ALLEN ROAD (C.H. 45) OVER HAMPSHIRE CREEKkdot.countyofkane.org/retiredDocs/RPT.13.0917.PDR Allen Final Combined.pdf · ALLEN ROAD (C.H. 45) OVER HAMPSHIRE CREEK. KANE COUNTY . SECTION

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REPORT Categorical Exclusion - Group II

ALLEN ROAD (C.H. 45)

OVER HAMPSHIRE CREEK

KANE COUNTY

SECTION NO. 11-00132-01-BR

PROJECT NO. BROS-0089(163)

JOB NO. P-91-085-12

September 17, 2013

Prepared for:

Kane County Division of Transportation

By: Wills Burke Kelsey Associates

St. Charles, Illinois

Printed on 9/17/2013 2 BLR 22210 (Rev. 03/05/09)

1. Location and Existing Conditions a. Location (attach location map to supplement narrative description)

The Allen Road Bridge over Hampshire Creek is located in unincorporated Kane County in Section 20 of Hampshire Township (Tier 42 North, Range 6 East) west of the Village of Hampshire. The bridge is located approximately 0.8 miles east of Walker Road (C.H. 46). See Exhibit 1 for the Location Map.

b. Description of Existing Facility - Give narrative description, including such items as width of through,

parking and turn lanes, alignment, traffic control devices, utilities, jurisdiction, maintenance responsibility, drainage, terrain and current land use (including major public facilities and local landmarks). Attach existing typical sections showing roadway widths, bridge widths, ROW widths, curb and gutter and surface types. Terrain and Land Use The use of the land surrounding the project site is agricultural except for the creek and wetlands. The terrain is flat. Description of Roadway Allen Road (C.H. 45) is functionally classified by IDOT as a Local Road (Non-Urban). The roadway is not on the National Highway System nor is it classified as a Strategic Regional Arterial route. The Kane County Division of Transportation has jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility for the roadway and bridge. The existing horizontal alignment of Allen Road within the project limits consists of two tangents with an approximately 615-foot radius curve between the tangents. The deflection angle is approximately 52° 21’ (Lt.). The superelevation rate is 8%. The maximum rollover factor is approximately 12%. The roadway is not centered about the right-of-way. The existing grade near the west end of the project is approximately +0.29%. The grade increases to approximately +0.6% near Sta. 91+50 without an apparent vertical curve. Near Sta. 104+00, the grade decreases to approximately +0.12% over a vertical curve of approximately 200 feet.

The existing cross section of Allen Road within the project limits consists of two 12-foot hot-mix asphalt traffic lanes with 2-foot aggregate shoulders on both sides of the roadway. Portions of the shoulder have grass and other vegetation. The existing cross section over the bridge consists of two 12’-0” hot-mix asphalt overlay traffic lanes (24’-0” face-to-face). There are no turn lanes or sidewalks within the project limits. See Exhibit 2 for the existing typical sections. The only entrance is a field entrance located at Sta. 101+05 (Lt.). Parking is prohibited along Allen Road. The minimum existing right-of-way, mainly prescriptive, along Allen Road is 66 feet centered about the existing and proposed roadway alignment (Exhibit 4 depicts the existing R.O.W.). On the northerly side of Allen Road, the right-of-way limits vary between 128 feet and 33 feet from the centerline placing the creek within the right-of-way from the bridge to the westerly limit of the project. Title commitments were reviewed for easements. There exists a 33-foot AT&T utility easement adjacent to the centerline of Allen Road throughout the entire limit of the project. Drainage On the northerly side of Allen Road, where it generally runs parallel to the creek, stormwater runoff is conveyed via sheet flow directly into Hampshire Creek. East of the creek crossing on the north and south sides, roadside ditches convey runoff toward the creek emptying into the creek near the bridge. A 12” CMP culvert convey stormwater underneath the field entrance at Sta. 101+05 LT. West of Sta. 90+00, along the southerly side of Allen Road, stormwater sheet is conveyed via a roadside ditch toward a cross culvert several hundred feet northwest of the project limits. The cross culvert empties into the creek on the northeast side if Allen Road. East of Sta. 90+00 and west of the bridge, along the southerly side of Allen Road, stormwater sheet flows toward the creek.


The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) rate’s Hampshire Creek as a Biologically Significant Stream (BSS). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was reviewed (See Exhibit 8). The map depicts the bridge and roadway within the floodplain where the roadway is parallel to the creek and for approximately 250 feet to the east of the bridge. The 100-year flood event of Hampshire Creek does not overtop the roadway. The crossing is located in a non-designated Floodway, Zone A.

Utilities To identify utility facilities within the project limits, a design stage request was submitted to J.U.L.I.E. which determined that the following companies have utility in the vicinity of the project limits: AT&T, ComEd, Nicor, and West Shore Pipeline. Location information including available atlases were requested from these companies. AT&T provided drawings that show that they have a buried 100 pair cable on the southerly side of Allen Road. There are two utility poles where the AT&T cable crosses the creek overhead. ComEd provided drawings that show that they have no facilities within the project limits. NICOR provided an email message indicating that they do not have facilities within the project limits. West Shore Pipeline indicated in an email message that their pipeline approximately 0.5 mile to the north. See Appendix E for correspondence received from the utilities. Exhibit 4 depicts the known utility locations. Traffic Control There are no intersections within the project limits and no traffic control will be required. Roadway Lighting There is no roadway lighting within the limits of the project. Public Transportation Facilities The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) System Map, January 2011 was reviewed and there are no PACE bus routes along Allen Road, or anywhere near, the project limits.

c. Traffic Data Current ADT: 2,650 % trucks: 10 Will 80,000 trucks be legally permitted on this route? Yes No Design Year: 2040 ADT: 7,000 DHV: 700 % trucks: 10

CMAP provided traffic projections (Refer to Appendix G).

d. Structures - Identify location within the proposed improvement of all structures on attached location map.

Attach a copy of the Structure Master Report for all structures within the project limits. Attach a copy of the Bridge Condition Report or the Bridge Deck Resurfacing approval letter for structures to be replaced, rehabilitated, or resurfaced.

The location of existing Structure No. 045-3035, is identified in Exhibit 1, Location Map. It is a single span 14-inch reinforced concrete slab superstructure with modified bridge railing supported on reinforced concrete closed abutments on spread footings. The existing bridge length is 24’-10” back-to-back of abutments. The out-to-out deck width is 28’-6” and the face-to-face of rail is 25’-1”. The bridge skew is 45° ahead right. The bridge deck has a bituminous overlay of approximately 7”. The structure was built in 1946. In 2006, steel bridge railing and terminal sections were added to the structure. The bridge, which has a sufficiency rating is 44.2, is functionally obsolete due to the intolerable deck geometry. In addition, the bridge does not provide 1-foot of freeboard to the low cord for the 30-yr storm event. Given the age of the structure, the potential for scour, and the sufficiency rating, the scope work is bridge replacement. See Master Structure Report in Appendix B. The Bridge Condition Report was approved on September 17, 2012. The Preliminary Bridge Design and Hydraulic Report was approved on March 11, 2013. See Appendix B for the Bridge Condition Report and Preliminary Bridge Design and Hydraulic Report approvals.


The proposed Structure No. 045-3181 will replace the existing structure.

e. Railroads - Identify location of all railroad crossings on attached location map and complete the following:

There are no railroad crossings within or near the project limits. f. Contiguous Sections - Describe the existing typical sections at each end of the proposed improvement,

including number of through lanes, turning lanes and parking lanes, lane widths and roadway width (f-f of curbs or e-e of shoulders).

The contiguous cross sections of Allen Road consist of two 12-foot hot-mix asphalt traffic lanes with 2-foot aggregate shoulders on both sides of the roadway. Portions of the shoulder are vegetated. Parking is prohibited along Allen Road.

2. Proposed Improvement a. Discuss the need and purpose of the project:

According to the Illinois Department of Transportation “Master Structure Report” (See Appendix B), the bridge is functionally obsolete. It has a sufficiency rating of 44.2. Because the bridge’s Sufficiency Rating is less than 50.0, the bridge is eligible for rehabilitation or replacement under the Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP). Given the age of the structure, the potential for scour, and the fact that it is functionally obsolete, complete replacement is proposed. The FHWA and IDOT confirmed that the bridge is eligible for HBP funding on January 15, 2013 (See Coordination Meeting Minutes in Appendix C). The purpose of this project is to replace this functionally obsolete bridge with a culvert that meets current design criteria and has a safe load carrying capacity.

b. What design guidelines will be used for the proposed improvement? (Check One) Rural (BLRS Manual Chapter 32) Urban (BLRS Manual Chapter 32) 3R Guidelines (BLRS Manual Chapter 33) Bicycle Guidelines (BLRS Manual Chapter 42)

Functional Classification: Arterial Collector Local Road Other

Regulatory or Posted Speed Limit: 55 mph Design Speed: 60 mph * * See Section 2(e) for the design speed of the horizontal curve. The roadway is functionally classified by IDOT as a Local Road (Non-Urban). The design criteria selected for

this project are from BLR Figure 32-2B, “Geometric Design criteria for Rural Two-Lane Local Roads (New Construction/Reconstruction)”.

c. Describe type of work to be accomplished by the improvement. Discussion should include width of through,

parking and turning lanes, traffic control devices, drainage items (including storm sewer outfalls), alignment changes, railroad work, utility adjustments, intersection improvements, side slopes and clear zones. Attach typical sections, plan and profile sheets and intersection design studies when applicable.

Refer to Exhibit 3 for the Proposed Typical Sections and Exhibit 4 for the Proposed Plan and Profile.

The existing bridge will be removed and replaced with a cast-in-place reinforced concrete twin-cell culvert, Structure No. 045-3181. The culvert will consist of two 10’x8’ cells. The proposed culvert length is 79’-6 5/8” out-to-out of headwalls and will carry two 12’-0” lanes, and 5’-0” shoulders. The culvert will be skewed 45 ahead right. Between the approximate limits of Sta. 87+00 to Sta. 106+00, the roadway will be reconstructed.


The roadway approaches will be constructed with two 12-foot traffic lanes and 5-foot hot-mix asphalt shoulders. Within the limits of the proposed guardrail, the shoulders will be 8.5-foot hot-mix asphalt (from the edge of pavement to behind the back of the guardrail posts). The proposed roadway approach pavements will be crowned at the centerline of the roadway and have cross-slopes of 2%. The shoulders will have a normal cross-slope of 4%. The proposed roadway will follow the existing horizontal alignment, which includes a 616.25-foot radius curve (PC Sta. 93+12.46; PT Sta. 98+75.52) with a length of 563.06 feet within the limits of construction. The curve will be superelevated at 8% which will require a tangent runout of 45 feet and a total transition of 225 feet on the outside of the curve. On the low side of the curve, the shoulder slope will match the roadway cross slope where the roadway cross slope exceeds 4%. On the high side of the curve, the shoulder slope will vary once the roadway cross slope exceeds 3% achieving a rollover factor of 6%. Though the maximum allowable rollover is 8%, using it would result in a flat shoulder on the high side where the roadway is fully superelevated.

The profile will be raised approximately 2.5 feet to accommodate an adequate opening as determined by the hydraulic study. To provide adequate stopping sight distance through the curve, especially for westbound traffic, it was necessary to locate the vertical curves on the tangents rather than within the curve. Otherwise, the combination of the crest vertical curves, horizontal curve, and the guardrail would cause stopping sight distance to be inadequate. At Sta. 87+00 the western limit of reconstruction, a 200-foot sag vertical curve with a VPI at Sta. 88+00 provides a transition from a +0.33% grade to a +1.06% grade. A 200-foot vertical crest curve, with the VPI at Sta. 91+50, provides a transition from a +1.06% grade to a +0.5% grade. A 200-foot vertical curve, with the VPI at Sta. 101+50, provides a transition from a +0.5% grade to a -0.16% grade. The final vertical curve, 200 feet in length, has its VPI at Sta. 105+00, provides a transition from a -0.16% grade to a +0.03% grade. Because the changes in profile grade is less than 0.6% for the last two vertical curves, it is not a requirement that a vertical curve be provided. However, it is recommended that a vertical curve be provided for the curve at VPI Sta. 101+50 to maximize sight distance. A sheet pile retaining wall is proposed on the northerly side of the roadway from approximately Sta. 91+50 to approximately Sta. 96+41. The retaining wall is necessary because of the proximity of the creek channel and the change in the roadway profile to avoid filling in portions of the channel. The maximum exposed height of the retaining wall is approximately 4’-0”. Without the retaining wall would require side slopes steeper than 1V:2H. The use of retaining wall also reduces fill in the floodplain.

The proposed drainage pattern will generally follow the existing drainage pattern. On the north side of the roadway, west of the proposed culvert, drainage will continue to sheet flow away from the embankment toward the creek. East of the culvert, runoff will be conveyed by a roadside ditch that will outlet into Hampshire Creek. On south side, west of Sta. 91+00, a ditch will convey runoff toward a cross pipe culvert near Sta. 83+65 that outlets into Hampshire Creek. Between Sta. 91+00 and the proposed culvert, runoff will sheet flow away from the roadway and ultimately into Hampshire Creek. East of the proposed culvert, runoff will be conveyed by a roadside ditch that will outlet into Hampshire Creek. The western project limit at Sta. 85+70 extends 130 feet west of the proposed limit of reconstruction at Sta. 87+00 to connect the proposed guardrail to the existing guardrail that was built in 2012 for the Hampshire Creek Streambank Stabilization Project (Section 08-00376-00-DR). This will eliminate a short gap in the guardrail and will prevent entry of an out-of-control vehicle into the creek. Also, BDE 38-6.07 indicates that guardrail gaps of less than 200 feet should be connected. Extending the project limit for these reasons was approved during the FHWA Coordination meeting (see Appendix C). Within the limits of the proposed guardrail, including wingwall locations, typical side slopes will be 1V:3H. Beyond the limits of the proposed guardrail, the typical side slopes will be 1V:4H. The limits of the guardrail were designed in accordance with guidelines presented in Chapter 38 in the BDE Manual. The design clear zone is 30 feet taken from BDE Figure 38-3.A and 45 feet on the outside of the curve applying the adjustment factor of 1.5 from BDE Figure 38-3.D. The design runout length is 250 feet taken from BDE Figure 38-6.E. The BDE values have been utilized because they have been updated to reflect the values presented in the Roadside Design Guide 4th Edition (2011). Though Fig. 38-3.A lists the clear zone range for the ADT and design speed to be between 36 feet and 44 feet, there is an allowance to utilize 30 feet


for practicality. The lengths of need for the guardrail have been calculated based on these values to protect vehicles from entering the creek where it crosses underneath the roadway. Any fixed objects to be placed along the roadside should be as close to the proposed right-of-way as possible to maximize the clear zone.

There are no intersections to improve within the project limits and no traffic control devices are proposed. No roadway lighting is proposed. No utility conflicts are anticipated, however, AT&T underground facilities are running underneath the bottom of the ditch along the South side of the Allen Road. Assuming a necessary cover depth of 30 inches, there does not seem to be a conflict throughout most of the project limits. The conflict depends on the actual buried depth and will need to be verified in the field. A portion of the AT&T cable is held aerially over Hampshire Creek by use of two poles. This portion of the AT&T facilities, along with the poles, may have to be relocated if existing cover is greatly reduced. AT&T should be consulted during Phase II engineering to verify whether or not AT&T considers this area to be conflicts. While AT&T has an easement running 33 feet south of the centerline of Allen Road, the portion of potential conflict is not within the limits of this easement. However, conflicts may exist within the limits of the easement due to coverage or other concerns. Therefore, any cost, if relocation of any portions existing outside the utility easement is necessary, will be the responsibility of the Utility; otherwise the cost will be the responsibility of the County. Refer to Appendix E for utility coordination. No other utilities are within the limits of the project.

d. Discuss items affecting improvement such as: hazardous mailbox supports, parking and truck restrictions, mail delivery from traffic lanes, justification (including warrants) for multi-way stop signs, traffic signals and other traffic control and railroad protective devices, stage construction, nearby airports, encroachments upon ROW and levels of illumination (if lighting will be provided):

No mailboxes are located within the project limits. No on-street parking is allowed on Allen Road, therefore, parking will not be provided. No trucking restrictions are proposed. The proposed project will be constructed utilizing a detour, thus it will not be staged.

Lighting is currently not provided and is not proposed.

There are no intersections within the limits of the project, therefore no traffic control is proposed.

There are no encroachments upon the right-of-way.

There are no nearby airports.

e. Identify each aspect to be constructed at less than the design guidelines and provide a clear description of required variances and appropriate justification. (BLRS Manual Section 27-7) The FHWA concurred with the following design variances at the FHWA Coordination Meeting on January 15, 2013 (See Appendix C). Radius of Horizontal Curve- The existing and proposed radius for the horizontal curve is 616.25 feet. The minimum design policy radius for a 60 mph design speed is 1210 feet with a superelevation rate of 8%. The proposed radius with the proposed superelevation rate of 8% is appropriate for a 45 mph design speed (BLR Fig. 29-3A). BLR Section 33-3.03(a) allows the use of a design speed for horizontal curves to remain in place of up to 15 mph less than the regulatory speed (55 mph) for the highway. Because providing a 1210-foot radius curve would require realignment of a substantial segment of roadway, crash history does not suggest that the existing radius is problematic, and BLR Section 33-3.03(a) allows the use of a lower design speed, this design variance is justified. Advisory speed plaques (45 mph) will need to be placed in accordance with BLR Section 39-2.08(b) and (i).


Stopping Sight Distance- The minimum stopping sight distance is less than 570 feet, the design policy minimum for the 60 mph design speed. The proposed guardrail on the inside of the curve is what limits the sight distance. Stopping sight distance in excess of 425 feet, the minimum for a design speed of 50 mph, is provided along the entire alignment. Stopping sight distance in excess of 495 feet, the minimum for a design speed of 55 mph, is provided within the project limits except for a 200-foot segment for westbound traffic between Sta. 96+50 and Sta. 94+50. Because the design speed of the horizontal curve is 45 mph, providing sight distances appropriate for 50 mph is sufficient and no need for a design variance. Shoulder Width- The proposed shoulder width is 5 feet. The standard shoulder width listed in BLR Figure 32-2B is 8 feet. The design variance for the shoulder width is proposed because the roadway, which runs parallel to the creek west of the bridge, is already in close proximity to the creek. Providing 8-foot shoulders would require a considerable amount of extra fill, especially on the high side of the superelevation and would result in more fill in the floodplain. Considering that the existing shoulder width is approximately 2 feet (0 feet at the bridge), the proposed 5-foot shoulder width is an improvement versus the existing condition. For these reasons, the use of the reduced shoulder width is justified. Clear Zone- The existing right-of-way is generally 33 feet from the centerline. The maximum clear zone distance that can be assured is approximately 21 feet. Though the surrounding land use is agricultural and unlikely to have any crash hazards within 9 feet of the right-of-way line, there are portions within the project limits where the 30-foot clear zone distance is not assured. Per BLR Manual 35-2.01, “the acquisition of additional right-of-way solely to provide the clear zone distance is not required”. Therefore, this design variance is justified.

Side Slope- Side slopes steeper than the 1V:4H (BLR Figure 32-2B) are proposed. Side slopes will be typically 1V:3H behind guardrail.

f. Current estimated cost of proposed improvement? $1,604,000 See Exhibit 7 for the Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. The cost does not include design engineering,

construction engineering, or right-of-way acquisition. The cost of utility relocation, if necessary, is included below the construction cost in Exhibit 7 and totals $45,000.

g. Analyze the need for accommodating pedestrians, bicyclists and the handicapped. When applicable, describe

the facilities to be provided including route continuity for the handicapped and marked crosswalk locations. (BLRS Manual Chapter 41)

There are no existing sidewalks or paths within the project limits and this section of Allen Road is not a corridor indicated in the Kane County Bicycle Map planned for a future bicycle trail. Therefore, there are no specific accommodations proposed for pedestrians, bicyclists and the handicapped.

h. Discuss any proposed improvements being considered in adjacent segments:

There are no other improvements proposed. 3. Crash Analysis (BLRS Manual Section 22-2.11(b)(9)) a. Summarize crash data for the past three years, including a spot map or a location map showing crash

locations when possible. Detail the types of crashes and include collision diagrams, if possible, especially at cluster sites. Give the source of this data. A search of crash reports on Allen Road between Walker Road and Harmony Road from 2008 through 2012 in the KDOT crash database resulted in five crashes within or near the project limits. Exhibit 5 depicts the approximate locations and types of crashes. All crashes have been out-of-control with two of those striking or side swiping guardrail. Two of the crashes, though beyond the limits of this project, have been included in this analysis, because they occurred in the reverse curve immediately northwest of the project site. Given that the roadway geometry on that curve is similar to the curve within the project limits, any crashes on that curve may have similar contributing factors.


b. Analyze available crash data including results of field check. Discussion should include high crash locations,

critical wet weather sites, and other crash patterns. If the data is inconclusive make a statement to that effect.

There have been five out-of-control crashes on the two reverse curves in five years. The driver in one of those crashes reported that he had sideswiped into the guardrail as a result of having to swerve to avoid an oncoming vehicle which had crossed into his lane. The frequency is high enough to suggest that the combination of the sharp radius and narrow shoulders may be contributing factors of these crashes. In addition, four of the five crashes occurred during nighttime suggests that nighttime visibility is also a factor.

c. Describe proposed countermeasures. This segment of Allen Road has a shoulder width of about 2 feet (0 feet at the bridge). Therefore, vehicles do not have a lot of time to recover from loss-of-control if the tires cross into the shoulder. Paved shoulders, 5 feet wide, are proposed throughout the project limits. The extra pavement surface will provide vehicles more space to recover from a temporary loss-of- control event. Chevron Alignment Signs will be provided for additional emphasis and guidance for the change in horizontal alignment on Allen Road. These signs will be installed on the outside of the curve in line with and at an approximate right angle to the approaching traffic. The Chevron Alignment Signs will be visible for a sufficient distance to provide the road user with adequate time to react to the change in the roadway alignment. An advanced warning Horizontal Alignment Sign, and Advisory Speed Plaque will be placed prior to the horizontal curve. The Advisory Speed Plaque shall carry the message 45 MPH, the advisory speed limit for the horizontal curve.

Reflector Markers will be added on the inside of the guardrail. Reflectors shall conform to the requirements of the Standard Specifications and will be placed based on IDOT Highway Standard 635006. For better visibility, edge striping will be thickened from the standard 4” thickness to 8” thickness. The thickened edge striping will be provided through the curve to the curve tangent points.

4. Right-of-Way a. Describe the right-of-way taking, including the total area required for each of the following categories: ROW,

permanent easements, temporary easements and temporary land use permits. Include: width of taking, number of property owners, character of land; i.e., farm, residential, commercial or publicly owned properties, anticipated effects on properties to remain and location of any improvements with respect to required right-of-way. Discuss any effects on setbacks required by zoning.

Right-of-way will be acquired so that Allen Road has a minimum 80’ right-of-way width centered about the proposed alignment. Generally, this requires 7 feet of taking on each side. The total area of right-of-way to be acquired and/or conveyed will be 2.973 acres. Temporary construction easements are required from three parcels for grading of the roadway embankment. The widths of the taking vary. The total area of temporary easements will be approximately 0.29 acres. See Exhibit 9, Summary of Right-of-Way and Easement Acquisition for P.I.N.’s, width of taking, and other details. The land use of the affected parcels is agricultural with the exception of the creek and adjacent wetlands.

b. Are any persons, businesses or farms to be displaced? Yes No


5. Prime Farmland (BLRS Manual Section 20-10) a. If the project requires more than 3 acres/mile (0.75 hectares/kilometers), 10 acres (4 hectares) for a

non-linear improvement, or the project ROW is not contiguous to the existing ROW, contact the Illinois Department of Agriculture and attach results of the coordination.

This project is not subject to the coordination with the Illinois Department of Agriculture because it is a bridge project, which is considered a non-linear project that requires less than 10 acres of right-of-way.

b. When a project requires consultation with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (Letter #85-19), fill out Form AD-1006 and submit it to the local office of NRCS. Attach the completed form, otherwise explain why the project is exempt from consultation. This project is not subject to the coordination with the Natural Resource Conservation Service because it is a bridge project, which is considered a non-linear project that requires less than 10 acres of right-of-way.

6. Floodplain Encroachment (BLRS Manual Section 20-7)

Does the proposed work cross or encroach upon a 100-year floodplain, including a regulatory floodway? Yes No If yes, summarize the location hydraulics study, regulatory floodway restrictions, the effect of any

encroachment (including a comparison between existing and proposed conditions) and the effect of over-the-road flow on the proposed transportation facility. Attach any available floodplain maps.

The project encroaches transversely on the 100-year floodplain of Hampshire Creek, see Exhibit 8 for the

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for reference. Hampshire Creek is not a regulatory floodway; therefore, the project will require an Individual Permit from IDNR-OWR. See Appendix B for IDNR-OWR Permit Coordination.

Per Article 410 of the Kane County Stormwater Ordinance, floodplain fill and compensatory storage was calculated for this project. The floodplain fill and compensatory storage volumes were calculated based on the natural water surface elevations from the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) model. Kane County requires all floodplain fill to be compensated at a 1.5:1 ratio with a minimum 1:1 ratio within the Normal to 10-year flood elevation, and a minimum 1:1 ratio within the 10-year to 100-year flood elevation. The additional 0.5:1 can be provided in either the Normal to 10-year or 10-year to 100-year floodplains. The proposed fill will be 28 CY in the Normal to 10-year flood plain and 324 CY in the 10-year to 100-year flood plain. The compensatory storage to be provided will be 2,237 CY in the Normal to 10-year flood plain and 406 CY in the 10-year to 100-year flood plain. The compensatory storage, which exceeds the Ordinance requirements, will be provided as the result of increasing the area of the structure opening.

Over-the-road flow does not occur for the existing roadway and bridge configuration for the 100-year flood and will not occur for the proposed roadway and culvert configuration as the waterway opening will be larger in the proposed condition.

The Preliminary Bridge Design and Hydraulic Report was approved on March 11, 2013. See Appendix B. 7. Phase I & II NPDES Storm Water Permit Requirements (BLRS Manual Section 7-4.01)

Will the project involve soil disturbance of 1 acre (0.4 hectares) or more? Yes No This project must comply with the Phase II NPDES Storm Water Permit requirements. A Kane County

Stormwater Permit will be required for this project, to be completed during Phase II.


8. “404” Permit (BLRS Manual Section 7-4.02)

If this project involves water regulated by Section 404, is the project covered by a nationwide permit? Yes No

It is anticipated that this project will be processed under the Regional Permit Program (RPP): Permit 3, Category 2, and Permit 7. The permitting process will be completed during Phase II.

9. Special Waste (BLRS Manual Section 20-12)

a. Following the special waste assessment screening criteria shown on Figure 20-12A of the BLRS Manual, is Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (PESA) required?

Yes No

The USEPA listing of potential, suspected, and known hazardous waste or hazardous substance sites in Illinois (i.e., the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list) has been reviewed to ascertain whether the proposed project will involve any listed site(s). As a result of this review, it has been determined that the proposed undertaking will not require any right-of-way or easement from any site included in the CERCLIS listing as of October 2012. Application of the screening criteria did not indicate potential for special waste or other regulated substance contamination warranting further investigation.

b. If PESA is required, is special waste located on property to be acquired in the name of the state or are contract plans being prepared by the state?

Yes No N/A

c. If PESA is required, did the PESA results determine that the project is a “moderate” or “high” risk for special waste?

Yes No N/A 10. Environmental Survey (BLRS Manual Section 20-2) Whenever a project involves land acquisition (including easements), any in-stream work (including drainage

structure run-around), or is located within or adjacent to historic properties listed in (or eligible for) the National Register of Historic Places, wetlands or known locations of threatened or endangered species, the Environmental Survey Request Form should be submitted early in the project development phase.

Biological resources and wetland were cleared for design approval on July 5, 2013. Cultural resources were

cleared for design approval on January 31, 2013. See the “Project Overview” Form in Appendix A for the environmental signoffs.

a. Wild and Scenic Rivers - If this project crosses or affects a river on the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

System or a river listed in the Nationwide Inventory of Rivers with potential for inclusion on the system, include coordination between the National Park Service and the Bureau of Design and Environment (BDE).

Involvement No Involvement b. Wetlands - If the proposed work involves the use of regulatory wetlands, prepare a “wetlands study”

describing the wetlands taking, avoidance minimization and any mitigation measures. Include results of coordination.

Involvement No Involvement A Wetland Assessment Report and Wetland Impact Evaluation (WIE) form was submitted to IDOT. The wetlands have been cleared for design approval. See Appendix A for the approval letter. The wetland and waters impacts can be found in Exhibit 10, Wetland and Waters Impacts.


In summary, the wetland impacts will be mitigated by the purchase of credits from an out of basin wetland bank site using a mitigation ratio of 2:1. Thus, the proposed wetland impact will require a purchase of credits prior to construction. The wetland credit purchase will be completed during Phase II.

c. Archaeological and Historical Preservation - Include copy of cultural resources clearance by BDE, SHPO or

ACHP. Involvement No Involvement See letter of concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in Appendix A. d. Threatened or Endangered Species - Include copy of biological resources memorandum or signoff by BDE. Involvement No Involvement e. Stream Modification and Wildlife Impacts - Include copies of any correspondence between BDE and IDOC or

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Attach copies of any additional coordination between local agency and IDOC or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service whenever required as a result of biological review by BDE. Address any proposed mitigation measures.

Involvement No Involvement 11. Section 4(f) Lands (BLRS Manual Section 20-3) Does this project require any right-of-way, including temporary construction easements, from a publicly owned

park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl, or any historic site in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places?

Yes No

The project does not require right-of-way or easement acquisition from any such site.

12. Air Quality (BLRS Manual Section 20-11) Check One:

a. This project is in an attainment area. Projects within a portion of a nonattainment area for which the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for

Planning (CMAP) is the MPO. This project is included in the 2030 RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) and in the Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP), endorsed by the CMAP, the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization. The 2030 RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) was found to conform by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on 10/20/2003.

The TIP was found to conform by the FHWA on 10/16/2006 and by the FTA on 10/16/2006. The TIP Number for this project is 09-09-0072.

b. Mobile Source Air Toxics (See BDE PM 52-06) This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the exiting

facility, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions relative to the no-build alternative. As such, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special Mobile Source Air Toxic concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs.

Moreover, EPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSATs to decline significantly over

the next 20 years. Even after accounting for a 64 percent increase in VMT, FHWA predicts MSATs will decline in the range of 57 to 87 percent, from 2000 to 2020, based on regulations now in effect, even with a


projected 64 percent increase in VMT. This will both reduce the background level of MSATs as well as the possibility of even minor MSAT emissions from this project.

c. Construction-related Particulate Matter Demolition and construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive dust and equipment-related

particulate emissions in and around the project area. (Equipment-related particulate emissions are usually insignificant when equipment is well maintained.) The potential air quality impacts will be short-term, occurring only when demolition and construction work is in progress and local conditions are appropriate.

The potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is associated with building demolition, ground clearing, site

preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, on-site movement of equipment, and transportation of materials. The potential is greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction activity, and during high wind conditions.

The Department’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction include provisions on dust

control. Under these provisions, dust and airborne dirt generated by construction activities will be controlled through dust control procedures or a specific dust control plan, when warranted. The contractor and the Department will meet to review the nature and extent of dust-generating activities and will cooperatively develop specific types of control techniques appropriate to the specific situation. Techniques that may warrant consideration include measures such as minimizing track-out of soil onto nearby publicly-traveled roads, reducing speed on unpaved roads, covering haul vehicles, and applying chemical dust suppressants or water to exposed surfaces, particularly those on which construction vehicles travel. With the application of appropriate measures to limit dust emissions during construction, this project will not cause any significant, short-term particulate matter air quality impacts.

d. Project-level Hot Spot Analysis. Check One:

This project is in an attainment area and does not require a hot spot analysis.

This project does not meet the definition of a project of air quality concern as defined in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) due to low ADT and low percentage of diesel trucks. It has been determined that the project will not cause or contribute to any new localized PM2.5 or PM10 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any PM2.5 or PM10 violations. The USEPA has determined that such projects meet the Clean Air Act’s requirement without any further Hot-Spot analysis.

This project is in a non-attainment or maintenance area and is a project of air quality concern.

Therefore, a qualitative hot spot analysis is required (see Attachment). e. COSIM Are through lanes or auxiliary turn lanes being added with this project?

Yes No No COSIM analysis is required. 13. Noise (BLRS Manual Section 20-6) If this project involves a new alignment, additional lanes, or involves a significant alignment change, attach a

traffic noise analysis.

There are no proposed changes in the horizontal alignment and there are no proposed capacity improvements. Therefore, no traffic noise analysis has been performed.


14. Maintenance of Traffic (BLRS Manual Section 22-2.11(b)(9)) Discuss how vehicle traffic and pedestrians will be accommodated during construction, including the effect of

any road closure and sidewalk removal. If the road will be closed, include information concerning location of alternate routes and their ability to handle the additional traffic (street width, number of traffic lanes, structural adequacy, etc.)

The bridge and roadway will be closed and traffic detoured. The detour route concept has been approved by IDOT, Bureau of Traffic on January 4, 2013. See Exhibit 6, Detour Plan and Appendix D for correspondence.

15. Public Involvement (BLRS Manual Chapter 21) a. Summarize informational meetings, council or board meetings, media coverage and personal contact with

public.

There have been no informational meetings, council or board meetings, media or coverage regarding this project. As recommended during the January 15, 2013 FHWA Coordination Meeting, letters describing the project, the proposed amount of right-of-way and easements, and an overview of the appraisal and negotiation process were sent to the two affected property owners. Letters were sent by the Kane County Division of Transportation (KDOT) on April 25, 2013 to the following: Pump, Richard A & Marlene L, 48W733 Allen Road, Hampshire IL (PIN 01-20-200-003) Pump, Richard A & Marlene L, 48W733 Allen Road, Hampshire IL (PIN 01-20-200-006) Gehringer, Albert J, 133 Maxwell Circle, Hampshire IL (PIN 01-20-200-004) Mr. Gehringer responded verbally and had no comments. See Appendix F for copies of the correspondence and their responses.

b. Has any opposition been expressed toward the improvement?

Yes No c. How are public hearing requirements being fulfilled?

As directed in the January 15, 2013 FHWA Coordination Meeting, an offer of a public meeting was published in the Elgin Courier News on April 5 and April 12, 2013. See Appendix F for a copy of the Certificate of Publication and newspaper advertisement. There were no comments received or requests for a public hearing; therefore, a public hearing was not required.

16. Coordination: LA-IDOT-FHWA (BLRS Manual Section 22-1.02) The initial coordination meeting was held on January 15, 2013. Meeting minutes are included in Appendix C. 17. Other Coordination Attach results.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) was contacted about the crest stage gage mounted on the northwest wingwall of the existing Allen Road bridge. After the USGS was finished using the gages for a modeling project, they transferred ownership of the gages to the Kane County Department of Environmental and Building Management. Kane County indicated that the gages are not currently used and proposed the following actions be taken regarding reconstruction:

• No advanced notice will be needed before removing the crest stage gage.


• An email once it is removed would be helpful.

• The contractor shall remove the gage.

• The contractor shall survey the gage, reinstall the gage, and notify Kane County via email once it is reinstalled.

Refer to Appendix G for USGS and Kane County’s correspondence pertaining to the crest stage gage.

18. Summary of Commitments

1. The Joint Permit (USACE) will be completed during Phase II. This will require coordination with the Kane-

DuPage Soil and Water Conservation District. 2. A Kane County Stormwater Permit will be completed during Phase II. 3. Wetlands impacts will be mitigated off site and credits purchased from a wetland mitigation bank in Phase

II. 4. Tree to be protected and saved (See Exhibit 4). 5. IDOT detour coordination (See Appendix D).

SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS Exhibits Exhibit 1 Location Map Exhibit 2 Existing Typical Sections Exhibit 3 Proposed Typical Sections Exhibit 4 Proposed Plan and Profile Exhibit 5 Crash Locations and Diagram Exhibit 6 Proposed Detour Map Exhibit 7 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Exhibit 8 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Exhibit 9 Summary of Right-of-Way and Easement Acquisition Exhibit 10 Wetland and Waters Impacts Appendix A- Environmental Coordination

Project Overview Form ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A-1 Biological Resources Review Memorandum --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-2 Wetlands Resource Concurrence Memorandum --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-4 Cultural Resource Concurrence Memorandum ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-6

Appendix B- Structural and Hydraulic Approvals

Master Structure Report ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B-1 Bridge Condition Report Approval Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B-3 Preliminary Bridge Design Approval Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B-4 IDNR-OWR Floodway Construction Permit Coordination ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B-5

Appendix C- FHWA Coordination

FHWA Meeting Minutes, January 15, 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C-1 Appendix D- Detour Coordination

IDOT Approval of Proposed Detour Route ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D-1 Appendix E- Utility Coordination

J.U.L.I.E. Design Stage Request ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-1 AT&T Response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-3 ComEd Response ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-7 NICOR Response ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-9 West Shore Pipe Line Response ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-11

Appendix F- Public Involvement

Offer of Public Meeting, Certificate of Publication -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F-1 Letters to Property Owners------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F-2

Appendix G- Other Agency Coordination CMAP- Traffic Projection --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G-1 USGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G-2 Kane Division of Environmental Resources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G-4

EXHIBIT 1

LOCATION MAP

1 mi.0 mi.

(630) 443-7755

St. Charles, Illinois 60174

116 West Main Street, Suite 201

PR. S.N.: 045-3181

EX. S.N.: 045-3035

LOCATION

PROJECT

T41N

T42NR7E

R6E

R7E

R6E

T41N

T42N

SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY

ALLEN ROAD OVER HAMPSHIRE CREEK

aunderwager

Text Box

C.H. 45 - Local Road

(630) 443-7755



EX.

R.O.W.

~

12’12’

SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


33’VARIES 128’ TO 110’

EX.

R.O.W.

A BC

WESTBOUND LANE EASTBOUND LANE

VARIES 3’ TO 0’ VARIES 3’ TO 0’

D

STA. 85+70 TO STA. 96+68

EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION

SEE NOTE 1 SEE NOTE 1

VARIES 35’ TO 60’

EXHIBIT 2-1

EXISTING TYPICAL SECTIONS

ZERO WIDTH AT THE BRIDGE.

SHOULDERS, TYPICALLY BETWEEN 2’ AND 3’, TRANSITION TO3.

GUARDRAIL BEGINS AT STA. 94+95 LT. AND STA. 94+40 RT.2.

ELEVATION, 8%, BEGINS NEAR STA. 93+60.

NORMAL CROWN, 2%, ENDS NEAR STA. 91+35. FULL SUPER-1.

NOTES:

HAMPSHIRE CREEK

EXISTING GUARDRAIL

EXISTING SHOULDER, AGGREGATE

EXISTING PAVEMENT, HOT-MIX ASPHALT

EXISTING GROUNDA

B

C

D

LEGEND

(630) 443-7755



SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


~

12’

WESTBOUND LANE

12’

EASTBOUND LANE

8%

8%

EXHIBIT 2-2

(BRIDGE DECK)

STA. 96+68 TO STA. 96+96



EXISTING GUARDRAIL



EXISTING GROUNDA

B

C

D

LEGEND

(630) 443-7755



SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


SEE NOTE 1 SEE NOTE 1

~

BCDA

12’

WESTBOUND LANE

12’

EASTBOUND LANE

VARIES 3’ TO 0’VARIES 3’ TO 0’

33’33’

EX.

R.O.W.

EX.

R.O.W.

SHOULDERS AT THE BRIDGE.

2’ AND 3’, BUT TRANSITION TO NO

SHOULDERS ARE TYPICALLY BETWEEN3.

AND STA. 99+00 RT.

GUARDRAIL ENDS AT STA. 99+45 LT.2.

2%, BEGINS NEAR STA. 100+00.

NEAR STA. 98+25. NORMAL CROWN,

FULL SUPER ELEVATION, 8%, ENDS1.

NOTES:

STA. 96+96 TO STA. 106+50


EX.

UTIL.

EA

SE.

17’

EXHIBIT 2-3


EXISTING GUARDRAIL



EXISTING GROUNDA

B

C

D

LEGEND

(630) 443-7755



SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


EXHIBIT 3-1

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS

4%6%

4% 6%

1:4

1:4

6%4% 4% 6%

1:4

1:4

2% 2%

1:3

& VAR.

~

33’VARIES 128’ TO 110’

PR

OP.

R.O.W.

PR

OP.

TE

MP

EA

SE.

7’ 0’ TO 5’VARIES

12’

WESTBOUND LANE EASTBOUND LANE

12’

5’

5’7.5’

2’-3"

1’

2’

2’

STA. 91+50 LT / STA. 92+50 RT

STA. 87+00 TO

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION

6" 1’

SUPERELEVATION TRANSITIONS.

DEPICTED. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE FOR LIMITS OF

SUPERELEVATION TRANSITION IN THIS SEGMENT IS NOT2.

INTO EXISTING SEGMENT OF GUARDRAIL.

GUARDRAIL SHALL EXTEND WESTERLY TO STA. 85+70 TO TIE1.

NOTE:

A

B

C

D

LEGEND

PROPOSED SHOULDER, HOT-MIX ASPHALT

PROPOSED SHOULDER, AGGREGATE

PROPOSED PAVEMENT, HOT-MIX ASPHALT

PROPOSED GROUND

EXISTING GROUND

E

F

G

H

HAMPSHIRE CREEK

A B E F CG D

STEEL SHEET PILE RETAINING WALL

GUARDRAIL (HWY. STD. 630001-10)

AGGREGATE SUBGRADE IMPROVEMENT

EX.

R.O.W.

&

TE

LEP

HO

NE

EA

SE

ME

NT

EX.

PR

ES

CRIP

TIV

E

R.O.W.

(630) 443-7755



SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


EXHIBIT 3-2


8%

2% 6%

1:3

33’

PR

OP.

R.O.W.

PR

OP.

TE

MP

EA

SE.

EASTBOUND LANE

12’12’

WESTBOUND LANE5’

8.5’

VARIES 110’ TO 89’

7.5’

~

2’-3"

1’

8%

8%

5’

7’ TO 33’ VARIES

0’ AND 5’ VARIES

6"




NOTE:

A

B

C

D

LEGEND




PROPOSED GROUND

EXISTING GROUND

E

F

G

H

A

H E F CG B

HAMPSHIRE CREEK STA. 92+50 RT TO 96+90 RT

STA. 91+50 LT TO 96+45 LT





EX.

R.O.W.

&

TE

LEP

HO

NE

EA

SE

ME

NT

EX.

PR

ES

CRIP

TIV

E

R.O.W.

(630) 443-7755



SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


EXHIBIT 3-3


A

B

C

D

LEGEND




PROPOSED GROUND

EXISTING GROUND

E

F

G

H

F

~

8%

G

8%

C

EASTBOUND LANE

8.5’

8%

2%6%

12’

5’WESTBOUND LANE

8.5’ 12’

5’

6"

6"

B E

1:2.5 & V

AR.

STA. 96+85

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONDEPTH IS 4’ OR LESS.

630101-09 WHERE POST BURY

TO STRUCTURE PER HWY. STD.

GUARDRAIL SHALL BE ATTACHED

NOTE:




(630) 443-7755



SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


EXHIBIT 3-4


VARIES

1:3

6%

1:3

1:3

1:3

VAR.

VARIES

~

33’

PR

OP.

R.O.W.

PR

OP.

TE

MP

EA

SE.

EASTBOUND LANE

12’12’

WESTBOUND LANE

7.5’ 1’

5’5’

7.5’1’

VARIES

VARIES

STA. 99+50

STA. 96+80 LT / STA. 97+20 RT TO


VARIES 89’ TO 33’ 22’ TO 82’ VARIES

5’

6"

6"

2. MAXIMUM ROLLOVER FACTOR: 6%.

TRANSITIONS.

SEE PLAN AND PROFILE FOR LIMITS OF SUPERELEVATION1.

NOTE:

A

B

C

D

LEGEND




PROPOSED GROUND

EXISTING GROUND

E

F

G

H STEEL SHEET PILE RETAINING WALL



EX.

R.O.W.

2’

A B F C

&

TE

LEP

HO

NE

EA

SE

ME

NT

EX.

PR

ES

CRIP

TIV

E

R.O.W.

2’

E

(630) 443-7755



SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


EXHIBIT 3-5


2%4%

4%

1:4

1:4

2%4% 6%

1:4

1:4

EASTBOUND LANE

12’12’

WESTBOUND LANE

2’2’

PR

OP.

R.O.W.

PR

OP.

TE

MP

EA

SE.

~

5’ 5’

2’ 2’

33’33’

PR

OP.

TE

MP

EA

SE.

PR

OP.

R.O.W.



5’ TO 0’ VARIES

5’ TO 0’ VARIES

STA. 99+50 TO STA. 106+00


A

B

C

D

LEGEND




PROPOSED GROUND

EXISTING GROUND

E

F

G

H

A B D F C

1’ (TYP.)




2. DITCH TRANSITION GRADING EXTENDS TO STA. 106+50




NOTE:

EX.

PR

ES

CRIP

TIV

E

R.O.W.

&

TE

LEP

HO

NE

EA

SE

ME

NT

EX.

PR

ES

CRIP

TIV

E

R.O.W.

1

1

87+00

MATCH LINE STA. 99+

00 (SEE SHEET 2 OF 2)

99+00

40.0’ RT

+25.033.0’ RT

+25.0

40.0’ RT

+12.5

55.0’ LT

+75.5

55.0’ LT

+77.3

40.0’ RT

+34.1

114.6’ RT

+62.9

55.0’ RT

+99.3

FIL

E

NA

ME

W:\

Projects\2011\110156

Allen

PhI\

Cadd\

Civil\

Dgn\

Exhibits\

PD

R_

Exhibit04_Plan

And

Profile_1.d

gn

=

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATE OF ILLINOIS

$USER$USER NAME =

PLOT SCALE = $SCALE$

PLOT DATE = 5/3/2013 DATE

DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED(630) 443-7755



SCALE:

SECTION COUNTYTOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.

KANE

KMA

KMA / NDP

SBP

11-00132-01-BR

STA. TO STA.1"=50’ SHEET NO. OF SHEETS2

PLAN AND PROFILE2

EXHIBIT 4

ALLEN ROAD OVER HAMPSHIRE CREEK45

C.H.

85+00 90+00

PC

Sta 93

+12.4

6

95+

00

PT Sta 98

+75.52

PI Sta 96+15.3

6

PI STA. = 96+15.36

R = 616.25’

T = 302.90’

L = 563.06’

E = 70.42’

S.E. RUN = 225’

P.C. STA. = 93+12.46

P.T. STA. = 98+75.52

e = 8%

T.R. = 45’

PROP. CURVE 1

EXIST. R.O.W.

ALLEN ROAD 12’

GRAPHIC SCALE

50 0 50 100

FEET

12’

110’

33’

128’

HMA PAVEMENT

HMA SHOULDER

AGG. SHOULDER

LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP.)

EXIST. BANK STABILIZATION (TYP.)

67’

89’

STA. 91+50

BEGIN SHEET PILE

STA. 87+00

BEGIN RECONSTRUCTION

55’

55’

5’

7’

5’

5’

8.5’

HAMPSHIRE CREEK

STA. 85+70

PROJECT LIMIT

PUMP, RICHARD A & MARLENE L

01-20-200-003

STATION 96+85.00

10’X8’ BOX CULVERT

PROP. TWIN-CELL

SAVED

TREE TO BE

TYPE 1 SPECIAL (TANGENT) (TYP)

GUARDRAIL TERMINAL

55.0’ RT

+75.5

40’

PROP. R.O.W.

PROP. EASE.


01-20-200-005

PER STD. 630001-10

GUARDRAIL, TYPE A

WETLAND IMPACTS

‘

‘

TELEPHONE EASEMENT

PRESCRIPTIVE R.O.W. AND

EXIST.

87+00 88+00 89+00 90+00 91+00 92+00 93+00 94+00 95+00 96+00 97+00 98+00 99+00

835

840

845

850

855

860

865

853.1

0

853.2

2

853.4

0

853.5

8

853.7

1

853.7

9

853.9

0

854.0

2

854.1

3

854.2

8

854.5

2

854.9

0

855.1

9

855.5

4

855.8

9

856.0

5

856.2

5

856.4

7

856.6

7

856.8

8

857.2

4

857.7

7

858.0

7

858.2

7

858.4

4

858.7

5

870

875

EL

EV

ATIO

N 853.5

5

+0.33% +1.06%

EL

EV

ATIO

N 857.2

5

+1.06% +0.50%

853.2

2

853.4

3

853.7

3

854.1

2

854.6

1

855.1

4

855.6

6

856.1

9

856.6

9

857.1

1

857.4

7

857.7

5

858.0

0

858.2

5

858.5

0

858.7

5

859.0

0

859.2

5

859.5

0

859.7

5

860.0

0

860.2

5

860.5

0

860.7

5

861.0

0

VPI

ST

A.

91+50

+00

EL.

853.2

2

200’ V.C.

+00

EL.

854.6

1

VPI

ST

A.

88

+00

+50

EL.

856.1

9

200’ V.C.

+50

EL.

857.7

5

853.2

2

~

CU

LV

ER

T

ST

ATIO

N 96

+85

PGL

LINEEXISTING GROUND

PROFILE (RT)PROP. DITCH

PROFILE (LT)PROP. DITCH

PR

OJ

EC

T

LI

MIT

ST

A.

85

+70.0

0


LOW SIDE

NORMAL CROWN

HIGH SIDE

NORMAL CROWN

+43

+68

FULL S.E. = 8.0%

225’

S.E.TRANS.

135’

S.E.TRANS.

+33

FULL S.E. = 8.0%

+20

135’

S.E.TRANS.

225’

S.E.TRANS.

835

840

845

850

855

860

865

870

875

MATC

H LIN

E STA. 99+

00 (S

EE S

HEET 1

OF 2)

2

2

99+00 106+00

55.0’ RT

+50.640.0’ RT

+00.0

33.0’ RT

+50.0

40.0’ RT

+50.0

40.0’ LT

+50.0

33.0’ LT

+50.0

40.0’ LT

+00.055.0’ LT

+50.0

FIL

E

NA

ME

W:\


Allen

PhI\

Cadd\

Civil\

Dgn\

Exhibits\

PD

R_

Exhibit04_Plan

And

Profile_2.d

gn

=


STATE OF ILLINOIS

$USER$USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED(630) 443-7755



SCALE:

SECTION COUNTYTOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.

KANE

KMA

KMA / NDP

SBP

11-00132-01-BR

STA. TO STA.1"=50’ SHEET NO. OF SHEETS2

PLAN AND PROFILE2

EXHIBIT 4

ALLEN ROAD OVER HAMPSHIRE CREEK45

C.H.

100+00 105+00 110+00ALLEN ROAD

GRAPHIC SCALE

50 0 50 100

FEET

12’

12’

5’

5’

55’

55’

33’

33’

10’

H.M.A. PAVEMENT

AGG. SHOULDER

STA. 106+00

END RECONSTRUCTION

40’

40’

5’

5’

GEHRINGER, ALBERT J

01-20-200-004

F.E.

16’

5’

PROP. EASE.

PROP. R.O.W.


01-20-200-006

STA. 106+50

PROJECT LIMIT

+05.0

EXIST. PRESCRIPTIVE R.O.W.

PROP. R.O.W.

TELEPHONE EASEMENT

PRESCIPTIVE R.O.W. AND

EXIST.

99+00 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00

858.7

5

859.1

1

859.4

1

859.6

1

859.8

5

860.1

8

860.3

8

860.5

6

860.7

9

860.9

8

861.1

8

861.3

9

861.5

5

861.6

5

861.7

3

861.7

9

861.8

6

EL

EV

ATIO

N 862.2

5

+0.50% -0.16%

EL

EV

ATIO

N 861.7

0

-0.16% +0.03%

200.00’ V.C.

861.0

0

861.2

5

861.5

0

861.7

5

861.9

6

862.0

9

862.1

3

862.0

9

862.0

1

861.9

4

861.8

6

861.7

9

861.7

5

861.7

3

861.7

3

VPI

ST

A.

101+50

+50

EL.

861.7

5

+50

EL.

862.0

9

200’ V.C. VPI

ST

A.

105

+00

+00

EL.

861.8

6

+00

EL.

861.7

3

PGL

LINEEXISTING GROUND


PROFILE (LT)PROP. DITCH

EL.

861.7

3

L.P.

+63.9

8

PR

OJ

EC

T

LI

MIT

ST

A.

106

+50.0

0

LOW SIDE

NORMAL CROWN

HIGH SIDE

NORMAL CROWN

+45

+55

225’

S.E.TRANS.

135’

S.E.TRANS.

F.E.

ST

A.

100

+05

LT.

(630) 443-7755


116 West Main Street, Suite 201 0 mi. 1/4 mi.

X

RIGHT ANGLE

LEFT TURN

ANIMAL

REAR END

INJURY(IES)

LEGEND

LOSS-OF-CONTROL

(SAME DIRECTION)

SIDE SWIPE

FIXED OBJECT

(OPPOSITE DIRECTION)

SIDE SWIPE

ALLEN ROAD

WALKER R

OA

D

SEC. 11-00132-01-BR

KANE COUNTY


(W/ GUARDRAIL)

NIGHT (DUI)

4/27/07

(W/ GUARDRAIL)

8/30/07

(MOTORCYCLE)

NIGHT

6/21/08

SNOW/ICE

NIGHT

12/13/08

NIGHT

2/20/11

CRASH LOCATIONS AND DIAGRAM

EXHIBIT 5

STATE STREET

ILLINOIS ROUTE 72FREN

CH

RO

AD

N.T.S.

DETOUR

DETOUR

M4-9R

M4-9L

DETOUR

AHEADW20-2

M4-10L

M4-10R

M3-4

M3-2 24"x12"

24"x12"

30"x24"

30"x24"

48"x18"

48"x18"

21"x15"

21"x15"

21"x15"

D3

CLOSED W20-3

ROAD

500 FT

CLOSED W20-3

ROAD

AHEAD

48"x30"R11-2

24"x18"M4-8A

SCHEDULE OF DETOUR SIGNS

SIGN NO. SIGN MUTCD CODE SIZE

48"x48"

48"x48"

48"x48"

DETOUR ROUTE

TYPE A FLASHER

T I S

C M S

TYPE A FLASHERTYPE III BARRICADE WITH

CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN

TEMPORARY INFORMATION SIGN

LEGEND TYPICAL DETOUR SIGN ASSEMBLIES

DETOUREND

DETOUR

DETOUR

DETOUR

M3-2 OR M3-4

D3

M3-2 OR M3-4

D3

"DETOUR SIGN ASSEMBLY"

"ADVANCE DETOUR SIGN ASSEMBLY"

(ORANGE)48"|x12"

(NUMBER DENOTES TYPE)

DETOUR SIGN ASSEMBLY

WITH STREET NAME AND DIRECTION PLATES

(NUMBER DENOTES TYPE)W20 SERIES SIGN

(NUMBER DENOTES TYPE)OTHER SIGN

16

16

15

6

16

15

1

6

16

14

6

16

10

60"x30"R11-3BBRIDGE OUT

X MILES AHEAD

LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY

ROAD

CLOSED

1917

6

16

15

6

16

15

7

16

13

7

16

9

1

7

16

13

7

16

9

6

16

13

6

16

9

7

16

10

7

16

14

7

16

15

6

16

10

18

46

16

14

7

16

15

1

7

4

6

16

15

1

6

TYPICAL DETOUR SIGN SPACING

DETOUR

AHEADCLOSED

ROAD

AHEAD

DETOUR

500 FT DETOUR

500’ 500’ 200’ 300’

1

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

7

16

15

48"x30"R11-2*19BRIDGE

OUT

16

6

16

EAST

EAST

ALLEN RD

ALLEN RD

EAST EAST

ALLEN RDALLEN RD

ALLEN RDALLEN RDALLEN RD

ALLEN RD

EAST

WEST

HAMPSHIRE CREEK

C M S

T I S

C M S

T I S PR

AIRIE

EIRI

AR

P

DLIW

20

18

11

6

16

15

813

12

7

16

15

6

16

15

16

6

7

16

10

7

16

14

6

16

9

6

16

137

16

15

7

16

8

16

1 3

19

17

13, 14, OR 15DETOUR

20 ROAD CLOSED

TO

THRU TRAFFIC

DETOUR

DETOUR

DETOUR

TEMP. INFORMATION SIGN

AND REQUIREMENTS)

(SEE STD. TC-22 FOR DETAILS

ENDS XXX XXXX

BEGINS XXX XXXX

ROAD CLOSED

M4-9L, M4-9R, OR 15

DETOUR

60"x30"R11-4

-

-

-

HA

RM

ON

Y R

OA

D (C.H. 36)

ALLEN ROAD (C.H. 45)

WALKER R

OA

D (C.H. 46)

7

16

157

16

15

1

7

167

16

137

16

9

1

7

16

7

16

10

7

16

14

6

16

15

7

16

15

6

16

15

7

16

15

6

16

15

7

16

15

4 3

4 3

3

4


STATE OF ILLINOIS

FIL

E

NA

ME

W:\


Allen

PhI\

Cadd\

Civil\

Dgn\

Exhibits\

PD

R_

Exhibit06_

Detour

Report.d

gn

KMAUSER NAME =

PLOT SCALE = N.T.S.

PLOT DATE = 5/2/2013

=

DATE

DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED(630) 443-7755



SHEET NO. OF SHEETS11SCALE:N.T.S.

EXHIBIT 6 - DETOUR PLAN

STA. TO STA._ _

KMA

KMA

SBP

5/2/2013


SECTION COUNTY

ILLINOIS FED. AID PROJECT

TOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.C.H.

_

1 145 11-00132-01-BR KANE

_CONTRACT NO.

1FED. ROAD DIST. NO. _

CODE DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST

20101100 TREE TRUNK PROTECTION EACH 1 $100 $10020200100 EARTH EXCAVATION CU YD 1,680 $20 $33,60020201200 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CU YD 2,123 $20 $42,46020300100 CHANNEL EXCAVATION CU YD 1,000 $20 $20,00020400800 FURNISHED EXCAVATION CU YD 5,922 $20 $118,44021001000 GEOTECHNICAL FABRIC FOR GROUND STABILIZATION SQ YD 1,500 $2 $3,00021101625 TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 6" SQ YD 10,627 $7 $74,38925000310 SEEDING, CLASS 4 ACRE 2.25 $2,300 $5,17525000314 SEEDING, CLASS 4B ACRE 2.25 $2,300 $5,17525000320 SEEDING, CLASS 5 ACRE 2.25 $2,300 $5,17525000324 SEEDING, CLASS 5B ACRE 2.25 $2,300 $5,17525100630 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SQ YD 10,627 $2 $21,25428000400 PERIMETER EROSION BARRIER FOOT 3,800 $4 $15,20028000500 INLET AND PIPE PROTECTION EACH 2 $150 $30028100107 STONE RIPRAP, CLASS A4 SQ YD 136 $55 $7,48028200200 FILTER FABRIC SQ YD 136 $2 $27231101810 SUBBASE GRANULAR MATERIAL, TYPE B 12" SQ YD 105 $15 $1,57535501316 HOT-MIX ASPHALT BASE COURSE, 8" SQ YD 93 $35 $3,25540603080 HOT-MIX ASPHALT BINDER COURSE, IL-19.0, N50 TON 2,450 $65 $159,25040603335 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE, MIX "D", N50 TON 623 $75 $46,68844000100 PAVEMENT REMOVAL SQ YD 5,067 $13 $65,87144000200 DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVAL SQ YD 55 $11 $60548101500 AGGREGATE SHOULDERS, TYPE B 6" SQ YD 984 $14 $13,77648203021 HOT-MIX ASPHALT SHOULDERS, 6" SQ YD 1,707 $35 $59,74550100300 REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES NO. 1 EACH 1 $50,000 $50,00050105220 PIPE CULVERT REMOVAL FOOT 31 $12 $37250200450 REMOVAL & DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL FOR STRUCTURES CU YD 151 $24 $3,62450800205 REINFORCEMENT BARS, EPOXY COATED POUND 54,600 $1.50 $81,90051500100 NAME PLATES EACH 1 $400 $40054003000 CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS CU YD 309 $650 $201,04554213669 PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE FLARED END SECTIONS 24" EACH 2 $770 $1,54054247130 GRATING FOR CONCRETE FLARED END SECTION 24" EACH 2 $425 $850542A0229 PIPE CULVERTS, CLASS A, TYPE A 24" FOOT 38 $65 $2,47063000001 STEEL PLATE BEAM GUARDRAIL, TYPE A, 6 FOOT POSTS FOOT 1,900 $21 $39,90063100167 TRAFFIC BARRIER TERMINAL, TYPE 1 (SPECIAL) TANGENT EACH 3 $2,400 $7,20063200310 GUARDRAIL REMOVAL FOOT 855 $6 $5,13064200116 SHOULDER RUMBLE STRIPS, 16 INCH FOOT 1,155 $6 $6,93067100100 MOBILIZATION (3% of TOTAL) L SUM 1 $44,490 $44,49078009004 MODIFIED URETHANE PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 4" FOOT 7,600 $1 $7,60078201000 TERMINAL MARKER - DIRECT APPLIED EACH 3 $35 $105X0326806 WASHOUT BASIN L SUM 1 $3,000 $3,000X2070304 POROUS GRANULAR EMBANKMENT, SPECIAL CU YD 150 $45 $6,750X2130010 EXPLORATION TRENCH, SPECIAL FOOT 100 $10 $1,000X5121800 PERMANENT STEEL SHEET PILING SQ FT 6,173 $40 $246,920X7010216 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, (SPECIAL) L SUM 1 $15,000 $15,000Z0001050 AGGREGATE SUBGRADE 12" SQ YD 7,183 $13 $93,379Z0013798 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT L SUM 1 $12,000 $12,000

Sub-Total $1,527,465Undeveloped Design Details (5%) $76,373

TOTAL (Rounded) $1,604,000

ESTIMATE OF UTILITY RELOCATION COSTRelocate AT&T Copper Wire FOOT 900 $50 $45,000

UTILITY RELOCATION TOTAL $45,000

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLY CONSTRUCTION COSTS


SECTION 11-00132-01-BR

EXHIBIT 7

EXHIBIT 8

hferstl

Typewritten Text

Alle

n R

oad

over

Ham

pshi

re C

reek

Kan

e C

ount

ySe

c. 1

1-01

32-0

1-B

R

EXH

IBIT

9SU

MM

ARY

OF

RIG

HT-

OF-

WAY

AN

D E

ASEM

ENT

ACQ

UIS

ITIO

N

PAR

CEL

OW

NER

PAR

CEL

MAI

LIN

GU

SE /

BLD

GPU

RPO

SEW

IDTH

NU

MB

ERAD

DR

ESS

ADD

RES

SO

F TA

KIN

G(P

IN)

FTSF

ACR

ESSF

ACR

ESSF

ACR

ES

01-2

0-20

0-00

3Pu

mp,

Ric

hard

A. S

R

and

Mar

lene

L.

Tr

uste

es

48W

733

Alle

n R

oad

Ham

pshi

re, I

L 60

140

Farm

Acco

mda

tion

of

Dit c

hes

and

grad

ing

Tem

p. E

ase:

5'

Pr

escr

. RO

W: 3

3'Pr

op. R

OW

: 7' t

o 11

4'4,

952

0.11

438

,726

0.88

914

,657

0.33

6

01-2

0-20

0-00

4G

ehrin

ger,

Albe

rt J.

133

Max

wel

l Circ

l e

H

amps

hire

, IL

6014

0Fa

rmAc

com

datio

n of

D

itche

s an

d gr

adin

g

Tem

p. E

ase:

5'

Pr

escr

. RO

W: 3

3'Pr

op. R

OW

: 7' t

o 11

4'4,

585

0.10

528

,387

0.65

212

,738

0.29

2

01-2

0-20

0-00

5Pu

mp,

Ric

hard

A. S

R

and

Mar

lene

L.

Tr

uste

es

48W

733

Alle

n R

oad

Ham

pshi

re, I

L 60

140

Farm

Acco

mda

tion

of

Dit c

hes

and

grad

ing

Tem

p. E

ase:

0'

Pr

escr

. RO

W: 0

'Pr

op. R

OW

: 0'

00.

000

00.

000

00.

000

01-2

0-20

0-00

6Pu

mp,

Ric

hard

A. S

R

and

Mar

lene

L.

Tr

uste

es

48W

733

Alle

n R

oad

Ham

pshi

re, I

L 60

140

Farm

Acco

mda

tion

of

Dit c

hes

and

grad

ing

Tem

p. E

ase:

5'

Pr

escr

. RO

W: 3

3'Pr

op. R

OW

: 7' t

o 22

'3,

074

0.07

122

,863

0.52

512

,130

0.27

8

TOTA

L12

,611

0.29

089

,976

2.06

639

,525

0.90

7TO

TAL

RIG

HT-

OF-

WAY

TAK

E2.

973

TEM

POR

ARY

PRO

POSE

DR

IGH

T-O

F-W

AYR

IGH

T-O

F-W

AYB

Y O

CC

UPA

TIO

NEA

SEM

ENT

EXHIBIT 9

FIL

E

NA

ME

W:\


Allen

PhI\

Cadd\

Civil\

Dgn\

Exhibits\

PD

R_

Exhibit10_

WIE.d

gn

=


STATE OF ILLINOIS

$USER$USER NAME =



DESIGNED

CHECKED

DRAWN

-

-

-

-

REVISED -

-

-

-

REVISED

REVISED

REVISED(630) 443-7755



SCALE:

SECTION COUNTYTOTAL

SHEETS

SHEET

NO.

KANE

KMA

KMA / NDP

SBP

11-00132-01-BR

SHEET NO. OF SHEETS2

45

C.H.

1

1

87+00 99+001"=20’ STA. TO STA.

1

EXHIBIT 1012’

12’

5’

5’

7.5’

7.5’

55’

55’

5’

HAMPSHIRE CREEK

PROJECT COMPLETED IN 2012BANK STABILIZATION

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

PROP. R.O.W.

PROP. R.O.W.

TEMP. EASE.

ESR SEQUENCE NO. 17272

WETLAND AND WATERS IMPACTS


WETLAND LIMIT

WATERS EDGE

WATERS EDGE

LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION

LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION

ASPHALT ROADWAY

ESR LIMIT

ESR LIMIT

100’

150’

SUMMARY

PROPOSED PERMANENT WATERS IMPACTS:

PROPOSED PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACTS:

10x8 BOX CULVERTS

PROPOSED DOUBLE CELL

992 SQ. FT. (0.023 AC.)

PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT:

2,224 SQ. FT. 0.051 AC.)

PROPOSED PERM. WATERS IMPACT:

2,224 SQ. FT. (0.051 AC.)

3,479 SQ. FT. (0.080 AC.)

2,487 SQ. FT. (0.057 AC.)

PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT:

94

95+00

96

97

98

99 100+00

847848

848

848

849

849

849

849

850

850

850

850

850

850

851

851

851

851

851

851

852

852

852

852

852

852

852

852

853

853

853

853

853

854

854

854

854

854

854

855

855

855

855

855

855

855

855

855

856

856

856

856

856

856

856

856

857

857

857

857

857

857

857

858

858

858

858

859

APPENDIX A

ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION

Project OverviewSubmittal Date: 05/18/2012 Sequence No: 17272

Kane Co. DOT

Contract #: 91-085-12

Route: Allen Road Marked: CH 45

Street: Allen Road Section: 11-00132-01-BR

District: 1

Counties: Kane

Municipality(ies): West of Hampshire 0.4

FromTo (At): Touchdown to touchdown (approx. 1000 ft. from bridge in both directions

Quadrangle: Hampshire Township-Range-Section: T42N R6E, Section 20

Project Length: km miles

Anticipated Design Appr.: 04/01/2013

0.6437

Anticipated Processing: CE

Funding: Federal State TBP MFT Local Non-MFT

Consultant:

PTB No.: Item No.: PTB Date:

Requesting Agency: Local

Job No.: P-

Prequal Level:

Project No:

Project Phase

Comments:

Project Initiation Ltr

to FHWANotice of

IntentNotice of Availability

Draft Final

Public Info Meeting(s)

1st 2ndPublic

Hearing

Draft ROD/FONSI

Approved

Survey Target Date:

Entered ByCleared for DACleared for Letting

Biological Wetlands Cultural Special WasteBDE BDE BDE

7/9/2013

7/9/2013

7/9/2013

7/9/2013

1/31/2013

1/31/2013

Sequence No: 17272

ResubmittalResubmittalCleared

91-085-12


Section: 11-00132-01-BR Job No.: P-

A-1

A-2

A-3

Wetlands

Owner: V3

Name: Blackberry Creek

Location:Size:Types:Quad:Basin:

ProcessingComments:

Processing

Bank:

Mitigation Basin: In Basin

Mitigation Site: Off-Site

Programmatic Action Individual Compensation Plan Required:

Wetland Impacts Evaluation

404 Individual Permit Required:

Accumulation:

Submittal Date: 12/28/2012

Summarize briefly why there are no practicable alternatives to the use of the wetland(s):

The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 44.2, and is structurally deficient and functionally obsolete due to the intolerable deck geometry. The bridge does not provide 1-foot of freeboard to the low cord for the 30-year event.

Does the project have wetland impacts? Yes Type: Permanent

Wetland mitigation is being proposed: wetland bank site Reviewed

Briefly describe the measures considered to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the wetlands:

Construction will be limited to the proposed Right-of-Way. Soil erosion and sediment control measures will be in place and maintained during construction to minimize wetland impacts off-site.

Submitted By:

Initiated Due DateResults

Received01/24/2013

WetlandPresent

Yes

DistrictNotified

WIERequested

WIEReceived01/24/2013

Resp toDistrict

07/05/2013

CoordComplete

Yes

Initial Survey and WIEWetlandImpacts

Yes

Comments: Received REVISED WIE 4-15-13 but did not update PMA. Updated PMA and addressed changes via memo on 7-9-13. Notified on 7-3-13 by Sal Danmole that mitigation will occur at an out-of-basin mitigation bank. (JMV)

Addendum No:

Clearances: Bio 7/9/2013Cultural: 1/31/2013 SW

Cleared for Design Apprvl: 07/09/2013

Cleared for Letting: 07/09/2013 Mitigation Completed:

Submittal Date: 05/18/2012 Sequence No: 17272

Kane Co. DOT

Contract #:

Project Length: km miles

91-085-12

District: 1

Counties: Kane

Route: Allen Road Marked: CH 45

Street: Allen Road Section: 11-00132-01-BR

Municipality(ies): West of Hampshire 0.6437 0.4


Quadrangle: Hampshire Township-Range-Section: T42N R6E, Section 20

Anticipated Design Apprvl: 04/01/2013

Requesting Agency: Local

Job No.: P-

Project No:

Mitigation: Yes

Survey Target Date:

A-4

Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Required

Mitigation Site Suitability Study:

Permit(s)

ReceivedCOE

NotifiedIDNR

NotifiedDistrictNotified

Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5

Monitoring ReportsMonitoring

MonitoringAgency:

MonitoringComments:

Construction Begin Date:Construction Complete Date:Tasked Date:Monitoring Begin Date:Monitoring Complete Date:

Preparer:

Agency

Report Sentand District

NotifiedAgency

ResponseDistrictNotified

PlanReceived Agency

Report Sentand District

NotifiedAgency

ResponseDistrictNotified

IDNRUSFWSCOE

IDNRUSFWSCOE

Conceptual Final

PlanReceived

Preparer:

Wetland Compensation Plan:

SiteNo.

Type T&E NaturePreserve

NaturalArea

EssentialHabitat

Size(acres)

Acres ofImpact Ratio

Acres ofCompensation

1 0.21

18.3

.080 2.0 .160

Basin Quadrangle FQIWet Mead No No No No

Hampshire07090006

Describe the work: Fill

2 0.34

NA

.051 .0 .000

Basin Quadrangle FQIOpen Water No No No No

Hampshire07090006

Describe the work: Fill

.131 .160Total

Memo Date: 07/09/2013

Memo: This office received the Wetland Assessment prepared by Wills Burke Kelsey Associates and the revised Wetland Impact Evaluation (WIE) form submitted for this project on April 15, 2013 and finds the information to be sufficient with regards to the Interagency Wetlands Policy Act of 1989 (IWPA) and department policy.

Based on the information submitted for this project, there will be 0.08 acre of permanent impacts by fill as a result of this project. (Wetland Site 1).

Wetland Site 1 is a wet meadow located along the banks of Hampshire Creek. This wetland has an FQI of 18.3, indicating fair natural quality. An anticipated 0.08 acre of this 0.21 acre wetland will be impacted.

According to the information submitted for this project, mitigation has been proposed to occur at Blackberry Creek Mitigation Bank. This office concurs with that form of mitigation. Blackberry Creek Mitigation Bank is considered out-of-basin, therefore, a higher mitigation ratio will be applied. A mitigation ratio of 2.0:1.0 will be applied to the 0.08 acre of permanent wetland impacts, thus requiring a total of 0.16 acre of credit to be purchased. Please note that credits must be purchased prior to construction according to the Implementing Rules of the IWPA.

With regards to wetlands, this project is clear for letting.

Memo By: Janel Veile

Memo Date: 12/28/2012

Memo: Site 1 is Wetland 1 and Site 2 is Waters 1 as referenced in the Wetland Assessment Report.

Memo By: Natalie Paver

A-5

A-6

A-7

APPENDIX B

STRUCTURAL AND HYDRAULIC APPROVALS

Illin

ois

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Stru

ctur

es In

form

atio

n M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

Mas

ter S

truc

ture

Rep

ort (

S-10

7)

Dat

e:4/

3/20

13

Stru

ctur

e N

umbe

r:04

5-30

35D

istr

ict:

1

Page

1

Inve

ntor

y D

ata

Faci

lity

Car

ried:

ALLE

N R

OAD

Feat

ure

Cro

ssed

:H

AM

PS

HIR

E C

RE

EK

Brid

ge R

emar

ks:

Brid

ge S

tatu

s:1

Stat

us R

emar

ks:

Mai

nt C

ount

y:04

5M

aint

Res

pons

ibili

ty:

03Se

rvic

e O

n/U

nder

:1

5

Brid

ge N

ame:

Loca

tion:

1.0

MI W

HA

MP

SH

IRE

Stat

usD

ate:

04/1

988

KA

NE

OPE

N -

NO

RES

TRIC

T

CO

UN

TY/

HIG

HW

AYW

ATE

RW

AY

Rep

ortin

g Ag

ency

:3

CO

UN

TYM

ain

Span

Mat

l/Typ

e:1

CO

NC

RET

E01

SLA

B/

Mai

nt T

owns

hip:

10H

AM

PS

HIR

E

Nbr

Of M

ain

Span

s:1

Nbr

Of A

ppro

ach

Span

s:0

***A

ppro

ache

s***

Nea

r #1

Mat

l/Typ

e:N

ear #

2 M

atl/T

ype:

Far #

1 M

atl/T

ype:

Far #

2 M

atl/T

ype:

/ / / /M

edia

n W

idth

/Typ

e:0

Ft.

0/

Non

eG

uard

rail

Type

L/R

:0

Non

e0

Non

e/

Toll

Faci

lity

Indi

cato

r:0

No

Toll

Latit

ude:

4206

23.4

8Lo

ngitu

de:

8833

16.9

2D

MS

DM

S

Stru

ctur

e Le

ngth

:26

.0AA

SHTO

Brid

ge L

engt

h:23

.3Le

ngth

of L

ong

Span

:24

.6B

ridge

Roa

dway

Wid

th:

25.1

Appr

Roa

dway

Wid

th:

26.0

Dec

k W

idth

:28

.2

Dec

k St

ruct

ure

Type

:A

CIP

CO

N N

RM

LLY

FOR

MD

eck

Stru

ctur

e Th

ickn

ess:

14.0

Suffi

cien

cy R

atin

g:44

.2Ye

sR

epla

ced

By:

045-

3181

Rep

lace

s:La

st U

pdat

e D

ate:

07/0

5/20

12

HB

P El

igib

le:

Para

llel S

truc

ture

:N

one

Mul

ti-Le

vel S

truc

ture

Nbr

:Sk

ew D

irect

ion:

Rig

ht45

D0

M0

SSk

ew A

ngle

:St

ruct

ure

Flar

ed:

No

No

His

toric

al S

igni

fican

ce:

Bor

der B

ridge

Sta

te:

Bdr

Sta

te S

N:

Bdr

Sta

te %

Res

pons

ibili

ty:

0St

ruct

ural

Ste

el W

t:0

Rat

ed B

y:3

Rat

e M

etho

d:5

Con

sulta

ntN

O R

ATI

NG

AN

ALY

SIS

In

vent

ory

Rat

ing:

0.33

0O

pera

ting

Rat

ing:

0.55

5(1

1)(1

9)D

esig

n Lo

ad:

05H

15

Load

Rat

ing

Dat

e:03

/24/

2010

Side

wal

k W

idth

Rig

ht:

0.0

Side

wal

k W

idth

Lef

t:0.

0

Side

wal

ks U

nder

Str

uctu

re:

0

Key

Rou

te O

n D

ata

Non

e

Nav

igat

ion

Vert

Cle

ar:

0N

avig

atio

n H

oriz

Cle

ar:

0N

avig

atio

n C

ontr

ol:

0N

o

Cul

vert

Fill

Dep

th:

0.0

Num

ber C

ulve

rt C

ells

:0

Cul

vert

Cel

l Wid

th:

0.00

Cul

vert

Cel

l Hei

ght:

0.00

Cul

vert

Ope

ning

Are

a:0.

0

0Ft

0In

Cro

ssin

g 1

Nbr

:R

R L

ater

al U

nder

clea

r:0.

0R

R V

ertic

al U

nder

clea

r:

Cro

ssin

g 1

Nbr

:**

*Rai

lroad

Cro

ssin

g In

fo**

*

Func

tiona

l Cla

ss:

726

50C

urr A

ADT

Yr/C

ount

:20

10Es

t Tru

ck P

erce

ntag

e:10

Num

ber O

f Lan

es:

2O

ne O

r Tw

o W

ay:

2H

oriz

onta

l:25

.80.

0M

in V

ertic

al:

9900

41 1 1

Des

igna

ted

Truc

k R

te:

NO

NE

Byp

ass

Leng

th:

5

Urb

an A

rea:

Non

e

Nat

l. H

wy

Syst

em:

Not

on

NH

S

*** M

arke

d R

oute

On

Dat

a **

*D

esig

natio

n

** C

LEAR

ANC

ES **

Sou

th/E

ast

N

orth

/Wes

t

Key

Rou

te N

br:

CO

UN

TY H

IGH

WAY

Two-

Way

0045

Segm

ent:

Mai

n R

oute

Appu

rten

ance

s00

000

Stat

ion:

1.84

00

Inve

ntor

y C

ount

y:04

5To

wns

hip/

Roa

d D

ist

10

3381

Futu

re A

ADT

Yr/C

nt:

2032

KA

NE

Spec

ial S

yste

ms:

No

11Ft

In00

FtIn

HA

MP

SH

IRE

Link

ed:

Y

Inve

ntor

y D

irect

ion:

Mun

icip

ality

0000

Max

Rdw

y W

idth

:23

.8

10 F

t Ver

tical

:99

0011

FtIn

00Ft

In

/ /

Mai

nlin

eM

ainl

ine

Mai

nlin

e

FAS,

CH

, or T

R's

Unm

arke

d

Key

Rou

te U

nder

Dat

a

Cur

r AAD

T Yr

/Cou

nt:

Est T

ruck

Per

cent

age:

Num

ber O

f Lan

es:

One

Or T

wo

Way

:

Des

igna

ted

Truc

k R

te:

Byp

ass

Leng

th:

Nat

l. H

wy

Syst

em:

Segm

ent:

Stat

ion:

Futu

re A

ADT

Yr/C

nt:

Spec

ial S

yste

ms:

Link

ed:

Inve

ntor

y D

irect

ion:

/ /

Sou

th/E

ast

N

orth

/Wes

t

FtIn

FtIn

FtIn

FtIn

Late

ral:

FtFt

Kin

dN

umbe

rR

oute

#1:

Rou

te #

2:R

oute

#3:

*** M

arke

d R

oute

Und

er D

ata

***

Des

igna

tion

Kin

dN

umbe

r

Subs

truc

ture

Mat

eria

l:5N

FO:

YSD

:N

B-1

Illin

ois

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Stru

ctur

es In

form

atio

n M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

Mas

ter S

truc

ture

Rep

ort (

S-10

7)

Dat

e:4/

3/20

13

Stru

ctur

e N

umbe

r:04

5-30

35D

istr

ict:

1

Page

2

Dat

a R

elat

ed to

Insp

ectio

n In

form

atio

n**

*Insp

ectio

n In

terv

als

***

Rou

tine

NB

IS:

24Fr

actu

re C

ritic

al:

0U

nder

wat

er:

0Sp

ecia

l:N

MO

SM

OS

MO

SB

ridge

Pos

ting

Leve

l:L

Lega

l Loa

d O

nly

One

Tru

ck A

t A T

ime:

0Si

ngle

Uni

t Veh

icle

s:LL

Com

bina

tion

Type

3S-

1:C

ombi

natio

n Ty

pe 3

S-2:

*** M

axim

um A

llow

able

Pos

ting

Lim

its **

*

Tons

Tons

Tons

Insp

ectio

n/A

ppra

isal

Info

rmat

ion

SATI

SFA

CTO

RY

CO

ND

ITIO

N -

MIN

OR

DET

ERIO

RAT

ION

Insp

ectio

n D

ate:

02/2

0/20

12D

eck:

6

Stru

ctur

al E

valu

atio

n:3

Dec

k G

eom

etry

:2

Supe

rstr

uctu

re:

6

Und

ercl

eara

nce-

Vert

/Lat

.:N

Subs

truc

ture

:7

Cha

nnel

and

Pro

tect

ion:

5

Wat

erw

ay A

dequ

acy:

7

Cul

vert

:N

Appr

oach

Roa

dway

Alig

n:6

SATI

SFA

CTO

RY

CO

ND

ITIO

N -

MIN

OR

DET

ERIO

RAT

ION

GO

OD

CO

ND

ITIO

N -

SO

ME

MIN

OR

PR

OB

LEM

S

FAIR

CO

ND

ITIO

N -

MIN

OR

SEC

TIO

N L

OSS

, CR

ACK

SN

OT

AP

PLI

CA

BLE

BE

TTE

R T

HA

N P

RE

SE

NT

MIN

IMU

M C

RIT

ERIA

INTO

LER

AB

LE -

HIG

H P

RIO

RIT

Y FO

R C

OR

RE

CTI

ON

INTO

LER

AB

LE -

HIG

H P

RIO

RIT

Y FO

R R

EP

LAC

EM

EN

TN

OT

AP

PLI

CA

BLE

EQ

UAL

TO

PR

ESE

NT

MIN

IMU

M C

RIT

ER

IA

Pier

Nav

ig P

rote

ctio

n:N

N/A

Insp

ectio

n Te

mpe

ratu

re:

32D

eg. F

One

Tru

ck A

t A T

ime:

0

Sing

le U

nit V

ehic

les:

Com

bina

tion

Type

3S-

1:C

ombi

natio

n Ty

pe 3

S-2:

** A

ctua

l Pos

ted

Lim

its **

Tons

Tons

Tons

Util

ities

Atta

ched

:0

STR

EAM

GA

UG

E C

ON

/AN

/AN N

Dec

k W

earin

g Su

rf:

G

Tota

l Dec

k Th

ick:

21.0

Last

Pai

nt D

ate:

Insp

by

(Nam

e):

BIT

UM

INO

US

OV

ER

LAY

FN

ON

EJ

NO

NE

Insp

ectio

n R

emar

ks:

MO

DER

ATE

ER

OSI

ON

OF

THE

SW C

HAN

NE

L BA

NK

W/M

INO

R L

OC

AL S

CO

UR

AT

SW

STR

UC

TUR

E C

OR

NE

R. S

PA

LL W

/EX

PO

SED

RE

INFO

RC

EM

EN

T N

EAR

MID

SPA

N A

LON

G

NO

RTH

BO

TTO

M E

DG

E O

F S

LAB

.

Dec

k M

embr

ane:

Dec

k Pr

otec

tion:

Und

erw

ater

Insp

ectio

n/A

ppra

isal

Info

rmat

ion

Insp

ectio

n D

ate:

Appr

aisa

l Rat

ing:

Insp

ecte

d B

y:In

spec

tion

Met

hod:

Insp

ectio

n C

ateg

ory:

Tem

pera

ture

:

Insp

ectio

n R

emar

ks:

Scou

r Crit

ical

Info

rmat

ion

09/2

3/19

965

BAn

alys

is D

ate:

Rat

ing:

Eval

uatio

n M

etho

d:An

alys

is B

y:C

ALC

ULA

TED

SC

OU

R A

CC

EP

TAB

LER

atio

nal A

naly

sis

Wat

erw

ay In

form

atio

nFl

ood

Des

ign

Freq

uenc

y:Fl

ood

Des

ign

Q (C

FS):

Floo

d D

esig

n N

at H

W E

:Fl

ood

Des

Ope

n Pr

op:

Dra

inag

e Ar

ea:

Floo

d B

ase

Q (C

FS):

Floo

d B

ase

Nat

H W

E:

YRS

SF

Acr

e

Frac

ture

Crit

ical

Mem

bers

:M

icro

film

Dat

a R

ecor

ded:

No

No

Mis

cella

neou

s

Doe

sn't

Mee

t Sta

ndar

dsA

ccep

tabl

eA

ccep

tabl

eA

ccep

tabl

eB

ridge

Rai

ling

Appr

aisa

l:2

Appr

oach

Gua

rdra

il:33

3

Insp

by

(Nam

e):

C. S

CH

RAM

M /

HLR

2

Insp

ecte

d B

y:

Last

Pai

nt T

ype:

1946

SA

45

132B

1-M

FT96

+85

0000

0000

0000

003

Con

stru

ctio

n In

form

atio

nYe

ar:

Orig

inal

Rec

onst

ruct

edR

oute

:Se

ctio

n N

br:

Con

trac

t Nbr

:Fe

d Ai

d Pr

#:

Bui

lt B

y:

Sta:

Sta:

CO

UN

TY A

GEN

CY

Prop

osed

Impr

ovem

ent

Brid

ge C

ost:

Tota

l Pro

ject

Cos

t:

*** C

osts

in D

olla

rs **

*

Roa

dway

Cos

t:

Cos

t Est

imat

e Ye

ar:

Type

of W

ork:

Don

e B

y:

Leng

th:

Rem

arks

:

B-2

To: John A. Fortmann, District 1 Attn: Christopher J. Holt

From: D. Carl Puzey By: Timothy A. Armbrecht

Subject: BRIDGE CONDITION REPORT APPROVAL

Date: September 17, 2012

Kane County SN 045-3035 Section 11-00132-01-BR

C.H. 45 (Allen Road) over Hampshire Creek

The Bridge Condition Report, dated August 2012, for the above-designated bridge replacement project is hereby approved.

Approval of the project is contingent on approval by others of the proposed geometry, obtaining environmental signoffs, and any required historic structure coordination and other approvals required by statutes or the policies of the Department.

One copy of the approved report is being returned and we will retain one copy for our files. If you have any questions, contact Matt Humke at 217/782-5929 or [email protected].

MDH/kkt0453035-20120918

Memorandum

B-3

mailto:[email protected]

B-4

B-5

APPENDIX C

FHWA COORDINATION

Meeting Minutes Wills Burke Kelsey Associates, Ltd. 116 West Main Street Consulting Engineers Suite 201

St. Charles, IL 60174

1

Project Allen Road over Hampshire Creek Meeting Date January 15, 2013 Client/Agency Kane County Division of Transportation Meeting Time 10:30 A.M. IDOT Section # 11-00132-01-BR Meeting Location IDOT D1 IDOT Job # P-91-085-12 Meeting Organizer Andy Underwager IDOT Project # BROS-0089(163) Meeting Topic IDOT/FHWA Coord. WBK Project # R03.110156.00000 1st Presentation

Purpose of Meeting: Concurrence on scope, geometry, termini, and CE II processing

1. Introductions/ Attendees: See Attendance Roster

2. General comments made by Andy Underwager (WBK):

Existing structure is located on Allen Road approximately 1.0 mile west of the Village ofHampshire in unincorporated Kane County. Allen Road is designated County Highway 45 andhas a functional classification of Local Road, (Rural).

Bridge originally built in 1946 and is not a historic structure. The sufficiency ratio is 44.2, making it eligible for replacement under the HBP. The BCR has been approved (9/17/2012) Traffic to be detoured during construction. State Route 72 proposed. Detour report submitted

and approved. Further coordination in Phase II. ESR submitted 5/18/2012; Cultural and Biological Clearances received. Waiting on Wetland

Clearance. Compensatory storage is required and anticipated to be provided by ditches constructed along

the roadway. Right of way and/or easements needed from 3 different parcels. Hampshire Creek is a non-regulatory floodway, Zone A. A formal permit is required from IDNR-

OWR. WBK noted that during 2012 a streambank stabilization project was completed west of the

crossing to stabilize the shoulder from eroding due to the meandering creek adjacent to theroadway/shoulder.

3. Discussion:

Scope:

The scope of work is bridge removal and replacement with profile adjustment. The BCR has beensubmitted and approved for bridge replacement.

The new structure will consist of a twin-cell (10’x8’) cast-in-place reinforced concrete box culvert. ThePBDHR was submitted on 12/21/2012. Preliminary Bridge Design Approval has not been received.

“Design Criteria for New or Reconstructed Rural Bridges”, Figure 36-5A was utilized. The bridge will besized to accommodate the 30-yr flood frequency. The bridge is to be built on a tangent vertical alignmentand horizontal alignment. The proposed horizontal curve (R=616.25’) will match the existing curve. Theculvert will be skewed 45 degrees ahead right and superelevated 8% to match the existing geometry.Based on the projected ADT of 7,000 (2040) the new bridge will incorporate 2-12’ lanes, 5’ HMAshoulders and steel plate beam guardrail. See Design Variances below.

C-1



2

In addition, permanent steel sheet piling is proposed along the roadway/shoulder in the northwest quadrant to maintain the streambank stabilization improvements and reduce the amount of fill in the floodplain.

Roadway Geometry:

“Geometric Design Criteria for Rural Two-Lane Local Roads”, Figure 32-2B was utilized to develop the proposed geometry. The proposed cross-section consists of 2-12’ lanes, and 5’ HMA shoulders.

Guardrail will be provided in areas where side slopes are greater than 1V:4H.

Bicycle trails or sidewalks do not currently exist along Allen Road and there are no plans to include bicycle accommodations.

The FHWA concurred on the scope of work, proposed geometry and cross-section but noted the PBDHR would need to be approved.

Termini:

The proposed termini (Sta.87+00 to Sta. 106+00) were discussed. Due to the radius of the curve and superelevation at the crossing, it was advantageous to keep the superelevation transition off the structure and provide a vertical tangent alignment across the structure. This will eliminate a “hump” at the crossing and improve sight distance. The project termini were established to provide a smooth transition with the existing pavement elevations based on profile adjustment.

The FHWA requested rumble strips to be included on the shoulders. The consultant and County agreed.

It was also discussed to include guardrail at the northwest project limit to close a gap where the proposed guardrail would terminate and existing guardrail exists. Since this length is less than 200’ it is logical to close this “gap”. The revised limits including the guardrail gap are Sta. 85+70 to Sta. 106+00.

The FHWA concurred on the logical termini and extending the project limit to include guardrail.

CE II Processing:

Due to the feature crossed and impacts to adjacent wetlands it was discussed to process the project as a Categorical Exclusion II.

The FHWA concurred to process this project as a CE II.

Public Involvement/Land Acquisition:

Right of way/easements are anticipated from 3 parcels. Since this is less than 10 parcels, the consultant proposed to publish a notice for the opportunity for a public meeting. In addition, the FHWA suggested sending a letter to the parcel owners outlining the project, the amount of right-of-way and/or easement needed and the appraisal and negotiation process. WBK agreed to this.

The FHWA concurred on the public involvement process of the project.

C-2



3

Design Variances:

The consultant identified the following design exceptions:

Horizontal Curve: The design speed for the existing horizontal curve is 45 mph using BLR Fig.29-3A. Currently, there are 45 mph advisory speed plaques in advance of this curve which has a616.25-foot radius curve and an 8% superelevation rate. These values meet current designcriteria for 45 mph. BLR Section 33-3.03(a) allows the use of a design speed for horizontal curvesto remain in place of up to 15 mph less than the regulatory speed (55 mph) for the highway.Advisory speed plaques (45 mph) will need to be placed in accordance with BLR Section 39-2.08(b) and (i). Stopping sight distance in excess of 425 feet (50 mph Design Speed) is providedalong the entire alignment. SSD in excess of 495 feet (55 mph) is provided except for 200’westbound. FHWA concurred.

Shoulder Widths: The proposed shoulder width is 5 feet. The standard shoulder width listed inBLR Figure 32-2B is 8 feet. The design variance for the shoulder width is proposed because theroadway, which runs parallel to the creek west of the bridge, is already close to the creek.Providing 8-foot shoulders would require a considerable amount of extra fill, especially on thehigh side of the superelevation; would require a longer retaining wall adjacent to the creek; wouldrequire channel realignment, and would result in more fill in the floodplain. Considering that theexisting shoulder width is about 2 feet (0 feet at the bridge), the proposed 5-foot shoulder width isa considerable improvement versus the existing condition. FHWA concurred.

Side Slopes: Side slopes steeper than the 1V:4H (BLR Figure 32-2B) are proposed. Side slopeswill be typically 1V:3H behind guardrail and 1V:2H near the proposed box culvert. The use ofthese side slopes is typical for bridge replacement projects and is appropriate for this location,because it reduces floodplain fill and wetland impacts. FHWA concurred.

Clear Zone: The existing right-of-way is as little as 33 feet from the centerline. Thus, themaximum clear zone distance that can be assured is as little as 21 feet. Though the surroundingland use is agricultural and unlikely to have any crash hazards within 9 feet of the right-of-wayline, there are portions within the project limits where the 30-foot clear zone distance is notassured. Per BLR Manual 35-2.01, “the acquisition of additional right-of-way solely to provide theclear zone distance is not required”.

To protect cars from entering the creek, it is proposed that an extra 150 feet of guardrail beconstructed past the western limits of the roadway reconstruction. It is important to include thissegment of guardrail with this project because without it, there will be a significant hazard leftexposed as the edge of creek will be as close as 25 feet to the edge of pavement. Also, BLR 38-6.07 indicates that guardrail gaps of less than 200 feet should be connected. FHWA concurred.

4. Action Items:

Initiate public involvement process Submit Draft PDR after approval of PBDHR.

The above notes constitute minutes from the meeting. If there are any discrepancies, please contact Wills Burke Kelsey Associates, Ltd. within 3 business days.

C-3

C-4

APPENDIX D

DETOUR COORDINATION

D-1

APPENDIX E

UTILITY COORDINATION

E-1

E-2

E-3

Confidential Page 1 8/7/2012

AT&T Legal Mandate Dept. 1000 Commerce Dr. 1st Floor Oak Brook, IL. 60523

www.att.com

August 7, 2012

Kevin Anderson, P.E. Wills Burke Kelsey Associates 116 West Main Street, Suite 201 St. Charles, IL 60174

RE: (110156) Allen Road over Hampshire Creek Kane County Division of Transportation

Enclosed is a project location map marked with the approximate locations of AT&T buried facilities that fall within the scope of your project.

When submitting any further design plans for this project please use for reference: AT&T # HS1102A.

Please keep us informed as your design progresses.

Mail all related plans to: AT&T Legal Mandate Engineering 1000 Commerce Dr. Oak Brook, IL 60523

As always, call J.U.L.I.E. 48 hours prior to any digging.

Any questions or concerns, please contact me directly.

Regards,

Janet C. Ahern Janet C. Ahern OSPE – AT&T Midwest 630-573-6414 [email protected]

E-4

Print this page in a more readable format: Click next to the upper-right corner of the map. Print

Bird's eye view maps can't be printed.

Page 1 of 1Bing Maps

8/7/2012http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?q=allen%20road%20and%20&mkt=en&...E-5

ja1763

Polygonal Line

ja1763

Callout

Buried AT&T 100 pair cable.

1

Kevin Anderson

From: AHERN, JANET C <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:56 AMTo: Kevin AndersonSubject: RE: JULIE - X0970391 (Design Stage) - Allen Road over Hampshire Creek near Hampshire,

IL (AT&T HS1102A)

Kevin,

I had an Engineer do a field visit and the poles and aerial cable crossing the creek our AT&T facilities.

Thank you,

Janet C. Ahern AT&T Manager ‐ OSP Design Engineering 1000 Commerce Drive, Floor 2 Oak Brook, IL 60523 630‐573‐6414 (tel) 630‐573‐5566 (fax) [email protected] (email)

From: Kevin Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:27 PM To: AHERN, JANET C Subject: RE: JULIE - X0970391 (Design Stage) - Allen Road over Hampshire Creek near Hampshire, IL (AT&T HS1102A)

Janet,

Thank you for the information. Would you be able to give me a typical offset the buried cable is from the right‐of‐way, roadway centerline, or roadway edge‐of‐pavement? Two pull boxes were surveyed within the project limits. Based on the location of one of them, I expect the AT&T cable to be 1’ to 3’ north of the right‐of‐way line, which is 33’ from the roadway centerline on the south side of the Allen Road.

The other pull box was at the base of a wood pole south of the bridge over Hampshire Creek on the east side of the creek. There are 2 wood poles approximately 65 feet apart spanning the creek. Does the AT&T cable cross the creek overhead between these two poles?

We will update our drawings based on the information you provide me. Once a preliminary roadway design is developed, we will send you drawings so you can identify potential conflicts.

Thank you,

Kevin Anderson, P.E., P.T.O.E. Traffic Engineer

Wills Burke Kelsey Associates, Ltd 116 West Main Street, Suite 201 St. Charles, Illinois 60174(630) 443‐7755 (Phone) (630) 443‐0533 (Fax)[email protected]

Mediating the Built and Natural Environments

E-6

1

Kevin Anderson

From: Illinois Damage <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:38 PMTo: Kevin AndersonSubject: Design Stage Ticket X0970391Attachments: UG Locating Map Legend.pdf; 420-20N-UGL.pdf

Kevin,

If your project is regarding new or renovation construction, supplied electrical voltage needs, or changes in current electrical demands, you must contact ComEd’s New Business office at 1‐866‐NEW‐ELEC (1‐866‐639‐3532) to begin the process to complete your request. If your project is for a publicly funded improvement project such as road widening, sewer, water, or other general public improvement, please call ComEd’s Public Relocation Department at 630‐437‐4855. ComEd has forwarded your JULIE Design Stage Ticket X0970391 ‐ Hampshire to our company to provide the attached prints as you requested. I have also attached a ComEd Legend relative to these prints. Note that since we are submitting this information for ComEd, you may need to contact ComEd directly to further develop your project. It is very important to note that you must take additional steps if your project is for a new or revised electric service

Have a Great Day & Keep it Safe.

Erica Navarro Administrative Asst. Phone : 630‐396‐8224 Fax: 630‐396‐8230

E-7

017

334

6 FT

UG

Loc

atin

g M

ap:

420

-20N

420-

20S

420-

N

420-19N

420-21N

Prin

ted

Dat

e:12

/21/

2010

Map

Pro

duce

d B

y C

E*G

IS -

Som

e La

nd In

form

atio

n C

opyr

ight

ETA

K 1

994-

2000

B162B1

62

B162

B162

E-8

E-9

1

Kevin Anderson

From: gasmaps <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 3:28 PMTo: Andy Haglund; Kevin AndersonSubject: Nicor JULIE X0970391 (Previously sent X1450418 in 2011); N8066

Hello;

This information was previously requested by WBK in May 2011. Nicor has no gas main within project limits.

Constance (Connie) Lane, PE DOT Liaison Engineering ‐ Design 1844 Ferry Road Naperville, IL 60563 (630) 388‐3830 office [email protected]

From: gasmaps Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 1:57 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Nicor JULIE X1450418; N8066

Your project has been assigned Engineering #N8066. Please refer to this number in all future correspondence to assist with expediting any future inquiry.

Nicor Gas does not have an active page within limits of your request. No gas main in that area.

Due to the receipt of numerous projects, the normal response time has been somewhat delayed. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Please phone JULIE at 811 OR 1-800-892-0123, 48 hours prior to construction for location of our facilities within your proposed improvement.

Constance (Connie) Lane Engineering Administrator Nicor Gas - Engineering 1844 Ferry Road Naperville, IL 60563 (630) 388-3830 direct (630) 983-0639 fax

The information contained in this e-mail message and accompanying documents is intended for the confidential use of the recipient only and is the property of Nicor Gas Company. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivery of this e-mail message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,

E-10

1

Kevin Anderson

From: Kevin AndersonSent: Friday, May 18, 2012 4:21 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: Design Stage Locate Request- Allen Road over Hampshire Creek, Hampshire, ILAttachments: PDR_Exhibit01_Location.pdf

Mike,

Thank you for calling me back and leaving your email address. I would like to determine whether the pipeline is within the limits of our project. The map available on the West Shore website is not detailed enough for me to make a determination. The project location appears to be west of the Hampshire pumping station shown on that map. Attached is a project location map. Let me know if you need a plan view drawing of the project site.

Our office is assisting the Kane County (Illinois) Division of Transportation with the preliminary engineering for the replacement of the Allen Road Bridge over Hampshire Creek and the associated bridge approach roadway reconstruction. The project is located in Kane County, Illinois, Township Tier 42N Range 6E, Section 20. The bridge is on Allen Road (C.H. 45) approximately 1 mile west of Harmony Road (C.H. 36) and approximately 0.75 mile east of Walker Road (C.H. 46). The limits of the roadway reconstruction will be approximately 1000 feet in each direction of the bridge.

We request information regarding the location and status of your existing facilities within the project limits, including the location of any proposed facilities within the same, to enable our office to incorporate them into our Preliminary Plans and identify potential conflicts.

Our office and the Kane County Division of Transportation will appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,




Follow us on Linkedin

The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and should not be opened, read or utilized by any other party. This message shall not be construed as official project information or as direction except as expressly provided in the contract document. Its contents (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or print its contents. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete and destroy the message.

E-11

Kevin Anderson

From: Norris, Michael R. <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 10:08 AMTo: Kevin AndersonSubject: RE: Design Stage Locate Request- Allen Road over Hampshire Creek, Hampshire, ILAttachments: Google Aerial.bmp

Kevin,��My�apologies�for�the�delayed�response.��I�am�in�the�office�today�and�quickly�checked�the�location�of�the�West�Shore�12”�pipeline�and�it�is�approximately�½�mile�north�of�your�project�location�and�not�in�conflict�with�your�work.��I�am�attaching�a�aerial�photo�with�a�red�line�which�depicts�the�route�of�the�pipeline.��Feel�free�to�email�me�if�you�have�any�other�questions.��Michael Norris Senior Specialist, Right of Way Buckeye Partners, L.P. 3823 Indianapolis Boulevard East Chicago, IN 46312 219-397-3656 x2118 (Office) 219-313-5321 (Mobile) 219-397-6138 (Fax) [email protected]�

E-12

E-13

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

F-1

F-2

F-3

F-4

F-5

F-6

F-7

F-8

F-9

F-10

APPENDIX G

OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION

G-1

1

Kevin Anderson

From: Jon E Hortness <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:53 PMTo: Kevin AndersonCc: Gary P Johnson; [email protected]: Re: Fw: Monitoring Station, Hampshire Creek at Allen Road, near Hampshire, IL

Kevin, Although there still may be USGS contact information on the equipment at Hampshire Creek, we have transferred ownership of that equipment to Kane County Department of Environmental and Building Management. The contact at Kane County is Karen Kosky.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks Jon Hortness

USGS-DeKalb

********************************************************* Jon Hortness, PE Field Office Chief/Surface Water Specialist USGS, Illinois Water Science Center - DeKalb 650B N Peace Road DeKalb, IL 60115 815-756-9207 (office) 815-530-3274 (cell) *********************************************************

From: Douglas J Yeskis/WRD/USGS/DOITo: Jon E Hortness/WRD/USGS/DOI@USGS, Gary P Johnson/WRD/USGS/DOI@USGSDate: 08/22/2012 04:05 PMSubject: Fw: Monitoring Station, Hampshire Creek at Allen Road, near Hampshire, IL

How would you two like to handle this? Do you want me to reply, or do you directly?

************************************************************************************** Douglas J. Yeskis, Director Illinois Water Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 1201 West University Avenue Suite 100 Urbana, IL 61801-2347 phone: 217-328-9706 cell: 217-714-1994 fax: 217-328-9770 email: [email protected] ----- Forwarded by Douglas J Yeskis/WRD/USGS/DOI on 08/22/2012 04:02 PM -----

G-2

2

From: Kevin Anderson <[email protected]>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>Date: 08/22/2012 02:33 PMSubject: Monitoring Station, Hampshire Creek at Allen Road, near Hampshire, IL

My firm is assisting the Kane County Division of Transportation in the preparation of preliminary plans to replace the Allen Road bridge (C.H. 45) over Hampshire Creek, near Hampshire, IL. The bridge is approximately 1 mile west of Harmony Road and 0.75 mile east of Walker Road in northwestern Kane County. Construction is at least 2 seasons away.

There is a USGS monitoring station mounted on the northwest wingwall which identified your office as a contact. Because the bridge will be demolished and replaced, we would appreciate instructions regarding how to handle the monitoring station when it is time to demolish the bridge. Does the device need to be removed by USGS forces? Can it be removed and reinstalled by the bridge contractor? Will the USGS replace the device and install it with its own forces?

Thank you,




Follow us on Linkedin

The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and should not be opened, read or utilized by any other party. This message shall not be construed as official project information or as direction except as expressly provided in the contract document. Its contents (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or print its contents. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete and destroy the message.

G-3

1

Kevin Anderson

From: Kosky, Karen <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:45 PMTo: Kevin AndersonCc: Harbaugh, Tim; Schuch, PaulSubject: RE: USGS Monitoring Station- Allen Road Bridge at Hampshire Creek

Kevin: Thanks for contacting us about the crest stage gage.

Kane County did assume oversight of those gages once USGS was finished using them for the modeling project several years ago. The gages are not currently used. I'd propose the following:

• No advance notice needed before removing crest stage gage (but an email once it is removed would be helpful.)• The contractor may remove the gage• If the contractor is able, they can survey in & reinstall the gage (and notify us via email once it's back in).• If the contractor is unable to reinstall the gage, please notify me & we will decide what to do with the materials.

Thanks Kevin. Let me know if there is anything else you need on this.

________________________________________________ Karen Kosky | Manager, Resource Conservation Programs Kane County Division of Environmental Resources 719 Batavia Avenue, Building A | Geneva, IL 60134 p: 630‐208‐8665 | c: 630‐816‐8275 | www.countyofkane.org

From: Kevin Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:38 AM To: Kosky, Karen Subject: USGS Monitoring Station- Allen Road Bridge at Hampshire Creek

Karen,

WBK is assisting KDOT with the preparation of Phase I Engineering plans for the Allen Road over Hampshire Creek bridge replacement. There is a USGS Crest Stage Monitoring Station at the bridge. I contacted John Hortness of the USGS who told me that the monitoring station was transferred to Kane County and he gave me your name as the contact. I contacted you about 2 years ago regarding Walker Road over Burlington Creek, which is a similar project.

We are in the stage of the design process where we need to identify items that require coordination with other agencies. The existing monitoring station will require removal during construction. We need to know what sort of coordination your agency will require (such as: advance notice required before removal, whether the contractor or County forces should remove it, whether we need to designate a location for a replacement, and who will be responsible for installing the replacement). For the Phase I design, we need to document what process should be followed regarding the monitoring station in advance of, during, and after construction.

Please let me know what actions need to be taken regarding this monitoring station. The information you give me will be documented in the Phase I Engineering Design Report.

Thank you,

Kevin Anderson, P.E., P.T.O.E. G-4

Documents

ALLEN ROAD (C.H. 45) OVER HAMPSHIRE CREEKkdot.countyofkane.org/retiredDocs/RPT.13.0917.PDR Allen Final Combined.pdf · ALLEN ROAD (C.H. 45) OVER HAMPSHIRE CREEK. KANE COUNTY . SECTION