Ecological Wetlands Streams & Rivers Other Surface Waters Terrestrial Habitat Threatened & Endangered Species Agency Coordination Categorical Exclusion

EcologicalWetlands

Streams & RiversOther Surface Waters

Terrestrial HabitatThreatened & Endangered Species

Agency Coordination

Categorical Exclusion Training Class

Ecological ProcessProject Initiation

Package Field Review

Ecological Survey Report

ODOT Review

Agency Coordinatio

n

NEPADocument

Not present

Categorical Exclusion Training Class 2

Present/Impacted

Overviewo Project Initiation Package

o Ecological Survey Reports Level I - Projects that meet the MOA

Minor Impacts (NWP) Projects that involve stream crossings,

bank stabilization, and/or minor wetland fills

Level II – Projects with multiple alternatives Will require an individual 404/401 permit

and/or a Level 3 Isolated Wetland Permit Level III - Projects with multiple corridors


Overviewo Agency Coordination

Level 1 ESR ODNR USFWS

Level 2 & 3 ESRs ODNR USFWS USACE OEPA

EA/EIS USEPA

Special coordination may occur with NPS and ODNR Scenic Rivers for any level of project.Categorical Exclusion Training Class 4

Wetlands


Typeso Adjacent or Abutting Wetlands (Non-

Isolated) Hydrologic Connection OEPA Category (1, 2 or 3)

o Isolated Wetlands No Hydrologic Connection Regulated by OEPA OEPA Category (1, 2 or 3)


Online CE – Ecological Tab

Wetlandso Answer drop-downs appropriately

o If wetlands are impacted, a table is generated


Remarks o Identify who completed literature and

field reviews Include date of when each was

completedo Identify each wetland by name or ID

identified during field investigations If impacted, list accordingly in the table

o Discuss the functions and values of each wetland including ORAM scores

o List the work that is occurring in each wetland and associated impacts List commitments in a table that can be

generated in the Agency Coordination section

o Discuss wetland finding and analysis


The ecological survey was conducted by Mannik and Smith biologists on August 15-16, 2011. A Level 2 ESR was submitted to ODOT on December 10, 2011.

The proposed project will substantially rehabilitate the existing I-70 bridges over the Stillwater River. In order to accommodate the widened bridge deck, the proposed rehabilitation will include widening of the in stream piers. A temporary causeway and coffer dams/cribs/sheeting will be required to allow for construction access, including pier reconstruction.

Six emergent wetlands are present on gravel bars within the stream and below the ordinary high water mark. These gravel bars will be impacted in whole or in part by the temporary causeway and widened piers. The installation and removal of the temporary causeway is expected to eliminate these wetlands. However, it is anticipated that wetland areas will redevelop as sediments are re-deposited following completion of the project.

Avoidance methods were considered. Eliminating the main line improvements proposed under this project (the "No Build" alternative) will not meet the identified needs of the project to maintain adequate pavement condition, address conditions contributing the high accident rate, or provide adequate maintenance-of-traffic. The No Build alternative was dismissed from consideration as it does not meet the purpose and need of the project. Rehabilitation of these bridges without a temporary causeway would require full closure of each bridge during construction. Maintaining at least two lanes of traffic on the interstate, which is considered vital to national security, precludes closure of the bridges. Therefore rehabilitation as an avoidance measure is not prudent. Any necessary wetland mitigation will be addressed as part of the waterway permit process.


Example

9

Programmatic Wetland Finding

Agreement between FHWA and ODOT

o Must include: Do Nothing (No Build) Improvements that will not result in

wetland impacts Measures to minimize and mitigate

wetland impacts



o Do Nothing Alternative One or more of the following must be

documented: Would not correct existing or projected

capacity deficiencies Would not correct safety hazards Would not correct existing deteriorated

conditions and maintenance problems Would result in serious impacts to

public

o Addressed in Purpose & Need



o Improvements that will not result in impacts are not practicable because such avoidance would: Substantial adverse community impacts Substantially increases project cost Unique engineering, traffic,

maintenance, or safety issues Substantial adverse social, economic, or

environmental impacts Would not meet identified needs



o Discuss ways wetland impacts can be avoided Retaining walls Alignment shifts Narrowed roadway Design exceptions


Streams&

Rivers


Typeso National Scenic Rivers

National Park Service (NPS)

o State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers Ohio Department Natural Resources

(ODNR)

o Navigable Rivers U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Section 9

(Commercial) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Section 10 (Commercial & Recreational)


Online CE – Ecological Tab Streams & Riverso Answer drop-downs appropriately

o If impacts will occur, a table is generated



Streams & Riverso In the table: List name or “use designation” No designation - list the QHEI or HHEI score QHEI

Streams larger than 1 square mile drainage

HHEI Streams smaller than 1 square mile

Refresh Sums button calculates total impacts


Remarkso Identify who completed literature/field

reviews and when they were completed

o Identify each waterway by name/identification If impacted, list accordingly in the table

o Discuss each waterway’s features, function, and values

o For National Scenic Rivers identify and discuss the NPS Outstanding Remarkable Values


Remarks o List type of activity occurring in each

waterwayo List amount of impacts to each resourceo For projects with multiple waterways

provide information in matrix formato If waterways present, but no in-water

work will occur, state measures to be used to prevent possible secondary impacts

o List measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts List commitments in a table that can be



Example The ecological survey was conducted by Mannik and Smith biologists on August 15-16, 2011. A Level 2 ESR was submitted to ODOT on December 10, 2011.

The proposed project will substantially rehabilitate the existing I-70 bridges over the Stillwater River. In order to accommodate the widened bridge deck, the proposed rehabilitation will include widening of the in-stream piers. A temporary causeway and coffer dams/cribs/sheeting will be required to allow for construction access, including pier reconstruction. Any necessary stream mitigation will be addressed as part of the waterway permit process.

The Stillwater River is a State-designated scenic river. ODOT, ODNR Scenic Rivers and the design team conducted a field review on 03-21-2011. As the project can not avoid in-stream work (both temporary and permanent), ODOT acknowledges that some form of mitigation for involvement with the Stillwater is appropriate. Various options were discussed, including tree plantings or honeysuckle removal within Englewood's Grossnickle Park or reconstruction of the Englewood Reserve Bikeway to provide a more natural feature than the current gabion wall. The project team will continue to work with ODNR Scenic Rivers to identify an acceptable mitigation. BMPs as outlined in the most recent version of the ODOT CMS and SS 832 will be followed to minimize siltation impacts during construction.


OtherSurface Waters


Typeso Reservoirso Lakeso Farm Pondso Detention Basinso Storm Water Managemento Jurisdictional Ditches



Other Surface Waterso Answer drop-downs appropriately If impacts will occur, a table is not

generated


Remarks o Identify who completed literature and field

reviews and when they were completedo Identify each surface water by name or

identification numbero Briefly discuss features, function, and

valueso List impacts to each surface watero List measures to avoid, minimize, and

mitigate impacts List commitments in a table that can be



TerrestrialHabitat


Typeso Mowed/disturbed habitat (roadside, lawns,

etc.)o Agricultural (row-cropped and pasture)o Old-field/scrub-shrubo Forested (riparian/upland)o Remnant Prairieo Unique or High Quality

Mature Climax Forest Remnant Prairies Any area with a prevalence of rare species


Ecological Tab – Online CE

Terrestrial Habitato Answer drop-downs and check boxes as appropriate If Unique or High Quality Habitat

present, checklist is generated (no table)


Remarks o Identify who completed literature and

field reviews and when they were completed

o Briefly discuss type of habitat identifiedo List impactso List measures to avoid, minimize, and

mitigate impacts List commitments, as appropriate, in a

table that can be generated in the Agency Coordination section


Example The project area consisted mostly of developed land (including developed open space, developed low intensity, medium intensity and high intensity), which included the maintained road right-of-way and adjacent less maintained areas just outside of the right-of-way. These areas were dominated by common upland herbaceous species and young trees and shrubs. Approximately 124 acres of developed areas will be impacted.

A small amount of floodplain forest is present within the project area. This area is dominated by typical riparian trees and shrubs. This narrow strip of riparian woodland is located along the Stillwater River. Approximately 2.5 acres of floodplain forest will be impacted.

As discussed in the wetland section of the CE, a small amount of emergent riverine (gravel bar wetlands) will be impacted by the bridge work associated with the Stillwater River. These wetlands were dominated by water willow (Justisica americana). Approximately 0.098 acre of wetlands will be impacted by this project.

No unique or high quality terrestrial habitats were found within the project area. All of the habitats are common adjacent to the project area, and throughout Ohio. This project will not cause significant local declines in these common habitats or the plant and animal species found in these areas.


Threatened&

Endangered Species


Ecological Tab - Online CEo Answer drop-downs appropriately

Snuffbox MusselIndiana Bat


Remarks o Federally Listed Species

Identify all listed species and listing status known from the county/counties where the project occurs

Potential habitat present within the project area and potential impacts to such habitat

List known critical habitat


Kirtland WarblerAmerican Burying

BeetleIndiana Bat

32

Remarks o State Listed Species

Identify all listed species and listing status known within a mile of the project

Discuss impacts to species and their suitable habitat

o For both state and federal species, list efforts to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to listed species and suitable habitat List commitments, as appropriate, in a

table that can be generated in the Agency Coordination section


Example The proposed project is located within the known habitat ranges of the Indiana bat, rayed bean mussel and snuffbox mussel (all federally-listed species of concern), the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (federally-listed candidate species) and the bald eagle (federally-listed species of concern).

Review of the ODNR Biodiversity Database identified one records of the snuffbox mussel in the Stillwater River, approximately 1/4-mile north of the project. A mussel survey undertaken for the project in August 2011 identified the elktoe mussel, creek heelsplitter, kidneyshell, and wavy-rayed lamp mussel (all State-listed species of concern).


Example ODOT OES made the following effect determinations for federally-listed species:

Indiana bat: Based on the Level 2 ESR, two suitable roost trees and one suitable maternity roost may be removed for this project. The project is connected to over 1000 acres of woods along the Stillwater River and its tributary. Because cutting restrictions will be followed, no direct take of the Indiana bat is expected. The potential loss of the maternity roost trees and necessary relocation of an Indiana bats using the tree could cause additional stress to pregnant females and reduced survivability of the females and their young. The proposed action "may affect and is likely to adversely affect" the Indiana bat. Conservation measure 6-a (ODOT funded Indiana Bat research in the Big Darby drainage) was used to mitigate the unavoidable impacts to this species’ habitat.

Snuffbox and Rayed Bean mussels: The snuffbox was historically known from this project area, and the rayed bean is known from the Stillwater River in Montgomery County. Suitable habitats for these species are found in the Stillwater River; however, no evidence of the rayed bean or snuffbox were found during the August 27 and 28th, 2011 mussel survey conducted by Dr. Michael Hoggarth (federally permitted malacologist). The project "may affect but is not likely to adversely affect" these species.

Eastern massasauga: The project area consists primarily of mowed right-of-way. The wetlands located in the project area are below the OHWM of the stream and do not offer habitat for this species. No wetlands located adjacent to the project area offer habitat for this species. The project will have no effect on this species.

Bald eagle: The nearest bald eagle nesting activity is over 7 miles from the project. As no nesting activity has been noted within 0.5-mile of the project area, this project will have no effect on this species.


Example ODOT-OES made the following effect determinations for state listed species:

A record for the snuffbox was found within the project area, but this species was not found during the 2011 mussel survey. Habitat for this species was found to be present within the project area. This project is not likely to impact this species.

The elktoe mussel (Alasmidonta marginata, SC), creek heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa, SC), kidneyshell (Ptycobranchus fasciolaris, SC), and wavy-rayed lamp mussel (Lampsilis fasciola, SC) were found within the project area during the August 2011 mussel survey. All mussels will be relocated by a professional malacologist within six months of construction, and the relocation will follow all applicable state and federal survey protocols. As these species will be moved out of the impact zone of the project, this project is not likely to impact these species. The post-relocation survivability survey will be conducted 2 years after the relocation to determine the relative success of the relocation, if ODNR and USFWS requests the survey.


Agency Coordination


Coordinating Agencieso Coordination efforts may potentially

include: ODNR USFWS USACE OEPA ODNR-Scenic Rivers NPS-Scenic Rivers


Ecological Tab – Online CE

Agency Coordinationo Answer drop-downs appropriately


Remarks o List all coordination dates o Document agency comments

(commitments)o Document coordination between agencies

and ODOT on any dispute resolutionExample:

On 01-10-2012, ODOT coordinated the Level 2 Ecological Survey Report with USFWS, ODNR, USACOE, and OEPA.

USACE Coordination: In response to the project notification, USACOE conducted a joint field review with ODOT on 04-18-2012. USACOE noted that the in stream vegetated sand/gravel bars should be delineated as wetlands. No other comments or objections to the project have been received from USACOE. A request for a jurisdictional determination has been made to USACOE; a determination has not yet been received.


Example OEPA Coordination: On 01-24-2012, in response to the project notification, the OEPA noted that an individual 401 Water Quality Certification may be required and stated that an official decision regarding the 401 Water Quality Certification could not be provided until the jurisdictional determination and regulatory documentation are received. The OEPA did not object to the project.

USFWS Coordination: ODOT informed USFWS of its effect determinations for federally-listed species. On 05-21-2012, USFWS concurred with the effect determinations for the Indiana bat, rayed bean mussel, and snuffbox mussel. USFWS noted, and did not object to, the "no effect" determinations for the eastern massasauga and bald eagle.

The USFWS issued, via the 05-21-2012 letter, a Programmatic Tier 1 Biological Opinion for the Indiana bat. USFWS concluded that the project is likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat, but is not likely to jeopardize the Indiana bat. The incidental take for this project is estimated at 1.0 acre and has been added to the cumulative total of incidental take for ODOT's Statewide Transportation Program. The project will be subject to the tree cutting restriction from April 1 to September 30 (Programmatic Biological Opinion conservation measure A-1). Further ODOT will apply credits from the Big Darby Creek Research Bank to this project (Programmatic Biological Opinion conservation measure M-6a).Categorical Exclusion Training Class 41

Example ODNR Coordination: In its inter-office memo to ODNR, ODOT provided details regarding the mussel survey undertaken in August 2011 and informed ODNR that a mussel relocation will be undertaken within six months prior to construction. On 02-16-2012, ODNR provided comments and recommendations.

ODNR Division of Wildlife requested in-stream restriction dates; as these dates are less restrictive than those requested by ODNR Scenic Rivers, they will not be utilized. As requested by ODNR Division of Fish & Wildlife, the mussel survey and relocation reports will be provided to ODNR when available.

ODNR Scenic Rivers has provided specific recommendations for protection of the scenic Stillwater River. These recommendations will be incorporated into the project design or addressed through plan notes, as appropriate (see environmental commitments). As noted under "Streams & Rivers" above, ODOT is currently working with ODNR Scenic Rivers to identify appropriate mitigation measures for the necessary in stream work within the scenic Stillwater River.

ODNR Division of Soil & Water inquired if there would be impacts to other streams within the corridor. Other than the bridges carrying I-70 over the Stillwater River, the project will not include in stream work at any bridges or culverts within the corridor. ODNR DSW noted the presence of a possible shallow marsh within the Stillwater River. As noted below, ODOT has requested a jurisdictional determination from USACOE. ODNR DSW requested that ODOT mitigate for loss of habitat through native plantings within the interchange and median. As ODOT has previously informed ODNR, preservation of line of sight through regular mowing generally precludes the successful use of native plantings. Categorical Exclusion Training Class 42

Environmental Commitments

o Examples may include, but are not limited to: In-stream work restrictions Species surveys and/or relocations Cutting dates or avoiding terrestrial areas at certain times of

year (or other avoidance/minimization) Adhering to fill limits allowed by permit (permanent &

temporary fills) Monitoring of adjacent areas post-impact

o Can be implemented by: Plan notes Design changes resulting in changes to plans Special Provisions Utilizing OES staff, consultants, or contractors (depending on

activity) to conduct commitment work prior to construction Conducting mitigation/conservation measures in some fashion


Online CE Project File/Part of CE

o Correspondence with Resource Agencies: Coordination Letters to Agencies Comments and/or Approval Letters Map illustrating location of ecological

resources Jurisdictional Determination (JD) Letter


Waterway Permits


Waterway Permits• Waterway permitting starts at the district level.

• The permit determination process involves coordination between the district and OES-WPU (Waterway Permit Unit).

• Ecosurvey report = quantity and quality of waterways.• Project constraints such as construction limits, right-of-way, design build = amount

and type of impacts.

46Categorical Exclusion Training Class

Waterway Permits

Permit Determination Process• A permit determination is the process OES-WPU uses to determine the level of

waterway permit required.

• A permit determination request form is submitted to OES-WPU for review by the district.

• The district or a consultant can complete the form.

• OES-WPU evaluates the impacts and responds with a permit determination IOC (PDIOC).

• Typically, OES-WPU only reviews permit determination requests for ODOT-let projects (including ODOT-let LPA and maintenance).

• Local-let projects may also use this process. OES-WPU may or may not assist the locals in the permit determination process.


Waterway PermitsOnline CE and Waterway Permits

• If there are no waterway impacts, no permits are required, check “no”.• If there are waterway impacts, a permit determination must be completed before answering this

question.– If a permit determination has NOT been completed, DO NOT GUESS. Leave blank and

explain in the remarks the status of the permit determination.– If a permit determination has been completed, answer according to the permit

determination.


Waterway Permits

Permit Determination Request Form

• First step in making a permit determination.

• Requires information from the ecosurvey report, plan sheets, and other project details.

• 2-page instructions are available.

• OES-WPU responds to the district via a one-page letter (PDIOC).


Waterway Permits

PDIOC • OES-WPU response to the district• Identifies the level of permit, or if

agency coordination is required:– For example, coverage under the

Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit,

– Or if a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) or other permit submittal is necessary

• Identifies mitigation needs• Reminds the district of permit

expiration dates, in water work restrictions, or pre-application meetings


Waterway Permits

• Once a permit determination has been completed and a PDIOC is sent back to the district, information can be added to the CE online.

• Reminder, once you have populated a field, you cannot return to a blank field.


Waterway Permits

• In the Remarks Section of the CE Online, discuss the findings of the Permit Determination.– Is the project covered under the Regional General

Permit or Nationwide Permit?– Will waterway permit application(s) need to be

submitted to the agencies for authorization, for example a 401 Water Quality Certification and/or 404 Individual permit?

– Waterway Permits must be granted before waters can be impacted, but the CE can be cleared prior to permit authorization.


Waterway Permits

• In the Environmental Commitments Section of the CE Online, discuss the status of the Waterway Permits for the project.

• If not found in the ecological section, indicate any other commitments such as a mussel survey, in-water work restrictions, mitigation of waterway impacts, no build zones, etc.


Waterway Permits

• If Waterway Permits have been authorized, state specifically which ones and cite the special provisions…– For example, “Nationwide Permit #3 was authorized by the USACE for this

project. Specific conditions of the permit are found in the Waterway Permit Conditions, Special Provisions.”

• If waterway permits have NOT been authorized, indicate which were applied for, when, and a statement that waters will not be impacted until permits are granted and special provisions have been completed. – For example, “A USACE 404 Individual Permit and OEPA 401 Water Quality

Certification application were submitted in September 2014. No waters can be impacted until these permits have been granted.”


Waterway Permits

• Reminder, the (Waterway) Permits portion of the CE can be cleared prior to a permit determination and agency authorization and grant of permits IF the Remarks and Environmental Commitments are appropriate.

• Remarks indicate the progress of the permits.• Environmental Commitments at a minimum must

state that “no waters will be impacted until a 401/404 permit has been obtained.”


PermitsFloodplains


Floodplains Process

Project Initiation Package

Field Review

Floodplain Administrator Coordination

NEPADocument

Not Present


Online CE – Permits Tab Floodplains


Describe impacts to floodplain, floodway, and base flood elevations

Coordination with Local Floodplain Administrator Can be an environmental commitment

completed during the design phase

Remarks


ExampleAccording to Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 39153CO212E, effective July 20, 2009, the proposed undertaking will impact the 100-year floodplain of both Haley’s Ditch and Springfield Lake Outlet (Attachment E1a, page 102 presents a portion of this FEMA panel and Attachment E1b, page 103 shows that no floodplains occur in the proposed project area). (Continued on page 8a)


ExampleFloodplains (continued):

The proposed undertaking will cross Haley’s Ditch and Springfield Lake Outlet with three-sided box Con-span arch culverts. On the proposed project area portion of the FEMA panel, the floodplain of Haley’s Ditch has not been updated since that channel was relocated and channelized in the late 1970s (Attachment E1a, page 102). The combined project impacts on the 100-year floodplains of both Haley’s Ditch and Springfield Lake Outlet are proposed to be less than 0.3 acre. Since the proposed undertaking is located within a floodplain regulated by FEMA, coordination with the local floodplain administer is required. On December 22, 2010, floodplain coordination correspondence was sent to the designated floodplain administrator at the City of Akron (see Attachment E2, pages 104-106 for a copy of the correspondence). See Attachment E3, pages 107-108 for a copy of the Akron Engineering Bureau correspondence, dated March 21, 2011 for the project. This coordination letter states that the project will be required to comply with all sections of the City of Akron code, Article 3 Flood Hazard Areas, Section 197.300 to 197.319 and meet or exceed the minimum FEMA standards. Any encroachment within the floodway that would result in an increase in the base flood elevation can only be granted upon approval by FEMA.


Floodplain Administrator Correspondence and/or Coordination

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)

Online CE Project File/Part of CE


FEMA Map


Documents

Ecological Wetlands Streams & Rivers Other Surface Waters Terrestrial Habitat Threatened & Endangered Species Agency Coordination Categorical Exclusion