ATTACHMENT C. Ecological Resources. TUS-TR , PID Categorical Exclusion Document Level 2

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ATTACHMENT C. Ecological Resources. TUS-TR , PID Categorical Exclusion Document Level 2"

Myron Johns
6 years ago
Views:

1 49

2 ATTACHMENT C Ecological Resources TUS-TR , PID Categorical Exclusion Document Level 2

Kaylor Road Wetland B (main portion) Wetland A (main portion) Upland Area South Fork Sugar Creek Wetland B (ditch portion located within project area) Upland Area Wetland A (ditch portion located

3 Kaylor Road Wetland B (main portion) Wetland A (main portion) Upland Area South Fork Sugar Creek Wetland B (ditch portion located within project area) Upland Area Wetland A (ditch portion located within project area) 0 50 Feet Figure 4. Ecological Resource Map Illustrating Wetlands and Streams for the Sugar Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Tuscarawas County, Ohio (TUS-TR , PID 75580). Wetland Boundaries (Category 3) Construction Limits Project No February 20,

4 51

5 52

6 53

7 54

Chris Staron/Environmental/CEN/ ODOT 07/18/2011 10:23 AM To cc bcc Subject Thomas Stratton/Planning/D11/ODOT@ODOT, Mike Pettegrew/Environmental/CEN/ODOT@ODOT Bill Cody/Environmental/CEN/ODOT@ODOT Fw:

8 Chris Staron/Environmental/CEN/ ODOT 07/18/ :23 AM To cc bcc Subject Thomas Mike Bill Fw: ; ODOT Ecological Coordination for TUS-TR (PID 75580) Forwarded by Chris Staron/Environmental/CEN/ODOT on 07/18/ :17 AM "Mitch, Brian" To s> cc 07/15/ :29 AM Subject ; ODOT Ecological Coordination for TUS-TR (PID 75580) ODNR COMMENTS TO Tim Hill, ODOT Office of Environmental Services, 1980 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio Project: The project involves a proposed bridge replacement over Sugar Creek in Tuscarawas County. The project proposes to improve 0.05 mile of Wayne TR 62 by replacing an existing two span continuous steel beam masonry bridge. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has completed a review of the above referenced project. These comments were generated by an inter-disciplinary review within the Department. These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, Ohio Revised Code and other applicable laws and regulations. These comments are also based on ODNR s experience as the state natural resource management agency and do not supersede or replace the regulatory authority of any local, state or federal agency nor relieve the applicant of the obligation to comply with any local, state or federal laws or regulations. Fish and Wildlife: The ODNR, Division of Wildlife (DOW) has reviewed the Level 2 Ecological Survey Report for this project located in Tuscarawas County and has the following comments. The project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis ), a state and federally endangered species. The following species of trees have relatively high value as potential 55

9 Indiana bat roost trees: Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata ), Shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa ), Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), Black ash (Fraxinus nigra ), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica ), White ash (Fraxinus americana ), Shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria ), Northern red oak (Quercus rubra ), Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra ), American elm (Ulmus americana ), Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Silver maple (Acer saccharinum ), Sassafras (Sassafras albidum ), Post oak (Quercus stellata ), and White oak (Quercus alba ). Indiana bat habitat consists of suitable trees that include dead and dying trees of the species listed above with exfoliating bark, crevices, or cavities in upland areas or riparian corridors and living trees of the species listed above with exfoliating bark, cavities, or hollow areas formed from broken branches or tops. If suitable trees occur within the project area, these trees must be conserved. If suitable habitat occurs on the project area and trees must be cut, cutting must occur between September 30 and April 1. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months of April 2 to September 29, a net survey must be conducted in May or June prior to cutting. If no tree removal is proposed, the project is not likely to impact this species. The DOW recommends sufficient mitigation is provided, as necessary, for stream and wetland impacts that occur as a result of this project. The DOW recommends no in-water work April 15 to June 30 to reduce impacts to aquatic species and their habitat. The Ohio Biodiversity Database (OBD) shows the project area is near or within Beach City Lake, owned and/or managed by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, and the Beach City Wildlife Area, owned and managed by the ODNR, DOW. Work should not occur in these areas without first consulting the agencies that manage these areas. The OBD has records near the project area for caves or caverns, mixed emergent marsh plant communities scattered at several locations, mixed Mesophytic forest plant communities, an oak-maple forest plant community, a natural bridge or arch, a beech-sugar maple forest plant community, hemlock-hardwood forest plant communities, and a non-calcareous cliff community. The OBD also has records near the project area for the Sprengel s sedge (Carex sprengelii ), a state threatened species, and the rock-harlequin (Corydalis sempervirens ), a state potentially threatened species. Due to the location of these records in relation to the project area, the project is not likely to impact these communities, plants, or features. Soil and Water Resources: The ODNR, Office of Soil and Water Resources has the following comments. Wetlands A and B combined are greater than 100 acres and both are considered category 3. ODNR suggests that they not be scored separately. According to the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method guidance (Section 5.3) Wetlands that are divided by artificial boundaries such as roads should be scored without regard to the existence of the artificial barriers within the project site.. As a result, these wetlands should be scored together, especially if there is a culvert connection and the riparian connection to the South Fork of Sugar Creek DSWR is concerned that ODOT is proposing to fill in 0.22 acres of the category 3 wetlands and then ditch additional drainage paths through the category 3 wetlands, further expanding the 56

10 impacts to this wetland. Why is this ditching necessary? Impacts to the forested areas already appear to have taken place per photos 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 20, 25, 26, 29, and 30. The QHEI sheet submitted for the South Fork of Sugar Creek is mostly blank. Please resubmit a properly completed form for us to review. The ORAM submitted for Wetland A is inaccurate because it includes 5 extra points in Metric 5 for Lake Erie Coastal/Tributary wetland/restricted hydrology. Potentially, the score should be increased by 10 for Old Growth Forest or 5 points for Mature Forested Wetland. Will ODOT be using hydro demolition to remove the road bed of the bridge? Please explain what best management practices will be employed to eliminate the runoff of silt laden water from getting into the South Fork of Sugar Creek and the large Category 3 wetland? ODNR appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Brian Mitch at (614) if you have questions about these comments or need additional information. Brian Mitch, Environmental Review Manager Ohio Department of Natural Resources Environmental Services Section 2045 Morse Road, Building E-3 Columbus, Ohio Office: (614) Fax: (614) brian.mitch@dnr.state.oh.us 57

11 2 "Coleman,Art" state.oh.us>to il" il> cc "Pettegrew,Mike" "Queen,Ric" Subject RE:TUSTR623.05(PID75580): EcologicalCoordination All, Mycommentsareratherbrief.SincetheimpactsincludeCategory3wetlands(AandB),theimpactswillrequire individual401certificationandapublichearing.also,compensatorymitigationwillbenecessary. Forexample,thewetlandswillrequirerestoration/creationasacomponentofthemitigation.Sincemostwetland banksdonothandlecategory3 wetlands,theapplicantwillhavetoprepareamitigationproposal.this representmyofficialcommentsregardingtheproject. IfthisisnotanODOTprojectoritwillbedelegatedtoanotherapplicant,itisnotundermypurview.Inwhichcase,the 401applicationshouldbesentthePaulNovak,Manager,OhioEPA,tobeassignedtooneofhisReviewers.Mike,do youhavemr.stratton s ?thanks. Art 58

12 59

13 60

14 Stratton, Thomas From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Friday, September 09, :26 PM Stratton, Thomas; Krock, Mike Pettegrew, Mike; Smith, Adrienne Fw: TUS-TR (PID 75580) Eco Response (UNCLASSIFIED) ForwardedbyChrisStaron/Environmental/CEN/ODOTon09/09/201101:08PM "Oberst,MeganC LRH" cc 09/08/201102:11 PMSubject RE:TUSTR623.05(PID75580)Eco Response(UNCLASSIFIED) Classification:UNCLASSIFIED Caveats:NONE Chris, I'msosorryforthedelayedresponse.Thereportcoverstheenvironmentalissueswell.Theonlyinformationthatwill beneeded,whichcanbesubmittedinthepermitapplication,istheresponseletterfromusfwsandanyotheragency coordinationletters. Thefollowingaredetailsthatalsoshouldbeincludedintheapplication: 1)cofferdamdetailsdimensions,material,duration,etc. 2)Inthereport,itismentionedthat0.69acreoffloodplainforestonthenorthbankwillbeimpacted.Wasthisadetail foronealternativethatwasnotselectedoristhisstillexpected?ifexpected,pleaseidentifythelocation,duration,and purpose/needfortheimpact. 3)Thereportidentifiesthatnewditcheswillbeconstructedalongthenewroadway.Thisisgoingtobeanissuesince themaintenanceofthepreviousditchescausedunauthorizedimpactsbythetownship.analternativeneedstobe investigatedtopreventthetemptationtoproducesimilarimpactstothewetlandsthroughsidecastinginthefuture. 1 61

15 2 4)Onthesametopic,sincetheunauthorizedimpactshaveconvertedwetlandsintouplands,themitigationplanshould includeremovaloftheunauthorizedmaterialforrestorationofwetlandsaandboutsideoftheprojectlimits. Thankyou, Megan OriginalMessage Sent:Wednesday,August31,20118:30AM To:Oberst,MeganCLRH Subject:Fw:TUSTR623.05(PID75580)EcoResponse Megan,weneedtofinishupourNEPAdocument,canyougetbacktousassoonaspossible? Thanks ChrisStaron (614) ForwardedbyChrisStaron/Environmental/CEN/ODOTon08/31/201108:28AM ChrisStaron/Environmental/CEN/ODOT 08/23/201101:03PMTo cc Subject TUSTR623.05(PID75580)EcoResponse Megan, ItappearsweareplayingphonetagsoIthoughtI'd youinstead. IneedtoknowifyouaregoingtohaveanycommentsontheEcologicalSurveyReportforthesubjectproject.Sinceyou havealreadyperformedajdfortheproposedproject,youmightnotandmaybeawaitingthe404application. IfyouhavenocommentsontheESRdocumentthat'sfine,wejustneedtoknowsowecancompleteourNEPA document. 62

16 Thanks Chris Classification:UNCLASSIFIED Caveats:NONE 3 63

South Fork Sugar Creek Kaylor Road 0 100 Feet Figure 5.

17 South Fork Sugar Creek Kaylor Road Feet Figure 5. Ecological Resource Map Illustrating Vegetation Communities for the Sugar Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Tuscarawas County, Ohio (TUS-TR , PID 75580). Floodplain Forest Upland Forest Construction Limits Project No February 27,

18 65

19 66

20 67 Project Area

21 ATTACHMENT D Drinking Water Resources TUS-TR , PID Categorical Exclusion Document Level 2

81 37'0"W 81 36'0"W 81 35'0"W!A!A Camp Buckeye Retreat Center FRANKLIN 40 37'0"N WAYNE 40 37'0"N Project Location 40 36'0"N 40 36'0"N 81 37'0"W 81 36'0"W 81 35'0"W Legend!R Public Water System Wells!

22 81 37'0"W 81 36'0"W 81 35'0"W!A!A Camp Buckeye Retreat Center FRANKLIN 40 37'0"N WAYNE 40 37'0"N Project Location 40 36'0"N 40 36'0"N 81 37'0"W 81 36'0"W 81 35'0"W Legend!R Public Water System Wells!. Public Water System Surface Intakes Ohio Sole Source Aquifers Source Water Protection Areas (ground water) Inner Management Zone (1-year time of travel) Drinking Water Source Protection Area (5-year time of travel) Source Water Protection Areas (surface water) Emergency Management Zone Zone of High Concern - Ohio River Corridor Management Zone Source WaterArea - Ohio River Source WaterArea Crit ical Area Zone - Lake Erie Zone of Critical Concern - Ohio River Potential Influence Zone - Lake Erie Project Request Drinking Water Source Protection Areas, Public Water System wells and intakes, and Sole Source Aquifers near the Sugar Creek Bridge Replacement project, Kaylor Road NW, Wayne Township, Tuscarawas County, Ohio. Requested by: Samantha Williams, BHE Environmental Map completed by: Linda Slattery, DDAGW Date:March11,2011 Disclaimer: Delineation of source water protection areas are ongoing. As a result, this map may not include all source water protection areas for public water systems in the area depicted. 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Drinking Water Source Protection Areas : 68

23 Water Well Log and Drilling Report Water Well Log and Drilling Report Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Phone: Fax: Well Log Number: View Image of Original Well Log ORIGINAL OWNER AND LOCATION Original Owner Name: MARK WEAVER County: TUSCARAWAS Township: WAYNE Section Number: 16 Address: 8685 KAYLOR RD NW Lot Number: City: DUNDEE State: OH Zip Code: Location Number: Location Map Year: Location Area: Latitude: Longitude: CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Borehole Diameter: 1: 9 in. 2: 6 in. Borehole Depth: 1: 138 ft. 2: 190 ft. Depth to Bedrock: Casing Diameter: 1: 6 in. 2: Casing Length: 1: 140 ft. 2: Casing Thickness: 1: in. 2: Casing Height Above Ground: 1 Aquifer Type: SHALE AND SANDSTONE Date of Completion: 8/8/2001 Total Depth: 190 ft. Well Use: DOMESTIC Driller's Name: FRONTZ DRILLING, INC. Screen Diameter: Slot Size: Screen Length: Type: Material: Set Between: Gravel Pack Material/Size: Method of Installation: Grout Material/Size: Method of Installation: Vol/Wt Used: Placed: Vol/Wt Used: Placed WELL TEST DETAILS Static Water Level: 150 ft. Test Rate: 10 gpm Associated Reports Drawdown: Test Duration: 0.5 hrs. NONE COMMENTS: NONE WELL LOG Formations From To BROWN CLAY 0 7 GRAY SANDY SHALE 7 62 LIMESTONE UNKNOWN BROWN SANDSTONE WHITE SANDSTONE GRAY SANDY SHALE & SANDSTONE WATER AT Printing Tips (opens in new window) :32:42 PM]

24 ATTACHMENT E Floodplain Resources TUS-TR , PID Categorical Exclusion Document Level 2

25 Study Area ^_ Legend Construction Limits 100-yr Floodplain Ohio Tuscarawas Co. Study Area located in Tuscarawas County, Ohio. ² P.N.: November Feet 70 Basemaps: TUS-TR Drawing Provided by Tuscarawas County Engineer's Office; Aerial Map - OSIP

26 ATTACHMENT F Farmland Resources TUS-TR , PID Categorical Exclusion Document Level 2

27 71

28 ATTACHMENT G Cultural Resources TUS-TR , PID Categorical Exclusion Document Level 2

29 72

30 73

31 74

32 ATTACHMENT H Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources TUS-TR , PID Categorical Exclusion Document Level 2

33 Stratton, Thomas From: Sent: To: Subject: Peters, Scott Wednesday, August 17, :35 PM Stratton, Thomas RE: TUS-TR (75580): Section 4(f) Concurrence Mr. Stratton: I concur with all your points indicated below. Thank you for consulting with us on this project. Scott Scott Peters Ohio Division of Wildlife Original Message----- From: Stratton, Thomas [mailto:thomas.stratton@dot.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, August 15, :02 AM To: Peters, Scott Cc: Davis, Kevin; Hewitt, Amber; Krock, Mike; Rob Lint; dbell@bheenvironmental.com Subject: TUS-TR (75580): Section 4(f) Concurrence Mr.Peters: MikeKrockfromourofficespokewithyouregardingthesubjectTuscarawasCountyEngineerprojectandits proximitytothebeachcityreservoirarealastmonth.sincethattime,ihavebeencoordinatingwithour CentralOfficeinColumbustodeterminewhatisrequiredtodocumenttheproject'scompliancewithSection 4(f)regulations.ODOThasdeterminedthatthelandthatwillbeimpactedbytheproposedbridgereplacement isnotsubjecttosection4(f)regulations. Thisprojectproposestoreplaceanexistingdeterioratedsinglelanebridge.Theproposedreplacementwillbe twolaneswideandwillmeetallcurrentdesignstandards.theprojectwillrequire00.16acofpermanentright ofway(row)and00.03acresoftemporaryrowfromthemwcd.theareasofproposednewrowiscovered bythemoabetweenodnrandthemwcdregardinglawenforcement.attachedisaplansheetshowingthe proposedstructureandtheexistingandproposednewrow. InordertodocumentthatSection4(f)regulationsdonotapplytotheinvolvedlandanddocumentour compliancewith4(f)regulations,iamrequestingyourconcurrenceonthefollowingpoints: 1. Thelandtobeacquiredaspartoftheproposedprojectisnotsignificantforrecreation. 2. Thelandtobeacquiredaspartoftheproposedprojectisnotwithinadesignatedwildlifeareaorpart ofanapprovedmanagementplan. 3. Theproposedprojectwillnotrestrictordenyaccesstoexistingactivitiessuchashunting,fishing, canoeing,etc.thatareassociatedwiththebeechcityreservoirarea Pleasereplytoindicateyourconcurrencewiththeabovepoints.Pleasefeelfreetocontactmeatthenumber belowifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthisrequest. Respectfully, 1 75

Construction Notice For Poston-Lick 138 kv Transmission Line Extension Project

Construction Notice For Poston-Lick 138 kv Transmission Line Extension Project Case No. 18-0253-EL-BNR Submitted to: The Ohio Power Siting Board Pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code Section 4906-6-05 Submitted