general nav links About ACHP
Federal, State, & Tribal Programs
Training & Education
| skip specific nav links
Home Historic Preservation Programs & Officers Federal FHWA Indiana MOA Case Study
Case Study - Indiana
MOA for Construction of Section 5, Interstate 69 Evansville to Indianapolis Focused on Protecting Historic Limestone Quarries from Impacts.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is providing financial assistance to the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for construction of a new Interstate Highway (I-69) from Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana. An umbrella Programmatic Agreement was completed for the overall project, which is divided into six phases of construction. Section 5, for which a Tier 2 environmental review was recently completed, required a separate 106 consultation. Section 5 The Section 5 project provides for a divided interstate highway with limited access, primarily following the route of an existing state highway.
WHAT HISTORIC PROPERTIES WILL BE AFFECTED?
The right-of-way for the undertaking passes close to several historic districts, and will encroach on the North Clear Creek Historic Landscape District. This district is eligible under Criterion A, under the theme of industry for its importance to Indiana’s limestone mining and production. Two contributing properties, the Carl Furst Stone Company limestone quarry and the Maple Hill Mill and Quarry, are both within the area of potential effects (APE) for the Section 5 Project. In addition, three archaeological sites in the APE are considered potentially eligible for the National Register. Additional investigations will be required to determine eligibility for any site that cannot be avoided by project design.
WHO PARTICIPATED IN CONSULTATION?
Consulting parties included FHWA, INDOT, the Indiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Monroe County Historic Preservation Board of Review, Cheryl Ann Munson (Monroe County Commissioner), the City of Bloomington, and five Indian tribes (Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Delaware Nation, Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma). Twenty additional consulting parties were identified by FHWA, but were less actively involved in consultation. These parties included Bloomington Restorations, Inc, Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads (CARR), the City of Mitchell, Hoosier Environmental Council, Indiana Landmarks, and others.
WHY WAS ACHP INVOLVEMENT NEEDED FOR THIS CASE?
The undertaking involves the introduction of an interstate highway where one has not previously existed. Local residents and preservation advocates were concerned about the potential direct and indirect effects of the introduction of an interstate in the vicinity of a number of buildings (some of which are historic) and on the historic limestone quarries in the vicinity. The Monroe County Historic Preservation Board of Review objected to FHWA’s finding that the undertaking would have no adverse effect on certain specific properties. Also, several consulting parties objected to findings of eligibility on two or three properties in the APE, including the Parks-Patton-Hedrick House located adjacent to the proposed right-of-way. The ACHP elected to participate in order to assist FHWA to resolve this objection and ensure that all potentially affected historic properties were fully considered in Section 106 review.
ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION AND AGREEMENT:
At the time the ACHP became involved in Section 106 consultation, the FHWA, INDOT, and Indiana SHPO were pretty much in agreement about the effects to historic properties and appropriate mitigation. Additionally, the SHPO’s agreement with FHWA’s eligibility findings, and a discussion of the question among the consulting parties resulted in ACHP staff recommending that the question not be forwarded to the keeper. None of the properties of concern were located within the APE, and the ACHP agreed with the FHWA and SHPO on the finding that there would be no effects, even if the properties were deemed eligible.
As a result of additional consultation involving the ACHP, the a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the Section 5 Project was executed in May 2013 with the following provisions.
Updated August 18, 2013