-gallon container • • 18,400 native plugs planted on 0.75 acre 6.63 acres of native seeding 41         US 31 Miller Road Mitigation 2021 – 5th Year of Monitoring 42                        ······•···························•·········· . . ................. . ···································•· ····················· ······················•···· . • US 31 Miller Road Mitigation FQI (with adventives) FQI of Wetland Mitigation - Miller Road 40 35 30 25 20 15 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year Tree shrub densityNumber of (250 stems per acreYear Total FQI Mean C species target) n/a 2017 2014 17.20 2.70 56 31.70 3.30 91 914 2018 33.90 3.50 92 616 2019 30.70 3.40 81 658 2020 34.90 3.30 115 418 2021 38.50 3.50 120 374 43                           - - -0501001502002503003504001 2 3 4DENSITY(STEMS/ACRE)TRANSECT ID010203040506070Acer rubrum Betula nigra CephalanthusoccidentalisCornusamomumCornusstoloniferaLiquidambarstyracifluaPlatanusoccidentalisQuercus bicolor QuercuspalustrisSPECIES NAMEUS 31 Miller Road Mitigation Tree Density by Plot 500 450 Tree Density by Species 90 80 Tree Height RangeHigh Low Median 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 DENSITY (STEMS/ACRE) TREE HEIGHT (FEET) Acer rubrum Betula nigra Cephalanthus Cornus Cornus Liquidambar Platanus Quercus bicolor Quercus occidentalis amomum stolonifera styraciflua occidentalis palustris TREE SPECIES 44                                                                                                                                                         45US 31 Mitigation – Was the goalachieved? (No Net Loss) • Wetland impacts were 31.25 acres, mitigation created was 85.79 acres.• Some of the wetland functions are replaced on-site through the use of ditch pondsalong US 31. These ditch-ponds will trap runoff from the freeway and detain up tothe 100-year storm event and release at the 10-year rate. This will benefit waterquality by minimizing stormwater pollutants entering the waterways anddecreasing peak discharge. The ditch-ponds also function to recharge groundwater and flood storage.• The average floristic quality index of all impact wetland sites is 5.68, with thehighest value of 13.65 at Site 25 and the lowest value of 0.00 at Sites 8, 11a, 33, 56,and 40. The average number of species observed at each site is 9.25. Almost 60percent of the impact wetland habitat areas exhibited a common or frequentoccurrence of reed canary grass.45                                                                                                                               46US 31 Mitigation – Was the goalachieved? (No Net Loss) • Stream impacts include Modified Class 1 Primary Headwater Habitat (PHWH)impacts totaling 2,020 feet, QHEI poor rated impacts totaling 2,210 feet, and QHEIvery poor rated impacts totaling 805 feet.• Bridge and culvert impacts account for 52% of the stream impacts, each impact isonly 300 feet or less.• The other 48% of stream impacts are fill; however, this impact is limited exclusivelyto Modified Class 1 streams. Most Modified Class 1 streams are regulated drainsand have been straightened and dredged to enhance agriculture production andcarry water away as fast as possible.• Stream functions such as hydrologic conveyance, stream flow moderation, andwater quality treatment were accounted for locally in the freeway ditch-pondsystem.46                                                                  47US 31 Mitigation – Lessons Learned • Specification translation of “upland” at LaPorte • Monitoring Well height and staking • Losing equipment/personal items – secure it, add bright tape • Who should get a key for the water control structure? • Signs, signs, and more signs • Success criteria (measurable, realistic, timeline, cost/benefit) • Monocultures of native species – to treat or not to treat (ricecut grass, ragweed, solidago altissima, etc)? • Why did LaPorte Mitigation require so much moresupplemental plantings than the other sites? 47    48US 31 Mitigation – Credits 48    49US 31 Mitigation – Credits 49                                                           50US 31 Mitigation – Credits CHA Consulting (RW Armstrong) • Summer Elmore • David Bourff • Trevor Wieseke • Simon Davies • Chase Kimmel • Chad Costa • Angela Kattmann • Paul Killian • Robert Winebrinner • Molly Baughman • Kaitlyn Etzkorn • Hayden Casey • Mackenzie Knotts • Evan Butterfield, GISPDavey Resource Group• Jacob Bannister • Todd Gillian • Ridley Collins • Ruth Ann Sobnosky • Zachary Root • Caleb Asbury• Clay Kusbach • Collin Nemec • Josh Lindemann • Trevor Vidic • Daniel Tapia • Matt Sutton • Taylor Brown • Drew Foxx • Tucker Daniel • Allison Martin • Cameron Berry • Grant Chaddock • Ben Grubbs Davey Resource (cont)• Taylor Koutropoulos • Jake Taylor • Kevin Ptacek • Aren Flint• Heather Bobich, PWS, MLA • Jeremy Weber• Tyler Vanvlerah • Christopher Elliott • Sam Elliott• Douglas Tedrow • Zachary Salisbury• Victoria Kiraly • Daniel Talamas • Katelynn Bell, +more 50          51Thank You! Contact Info: Summer Elmore, PWS Environmental Planning Section Manager CHA Consulting, Inc selmore@chacompanies.com 317-780-7182 51 

A Decade Later – US 31 Mitigation

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4529&context=roadschool

A Decade Later – US 31 Mitigation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Purdue E-Pubs