EDITOR’S NOTE:
Most of this information is on the internet, but is very difficult to find, especially when using a cell phone so we are repeating some information for the benefit of the people that want to find more information.
We found some very interesting Environmental links from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and hazardous material requirements. This Office is responsible for red flag investigations, Phase I & II environmental site assessments (ESA), remediation of contamination discovered during construction, noise barrier assessments, air quality reviews, and the preparation/ review of NEPA documents.
Within Environmental Policy there are two units: Document Review and Site Assessment & Management. The Document Review Unit is responsible for ensuring that Indiana’s projects comply with federal and state requirements for environmental documentation, including NEPA, the state Environmental Policy Act, and associated regulations. The unit prepares and reviews Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and Categorical Exclusions.
HERE’S MORE LINKS WE FOUND YOU MIGHT FIND USEFUL . . .
- Waterway Permitting
Permitting for impacts to regulated resources (streams, wetlands, floodways, forest) for INDOT transportation projects through regulatory agencies (IDEM, USACE, IDNR, USFWS, USCG, Counties)- Summary Tables for Permit Application (this link is a download only)
- Intro to Waterway Permitting for Construction (29 page document)
- Intro to Waterway Permitting for Project Managers (46 page document)
- Preliminary Permit Determination Checklist (Revised 9/5/2024) (4 page document)
Major Factors regarding waterways that need to be considered here are:
* Will any waters designated for special protection and/or critical wetlands and critical special aquatic sites be impacted?
* Is the OHWM width of any impacted perennial stream 12 ft or greater?
* Does the cumulative proposed encapsulation exceed 150 LF?
* Does the activity change the sinuosity, flow path, velocity, cross-sectional area under the OHWM, or the slope of a stream, including relocation?
* Does the activity result in a permanent secondary effect to waters of the U.S. (e.g., dredging, excavation, damming, creation of in-channel ponds)?
* If a stream is being relocated, the activity does this Result in a net benefit to the aquatic ecosystem and stream morphology?
* Does not reduce the cross-sectional area under the OHWM?
* Is accompanied by an acceptable restoration/stabilization plan?
* Does the proposed project accelerate stream instability? - State Form 51937 Checklist: (Download only) Section 401 WQC Nationwide and Regional General Permit Notification
- State Form 51821 Checklist: (8 page document) Application for Authorization to Discharge Dredged or Fill Material to Isolated Wetlands and/or Waters of the State
- State Form 42946 Checklist: (3 page document) Permit Application for DNR Construction in a Floodway
- Permit Application Virtual Chat (This link takes a login account)
- Noise Information
- 2022 INDOT Noise Policy (12 pages)
- INDOT ESD Noise Brochure (2 pages) States that Government intervention or Abatement should occur if noise levels are 66dB or levels can increase by 15dB.
Noise Analysis Report Template (Download only)
Air Quality
- EPA’s Green Book Nonattainment Areas
- IDEM Nonattainment Status of Counties:
Here’s what this Document states:
The Clean Air Act requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) for pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. The U.S. EPA has set NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide(SO2). The Hill: Data Center’s Air Pollution Associated with Lung Issues (2026)
Water Resource Information- IDEM Wellhead Protection Program (Direct Link)
- FEMA Flood Plain Map Service Center (Direct link)
- Lake Michigan Coastal Program Guidance (20 pages)
- Ecology and Waterway Permitting Guidance and Templates (direct link)
This document states:
Regarding Habitat Mitigation:
* The resources in the impact site must be evaluated. The types, diversity, and density of vegetation, stream characteristics, and proximity to other habitats are examples of the characteristics to be identified during the evaluation. Existing ecological condition and performance standards of the mitigation site are based on the best available science that can be measured or assessed in a practicable manner. In some
instances, formal habitat evaluation may be necessary.
* The “floodway” is limited to where a river or stream has a drainage area of at least one square mile
* The mitigation guidelines will also be considered with respect to remediation under the Lakes Preservation Act. Because mitigation involving public freshwater lakes is rare and highly variable, detailed discussion of mitigation under the Lakes Preservation Act is not included in the bulletin
* The mitigation should occur along the same waterbody as the impact site, when possible, or, alternatively, at another site as close to the impact site as possible. Ideally, a mitigation site should be adjacent to existing habitat of a similar type. Factors to consider in site location include:
(1) Proximity to the impact.
(2) Easements.
(3) Suitability for protection and maintenance.
(4) Current and probable future surrounding land uses.
(5) Relationships to other natural areas.
(6) Hydrology and soils.
(7) Local fish and wildlife populations.
* Impacts to less than 50 feet of stream typically do not require in-stream mitigation. Mitigation may be needed if impacts result to important resources, such as mussel beds.
* Impacts from 50 feet to 300 feet through a single project or an accumulation of projects are typically mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Impacts over 300 feet often warrant 2:1 mitigation. Exceptions to this ratio may be requested based on the quality of the habitat and the fish and wildlife resources impacted. Mitigation may be reviewed in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).
Forested wetlands
Forested wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation that is at least 20 feet tall. Forested wetlands normally have an overstory of canopy trees, an understory consisting of trees and shrubs, and an herbaceous layer. They are often inundated with floodwater from nearby streams and may be covered by many feet of slow moving or standing water. The numerous benefits provided by forested wetlands, and time needed to successfully mitigate the habitat, warrants a mitigation ratio of 4:1.
C. Scrub-shrub wetlands
Scrub-shrub wetlands may represent a successional stage leading to a forested wetland, or they may be relatively stable communities. Scrub-shrub wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. They may include shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are small or stunted because of
environmental conditions. These types of wetlands also take time to develop, can be difficult to restore, and typically have a mitigation ratio of 3:1.
D. Emergent wetlands
Emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (water-loving plants), excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants and are frequently or continually inundated with water. Marsh, meadow, and slough are types of emergent wetlands. Since some overall loss of function and value is likely to occur through impacts to an emergent wetland, and there are temporal losses, emergent wetland mitigation is at a ratio of 2:1.
E. Woody Vegetation
These guidelines apply to designing a mitigation plan that includes woody vegetation. The Woody Riparian Vegetation List in Appendix A includes species native to Indiana that are generally suitable for mitigation. The spacing of trees is intended to optimize the use of the site by wildlife and create conditions suitable for the development of a mature riparian forest. Canopy tree spacing depends on the size of stock used. To the extent feasible, woody riparian vegetation is planted with random spacing to simulate natural stocking
F. Herbaceous Vegetation
Almost all mitigation plans require establishing a native, herbaceous layer. A native herbaceous seed mixture includes at least ten species of grasses, sedges, and wildflowers, with a balance of plant types so no single group dominates.
Protected Species Information- Gray Bat Streamlined USFWS Consultation Clearance Letter (2 pages)
- Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation INDOT Implementation (22 pages)
- USFWS Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat Section 7 Consultation and Conservative Strategy (direct link)
- Using USFWS IPaC System for Listed Bat Consultation for INDOT Projects (July 2024) (5 pages)
- INDOT Protected Species Guidance (November 2021) (37 pages)
- INDOT Bat Guano Collection Form (November 2021) (3 pages)
- INDOT Active Bat Season Tree Removal Policy (December 2020) (3 pages)
- Bat Habitat In-lieu Fee Payment Process (direct link)
- USFWS Interim Policy (2013) (For Reference Only) (6 pages)
- Bat Investigations for Field Personnel Training Access (1 page)
- Northern Long-Eared Bat Poster (direct link)
- Indiana Bat Poster
Ecological Resources:
Guidance Manual for Waters Resource Investigations (61 page pdf)
- Protected Species Information
- Identification of Bat and Bird use of INDOT Structures (2 pages)
- Swallow Nesting Stages (direct link)
- Environmental Policy Office (under Protected Species Information
- State Form 42946 Checklist: (3 pages)CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT AN
ENDANGERED SPECIES COMPLAINT
TO THE State of IndianaMORE ENVIRONMENTAL RELATED ARTICLES . . .
West Little Calumet River Wetland Restoration Project in Gary, Hammond and Hobart Indiana
The Wetlands Initiative (TWI) was awarded a $794,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s (NFWF) National Coastal Resilience Fund (NCRF) to complete this “Community-centered Final Design” phase. This project is being collaboratively facilitated by the Little Calumet River Conservation Collaborative. The West Branch of the Little Calumet River corridor covers…
Hobart Marsh Plan by the IDEM and Lake Michigan Costal Program
During our research on the effect of the Hobart Data Center on the environment, we found the Hobart Marsh Plan document worth looking into. This 21 page document was published in 2016, further emphasizes the importance of the Hobart Marsh Ecological importance. The area location is bounded by Interstate 65 to the west;…
Data Centers Have Been Known to Damage Wetlands
The Deep River wetlands around Hobart Indiana’s Deep River flows through Lake County Indiana towards Lake Michigan. Deep River wetlands refer not just to a single swamp or marsh, but to a network of wetlands, riparian corridors, floodplains, forested bottomlands, marshes, woodlands, savannas, lakes, rivers, ravines, bottomland forests and prairie habitats that are scattered…
Hobart In Lake County Indiana is Known for it’s Biodiversity and Wetland Ecosystems
Northwest Indiana—especially Lake County along the southern shore of watershed basin of Lake Michigan — contains one of the most ecologically diverse regions in the whole county. This diversity comes from the area’s unique glacial history, the mixing of dune, wetland, and prairie ecosystems, and the influence of Lake Michigan’s moderating climate. …
Research Indicates the Bird Population Could Die On Lake George (Hobart) with Data Center Operations
Lake George, in Hobart Indiana, is a vibrant stopover and a winter haven for a diverse array of water birds, from the year-round mute swans (your ~5 residents) to the seasonal influx of 36 plus trumpeter swans in winter. Sandhill cranes forage in the nearby fields and lake shallows and there’s an ever-present…
(2025) UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Gerald Ford School of Public Policy:
What Happens When Data Centers Come To Town :
Current technologies force a tradeoff between energy and water efficiency, limiting sustainable solutions. Data Centers Do Not Bring in High Paying Jobs; Data Center Tax Breaks Only Benefit Corporations; Reduces Tax Revenue for School Districts; Higher Energy Rates for Consumers; Higher Resource Consumption; And Much More.
CONTINUE READING
Susie Young Baxter, CEO, has published PanoramaNOW Magazine for 31 years. Her hobbies are Camping, Boating, Hiking, Nature, Gardening and Outdoor Activities. She is an Artist, Graphic Designer, an Avid Seamstress, Dabbles in Homemade Crafts and Landscaping. Since her Father was a Health Teacher, she also likes homeopathic Health Solutions. Since blogging started over 10 years ago, PanoramaNow has been added to Newsbreak – a national news affiliate.
