From: Chelf, Sylvia J CIV USARMY CELRH (US) [mailto:Sylvia.Chelf@usace.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 3:22 PM To: Riley, Rob <RRiley@co.delaware.oh.us> Subject: I 71 Interchange Question

*** ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or

click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. ***

Mr Riley, I was wondering if you could help me with something. I was notified this week about the proposed Sunbury Parkway and 36/37 Interchange. Our GIS system does not currently show road right of ways. Do you happen to have a map that shows the proposed work and the existing road right of way. I just want to make sure that this work truly doesn’t need to go through our approval system before the meeting on 11 July.

Thank you, Sylvia

DISCLAIMER NOTICE This e-mail, together with any attachments or files transmitted with it,

may contain confidential information belonging to the sender, or constitute non-public

information that is not subject to disclosure under O.R.C. Section 149.43, Ohio's Public Records

Act. Additionally, if the sender is an employee of the Delaware County, Ohio Prosecuting

Attorney's Office, this e-mail, together with any attachments or files transmitted with it, may

contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable

privileges. The information in this e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity

to whom it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate,

distribute, or copy this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately

notify the sender by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended

recipient, do not disclose, copy, distribute, or re-distribute this e-mail or take any action in

reliance on the contents of the information contained in this e-mail. Nothing contained in this

disclaimer notice by itself exempts, nor should it be interpreted to by itself exempt, this e-mail

from disclosure as a public record upon the proper submission of a request for public records

pursuant to O.R.C. Section 149.43, Ohio's Public Records Act.

1

2

3

4

·

· · ·_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

· · ·IMPROVED INTERCHANGE at I-71· ·:· · ·and US 36/SR 37 and PROPOSED· ·:· · ·SUNBURY PARKWAY· · · · · · · · :· · ·DEL-71-7.91, PID 90200· · · · ·:· · ·_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

·

·

·

· · · · · · · · · · · · · PUBLIC HEARING

· · ·Taken before me, Sara S. Clark, RPR, RMR, CRR, CRC, a

· · ·Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio, at 7097

· · ·East State Route 37, Sunbury, Ohio, on July 11, 2017,

· · ·at 5:32 p.m.

·

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · - - -

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

Page 2·1· · · · · · ·STEVE FELLENGER:· Good evening, everyone.· If

·2· ·you can start to take your seats.· If you haven't had a

·3· ·chance to sign in yet, if you'll do that.· I know there

·4· ·is a line out there.· We'll be responding to comments

·5· ·this evening to everyone that's signed in.· We want to

·6· ·make sure we've got everybody's e-mail address or

·7· ·contact information.· Also, if you would like to make

·8· ·any comments this evening, we'll need you to register,

·9· ·as well.· So both tables are out there.· I'll give

10· ·everyone a few more minutes.

11· · · · · · ·(Pause in proceedings.)

12· · · · · · ·STEVE FELLENGER:· I think we'll go ahead and

13· ·get started.· Appreciate everyone coming out this

14· ·evening.· You weren't scared away by the threat of rain

15· ·or by my last presentation, so that's a plus.

16· · · · · · ·My name is Steve Fellenger.· I'm the project

17· ·manager of this project.· I mentioned last time that I

18· ·come from a long line of ministers and educators, but

19· ·that I do not contain that same gene that they have.

20· ·So if you'll bear with me a little bit.

21· · · · · · ·I guess the point I want to get across with

22· ·that, though, is if you have an opportunity to meet

23· ·with me, again, on a one-on-one basis or in a smaller

24· ·group, maybe you'll see my excitement for this project.

Page 3·1· ·It's not very often that we get to work on projects

·2· ·that are new alignments.· I know we're normally dealing

·3· ·with maintenance and repairs and things like that.

·4· ·Even in our mission statement, we talk about taking

·5· ·care of what we have.

·6· · · · · · ·So I am excited to be part of this project.

·7· ·I believe it's going to be great for this region. I

·8· ·think that whether you use this for commuting on a

·9· ·daily basis, whether that be to school or to work or

10· ·taking the kids to soccer practice or going to the

11· ·mall, I truly believe that this project is going to

12· ·improve the quality of your life.· And I think that's a

13· ·positive thing.

14· · · · · · ·We'll jump right into the next slide.· To

15· ·give a little agenda for the format of the evening,

16· ·I'll share the project history, as well as the

17· ·preferred alternative.· For those of you that aren't

18· ·familiar with the area, the project will extend on the

19· ·far west side near Alum Creek at Africa Road, down

20· ·through south of the outlet mall with a new access

21· ·point interchange, to the far -- further east than to

22· ·the industrial park in Sunbury near Kintner Parkway.

23· · · · · · ·I'll also talk about the phasing, the

24· ·funding, and the next steps.· And then after that,

Page 4·1· ·you'll have an opportunity to speak, those that have

·2· ·registered at the front tables.· And then after

·3· ·everything, you'll again have a chance to review the

·4· ·materials that are in the back of the room and ask more

·5· ·questions.

·6· · · · · · ·This slide has a lot of words, and basically

·7· ·I'll boil it down to:· In order for us to use even a

·8· ·dollar of federal money, we have to -- we're required

·9· ·to assess the potential impacts, and in this

10· ·environmental assessment, this document, along with

11· ·public input from you not only tonight, but in the

12· ·past, will help determine if we prepare either an

13· ·Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, or a Findings of

14· ·No Significant Impact, which is what we call a FONSI.

15· · · · · · ·I want to go through the project purpose.

16· ·This is a little more clear in your handout on Page 1,

17· ·but these six areas are what is driving the purpose and

18· ·need of this project.

19· · · · · · ·The project history, obviously this dates

20· ·back even before 2008, but in 2008, we received

21· ·proposals from the developers for new interchanges.

22· ·2011, we held a stakeholder meeting, and then the

23· ·following years, we performed a series of feasibility

24· ·studies, which then ultimately recommended a southern

Page 5·1· ·combined interchange.· We held two public meetings last

·2· ·year, and then most recently in January of this year,

·3· ·we were awarded $5 million for right-of-way and a Tier

·4· ·2 status from our TRAC, which is the Transportation

·5· ·Review and Advisory Council.· I'll get more into that

·6· ·in a little bit with the next TRAC cycle.

·7· · · · · · ·The biggest takeaway from this slide is that

·8· ·basically exactly what it says.· The short-term

·9· ·improvements do not solve the long-term issues.· So

10· ·we've completed a couple projects.· In 2012, we

11· ·performed a safety project of the existing interchange

12· ·that was a stop-gap measure that did and has worked for

13· ·a number of years now, but we're starting to see some

14· ·breakdowns in that already.· There was improvements by

15· ·the outlet mall in 2016 that extended the northbound

16· ·exit ramp and also added some turn lanes and some

17· ·widening on 36/37.· We also have a couple projects that

18· ·are currently in design.· We're widening the southbound

19· ·intersection at 36/37 to improve the truck turning

20· ·radius.· If you've seen the guardrail, it seems like

21· ·it's constantly being hit there, so we're trying to

22· ·improve that.· And we're also going to be adding left

23· ·turn lanes at the Galena and 36/37 interchange. I

24· ·think that's a much needed improvement that will help

Page 6·1· ·greatly, as well.

·2· · · · · · ·On to the long-term needs.· Basically, these

·3· ·are due to the population growth in Delaware County, as

·4· ·well as the bottlenecks at the existing interchange and

·5· ·that the surrounding intersections are seeing daily.

·6· ·The existing interchange footprint cannot be improved

·7· ·enough in order to handle the future traffic demand.

·8· · · · · · ·So here are the things that we studied.

·9· ·First and foremost, we look at a no-build condition.

10· ·Basically, this is a base case, looking at the existing

11· ·and committed network on what's going to be built

12· ·regardless if our project happens or not.· That

13· ·includes the Wilson extension, beyond what's already

14· ·been extended south of 36/37, south of the outlet mall,

15· ·and also a two-lane Sunbury Parkway from Wilson to the

16· ·east.· But this no-build condition does not address the

17· ·congestion nor the safety issues at the existing

18· ·interchange.

19· · · · · · ·This graphic shows a representation of, on

20· ·the left side, 270 and 161, with directional ramps.

21· ·And we overlaid that on 36/37 and what that would look

22· ·like and the businesses that would be impacted with the

23· ·directional ramps.

24· · · · · · ·We also considered a single point urban

Page 7·1· ·interchange, a SPUI.· It has a slightly smaller

·2· ·footprint; however, it still doesn't serve the traffic

·3· ·demand.

·4· · · · · · ·In April of last year at our public meeting,

·5· ·we presented the three alternatives.· Just to give you

·6· ·an orientation here, as well, what you're looking at,

·7· ·71 is north/south on this picture.· Each of these

·8· ·pictures are the same.· It just shows the difference in

·9· ·the three alternatives, green, blue, and purple.

10· ·36/37 -- I apologize I don't have a pointer with me --

11· ·36/37 is towards the top of the screen, left to right,

12· ·and Alum Creek is in the upper left corner.

13· · · · · · ·In comparison of these three alternatives, we

14· ·found that the blue alternative had the greatest

15· ·environmental impacts and was the most costly.· Those

16· ·impacts were most notably the streams, the wetlands,

17· ·and the farmland.· And that the green alternative had

18· ·less impacts than the purple, and those relate back to

19· ·the residential and commercial relocations, as well as

20· ·property -- lesser property owner right-of-way impacts,

21· ·less endangered species in wood lots, and lesser

22· ·potential of hazardous material sites.

23· · · · · · ·That takes me to the preferred alternative.

24· ·We presented this back as a recommended preferred in

Page 8·1· ·our October meeting.· Again, 71 is north/south.· North

·2· ·is to the top of the screen.· Alum Creek to the upper

·3· ·left corner.· And Sunbury Parkway, how it appears down

·4· ·to a new interchange location, combined interchange

·5· ·location south of the outlet mall.

·6· · · · · · ·If you're familiar at all with the

·7· ·Polaris/Gemini interchange, this is a twin, if you

·8· ·will.· It's very similar, in that it has a

·9· ·barrier-separated roadway northbound.· You can still

10· ·exit at either location, but just like at

11· ·Polaris/Gemini where you get off at the southern

12· ·location in order to proceed north in order to use the

13· ·existing interchange.

14· · · · · · ·This alternative has been refined.· The

15· ·potential impacts have been studied.· We've coordinated

16· ·with resource agencies and we continue to consider

17· ·public input up until now and even through August 11th,

18· ·which is our date that we will be collecting comments.

19· ·This becomes the primary route, and it does that by

20· ·diverting more than half the traffic from the existing

21· ·interchange.· The access to the existing interchange

22· ·doesn't change actually in the southbound direction.

23· ·The existing interchange is the only exit point.

24· ·Again, similar to Polaris/Gemini, where you can only

Page 9·1· ·get off at Gemini, you'd only be able to get off, as

·2· ·well, southbound at the 36/37 interchange.

·3· · · · · · ·On to the phasing plan.· This corresponds in

·4· ·the picture and the map, again, 71 to the north, 36/37

·5· ·east/west, with Alum Creek on the upper left.

·6· · · · · · ·So obviously there's been a lot of work and

·7· ·there's still a lot of work yet to be done.· But the

·8· ·first thing that draws my attention to this slide --

·9· ·and there's a better picture in your handout. I

10· ·realize this is difficult to see, but I believe it's

11· ·Page 4 in your handout.· The first thing, I guess, that

12· ·draws my attention is the timeline.· And I know there's

13· ·been some recent reports about construction being 17

14· ·years.· I guess I want to clear the field a little bit

15· ·and say that this project will not be under

16· ·construction for a constant 17 years.· It's phased,

17· ·multi-phased project, but the important thing is that

18· ·in the first three phases, the full connection is made

19· ·from Alum Creek near Africa Road to Wilson Road, and

20· ·then through the committed network, all the way over to

21· ·the industrial park.

22· · · · · · ·I want to focus, though, on Phase A, since

23· ·that is the first phase that will be constructed.· It's

24· ·what you see in light blue.· It's the interchange

Page 10·1· ·itself.· It will construct the northbound exit ramp, as

·2· ·well as the westbound Sunbury Parkway to southbound 71

·3· ·move ramp and also the barrier-separated road that will

·4· ·connect to the existing interchange.

·5· · · · · · ·And then the Phases D and F then will widen

·6· ·roads that are built in earlier phases.· So like I

·7· ·said, the takeaway, though, is that the full connection

·8· ·will be built in the first three phases.

·9· · · · · · ·Here is a list, not necessarily limited to

10· ·these seven years, but these are the main ones that are

11· ·also in your handout on Page 2 in a little more detail.

12· ·But these are the seven areas that we considered that

13· ·we focused on.· Like I said, I'll direct you to the

14· ·handout that has a lot more information.

15· · · · · · ·I want to talk about right-of-way next.· It's

16· ·a combination of contributions and also acquisition

17· ·through the project.· The entire right-of-way of the

18· ·roadway will be limited access with predetermined

19· ·intersection locations, some of which will be

20· ·signalized.· And we're making every effort to acquire

21· ·right-of-way as early as possible, but typically that

22· ·takes about two years prior to the phase when it's

23· ·needed.

24· · · · · · ·Project funding.· I think everyone has a

Page 11·1· ·question about that.· The total of all phases is

·2· ·estimated $162 million.· The funding commitments that

·3· ·we have to date are what's up on the screen.· This is

·4· ·slightly different than what's shown in the

·5· ·environmental assessment, and that's because we

·6· ·continue to refine our estimates and our funding

·7· ·sources.· The traffic impact improvements from the

·8· ·design year through a signed agreement that we have

·9· ·with the outlet mall allow for use of up to $16.5

10· ·million.· That's a question we covered in detail, I

11· ·think, last time.· But we do have that ability to use

12· ·$16.5 million from them.· We also have commitments from

13· ·the private developer, NorthGate, and also from the

14· ·NorthGate New Community Authority, and the Village of

15· ·Sunbury is committing $100,000, which also allows that

16· ·money to be leveraged for other funding sources.

17· · · · · · ·As I mentioned earlier, we did receive $5

18· ·million for right-of-way from TRAC, and we will be

19· ·requesting $25 million more over the first three phases

20· ·in this next cycle of TRAC.

21· · · · · · ·I want to focus more, I guess, on Phase A.

22· ·The total of this phase -- again, as shown in your

23· ·handout on Page 3, the total estimate is $58 million.

24· ·We're using $10 million of the 16.5 in this Phase A for

Page 12·1· ·that project.· And you might notice in the handout that

·2· ·the construction is around $32 million.· The difference

·3· ·is coming from design and also right-of-way that's

·4· ·being contributed.· And this is also where we'll be

·5· ·using the village's $100,000 and other leverage

·6· ·sources.

·7· · · · · · ·The TRAC $10 million is not committed yet,

·8· ·but we will, as I mentioned, be requesting that in this

·9· ·cycle, which that application process is this month.

10· ·The project did score well this last cycle, and I'm

11· ·confident that because of the high private dollar

12· ·input, that we'll do well again.

13· · · · · · ·The environmental assessment is available for

14· ·your review and comment, all 413 pages.· So if you

15· ·can't sleep at night, this is the cure, I believe.· But

16· ·seriously, though, it does have a lot of good

17· ·information.· Painstaking efforts have been done not

18· ·only in putting the document together, but also in

19· ·review.· It's available tonight if you want to look at

20· ·that.· It's also on our website.· Don't worry about

21· ·trying to write that website address down.· I realize

22· ·it's really long.· It's at the top of your handout, and

23· ·that information will be on there, as well.· It's also

24· ·available at these locations.· These are, again, in

Page 13·1· ·your handout on Page 5 in case you want to see a hard

·2· ·copy.

·3· · · · · · ·That takes me to next steps.· I touched on it

·4· ·earlier about the TRAC funding application.· We're

·5· ·going to be submitting the application yet this month.

·6· ·That award list won't be available, though, until

·7· ·January.· As I mentioned earlier, as well, the public

·8· ·comments, we'll be collecting comments through August

·9· ·11th.· And any comments that you make this evening will

10· ·be part of that record, and we will be also addressing

11· ·those in written response.

12· · · · · · ·The environmental clearance is expected in

13· ·August, which will coincide with the environmental --

14· ·or interchange modification study.· I expected the IMS

15· ·actually to be conditional approval earlier this week,

16· ·but I think we'll get that later this week, actually.

17· ·But the formal approval coincides with the

18· ·environmental clearance.· And that comes from the

19· ·Federal Highway Administration.

20· · · · · · ·Then after that, detailed design of the

21· ·preferred alternative will occur.· And construction of

22· ·Phase A will begin in late 2018.

23· · · · · · ·Again, I want to thank everyone for

24· ·attending.· At this point, I'm going to turn it over to

Page 14·1· ·Nancy Burton to moderate the comments section.

·2· · · · · · ·NANCY BURTON:· Good evening.· And thank you

·3· ·all for being here.· Just a couple of ground rules.

·4· ·This portion of the meeting tonight is the public

·5· ·comment section.· And it's just that; it is the

·6· ·opportunity to hear from each and every one of you

·7· ·about the project, not for us to answer questions.· It

·8· ·is public comment.· So there are three ways to do that.

·9· ·One is to register.· So far, we've had two very brave

10· ·souls who are willing to speak.

11· · · · · · ·The court stenographer is there, and she will

12· ·be recording that.· You can also, if you want to make a

13· ·comment, meet privately with the court stenographer in

14· ·another room.· The third option, obviously, is to send

15· ·your comments in by that deadline.

16· · · · · · ·This traffic signal is operational, but for

17· ·inside use.· The reason that is there is to keep track

18· ·of time so that each and every person who is making

19· ·comments has the same amount of time.· So when you see

20· ·the red light, that means your time is up.· So please

21· ·wrap up your statement.· When you see green, you have

22· ·three minutes to begin.· And yellow will be starting to

23· ·summarize or end your comments.

24· · · · · · ·I'm going to move this microphone to the

Page 15·1· ·middle of the aisle and then call up our first speaker,

·2· ·who is Jacob Gay.· Is he still here?

·3· · · · · · ·JACOB GAY:· No comment.

·4· · · · · · ·NANCY BURTON:· Okay.· Andy Zarins.

·5· · · · · · ·ANDY ZARINS:· I'm still here.

·6· · · · · · ·NANCY BURTON:· You had registered to comment.

·7· · · · · · ·ANDY ZARINS:· Do I make my comments?

·8· · · · · · ·NANCY BURTON:· Yes, please.

·9· · · · · · ·We ask that you state your name clearly,

10· ·spell it so that the stenographer can get that, please.

11· · · · · · ·ANDY ZARINS:· Okay.· Andy Zarins, Z, like in

12· ·zebra, A-R-I-N-S.

13· · · · · · ·I just had a few comments.· I think the very

14· ·first thing that you should do is you've got the exit

15· ·lanes and the ramps presently in place now.· I think

16· ·you have four for each signal.· So I would suggest the

17· ·very first thing you do is lengthen all of those to at

18· ·least 1,000 feet, preferably about 1,200 feet.· And

19· ·then basically you would run a three-phase signal

20· ·operation, where one ramp goes, the other ramp is green

21· ·on the, what I call, the main line, but US 36.· And

22· ·then same thing with the other ramp.· When you give it

23· ·green, then the opposite signal would be green on 36.

24· ·Then, of course, you've got your regular signal green

Page 16·1· ·on the through traffic for 36 that comes from other

·2· ·areas.

·3· · · · · · ·But I think that's the very first thing you

·4· ·should do.· In fact, you might find that that's enough

·5· ·for the time being that you're not going to have the

·6· ·backup on 71.

·7· · · · · · ·Then I guess one thing I would question is

·8· ·will the Federal Highway Administration allow traffic

·9· ·to increase so much on 71 that 71 might be totally just

10· ·nothing but a parking lot at times?· So I don't know

11· ·what the federal position is on that, but certainly

12· ·with all of this development, something's going to have

13· ·to happen there.· And I would suspect that they're

14· ·going to see 71 as being just a parking lot at times,

15· ·all the way from Columbus, whatever, to maybe Mansfield

16· ·or something like that, you know.

17· · · · · · ·So that would be one comment.· But I think

18· ·the main one is basically I think you ought to think

19· ·about trying to lengthen those ramp lanes where you've

20· ·got actually four lanes.· I would assume probably 12

21· ·foot in width.· I'd say at least a thousand foot for

22· ·the full width lane and then people won't be blocking

23· ·off right turns and -- left turns blocking off right

24· ·turns, whatever, vice versa.

Page 17·1· · · · · · ·And then the other thing that I would say is

·2· ·you have to -- it's an improvement project, but you

·3· ·have to really look at standards.· And sometimes the

·4· ·standards that you might have in a design manual are

·5· ·not all that good.· There was some mention made about

·6· ·the proximity of the guardrail and so forth.· I know

·7· ·many years back when I was a young punkster engineer,

·8· ·we had a signal put in -- I forget, on 23 someplace

·9· ·south of Columbus, Circleville area.· And 50-foot

10· ·radius, like the manual calls for, and trucks were

11· ·scraping things, hitting the signal pole and things

12· ·like with that.· So the standard I came up with was at

13· ·least 75-foot radius if you've got trucks coming.· So

14· ·that's something to think about these ramps.

15· · · · · · ·And then there's a whole bunch of different

16· ·kinds of standards.· One of them, I think, is really a

17· ·foul standard is some people claim that a loop ramp can

18· ·only handle 800 vehicles an hour.· And --

19· · · · · · ·NANCY BURTON:· I do want to caution that the

20· ·red light has come on in terms of your time.

21· · · · · · ·ANDY ZARINS:· Okay.· Anyway, I think that's a

22· ·bunch of nonsense.· I've seen traffic counts with 2,000

23· ·vehicles on a loop ramp.

24· · · · · · ·NANCY BURTON:· Thank you.

5

Page 18·1· · · · · · ·Is there anybody else who may not have

·2· ·registered but would like to make a comment?

·3· · · · · · ·As I stated, the stenographer is here.· If

·4· ·you would like to make a comment but not in this forum,

·5· ·but privately, that is available.· Obviously the

·6· ·written comments and getting those in to the address

·7· ·that you see on the handout is an option, as well.

·8· · · · · · ·And obviously we'll conclude where people can

·9· ·gather as they did when they came in before Steve

10· ·started if there's folks that you wanted to talk to

11· ·about real estate, the project, and environmental

12· ·resources.· Thank you.

13· ·(The following comments were made to the stenographer:)

14· · · · · · ·SHIRLEY LENOY:· My first name is Shirley,

15· ·last name is Lenoy, L-E-N-O-Y.

16· · · · · · ·My question is I live in Sunbury, and I had

17· ·gone to Council at one point and I said, why don't they

18· ·make the new off-ramp off 71 strictly for cars.· Let

19· ·the trucks go up to 36/37 and cars go on the new road

20· ·or whatever it is.· You'd probably alleviate a lot of

21· ·problems from people who live back there with trucks

22· ·going behind their houses or whatever.· That's my

23· ·comment.

24· · · · · · ·JOAN DOEHREL:· Joan, J-O-A-N, Doehrel,

Page 19·1· ·D-O-E-H-R-E-L.

·2· · · · · · ·My comment is regarding lighting of the road.

·3· ·My request -- or our feeling is we don't want -- we

·4· ·would prefer minimal lighting to not affect the light

·5· ·pollution in the area, with the understanding they have

·6· ·to have some.· So that's my big concern.

·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · - - -

·8· · · · · · ·Thereupon, the proceedings of July 11,

·9· ·2017, were concluded at 7:00 p.m.

10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · - - -

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page 20·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE

·2· · · · · · ·I, Sara S. Clark, RPR, CRR, CCP, CBC, a

· · ·Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio, do hereby

·3· ·certify that I reported the foregoing proceedings and

· · ·that the foregoing transcript of such proceedings is a

·4· ·full, true and correct transcript of my stenotypy notes

· · ·as so taken.

·5

·6· · · · · · ·I do further certify that I was called there

· · ·in the capacity of a court reporter, and am not

·7· ·otherwise interested in this proceeding.

·8

·9· · · · · · ·In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my

· · ·hand and affixed my seal of office in Sunbury, Ohio, on

10· ·this 21st day of July, 2017.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17· · · · · · · · · ·_________________________________

· · · · · · · · · · ·Sara S. Clark, RPR, CRR, CCP, CBC

18· · · · · · · · · ·Notary Public, State of Ohio

19· ·My commission expires:· March 10, 2018

20

21

22

23

24

6

7

From: Susan Stanton [mailto:susanstanton@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 3:10 PM To: Fellenger, Steven <Steven.Fellenger@dot.ohio.gov> Cc: 'Susan Stanton' <susanstanton@earthlink.net> Subject: Request for information

Dear Steve,

It was good to see you on Tuesday evening. I talked with the consultants who performed the environmental studies, including archeological, noise, etc. I would like to get a copy of their actual reports, as the information was only summarized for the final report. Would you be able to provide these studies via email or on a disc or thumb drive? My address is 240 Domigan Road, Sunbury, OH 43074.

Thank you and have a great weekend.

All the best!

Susan Stanton

8

1

Howdyshell, Jennifer

From: Croasmun, ValerieSent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:02 AMTo: Howdyshell, JenniferSubject: FW: 36/37 & 71

Keep this with the comments just in case 

Valerie

From: Steven.Fellenger@dot.ohio.gov [mailto:Steven.Fellenger@dot.ohio.gov]  Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 8:07 AM To: Croasmun, Valerie; Cubick, Karel Subject: FW: 36/37 & 71 

I sent this to traffic to see if there is a signal timing issue and to check the traffic cameras.  Not sure if this is one we have to provide a written response.  I will respond when I hear back from traffic. 

Thanks Steve 

Steven Fellenger, P.E. Transportation Engineer District 6 ‐ Planning & Engineering 400 East William Street Delaware, Ohio 43015 (p) 740.833.8272transportation.ohio.gov

From: Chris Stephens [mailto:chris@northgate.church]  Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 4:52 PM To: Fellenger, Steven <Steven.Fellenger@dot.ohio.gov> Subject: Re: 36/37 & 71 

It's 4:48 and traffic is backed up to Africa Rd. �😁

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:00 PM Chris Stephens <chris@northgate.church> wrote:

Just wanted to follow-up about our conversation. Like I mentioned before, traffic headed east is very heavy today. The left la e headed towards the 71N entrance is very backed up.

Thanks.

9

2

Chris Stephens -- Chris Stephens Lead Pastor Northgate Church

W 740.369.6000C 740.815.1294www.northgate.church

-- Chris Stephens Lead Pastor Northgate Church

W 740.369.6000C 740.815.1294www.northgate.church

From: Robert Brenner [mailto:robrenner2011@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 11:43 AM To: Fellenger, Steven <Steven.Fellenger@dot.ohio.gov> Subject: I-71 36 37 comment

Hi Steve I have looked over the documents on line and have the following comments. I think the total plan looks good. I live on 3B's and K North and I do not see how any of the improvements will help the traffic problems on 36/37 west of I-71 until the year 2024. Weekday morning traffic backs from 71 to Africa road leaving left turn traffic from 3B north no safe way to travel east on 36/37. Hopefully monies will become available to do whole project. Sincerely Bob Brenner 740-815-3643

10

11

From: Patricia Kovacs [mailto:pkovacs@att.net] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 6:40 PM To: Fellenger, Steven <Steven.Fellenger@dot.ohio.gov> Subject: 36/37 interchange and Sunbury Parkway commments

Dear Mr. Fellenger, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the design of the 36/37 interchange and new Sunbury Parkway.

I am not a resident but I bike in the area and lead a Columbus Outdoor Pursuits tour which crosses 36/37 on Galena Rd.

It looks like the new Sunbury Parkway is to be the bicycle-friendly route through this area, since it has a sidepath. Why isn't 36/37 being widened for motor vehicle traffic, since the 36/37 interchange is being upgraded to be more efficient for motor vehicles with the "free flow directional ramps"?

The new Sunbury Parkway interchange will have a cloverleaf and diverge ramp on the west side and a traffic signal on the east side for the entry/exit ramps. Why not have a traffic signal on the west side also? Those are much safer for crossing by bicycles than the diverge ramp. If there must be a diverge ramp, can a traffic signal with pedestrian signal or an RRFB be added at the crosswalk of the ramp?

A single point urban interchange (SPUI) rather than the "free flow directional ramps" would be safer on 36/37 and we could even bicycle through them. I hope that 36/37 will not prohibit bicycles as happened at E 161 at the 270 interchange.

Can the shoulders of 36/37 that lead to Sunbury Parkway be at least 4' wide? We ride from 3Bs&K to Cracker Barrel on the shoulder today and we will need to use Sunbury Parkway when 3Bs&K is stubbed off.

Please add signage to the traffic lights on Sunbury Parkway that "turning vehicles yield to bikes/pedestrians". Contra-flow cyclists will not be expected on the sidepath.

Thanks, Tricia Kovacs 527 Haversham Dr Gahanna, Ohio 43230 614-476-9093

12

From: Susan Stanton [mailto:susanstanton@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 2:55 PM To: Fellenger, Steven <Steven.Fellenger@dot.ohio.gov> Cc: 'Susan Stanton' <susanstanton@earthlink.net> Subject: Request for information Importance: High

Hi Steve,

I hope you are well and staying dry. I am working through the information sent and would like to obtain information that is referenced in the 2016DEL37132_1068514_Phase 1 Archaeology report by Mustain et al. It states in the introduction that

Additionally, a separate roadway project (the Sunbury Parkway project) has been proposed by others, and a cultural resources study is in preparation for the Sunbury Parkway project (Mustain et al. 2017).

Has this report been completed? Would you please send me a copy? In addition, please send any and all reports associated with the Sunbury Parkway project.

Thank you, Steve.

All the best! Susan

Susan A. Stanton, Ph.D. SBCi Ltd. 614.563.7819

13

14

15

16

17

RESOLUTION 2016-05

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ATTRIBUTABLE FUNDING APPLICATION TO

IMPROVE THE INTERCHANGE AT INTERSTATE 71 AND ROUTE 36/37 THROUGH

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COMPANION RAMPS TO THE SOUTH OF THE

EXISTING INTERCHANGE AT THE PROPOSED SUNBURY PARKWAY TO THE

MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (MORPC).

WHEREAS, the improved interchange at Interstate 71 and Route 36/37 through

construction of new companion ramps to the south of the existing interchange at proposed

Sunbury Parkway is included in the pending Village of Sunbury Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, this project provides improved access to Interstate 71 and a western link

from the interchange area to the Village of Sunbury; and

WHEREAS, the project provides dedicated bike and pedestrian ways along Sunbury

Parkway; and

WHEREAS, relieving congestion on the existing interchange at Interstate 71 and Route

36/37 through construction of new companion ramps to the south of the existing interchange at

proposed Sunbury Parkway, as well as a western link from the interchange area to the Village of

Sunbury, will improve driving conditions in the Village of Sunbury and neighboring pmiions of

the region.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the Village of Sunbury

State of Ohio as follows:

SECTION I: The Village of Sunbury Council respectively supports all effmis to obtain

funding from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) to assist in advancing the

constmction of new companion ramps to the south of the existing interchange at proposed

Sunbury Parkway.

SECTION II: The Village of Sunbury Council is committed to the local funding level

included with this request.

SECTION III: It is found and determined that all formal actions of this Council

concerning and relating to the adoption of this resolution were adopted in an open meeting of this

Council, and that all deliberations of this Council and of any of its committees that resulted in

such formal action were meetings open to the public, and in compliance with all legal

requirements, including Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.

SECTION IV: This Resolution is hereby declared to be an emergency measure

necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the

citizens of the Village of Sunbury to meet MORPC application deadlines.

18

r/J!

1

VOTE ON SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: YEA

s NAY

!]_

VOTE ON RESOLUTION 2016-05 YEAS NAYS

PASSED:

ATTEST: I .1/ . ·

1a:l · Kathy Belcher, F cal Officer

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify on this d- ( day of pfe111 b N , 2016, that tlje foregoing is a

true and accurate copy of the Resolution passed at the meeting held on l'iber 1, 2016, of

the Village of Sunbury, County of Delaware, State of Ohio)..

t!:f!f --;2£c/L Fiscal Officer

September 22, 2016

Mr. Jerry Wray

Dttector- Ohio Department of Transportation

1980 West Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43223

RE: DEL-71-7.91 (PID 90200) I-71 and US 36/SSR 37 Interchange

Dear Mr. Wray,

The Big Walnut Area Chamber of Commerce would like to express our support for the proposed improvement of the I-71 and US 36/SR 37 interchange in Delaware County.

Development in and around the I-71 and US 36/SR 37 has grown significandy over the

last few years, and estimates show this area will continue to grow in population and

traffic.

It is extremely ttuportant to Delaware County that we maintain a corridor that will

se1vice the residents, business, and future growth in and around I-71 and US 36/SR37.

The planned interchange ttuprovements, which include ramps at the proposed Sunbury

Parkway, are ttuportant to our transportation system and needed for a more sustainable

economic future for our region.

It will address the cutrent and future safety and congestion issues at the existing I-71 and

US 36/SR 37 interchange.

Thank you so much for yout consideration to fund this critical project through the Transportation

Review Advisory Council.

Sincerely,

19

20

21

Office of Real Estate Paul R. Baldridge, Chief

2045 Morse Road – Bldg. E-2 Columbus, OH 43229

Phone: (614) 265-6649 Fax: (614) 267-4764

July 24, 2017

Timothy M. Hill, Environmental Administrator Office of Environmental Services Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223

Attn: Heather McColeman

Re: 17-398; Environmental Assessment – ODNR comments DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200

Project Description:

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is planning to construct an interchange at I-71, south of the existing US 36/SR 37 interchange in Delaware County, Ohio. This interchange will carry the new Sunbury Parkway over I-71 and run east and west of the interstate. This will not be a new interchange, but is a modification of the existing US 36/SR 37 interchange and it will operate in conjunction with the existing interchange. The project also involves construction of Sunbury Parkway, which will run from Africa Road at US 36/SR 37 east to Wilson Road. From Africa Road to Wilson Road Sunbury Parkway will be a six lane local road with a median, multi-use path, and sidewalk. From Wilson Road to US 36/SR 37 (Cherry Street), the project involves additional turn lanes on Galena Road and adding one lane travel lane in each direction to the portion of Sunbury Parkway that will be constructed by the Village of Sunbury New Community Authority 1.

Location: The proposed project is located in ODOT District 6.

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.

22

Fish and Wildlife: The Division of Wildlife (DOW) has the following comments.

The project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a state endangered and federally endangered species. The following species of trees have relatively high value as potential Indiana bat roost trees to include: 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 roost trees consists of trees that include dead and dying trees with exfoliating bark, crevices, or cavities in upland areas or riparian corridors and living trees with exfoliating bark, cavities, or hollow areas formed from broken branches or tops. However, Indiana bats are also dependent on the forest structure surrounding roost trees. If suitable habitat occurs within the project area, the DOW recommends trees be conserved. If suitable habitat occurs within the project area and trees must be cut, the DOW recommends cutting occur between October 1 and March 31. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months, the DOW recommends a net survey be conducted between June 1 and August 15, prior to any cutting. Net surveys should incorporate either nine net nights per square 0.5 kilometer of project area, or four net nights per kilometer for linear projects. If no tree removal is proposed, this project is not likely to impact this species.

The project is within the range of the rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), a state endangered and federally endangered mussel, the snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), a state endangered and federally endangered mussel, the rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), a state endangered and federal candidate mussel, the black sandshell (Ligumia recta), a state threatened mussel, and the pondhorn (Uniomerus tetralasmus), a state threatened mussel. The DOW recommends that Little Walnut Creek be evaluated for mussels per the Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol.

Parks and Watercraft: The Divisions of Parks and Watercraft have the following comments.

The information provided indicates that a small portion of the Alum Creek State Park may be affected by the proposed alternatives. As a reminder, the Alum Creek State Park is currently managed by ODNR but is owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). ODNR recommends that ODOT contact the Alum Creek USACE manager, Sylvia Chelf at sylvia.chelf@usace.army.mil or 740/548-6151 if further real estate coordination with the Huntington District of the USACE is needed.

ODNR appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mike Pettegrew at (614) 265-6387 if you have questions about these comments or need additional information.

Mike Pettegrew ODNR Office of Real Estate 2045 Morse Road, Building E-2 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693 mike.pettegrew@dnr.state.oh.us

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services Office 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104

Columbus, Ohio 43230 (614) 416-8993 / Fax (614) 416-8994

Timothy M. Hill , Administrator Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services l 980 West Broad Street, Mail Stop 4170 Columbus, OH 43223

Attn : Matt Perlik, Megan Michael

RE: DEL-71-7.91 (PID 90200)

Dear Mr. Hill ,

August l , 2017

TA ILS : 03E 15000-2016-F-l 752 (PIO 90200)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responding to your request for our review and comment on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the DEL-71-7.91 project, PID 90200, dated June 20, 2017. In a letter dated April 25 , 2017 (attached), the Service concluded consultation with ODOT on the DEL-71 project in accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended ; 16 U .S.C. 1531 et seq.). Consultation on the project' s impacts to the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis soda/is) and the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was conducted under the Ohio Programmatic Biological Opinion (OH PBO) issued to ODOT by the Service in February 2016. Our April 25 , 2017 letter served as a Tier 2 Biological Opinion under the 2016 OH PBO.

Your consultation letter dated April 7, 201 7, included ODOrs determination that the DEL-7 1 project will have no effect on any other federally li sted or protected species. Therefore, consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA was not required for any other species of federal concern known to occur in Delaware County, Ohio.

The Service appreciates ODOT's commitment to avoid and/or minimize impacts to summer roosting bats by I) clearing suitable wooded habitat (SWH) in the projecfs direct impact area only between I October and 3 I March, and 2) notifying the private developers who own parcels in the project' s indirect impact areas that trees should be cut only during that same timeframe. In addition, we appreciate ODOT' s measures to mitigate for impacts to the bats in both the direct (27.82 ac) and indirect (33 ac) impact areas at a 3.5: 1 replacement ratio: subtracting 212.87 acres from the acreage credit available at the ODOT SCCC2 Bat Conservation Area (BCA) in Hocking County, Ohio.

These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 40 I, as amended ; 16 U .S.C. 661 et seq.) and the ESA and are consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' s Mitigation Policy. Should, during the term of this action, additional information on listed or proposed species or their critical habitat become available, or if new information reveals effects of the action that were not previously

23

considered, consultation with the Service should be reinitiated to assess whether the determinations are still valid.

We appreciate ODOT's continued effo1ts to ensure that this project is fully consistent with all applicable provisions of the OH PBO. If you have any questions regarding our response or if you need additional infonnation, please contact me at extension 12 or Karen Hallberg at extension 23 in this office.

sy:r~ Dan Everson Field Supervisor

cc: M. Pettegrew, ODNR, Office of Real Estate, Columbus, OH (email only) P. Clingan, USACE, Ohio Regulatory Transportation Office, Columbus, OH (email only) B. Beck, OEPA, Columbus, OH (email only)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services Office 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104

Columbus, Ohio 43230 (614) 416-8993 / Fax (614) 416-8994

Timothy M. Hill. Administrator Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services I 980 West Broad Street, Mail Stop 4170 Columbus. OH 43223

Attn: Mat1 Perlik. Megan Michael

RE: DEL-71-7.91 (PID 90200)

Dear Mr. Hill.

April 25.2017

Ti\lLS . 031:15000-2016-F-1752 (Pl[) 90200)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responding to your request dated April 7.2017 to verify that the proposed DEL-71-7 .91 project (the project). PID 90200. may rely on the February 29. 2016. Framework Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) for the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Federal-Aid Highway Program pr~jects that may affect the Indiana bat (Mvotis soda/is) and/or northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (lvfrntis septentrionalis) 1

. ODOT has determined that the project is likely to adverselv a/feel the Indiana bat and the NLEB. This letter provides the Service's response as to whether the proj~ct -~iay rely on the PBO to comply with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( ESA) ( 87 Stat. 884. as amended: 16 U .S.C. 153 I et seq.) for its effects to the Indiana bat and N LEB.

The DEL-71-7.91 project. as proposed. will add a new interchange on IR-71 just south ofthe existing SR 36/3 7 interchange in Delaware Count) and finalize construction of a new multi-lane roadway called Sunbury Parkway . This action will require the construction of a new northbound off-ramp from IR- 71 to Sunbury Parkway and a new north hound collector-distributor road along no11hbound IR- 71 from the new off-ramp to the existing off-ramp to SR 36/37. It will also involve construction of a new northbound on­ramp from Sunbury Parkway and new southbound on-ramps from Sunbury Parkway. The project also requires improvements to existing roadways. including the relocation of Africa Road near the existing intersection with SR 36/37. and the relocation of Three s·s & K Road to create a new intersection with Sl!nbllry Parkway. The purpose of the project is to reduce existing and future congestion and improve -,afcty at the existing interchange. along with improving east-west connectivity consistent with land use and economic development plans.

Coordination on the project between ODOT and the Service began when ODOT requested formal consultation under the 2016 PBO in a letter dated September 30. 2016. The Service responded in a letter dated November 7.2016, indicating that we would need additional information regarding anticipated indirect and cumulative effects before we could evaluate ODOT's determination that the project may c?f/ec:t and is likely to adverse~v affect the Indiana bat and NLEB and that the impacts are consistent with those described within the 2016 PBO. On March 3.2017. ODOT's Indirect Effects and Cumulative

1 Nole : fhc Programmatic Biologil·al Opinion on Final ~(J) Ruic for the Nonh~m 1.ong-1 ·.arcd Llat and Activities Excepted from

·1 akc l'rohih\1ions is irn.:luded in the Ol)O r l'BO h:, rdi:rem:c.

Impacts (ICE) Analysis was made available to the Service by your office. Following our review of the \CE report. subsequent conversations ,vith your office, and the information provided in your April 7 letter. we now have sufficient information to address the proposed project and its potential impacts on federal!)' listed species.

From your April 7 letter we understand that the project will impact up to 5,235 linear feet of 14 small stream segments (most are Class l and Class 2 PHWH streams). 4.61 acres of nine Catego1) l and 2 wetlands. and 6.41 acres of pond habitat. We understand that the stream and wetland impacts are su~jccl to minor changes which may occur following the results ofa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdictional determination field review.

The project lies within the range of the Indiana bat Uv~votis soda/is. E). northern long-eared bat (!v~vot1s septentrionalis. T). bald eagle (Haliaeetus lcucoccpha/us. SC). running buffalo clover ( T,·ifi,liwn stoloniferum. T), rabbits foot mussel (Quaclrula crlindrica. T), rayed bean ( Villosafahalis. E). sheepnose (Plcthohasus cyphyus. E). and snuffbox (Epiohlasma triquetru, E). ODOT has determined that the pr~ject will have no effect on the bald eagle. running buffalo clover. rabbitsfoot mussel. rayed bean. sheepnose. and snuftbox: therefore. consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA is not required for these species.

Although bald eagles are no longer federally listed under the ESA. they are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ( 16 U .S.C. 703-712: M BTAJ and are afforded additional legal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 LJ.S.C. 668-668d. BGEPA). The BGEPA prohibits. among other things, the killing and disturbance of eagles. According to our records. the nearest bald eagle nest is approximately 2 miles from the project site. However, our database of nest locations may not be complete because nevv nests are built each year. Therefore. ,ve recommend that the site and surrounding area be evaluated to determine if any eagle nests are present. In order to avoid take of bald eagles. v,c: recommend that no tree clearing occur within 660 feet of a bald eagle nest or within any woodlot supporting a nest tree. Fuither we request that work within 660 feet ofa nest or within the direct line-of-­site of a nest be restricted from Januat)' 15 through July 31. This will prevent disturbance of the eagles from the egg-laying period until the young fledge, which encompasses their most vulnerable times . If these recommendations cannot be implemented and take of bald eagles is likely. a bald eagle take permit for this project may be neccssa1) . Fmther infomrntion on eagle take permits can be found at: htt p:1 tww\.\ .f w:..gov / m1dwest/M id"'estB ird/Eagle Perm 1ts/index.html.

Conclusion

The Service has reviewed your April 7, 2017 letter and suppo11ing materials submitted by your ~)flice, \\hich describe the effects of the proposed prqject and include ODOrs commitment to implement the impact avoidance. minimization, and compensation measures described below. which include those described for CC-3b projects in the 2016 PBO. These measures include:

• The implementation of Avoidance Measure A-l. which ,viii avoid and/or minimize impacts to summer roosting bats by clearing suitable wooded habitat (SWH) onlv between I October an9. 3 I March: and

• Notifying the private developers who own parcels in the indirect irnpac.:t areas that trees should be cut during the dates listed above to avoid potential impacts to federally threatened and endangered bats: and

• CM-\ a, which will offset the acreage of SWH to be removed. as follows: o 4.22 acres of SWH will be removed during the inactive season within 100 feet from the

edge of pavement. for which impacts are expected to be insignificant or discountable: this acreage ,vii! not be replaced: and

o 27.82 acres ofSWH in the direct impact areas. including one (I) tree identified at this time as a potential maternity roost tree (PMRT), will be removed beyond 100 feet from

the edge of pavement. In addition to the removal ofa PMRT. these impacts exceed the acreage threshold for the Western Management Unit (WMU) defined within the PBO and listed on its associated flowchart: therefore. this acreage will be replaced at a ratio of 3.5:1.

o An additional 33 acres ofSWH in the indirect impact areas. including two (2) trees identified at this time as PMRTs, may also be removed. We note that this acreage was not differentiated with regard to distance from the roadway, as it is not categorically covered under the 2016 PBO and it is uncertain whether the private developer wi 11 c I ear this habitat during the inactive or active season for the bats. The Service appreciates that ODOT has agreed to also offset the impact to this habitat at a replacement ratio of 3 .5: l.

o Therefore, a total of60.82 acres ofSWH will be replaced at a ratio of3 .5:1 and 212.87 of credits will be subtracted from the acreage credit available at the SCCC2 Bat Conservation Area (BCA).

We confirm that the proposed Project"s effects are consistent with those analyzed in the PBO. The Service has determined that projects consistent with the conservation measures and scope of the program analyzed in the PBO are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat and/or the NLEB.

Incidental Take

Indiana Bat

The Service anticipates that tree removal associated with the proposed project will cause incidental take of Indiana bats. As described in the Framework Incidental Take Statement (ITS) of the PBO, such taking will be difficult to detect. The Service detern1ined that it is appropriate to measure the amount or extent of incidental taking resulting from PBO projects using the proposed acreage of tree removal from Indiana bat suitable habitat as a surrogate for the numbers of individuals taken.

The proposed project will remove 65 .04 acres of SWH for the Indiana bat. as defined by the 2016 PBO.

The Service will add the acreage of project-related tree removal to the annual total acreage attributed to the PBO as a surrogate measure of Indiana bat take and exempted from the prohibitions against incidental taking. Such exemption is effective so long as your agency implements the reasonable and prudent measure (RPM) and accompanying terms and conditions of the PBO's ITS.

IVorthern Long-eared Bat

The Service anticipates that tree removal associated with the proposed project will cause incidental take of NLEBs. However, the project is consistent with the PBO, and such projects will not cause take of NL EB that is prohibited under the final 4(d) rule for this species (50 CFR § 17.40(0)). Therefore, this tal-.ing does not require exemption from the Service.

Reporting Dead or Injured Bats

ODOT. its Local cooperators, and any contractors must take care when handling dead or injured Indiana bats and/or NLEBs, or any other federally listed species that are found at the project site in order to preserve biological material in the best possible condition and to protect the handler from exposure to diseases. such as rabies. Project personnel are responsible for ensuring that any evidence about determining the cause of death or injury is not unnecessarily disturbed . Reporting the discovery of dead or injured listed species is required in all cases to enable the Service to determine whether the level of incidental take exempted by this PBO is exceeded, and to ensure that the tenns and conditions are

appropriate and effective. Parties finding a dead. injured. or sick specimen of any endangered or threatened species must promptly notify this Service Office.

Reinitation Notice

This letter concludes consultation for the proposed project, which qualifies for inclusion in the PBO issued to ODOT on February 26, 2016. To maintain this inclusion. a reinitiation of this project-level consultation is required if:

1. the amount or extent of incidental take of Indiana bat is exceeded; 2. new information reveals that the prQject may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or

to an extent not considered in the PBO: 3. the project is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or

designated critical habitat not considered in the PBO: or 4. a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that the Project may affect.

Per condition# 1 above. the anticipated incidental take is exceeded when: • the project removes trees from more than 65 .04 acres of S WH forthe Indiana bat and/or N LEB.

In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded. any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

As of this date, our records indicate that projects coordinated under the 2016 PBO have resulted in take of 134.48 acres of S WH :

Management Unit [ IT for this project Cumulative IT to date West I 65.04 acres 111.25 acres East I 0.00 acres 23.23 acres

I 65.04 acres 1134.48 acres -

Statewide

We appreciate your continued effo1ts to ensure that this project is fully consistent with all applicable provisions of the PBO. If you have any questions regarding our response or if you need additional info1mation. please contact Marci Lininger at extension 27 or Karen Hallberg at extension 23 in this office.

-;:l~-l6an Everson Field Supervisor

cc: J . Kessler. ODNR. Office of Real Estate. Columbus. OH (<!mail only) P. Clingan, USACE, Ohio Regulatory Transportation Office. Columbus. OH (email only) B. Beck, OEPA. Columbus. OH (umai/ only)

24

From: Latta, Brett C CIV USARMY CELRH (US)To: McColeman, HeatherCc: Earley, Adrienne; Clingan, Peter M CIV USARMY CELRH (US); Chelf, Sylvia J CIV USARMY CELRH (US)Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment for DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200_LRH-2016-00872-SCRDate: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:01:53 AM

Good morning:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment for the proposed DEL-71-7.91 project. The Corps recommends that proposed impacts to wetlands, particularly the forested wetland complex east of Interstate 71, be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable and that the hydrologic connection(s) of this wetland complex to the surface tributary system be maintained.

If any real estate coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required, please contact Ms. Sylvia Chelf (Sylvia.Chelf@usace.army.mil), Resource Manager at Alum Creek Lake.

Thank you,

Brett C. Latta, CPGRegulatory Project ManagerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Huntington DistrictBuilding 10 / Section 10PO Box 3990Columbus, OH 43218-3990Phone: (614) 692-4672

25

Office of Real Estate Paul R. Baldridge, Chief

2045 Morse Road – Bldg. E-2 Columbus, OH 43229

Phone: (614) 265-6649 Fax: (614) 267-4764

August 21, 2017

Timothy M. Hill, Environmental Administrator Office of Environmental Services Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223

Attn: Matt Raymond

Re: 17-496; Level 2 ESR Addendum – ODNR comments DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200

Project Description:

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is planning to construct an interchange at I-71, south of the existing US 36/SR 37 interchange in Delaware County, Ohio. This interchange will carry the new Sunbury Parkway over I-71 and run east and west of the interstate. This will not be a new interchange, but is a modification of the existing US 36/SR 37 interchange and it will operate in conjunction with the existing interchange. The project also involves construction of Sunbury Parkway, which will run from Africa Road at US 36/SR 37 east to Wilson Road. From Africa Road to Wilson Road Sunbury Parkway will be a six lane local road with a median, multi-use path, and sidewalk. From Wilson Road to US 36/SR 37 (Cherry Street), the project involves additional turn lanes on Galena Road and adding one lane travel lane in each direction to the portion of Sunbury Parkway that will be constructed by the Village of Sunbury New Community Authority 1.

Location: The proposed project is located in ODOT District 6.

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.

26

Fish and Wildlife: The Division of Wildlife (DOW) has the following comments.

The project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a state endangered and federally endangered species. The following species of trees have relatively high value as potential Indiana bat roost trees to include: 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 roost trees consists of trees that include dead and dying trees with exfoliating bark, crevices, or cavities in upland areas or riparian corridors and living trees with exfoliating bark, cavities, or hollow areas formed from broken branches or tops. However, Indiana bats are also dependent on the forest structure surrounding roost trees. If suitable habitat occurs within the project area, the DOW recommends trees be conserved. If suitable habitat occurs within the project area and trees must be cut, the DOW recommends cutting occur between October 1 and March 31. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months, the DOW recommends a net survey be conducted between June 1 and August 15, prior to any cutting. Net surveys should incorporate either nine net nights per square 0.5 kilometer of project area, or four net nights per kilometer for linear projects. If no tree removal is proposed, this project is not likely to impact this species.

The project is within the range of the rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), a state endangered and federally endangered mussel, the snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), a state endangered and federally endangered mussel, the rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), a state endangered and federal candidate mussel, the black sandshell (Ligumia recta), a state threatened mussel, and the pondhorn (Uniomerus tetralasmus), a state threatened mussel. Due to the location, and that there is no in-water work proposed in a perennial stream of sufficient size, this project is not likely to impact these species.

ODNR appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mike Pettegrew at (614) 265-6387 if you have questions about these comments or need additional information.

Mike Pettegrew ODNR Office of Real Estate 2045 Morse Road, Building E-2 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693 mike.pettegrew@dnr.state.oh.us

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services Office 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104

Columbus, Ohio 43230 (614) 416-8993 / Fax (614) 416-8994

August 21, 2017

U.S. FISH A WJLDUFE

SERVICE

~

Timothy M. Hill , Administrator Office of Environmental Services Ohio Depai1ment of Transportation

TA ILS: 03EI5000-2016-F-1752 (Pill 90200)

1980 West Broad Street, Mail Stop #4170 Columbus, Ohio 43223

Attn: Matthew Perlik, Matt Raymond

RE: DEL-71-7.91 (PID 90200) Re-initiation of Tier 2 MALAA Programmatic Project-level Consultation

Dear Mr. Hill:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responding to your request, dated August 11 , 2017, to reinitiate tiered formal consultation on the proposed DEL-71-7.91 project, PIO 90200, under the 2016 Ohio Programmatic Biological Opinion (2016 OH PBO) for the Lndiana bat (Myotis soda/is) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). As stated in your August l l letter, the Service concluded consultation with ODOT on this project with the issuance of a tiered biological opinion submitted to your office on April 25, 2017. That biological opinion evaluated the project's potential effects on the Indiana and northern long-eared bats and verified that those impacts fell within the covered scope of the PBO. Ln addition, the Service reviewed the June 20, 2017 Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, and in a letter dated August 1, 2017, we confirmed our previous findings that the project was within the scope of the 2016 OH PBO.

We understand from your current letter that construction and right-of-way limits have changed since our review of the previous ecological reports . Your August 1 l letter states that these changes will result in additional impacts to ecological resources, including additional impacts to aquatic resources, an additional 1.82 ac of suitable wooded habitat (SWH) in the areas of direct project impacts, and an additional 0.90 ac of SWH in the areas of indirect impacts. With these additional impacts to SWH, the project will now impact a total of 29 .64 acres of SWH beyond I 00 feet from the edge of pavement in the areas of direct impacts and 33.90 ac of SWH in the areas of indirect impacts.

The Service appreciates ODOT's commitment to avoid and/or minimize impacts to summer roosting bats by I) clearing SWH in the project 's direct impact area only between I October and 3 I March, and 2) notifying the private developers who own parcels in the project's indirect impact areas that trees should be . cut only during that same timeframe. ln addition, we appreciate ODOT's measures to mitigate for impacts to the bats in both the direct (29.64 ac) and indirect (33.90 ac) impact areas at a 3.5: I replacement ratio: subtracting 222.39 acres from the acreage credit available at the ODOT SCCC2 Bat Conservation Area (BCA) in Hocking County, Ohio.

27

These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and are consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Mitigation Policy.

Should, during the term of this action, additional information on listed or proposed species or their critical habitat become available, or if new information reveals effects of the action that were not previously considered, consultation with the Service should be reinitiated to assess whether the determinations are still valid.

We appreciate ODOT's continued effo11s to ensure that this project is fully consistent with all applicable provisions of the 20 I 6 OH PBO. If you have any questions regarding our response or if you need additional information, please contact me at extension 12 or Karen Hallberg at extension 23 in this office.

7:· Q~-6 an Everson Field Supervisor

cc: J. Kessler, ODNR, Office of Real Estate, Columbus, OH (email only) P. Clingan, USACE, Ohio Regulatory Transportation Office, Columbus, OH (email only) B. Beck, OEPA, Columbus, OH (email only) M . Pettegrew, ODNR, Office of Real Estate, Columbus, OH (email only)

From: Beck, BrandonTo: Raymond, Matthew; McColeman, HeatherCc: Boyles, Jeffrey; Michael, MeganSubject: OEPA Comments on EA and ESR-Addendum for DEL-71-7.91 PID 90200Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 4:24:36 PM

Good Afternoon,

Ohio EPA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment coordinated with this office in June 2017 and the ESR-Addendum coordinated with this office in August 2017.

Ohio EPA recommends that proposed impacts to wetlands and streams be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable when engineering design takes place for this project, particularly regarding forested wetlands.

Ohio EPA also recommends conducting a field visit to verify water resource assessments that changed as a result of the most recent ESR.

Brandon BeckOhio EPA – Division of Surface Water401/Isolated Wetland Permitting Section614-644-2259

28

1

Raymond, Matthew

From: Latta, Brett C CIV USARMY CELRH (US) <Brett.C.Latta@usace.army.mil>

Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 9:45 AM

To: Raymond, Matthew

Cc: McColeman, Heather; Michael, Megan; Clingan, Peter M CIV USARMY CELRH (US);

Chelf, Sylvia J CIV USARMY CELRH (US); Earley, Adrienne

Subject: RE: DEL-71-7.91Revised Level 2 ESR and Impacts (PID 90200): USACE Pre-application

Coordination

Attachments: Corrections from Level+2+Ecological+Survey+Addendum+Aug+2017.pdf

Hi Matt:

Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on the ESR addendum. The Corps agrees that the PJD/JD issued July

5, 2017 remains valid and relevant to the proposed project. There are a few very minor corrections recommended in

the attached tables to ensure the ESR addendum matches the information in the July 5, 2017 PJD/JD.

The project would require evaluation under an Individual Section 404 Permit for proposed discharges of dredged and/or

fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps requests that any permit application include both color and

black and white exhibits of all waters of the United States in the proposed project area. Black and white exhibits with

clearly defined waterway boundaries and proposed discharges of dredged and/or fill material would help facilitate the

Corps' public notice process.

Otherwise, our comments issued on August 11, 2017 remain valid and relevant to the proposed project as detailed in

the ESR addendum.

Thank you,

Brett

-----Original Message-----

From: Matt.Raymond@dot.ohio.gov [mailto:Matt.Raymond@dot.ohio.gov]

Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:05 PM

To: Clingan, Peter M CIV USARMY CELRH (US) <Peter.M.Clingan@usace.army.mil>; Latta, Brett C CIV USARMY CELRH

(US) <Brett.C.Latta@usace.army.mil>; Long, Timothy M CIV USARMY CELRH (US) <Timothy.M.Long@usace.army.mil>

Cc: Heather.McColeman@dot.ohio.gov; Eric.Sainey@dot.ohio.gov; Janice.Gartner@dot.ohio.gov;

Megan.Michael@dot.ohio.gov

Subject: [Non-DoD Source] DEL-71-7.91Revised Level 2 ESR and Impacts (PID 90200): USACE Pre-application

Coordination

Peter and Brett,

The DEL-71-7.91 project plans to modify the existing I-71 interchange with US 36/SR 37 and finalize construction of a

multi-lane roadway called Sunbury Parkway in Berlin Township, Berkshire Township, and Village of Sunbury, Delaware

County, Ohio. The purpose of the project is to reduce existing and future congestion and improve safety at the existing

interchange along with improving east-west connectivity consistent with land use and economic development plans.

29

2

Ecological Survey Reports (ESR) for this project were previously coordinated with the USACE in September 2016,

November 2016, and May 2017, and ODOT received a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD)/Jurisdictional

Determination (JD) for the project from your agency on July 5, 2017. Additionally, an Environmental Assessment was

coordinated with your agency in June 2017 and we received comments from your agency on August 11, 2017.

Subsequent to the coordination of these documents, the project's construction and right-of-way limits have changed

and the impacts to ecological resources have changed from

those identified in the May 2017 ESR and the June 2017 EA. To document this change, an ESR Addendum has been

prepared for the preferred alternative to document the changes in anticipated impacts associated with the project. At

this time detailed design has not been completed for the proposed project. As a result, the impacts to the ecological

resources listed in the ESR Addendum have been estimated based on the largest area of right-of-way limits that would

be necessary to complete the proposed project, and knowledge of the scope of the proposed construction activities.

Impacts discussed in the report are preliminary, and represent the maximum likely impacts to resources that would

result from the proposed project.

The project is currently anticipated (based on the preferred alternative) to result in potential impacts to the following

waters:

* Thirteen (13) streams (including one WWH , two Class II PHWH and ten Class I PHWH), for a total of 4823 linear

feet. One additional Class II PHWH Stream (Stream 3) is now impacted and the total linear feet of impact has increased

324 feet from that shown in the May 2017 ESR and the June 2017 EA.

* Twelve (12) wetlands (including three Category 1, two Modified Category 2, and seven Category 2), for a total of

4.57 acres. No additional wetlands are impacted but the total wetland impact has increased 1.86 acres from that shown

in the May 2017 ESR and the June 2017 EA.

* Two (2) non-isolated ponds, for a total of 1.80 acres. One additional pond (Pond 11) is now impacted and the total

pond impact has increased 0.29 acres from that shown in the May 2017 ESR and the June 2017 EA.

* One (1) potentially jurisdictional ditch, for a total of 0.01 acres. No change from the May 2017 ESR and the June

2017 EA.

No additional impacts are anticipated to any state or federally listed species with the exception of an increase in impacts

to suitable wooded habitat for the northern long-eared bat and the Indiana bat. While we anticipate an increase in

impacts to suitable habitat for these species, the increase will not result in a change in the effects of the action from

what had been previously coordinated.

While the impacts related to the project have changed, no additional areas outside of the project study area that was

used for the PJD/JD study area will be impacted. all additional impacts have occurred to resources previously identified

and documented within the PJD/JD review area noted in the July 5, 2017 PJD/JD. Therefore, ODOT believes that the

PJD/JD received July 5, 2017 remains valid and relevant to the project.

3

A document titled Level 2 Ecological Survey Addendum Aug 2017 has been posted to the EnviroNet at

Blockedhttp://ceform.dot.state.oh.us/ under the 'Project File' tab of ODOT PID 90200 within the 'Ecological' 'Reports'

section. This document is being coordinated for your review and pre-application comments. ODOT would appreciate an

expedited review of the ESR Addendum, and request that any comments on the Addendum be provided to ODOT on or

before August 28th so that we can proceed with finalization of the EA.

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the project during your review.

Thank you.

Matt <mailto:Lauren.Bowyer@dot.ohio.gov> Raymond

Ecological Program Manager

ODOT Office of Environmental Services

1980 West Broad Street, Mail Stop 4170

Columbus, Ohio 43223

(614) 466-5129

transportation.ohio.gov

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this

project are being, or have been, carried-out by ODOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding

dated [December 11, 2015], and executed by FHWA and ODOT.

LEVEL 2 ESR

RESULTS: AQUATIC ECOLOGY - STREAMS

Were any streams identified within the project area? YES Total number of streams within the project area: 19 Total length of streams within the project area (linear feet): 22618

STREAM TABLE : RESOURCES IDENTIFIED ON FIGURE(S) Enter Figure #1C-1 to 1C-A1-5

Str

eam

Nam

e/I.

D.:

Ph

oto

gra

ph

#(s

):

Rec

eivi

ng

Wat

ers:

Dra

inag

e A

rea

(mi2 )

:

Oh

io E

PA

Riv

er M

ile

(if

app

lica

ble

):

12-D

igit

HU

C:

To

tal

Len

gth

Wit

hin

Pro

ject

A

rea

(lin

. ft

.):

Is t

his

Str

eam

Cap

ture

d

wit

hin

th

e R

oad

way

Dit

ch:

*Str

eam

Hyd

rolo

gy T

ype:

ᶧUSA

CE F

low

Ch

arac

teris

tics:

Hab

itat

Ass

essm

ent

Evi

den

ce o

f M

uss

els

Pre

sen

t:

Biological Sampling Conducted

Ohi

o EP

A Aq

uatic

Life

Use

D

esig

nat

ion

:

An

ti-d

egra

dat

ion

D

esig

nat

ion

:

Nat

ion

al o

r S

tate

Sce

nic

R

iver

s o

r N

RI S

trea

ms

Des

ign

atio

n f

or

Po

ten

tial

In-

wat

er W

ork

Res

tric

tio

n:

HU

C w

ith

an

Ap

pro

ved

or

Pen

din

g T

MD

L:

Sal

aman

der

s O

bse

rved

:

Fis

h O

bse

rved

:

Aq

uat

ic M

acro

-in

vert

ebra

tes

Ob

serv

ed:

Stream 1 1 Stream 2 0.12 N/A 050600011403 802 NO I RPW-

Seasonal HHEI 25

NO Not Surveyed

Not Surveyed

Not Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I

General High Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 1 > Stream 2 > Stream 3 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River(TNW) The stream was flowing at time of sampling, however characteristics were present that the stream runs dry during dry times of the year. The stream is located adjacent to a model home site and flows west.

Stream 1a 2 Stream 2 0.12 N/A 050600011403 54 NO E Non-RPW HHEI

25 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 1a >Stream 1> Stream 2> Stream 3 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River(TNW) The stream was flowing at time of sampling. This stream is tributary to Stream 1 and flows west.

Stream 2 3 Stream 3 0.12 N/A 050600011403 145 NO E Non-RPW HHEI

25 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 2 > Stream 3 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River(TNW) Stream 2 is located behind a house off of route 36/37. There is a drainage pipe that feeds the stream that is visible.

Stream 3 4,5 Alum Creek Lake 0.42 N/A 050600

011403 1546 NO P RPW- Perennial HHEI

49 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass II General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 3 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 3 is a larger stream that flows into Alum Creek Lake. Stream 3 is located in a deep valley and can be high energy at times of heavy rain. The area of stream 3 located closest to route 36/37 flows through unconsolidated glacial till. The area are the stream to the east is located in an immature forest that would be suitable habitat for many species.

Stream 4 6 Alum Creel Lake 0.01 N/A 050600

011403 175 NO I RPW- Seasonal HHEI

21 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

7

LEVEL 2 ESR

STREAM TABLE : RESOURCES IDENTIFIED ON FIGURE(S) Enter Figure #1C-1 to 1C-A1-5

Str

eam

Nam

e/I.

D.:

Ph

oto

gra

ph

#(s

):

Rec

eivi

ng

Wat

ers:

Dra

inag

e A

rea

(mi2 )

:

Oh

io E

PA

Riv

er M

ile

(if

app

lica

ble

):

12-D

igit

HU

C:

To

tal

Len

gth

Wit

hin

Pro

ject

A

rea

(lin

. ft

.):

Is t

his

Str

eam

Cap

ture

d

wit

hin

th

e R

oad

way

Dit

ch:

*Str

eam

Hyd

rolo

gy T

ype:

ᶧUSA

CE F

low

Ch

arac

teris

tics:

Hab

itat

Ass

essm

ent

Evi

den

ce o

f M

uss

els

Pre

sen

t:

Biological Sampling Conducted

Ohi

o EP

A Aq

uatic

Life

Use

D

esig

nat

ion

:

An

ti-d

egra

dat

ion

D

esig

nat

ion

:

Nat

ion

al o

r S

tate

Sce

nic

R

iver

s o

r N

RI S

trea

ms

Des

ign

atio

n f

or

Po

ten

tial

In-

wat

er W

ork

Res

tric

tio

n:

HU

C w

ith

an

Ap

pro

ved

or

Pen

din

g T

MD

L:

Sal

aman

der

s O

bse

rved

:

Fis

h O

bse

rved

:

Aq

uat

ic M

acro

-in

vert

ebra

tes

Ob

serv

ed:

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 4 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 4 is an ephemeral stream that drains into Alum Creek Lake closest to Africa Rd. The HHEI for this stream was conducted just west of Africa Rd.

Stream 6a 7 Alum Creek Lake 0.12 N/A 050600

011403 1466 NO P RPW- Perennial HHEI

35 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass II General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 6 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 6 was determined to be a perennial stream which flows into Alum Creek Lake. No species of fish or macroinvertabrates were observed, however there are riffles and possible habitat for these species.

Stream 6b 7 Alum Creek Lake 0.12 N/A 050600

011403 1466 NO P RPW- Perennial HHEI

35 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass II General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 6 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 6 was determined to be a perennial stream which flows into Alum Creek Lake. No species of fish or macroinvertabrates were observed, however there are riffles and possible habitat for these species.

Stream 6c 52 Alum Creek Lake 0.12 N/A 050600

011403 35 NO P Non-RPW HHEI 16

NO Not Surveyed

Not Surveyed

Not Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I

General High Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 6c >Stream 6 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 6c was determined to be an ephemeral stream that acts as overflow drainage channel from Pond 1 to Stream 6.

Stream 7 7 Stream 6 0.03 N/A 050600011403 360 NO E Non-RPW HHEI

13 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 7 > Stream 6 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 7 was determined to be an ephemeral stream that flows into stream 6. It is located in glacial till surrounded by immature forest.

Stream 8 8 Stream 10 0.01 N/A 050600011403 624 NO I RPW-

Seasonal HHEI 13

NO Not Surveyed

Not Surveyed

Not Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I

General High Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 8 > Stream 10 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 8 was determined to be an ephemeral stream that flows into stream 10. It is located in glacial till surrounded by immature forest.

Stream 9 9 Stream 8 0.01 N/A 050600011403 539 NO E Non-RPW HHEI

10 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 9 > Stream 8 > Stream 10 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 9 was determined to be an ephemeral stream that flows into stream 8. It is located in glacial till surrounded by immature forest.

8

LEVEL 2 ESR

STREAM TABLE : RESOURCES IDENTIFIED ON FIGURE(S) Enter Figure #1C-1 to 1C-A1-5

Str

eam

Nam

e/I.

D.:

Ph

oto

gra

ph

#(s

):

Rec

eivi

ng

Wat

ers:

Dra

inag

e A

rea

(mi2 )

:

Oh

io E

PA

Riv

er M

ile

(if

app

lica

ble

):

12-D

igit

HU

C:

To

tal

Len

gth

Wit

hin

Pro

ject

A

rea

(lin

. ft

.):

Is t

his

Str

eam

Cap

ture

d

wit

hin

th

e R

oad

way

Dit

ch:

*Str

eam

Hyd

rolo

gy T

ype:

ᶧUSA

CE F

low

Ch

arac

teris

tics:

Hab

itat

Ass

essm

ent

Evi

den

ce o

f M

uss

els

Pre

sen

t:

Biological Sampling Conducted

Ohi

o EP

A Aq

uatic

Life

Use

D

esig

nat

ion

:

An

ti-d

egra

dat

ion

D

esig

nat

ion

:

Nat

ion

al o

r S

tate

Sce

nic

R

iver

s o

r N

RI S

trea

ms

Des

ign

atio

n f

or

Po

ten

tial

In-

wat

er W

ork

Res

tric

tio

n:

HU

C w

ith

an

Ap

pro

ved

or

Pen

din

g T

MD

L:

Sal

aman

der

s O

bse

rved

:

Fis

h O

bse

rved

:

Aq

uat

ic M

acro

-in

vert

ebra

tes

Ob

serv

ed:

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 16 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW) Stream 16 is located west of I-71 in the southern portion of the study area. This stream was determined to be ephemeral. The HHEI for this stream west conducted just west of the culvert west of I-71.

Stream 17 18 Alum Creek Lake 0.25 N/A 050600

011404 1165 YES I RPW- Seasonal HHEI

36 NO Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed Not

Surveyed ᶧᶧClass I General High

Quality Waters

NO (Choose) YES

Additional Information. List how the stream connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations (such as water quality measurements if taken) : Stream 17 >Stream 15 > Stream 13 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River (TNW). Stream 17 is located east of I-71 adjacent to forested area in the vicinity of WD-W and WD-Z. This stream was determined to be Intermittent.

*P = Perennial, I= Intermittent, E = Ephemeral ᶧSubject to verification by the USACE (TNW=Traditional Navigable Water, RPW=Relatively Permanent Water) ᶧᶧ Indicates Provisional designations based on habitat assessment forms and/or HMFEI.

11

LEVEL 2 ESR

RESULTS: AQUATIC ECOLOGY – DITCHES Were any potentially jurisdictional ditches or ditches serving as non-jurisdictional conveyances for adjacent wetlands identified within the project area?

YES

Total number of potentially jurisdictional ditches within the project area: 2 Total area of potentially jurisdictional ditches within the project area (acres): 0.04

POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL DITCH TABLE : RESOURCES IDENTIFIED ON FIGURE(S) Figure 1C-1 to 1C-A1-5 (Note: ditches that acquire/possess an ordinary high water mark and become relatively permanent waters outside of right-of-way (upstream) should be assessed as streams and included on the

Stream Table)

Dit

ch I.

D.:

Ph

oto

gra

ph

#(s

):

Rec

eivi

ng

Wat

ers:

12-D

igit

HU

C

Bo

un

dar

y th

e D

itch

is

Lo

cate

d w

ith

in:

US

AC

E F

low

C

har

acte

rist

ics:

OH

WM

Pre

sen

t:

Co

nst

ruct

ed T

hro

ug

h

or

Dra

ins

a w

etla

nd

:

Co

nst

ruct

ed T

hro

ug

h

a M

app

ed H

ydri

c S

oil

Un

it(s

):

Flo

ws

Bet

wee

n T

wo

or

Mo

re P

ote

nti

al W

ater

s o

f th

e U

S:

Ave

rag

e W

idth

of

Wet

ted

Per

imet

er

Wit

hin

Pro

ject

Are

a (f

t.)

To

tal

Len

gth

Wit

hin

P

roje

ct A

rea

(lin

. ft.

):

Ditch-1 19,20 Stream 1a 050600010403 Big Run, Alum

Cr Non-Relatively Permanent Water YES YES YES

BeB NO 2 631

Additional Information. List How the ditch connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations : Ditch-1 > Stream 1a > Stream 1 > Stream 3 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River(TNW)

Ditch-2 45 Stream 17 050600011305

Little Walnut Creek

Non-Relatively Permanent Water YES NO YES PwA NO 2 230

Additional Information. List How the ditch connects to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) and any other pertinent observations : Ditch-2 > Stream 17 > Stream 15 > Stream 13 > Alum Creek Lake > Alum Creek > Big Walnut Creek > Scioto River(TNW)

21