FINAL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN - … STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN RELOCATED SR 73,...

$: FINAL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN - … STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN RELOCATED SR 73, WlLMlNGTON BYPASS CLINTON COUNTY, OHIO CLI-73-6.20, PID 16621 August, 2006 \ Prepared$
FINAL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN

RELOCATED SR 73, WlLMlNGTON BYPASS CLINTON COUNTY, OHIO CLI-73-6.20, PID 16621

August, 2006

Prepared by: \ Ohio Department of Transportation

' Office of Environmental Services ' 1980 W. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43223

With Excerpts of Documents Written for ODOT by : Balke American and Woolpert, lnc.

w TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... 1 . 0 Introduction I

2.0 Overall Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................... 2 2.1 Summarize of Mitigation Objectives .......................................................................... 2 2.2 Summarize of Functions Lost and Gained ................................................................ 2 2.3 Summarize of Aquatic Resource Type and Functions ............................................... 3

3.0 Information on Impact Sites .............................................................................................. 4 3.1 Location of Impact Sites ........................................................................................... 4 3.2 Wetland and Stream Delineations ............................................................................. 4 3.3 Wetland and Stream Habitat Assessments ............................................................... 5

....................................................................... 3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Requirements 5 4.0 Baseline Information of Proposed Mitigation Site ........................................................... 8

.................................................... 4.1 On-Site Stream Preservation for Mitigation Credit 8 ................................................... 4.2 Off-site Stream Preservation for Mitigation Credit 1 1

4.3 Off-site Wetland Mitigation ...................................................................................... 14 ......................................................................... 5.0 Mitigation Site Selection & Justification 15

................................................................................................. 5.1 Existing Conditions 15 5.2 Future Sustainability ............................................................................................... 15

........................................................................................................ 6.0 Mitigation Work Plan 16 ........................................................ 6.1 On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites 16

6.2 Off-site wetland mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ Area 16

................................................................................................... 7.0 Performance Standards 16 7.1 On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites ........................................................ 16 7.2 Off-site wetland mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation

........................................................................................................................ b Area 17 .................................................................................... 8.0 Site Protection and Maintenance 17

................................................................................................ 8.1 Responsible Parties 17 ...................................................................................................... 8.2 Legal Protection 17

8.3 Maintenance Plan and Schedule ............................................................................ 18 ................................................................................................................ 9.0 Monitoring Plan 18

9.1 On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites ........................................................ 18 9.2 Off-site wetland mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation

........................................................................................................................ Area 18 ........................................................................................... 10.0 Adaptive Management Plan 20

10.1 On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites ...................................................... 20 10.2 Off-site wetland mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation

........................................................................................................................ Area 20 11.0 Financial Assurances .................................................................................................... 20

............................................................................................................... 13.0 Literature Cited 21

Appendix A: Aerial Photographs of the Stream and Wetland Resources Impacted Appendix B: Plan Sheets Depicting the Location of the Streams and Wetlands Impacted Appendix C: Correspondence with the USACE and the Ohio EPA Appendix D: Data Forms for Stream Mitigation Parcels Appendix E: Additional Photographs of Stream Mitigation Parcels Appendix F: Ohio EPA Data on Todd Fork Near Mitigation Parcel Appendix G: Prospectus for the Creation of ODOT Green Heron Mitigation Bank

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The project consists of the construction of 7.4 miles of relocated State Route (SR) 73 on new alignment in Union Township, Clinton County, Ohio see Exhibits 1 and 2). Relocated & R 73, also referred to as the

Wilmington Bypass, will be a four- lane, divided, rural freeway with limited access. The project will have two diamond interchanges; one at US 22lSR 3 and the other at US 68. Six bridge structures and seven signalized intersections are proposed. Relocated SR 73 will cross and require additional work on Airborne Road (extension and minor realignment), US 22lSR 3 (interchan e construction), CSX Railroad ( 8, ridging), Prairie Road (bridging, minor realignment and grading), SR 134 (bridging), US 68 (interchange construction), Nelson Avenue (bridging and

, and Mitchell Road minor realignment and grading). grading)

Approximately 330 acres of land area will be required.

The purpose of the project is to: a) provide reductions in traffic congestion (particularly trucks) through downtown Wilmington, b) reduce accidents and improve safety in the

Wilmington area, c) reduce truck traffic and noise through residential neighborhoods bordering major through streets (State and US Routes), d) enhance multi-modal interface of airltruck transportation between Airborne ExpressIDHL and interstate highway movements, e) support regional economic

E rowth (particularly with Airborne xpress1DHL) while minimizing

encouragement of sprawl and loss of valuable farmland, and f) enhance a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere for the downtown and college areas of Wilmington.

'crrr The project will occur in the Todd Fork sub-basin of the Little Miami River Watershed, and is expected to impact eight surface streams and three wetlands. Streams impacted will include six unnamed tributaries to Todd Fork, one unnamed tributary to Indian Run and an impact in the Indian Run headwaters, for a total of 2,904 linear feet of impact. Wetlands impacts will occur to three Category 1 wetlands for a total of 0.079 acre of impact. These impacts will be mitigated for through a series of on-site and off-site stream preservation projects, and off-site wetland creation.

2.0 OVERALL MI'TIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 Summary of Mitigation Objectives The goal of the mitigation is to provide compensatory functional replacement of wetland and stream habitats lost through the construction of the CLI-73-Wilminton Bypass project. The objectives of the mitigation projects are to compensate for impacts to 2,904 linear feet of stream through the on-site preservation of 2,135 linear feet of stream channel, and the preservation of approximately 2,170 linear feet of stream channel off-site (within the same sub-basin). In addition, the unavoidable impacts to 0.079 acre of wetlands will be compensated for off-site through wetland development at the ODOT Green Heron Mitigation Bank (pooled mitigation area for ODOT use only). Compensatory mitigation for stream and wetland impacts will be conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) requirements.

2.2 Summary of Functions Lost and Gained '%w The project will occur within the Todd Fork sub-basin (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]

05090202070) of the Little Miami River Watershed (HUC 05090202). The project is expected to impact eight surface streams and three wetlands. The project is not expected to result in any substantial adverse impacts to the overall quality and value of surface waters (streams and wetlands) in the project area, and it is not expected to result in a lowering of the existing aquatic life use for any of the features based on the following conclusions:

Most of the impacted streams and wetlands are disturbed features in agricultural areas with limited aquatic value. Impacted streams are predominantly headwater features with no official OEPA aquatic life use designations, exhibiting Class I PHWH conditions. Wetlands impacted by the project are very small Category 1 features (limited value). As a result, only a minor lowering of water quality is expected for these features from loss of habitat and assimilative capacity (in terms of sediment retention, water retention, and nutrient retention and reduction) by structure/fill placement for the proposed project. Impacts to the physical structure of streams by the Preferred Alternative are expected to be localized. In other words, physical stream modifications will be limited to the footprint of the proposed impact area of the Preferred Alternative, with no adverse effects to stream function (including flow pattern, velocity and sediment carrying capabilities), drainage area or aquatic community expected up stream or downstream of the structure.

* The proposed mitigation site is intended to offset these niinor project impacts through the on-site and off-site preservation of existing stream functions and the creation of higher quality wetland habitats at an off-site location (within the same USACE District).

Stream preservation projects include the on-site in-kind preservation of 2,135 linear feet of Class I and Class II Primary Headwater Habitat streams at a ratio of 1 :I, and the off-site (approximately 3.9 miles from the western terminus within the same 11 -digit Hydrologic Unit) preservation of approximately 1,600 linear feet of Todd Fork (designated Warmwater Habitat) and two small ephemeral channels (totaling 570 feet) at a ratio of >2:1. Preservation of these streani channels will protect them from future development pressure, and will insure that they continue to provide their respective stream functions (sediment retention, water retention, organic mater retention and reduction, and wildlife habitatlcorridor) within the watershed. The Category 1 wetland impacts will be compensated for (at a ratio of 1.5:1) off- site through a reduction of 0.1 18 of credit from the ODOT Green Heron Mitigation Bank. To date, approximately 7.39 acre of wetlands have been created at this mitigation site, which is expected to develop into an emergent, scrub shrub wetland complex with smaller areas of aquatic bed. The goal of this wetland mitigation site is to reach Category 2 status or higher within 5 years (currently within the first year of monitoring).

2.3 Summary of Type and Functions of Aquatic Resources Being Impacted Streams

b Streams impacted include six unnamed tributaries to Todd Fork, one unnamed tributary to Indian Run and an impact in the Indian Run headwaters. The project is not expected to have a substantial impact on the water quality of any of the streams crossed by the project. Total impacts by the proposed project for stream features are as follows:

1,367 linear feet of impact to Class I Primary Headwater Habitat 507 linear feet of impact to Class II Primary Headwater Habitat 230 linear feet of impact to Class Ill Primary Headwater Habitat 332 linear feet of impact to Modified Warmwater Habitamarmwater Habitat 468 linear feet of impact to Modified Warmwater Habitat

Wetlands The project will not result in any impacts to unique wetland habitats or any substantial impacts to the flood attenuation abilities of wetlands in the Little Miami River watershed. The .three wetlands impacted by the project are very small, 0.015 to 0.185 acre in size, OEPA ORAM Category 1, emergent features. The loss of habitat and wetland functions in the project area is considered minimal and will not have a substantial impact on water quality or the overall availability of wetland habitat within the Little Miami River watershed.

3.0 INFORMATION ON IMPACT SITES

3.1 Location of Impact Sites As depicted in Exhibits 1 and 2, the proposed impact sites are located in Union Township, Clinton County, Ohio. All impacts resulting from the project will occur within the Todd Fork sub-basin (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 05090202-070) of the Little Miami River Watershed (HUC 05090202). Exhibit 3 indicates where the proposed impacts occur within the project area.

Aerial photographs of the stream and wetland resources within the project area have been included in Appendix A. Additional mapping for the project can be obtained from the CLI-73-6.20 Wilminton Bypass Ecological Survey Report, dated May 2005.

3.2 Wetland and Stream Delineations Wetland and stream delineations were performed as part of the project ecological survey. All wetland delineations were conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), and wetland functional assessments following the OEPA's Rapid Assessment Method (ORAM) version 5.0 (OEPA, 2001). Classification of the wetlands identified followed Cowardin et al. (1979). Stream assessments for the project were conducted using OEPA's Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QH El) for stream greater then 1 mi2 drainage area, and the methods described in OEPA's Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's Primary Headwater Habitat

b Streams (OEPA, 2002) for streams with less than 1 mi2 drainage area. Copies of the project area wetland delineation forms, OEPA ORAM v. 5.0 forms, QHEI forms, and Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI) forms can be found in the CLI-73-6.20 Wilminton Bypass Ecological Sunley Report, dated May 2005. Appendix B contains plan sheets depicting the location of the streams and wetlands impacted by the proposed project, as well as the construction activities that are expected to occur at those locations. Appendix C contains correspondence with the USACE acknowledgi~g the wetlands and streams within the project area and authorizing the project activities under Nationwide Permit 14 (linear Transportation Projects).

3.3 Wetland and Stream Habitat Assessments Project area wetlands and streams were assessed using the OEPA ORAM v. 5.0, QHEI, and HHEI forms respectively. A more detailed summary of these assessments can be found in the CLI-73-6.20 Wilminton Bypass Ecological Sunley Report, dated May 2005. Specific information on the wetlands and streams to be impacted by the project has been summarized in section 3.4 lmpacts and Mitigation Needed.

3.4 lmpacts and Mitigation Requirements The proposed project is expected to impact eight streams and three wetlands. Streams impacted will include six unnamed tributaries to Todd Fork, one unnamed tributary to lndian Run and an impact in the lndian Run headwaters, for a total of 2,904 linear feet of impact. Wetlands impacts will occur to three Category 1 wetlands for a total of 0.079 acre of impact.

w Stream Impacts Streams impacted include six unnamed tributaries to Todd Fork, one unnamed tributary to lndian Run and an impact in the lndian Run headwaters. Total impacts by the proposed project for stream features are as follows:

1,367 linear feet of impact to Class I Primary Headwater Habitat 507 linear feet of impact to Class II Primary Headwater Habitat 230 linear feet of impact to Class Ill Primary Headwater Habitat 332 linear feet of impact to Modified Warmwater Habitamarmwater Habitat 468 linear feet of impact to Modified Warmwater Habitat

The project is not expected to have a substantial impact on the water quality of any of the streams crossed by the project. Most of the streams impacted by the project (six of eight) are Priniary Headwater Habitat features with provisional aquatic life use designations of Class I ( S ~ C , S5, S6 and S24), Class II (S13) or Class Ill (S4). The remaining two streams impacted by the project are non-headwater streams with provisional aquatic life use designations of Modified Warmwater Habitamarmwater Habitat (stream S21) and Modified Warmwater Habitat (stream S23). Stream S23 is lndian Run which has been assigned an official OEPA aquatic life use designation of Warmwater Habitat. However, the portion of lndian Run expected to be impacted by the project, the headwaters, did not meet Warmwater Habitat criteria based on a QHEI score of 35. Table A summarizes the stream impacts associated with the project. *

Affected by tt Propc ;ed Prc - Total Lenpth

ct. Dbmnce to R e ~ k b g

Stmmm

QHEI or HHEl S c o d OEPA Pmvbbnml Qumtk L i h U u

hmbnmllon

h a r l p t l o n and Length Impa led

Ilpmrbn Corddor mI Adjaunt b b b b

Non-USGS, dry, very narrow leadwater channel ~n lmmatu voodland and restdentla1 arel

less than 3 25 feel banklull wldth hlgh s~nuoslly clay or hardpan and leal packMoadl debris dominated substrate

164 lhnear leet impacted ( IOi

x 18 culvert)

loderalely wide rlparl mrrdor andprlmaq

growth and young secondary gro*nh

madland ~n restdent, area

S4c Unname lrlbutary lo To

Fork

54. Unnamel lrlbutaly to TC

Fork

34 Unnamd Tr~butary to Todd Fork

Llttle Mlaml River

Llllle Mlaml River

IHEI = 12 No official OEPA aqua 11e uze dergnatlon Class I PHW

Order 11. USGS Interm,tlent. narrow headwater channel 10

woodland ad~cen t lo resldentlal area, 4 9 9 8 feet

lanklull wdth law lo modera1

arrow rlparlan corrld and resldenl~al area

along norlh bank an Becondaly gmwh

woodlot along soulh bank

IHEl - 72 Nooff~c~al OEPA aqua, fe use deslgnallon Class111 PHW

Todd Fork . - ~ a s t , mast) sna u*goa< sana ano graie rn- natea

Non-USGS. dry, very narrow headwater channel ~n

voodland and rmldentlal are; 1-9 than 3 25 feet banklull wldth, no sinuosity, clay or

rardpan domlnated subslrats 180 lhnear feel ~mpacted (135

length r 27" culvert)

arrow rlparlan corrld and secondary grow (oodland ~n resldenll

area

$4 Unnamed Trlbulary to Todd Fork

HE1 - 13 No offlcal OEPA aqual 118 USE deslgnallon Class I PHW

Non-USGS, dry, very narrow headwater channel I"

voodland and rmldential are* less than 3 25 feet banklull

wldth, low to moderate slnuoslty, clay or hardpan domlnated substrate 406

0 2 m 1 Y o 0 2 m ~ ~ mpact at Mitchell j ) andOWBmlS npacl at Preferrec

Alternal~vel

arrow rDarlan Corrld S6 Unnamsl -llbulaly to To

Fork

513, Unnamr rlbutary to To

F o h

$4 Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork

Todd Fork

H E - 13 No off~clal OEPA aqua lle use deslgnatlon Class I PHWI

md zecondary grow rmdland ~n resldentl Ilea along both bank

1 I 8 miles

relocate channel and nstall 220 lenglh r 30 culvert a1 Sf

73, and replace er l l lng :uhrert at Mllchell Rd wllh 92

length x21" culvert)

) rde~ I USGS mtermlttent. dr narrow headwater channel, 3 254 7 lee1 banklull wldth, low StnumIty. $111 and sand domlnaled substrate 507

lknear feet impacted (channe retmatlQn, 196'length r 54 culvert at SR 73, and 161'

engfh x 54" culvert at MlIcheI

Rd )

Very Inarrow rlparlall orrdor surrounded t gr~cullural flsldr alor

bolh banks

HE1 = 45 No offlclal OEPA aqual 18 use des~gnal~on Class I PHW

Order I1 USGS Inermlttenl. narrow channel. 10 lee! average channel wldlh. moderales~nuovty and

itabltlly f a r development anr recovering channsllmtlon. mostly shallow gl~des and pools, rand and gravel

dominated ~ubstrate 332 llnsar lset mpaersd (225

lenglh x l o r B' box culvert)

QHEI - 55 No olllc~al OEPA aquatlc llle use deslgnatlon

Modllled Warmwaler Hab~laVWarmwater Habitat

Incomplete narrow rlparan mrrldor

ordered by agricultur eld~alang bath bank

S21. Unnamr rlbutary to To

Fork

523 lndlan RI

- 524. Unnam

Tributary !a lndlan Run

-

nnamed Tad ork Tr~bulary

:owan Creek

S23 lndlan Cre*

1,557 leet

01681 1 1 USGS Intermlltent. nanaw channel. 10-15 feet average channel wldth. law slnuoslly poor development.

moderate slablllly and recovering channellral~on, moslly shallow glides and pools, hardpan, sllt and

detrllus dom~nated substrate 468 Ilnear lee1 lmpacled (292

length x 102" culvert)

a-E - 35 OEPA on c,a a q d t c la .re otlvgnal on 01 Warwa le

MaDlal Mm tea Walrn*atsl

Incomplete narrow rlparlan mrrldor

xdered by agrlcullur elds along bolh bank

Non-USGS. vary narrow headwater channel, 1-9 than

3 25 lee1 banklull wiUh.

orllons surrounded t sung rlparlan wood la^

along bath banks, nparlan mrrldor

3senVopen along we bank where channel smmes roads~de dlrc

along SR 73

mderate snuosly. mostly shallow glide and nffle. sand

and gravel domlnaled ~ubslrale 617 Itnear feet

lmpacled (176' lengfh x 36" culvert)

HE1 - 29 No onlclal OEPA aqua1 fe "58 deslgnat~on Cla55 I PHWI

b Wetland Impacts The project will not result in any impacts to unique wetland habitats or any substantial impacts to the flood attenuation abilities of wetlands in the Little Miami River watershed. The three wetlands impacted by the project are very small, 0.01 5 to 0.1 85 acre in size, OEPA ORAM Category 1, emergent features associated with small surface streams (Wetlands 1 and 10) or a drainage swale (Wetland 3). Partial filling of Wetlands 1 and 3, and filling of all of Wetland 10, will have a slight impact on flood attenuation and available wetland habitat in the project area. However, due to the very small size (0.01 5 to 0.1 85 acre) and lirr~ited quality of these wetlands (all OEPA Category 1 ), the loss of habitat and wetland functions in the project area is considered minimal. The loss of these wetlands will not have a substantial impact on water quality or the overall availability of wetland habitat within the Little Miami River watershed. Table B summarizes the stream impacts associated with the project.

Table B.

Wetlend C

Wetlands Affected

3977'52.0'' 8351'12.7'

Linle Miami River

3977'38.2 83'47'23.7''

C ~ ~ ~ ~ - - " ~ - .' .' Wetland

Derrlptlon

Linle Miami River

3977'25.0'' 83'46'1 7.6"

ELI

L~nle Miami River

;OWBrLlln 81 UI., 1979

ORAM "5.0

Classification

0.054 ac Agricultural rowcrop ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' j e m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r s h I " I ' 1 0 . 3 7 a 1 on a" sides

Second growth Emergent 1 Paustrine 1 27 1 1 0.015 ac I bonomland woods channel emergent marsh (0.015 ac) surrounded by

rowcrop

OEPA

Emergent channel

Proxlmiiy to Other Surfece Watere

0.185 ac (0.027 ac)

Wetland is within the channel of stream S20 Unnamed Tributary to

Todd Fork

Size (Area

Impacted)

Agr~cultural rowcroi to the nofth, east an,

west, and rlght-of- way fo the south

Palustrine emergent marsh

Wetland is approximately 1.000 fee

upland of srream St7 Unnamed Tributary to

Todd Fork 1 Adlocent Hebnete

16

Wetland IS lmmedlately adjacent to stream S13 Unnamed Tributary to

Todd Fork

Mitiaation Reauirements Stream mitigation is currently determined on a project-by-project basis through the waterway permit process. General mitigation requirements consist of: a) on-site mitigation at a 1 :1 ratio (with on-site defined as within the same effected 8 Digit USGS watershed and within 1 mile of the project), and b) off-site mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1.5:1.

Wetland mitigation is established b Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Wetland Water Quality Standards ( d AC 3745-1-54), which, for impacts to Category 1 features, requires that: a) mitigation be at a 1.5:1 ratio (for both on-site or off-site mitigation, forested or non-forested features), b) replacement features be either Category 2 or 3 wetlands, and c) off-site mitigation be within the same United States Army Corp Engineers (USACE) District as the impacted feature (USACE, Louisville District).

A combination of on-site and off-site stream preservation, and off-site wetland mitigation, has been proposed for impacts resulting from this project. On-site mitigation involving natural channel design restoration measures was determined not practical due to right-of-way constraints and the quality of streams involved. Section 4.0, Baseline Information of Proposed Mitigation Sites, outlines details of the proposed stream and wetland mitigation ratios proposed for this project. A summary mitigation requirements based on these proposed projects has been included in Table C.

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION OF PROPOSED MITIGATION SITES

Table C. Summary of Mitigation Required Based on Proposed Mitigation Projects.

4.1 On-Site Stream Preservation for Mitigation Credit Two parcels located within the project area (excess (E)-parcels 25 and 5911 11) (see Exhibit 4) were identified in the project Mitigation Opportunities Inventory have been retained for stream preservation opportunities. These parcels provide 2,135 linear feet of on-site in-kind stream mitigation credit at a 1 :1 ratio for this project.

Feature

mmm4 EE%U nrrvl-mo?mmwlomwbrueaq CLI-SR73-6.20 Relocatad State Route 73 -8-

- - ~ ~~ p,D.m6T--p-.--. - ..a

Project IrnpactIOn-Site

Mitigation Requirement

Streams

Wetlands

Off-Site Mitigation

Requirement at 1.5:1 Ratio

Proposed On- Site Preservation

'Or litigation Credit at 1:1

Ratio

(11 Comprised of impacts to: Class I PHWH = 1,367 If, Class II PHWH = 507 If, Class Ill PHWH = 230 If, Modified W W W H = 332 If, Modified WWH = 468 If [2] Comprised of: 540 linear feet of provisional Class I PHWH on E-parcel 25, 475 linear feet of provisional Class II PHWWpossible WWH on E-parcel 25, and 1,120 linear feet of provisional Modified Class II PHWWpossible Modified WWH on E-parcel591111.

2,904 [I1 linear feet

0.079 acre

(Category 1)

Amount to be Mitigated Off-Site

2,l 35l2I linear feet

0 acres

769 linear feet

0.079 acres

1,154 linear feet

0.1 18 acre

Physical characteristics and stream conditions on E-parcels 25 and 591111 are described, below, and stream data forms for both E-parcels are included in Appendix D, and additional photographs have been included in Appendix E.

Parcel E-25 ( ~ r o ~ e r t y owner: Ethel B. Dennis) - Parcel E-25 is approximately 2.9 acres in size and consists predominantly of wooded buffer and existing channel (see Exhibit 5). Soils on Parcel E-25 are mapped as Miamian-Thrifton complex (Lucht, et. al., 2003). No hydric soils or soils with hydric inclusions occur in the area. Portions of three surface water features assessed for this project flow through this wooded parcel including streams S4, S5 and S6, as further described below.

Stream S4 is a USGS intermittent unnamed tributary to Todd Fork. Located on E-parcel 25, stream=S4 is naturally meandering with an average bankfull width of 10.8 feet and a wide (>30 feet) to moderately wide (15-30 feet) wooded riparian corridor. Based on a Headwater Macroinvertebrate Field Evaluation lndex (HMFEI) score of 8 points (see PHWH and HMFEI Forms in Appendix D), the

t approximately 475 linear foot portion of S4 within arcel E-25 is classified as provisional Class II b rimarv Headwater Habitat (PHWH). Stream S4 i

was alio assessed using the'ohio EPA Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) method (due to the I presence of one pool wiih a depth of greater than 40 centimeters. ~ e r OEPA 2002 auidelines). and. I based on a QHCI score of 60.25may classify as provisional Warmwater Habitat (WWH) (see QH

- Photographs of Stream S4.

Form in Appendix D).

Stream S5 is a non-USGS, unnamed tributary to Todd Fork. On E-parcel 25, stream S5 is a natural, mostly strai ht stream channel with an average bankfull widt a of 3.1 feet and a mostly narrow (<I5 feet) to moderately wide (15-30 feet) wooded riparian corridor. Based on Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI) score of 20 (see PHWH Form in Appendix D), the ap roximatel 50 linear foot portion of S5 within parce E-25 is c assified as provisional Class I PHWH.

P Y C

Photograph of Stream S5.

Stream S6 is a non-USGS, unnamed tributary to Todd Fork. On E-parcel 25 stream S6 is a naturally meandering stream with an average bankfull width

I- - of 2.9 feet and a moderately w~de (15-30 feet) wooded riparian corridor. Based on a HHEI score of 23 points (see PHWH Form in Appendix D), the approximately 490 linear foot portion of Stream S6 within arcel E-25 is classified as provisional Class I P H W ~

Photograph of Stream S6. Overall, Parcel E-25 provides the o ortunity for preservation of approximately 540 linear feet of provisional Class I P H, and 475 linear feet of provisional Class II PHWH/possible WWH, for a total of 1,015 linear feet of stream channel preservation.

Parcel E-591111 (Pro~ertv owner: Phyllis H. Kersey, Trustee) - Parcel E-591111 is approximately 22.7 acres size and consists of 14.1 acres of agricultural cropland (currently soybean) and 8.6 acres of wooded buffer and existing channel (see Exhibit 6).

D W l r 8 . l i l u 1 ~ l m N ~ E P ~ C L ~ l l

CLI-SR73-6.20 Relocated S t a t e Rout0 7 3 PID No. 16621

Only the 8.6 acres that contains the wooded buffer and existing stream channel will be used for preservation. Soils on Parcel E-591111 are mapped as Fincastle silt loam, Sloan silt loam, Treaty silty clay loam and Xenia silt loam. The Sloan silt loam and Treaty silty clay loam are mapped hydric soils (Lucht, et. al., 2003). Sloan silt loam is located predominant1 along a stream that traverses the parcel (stream S21), and within the middle portion o / the woodland. Treaty silty clay loam is located in the northwest corner of the E-parcel and is currently in soybean. A portion of one surface water stream feature assessed for this project, stream S21, flows through this parcel. This surface stream feature is further described below.

Stream S21 is an unnamed tributary to Todd Fork. On E-parcel 5911 11 stream S21 is a natural meanderina stream with moderate aualitv in-stream aquatic hibitat and bottom substraie that i s disturbed by heavy siltation and embeddedness (possibly from an adjacent golf course located upstream). The average bankfull width in this portion of S21 is 11.2 feet and the wooded riparian corridor is mostly wide (>30 feet) in the middle of the woodland, to narrow (el5 feet) just before the stream exits the E-parcel boundary. Based on a HHEl score of 57 points and the presence of heaw siltation (see PHWH Form in kppendix D), the approximately 1,120 linear foot portion of S21 within parcel E-591111 is classified as provisional Modified Class II PHWH. Stream S21 was also assessed using the QHEl method (since watershed size and maximum pool depth approached OEPA "rule of thumb" guidelines for QHEl versus HHEl classification approaches). Based on a QHEl score of 51.25, Stream S21 may classify as a provisional Photographs of Stream ~ 2 1 . Modified WWH (see QHEl Form in Appendix D).

Parcel E-591111 has the potential for preservation of approximately 1,120 linear feet of provisional Modified Class II PHWH. This site has already been acquired by ODOT for preservation.

Summarv of On-site Stream Preservation In total, E-parcels 25 and 5911 11 provide mitigation credit (through preservation) of approximately:

Total Available On-Site Mitigation Credit = 2,135 linear feet 540 linear feet of provisional Class I PHWH, and 475 linear feet of provisional Class II PHWH (possible WWH) 1 ,I 20 linear feet of provisional Modified Class II PHWH

4.2 Off-site Stream Preservation for Mitigation Credit In addition to the proposed on-site stream preservation, the Ohio Department of Transportation has purchased an approximately 17.8 acre parcel along Todd Fork within Adams Township in Clinton County, Ohio (Exhibit 7), in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of S.R. 380 and U.S. 22 (Exhibit 8). Although considered off-site, the parcel is located within four miles of the western terminus of the Wilmington Bypass

project and within the same 11-digit hydrologic unit (Todd Fork sub-basin, HUC 05090202-070).

Located along the mainstem of Todd Fork r;

! r -- , -. , - (approximately river mile 19.8), the - - $ , , . preserved parcel lies primarily within the 4 -

n

mapped 1 00 year floodplain, and contains approximate 1,600 linear feet of Todd Fork (approximately 2.0 acres of stream channel). Todd Fork has been assigned an official aquatic life use designation of - I

Warmwater Habitat from the Ohio EPA, and appears to be in full attainment of this designation (Ohio EPA data on this reach of Todd Fork can be found in Appendix F). In addition, a habitat assessment of Todd Fork conducted by ODOT within the parcel boundaries (Appendix D) confirmed that the - habitat characteristics preserved within the Exhibit parcel are those associated with supporting Location of the proposed swam preservation parcel a Warmwater assemblage of aquatic and the Wilminton Bypass in Clinton County, OH.

organisms or better (QHEI score of 85.5).

Soils on the parcel are mapped as Genesee silt loam, Genesee silt loam sandy substratum, Eel silt loam, Russel and Hennepin soils (25 to 50 % slopes, severly eroded), and Fox silt loam. None of these soils are mapped hydric soils (Lucht, et. al., 2003), however, Genesee silt loam, Genesee silt loam sandy substratum, and Eel silt loam are considered non-hydric soils with hydric components in slough areas. Genesee silt loam and Genesee silt loam sandy substratum are the soils located along Todd Fork within the parcel.

Land use on the parcel is dominated primarily by second growth forest (approximately 12.0 acres), which provides a riparian buffer along the stream channel. Observed tree species within this forested buffer included: chinkapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergir), basswood (Tilia americana), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), balck walnut (Juglans nigra) , sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), box elder (Acer negundo), Osage orange (Maclura pomifera), and , , hackberry(Celtisoccidentalis).Inaddition,the

parcel contains approximately 2.0 acres of Todd Fork's stream channel and approximately 3.8 acres of mown new-field adjacent to S.R. 380 and U.S. 22. While ODOT is not requesting preservation credits for areas on the parcel beyond the mainstem of Todd Fork, the property does contain approximately 570 linear feet of two ephemeral channel (likely Class 1 PHWH), and an approximately 0.31 acre oxbow high flowlwetland channel adjacent to Todd Fork (Exhibit 9). ~ h e s e features will be preserved in perpetuity through conservation of the parcel.

Also of note, are the existing conservation easements along Todd Fork on the adjacent property to the north of the proposed ODOT mitigation parcel. Preservation of the 17.8 acre ODOT parcel will complement these existing easements, and provide a larger contiguous area of preserved buffer along Todd Fork.

Summarv of Off-site Stream Preservation In total, the 17.8 acre parcel along Todd Fork will provide miti ation credit (through preservation) of approximately 1,600 linear feet of Warmwater Ha 8, itat. This quantity of preservation credit exceeds the off-site stream mitigation requirements (1,154 feet, see section 3.4) for the project by approximately 440 linear feet.

Photographs of Todd ~orkon thejroposed off-site preservation parcel. Photograph of the oxbow/high flow channel on the proposed OH-site preservation parcel.

4.3 Off-site Wetland Mitigation r .-- .-72 Due to the minor amount of wetland

impact expected for this project (0.079 d acre) and the quality of the wetlands

being impacted (all OEPA Category 1 features) ODOT proposes that the impacts to wetlands resulting from this project be mitigated through off-site mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area. This potential off-site mitigation area is located in Ross Township, Butler County, Ohio, approximately 42 miles west of the proposed project, and within the same USACE District (Louisville) as the impacted wetland

Photograph of the Green Heron Wetland Mitigation Site, May 2006. features. Appendix G contains the Prospectus for the Creation of ODOT

Green Heron Mitigation Bank, which provides details on baseline conditions at the site. The mitigation wetland site has been planned to be approximately 27 acres in size, 20 acres of which will be converted to scrub-shrub and emergent marsh wetland, and the remainder of which will be buffer. Development of the 15.15 acre Phase I site (of which 7.39 acres were converted to wetlands) was completed in 2005, and the first year of monitoring wetlands began in May 2006. The as-built survey of the Phase 1 portion of the wetland site, as well as the plat map indicating ODOT ownership of the property, have been included in Appendix G.

ODOT intends to use the additional credits created at the pooled mitigation area in the following locations:

Cateaorv 1 Credits -within the USACE Louisville District Area (note: includes portions of the district delegated to the Huntington USACE District). Cateaorv 2 Credits - within the following 8-digit hydrologic units, HUC 05080002, HUC 0508003, and HUC 05090203. Catenorv 3 Credits - If the wetland achieves Category 3 status based on a Vegetative Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) assessment, or shows a clear trajectory towards reaching Category 3 status based on the VIBI, Category 3 credits will be used within the 05080002 HUC.

OEPA, in a letter dated November 21,2005, did not have any major issues with use of this site for the Wilmington Bypass project. The USACE, in a letter dated August 8, 2005, stated that they would be willing to consider the Green for ODOT projects requiring Section 404 authorization, and a personal communication with Max Hagan of the Louisville USACE, Cincinnati Field Office, on 11/16/05 confirmed that the Green Heron Wetland Mitigation Site could be used as wetland mitigation for the project (Appendix C).

b 5.0 MITIGKI'ION SITE SELECTION AND JUSTIFICATION

5.1 Existing Conditions On-Site mitiqation parcels 25 and 5911 11 These mitigation areas were selected due to their close proxiniity to the project impacts and their similarity to the streams being impacted by the project. In total these two parcels contain 540 linear feet of provisional Class I PHWH streams, 475 linear feet of provisional Class II PHWH streams, and 1,120 linear feet of provisional Modified Class II PHWH streams, all located within less than 1,000 feet of the project area. Similar to many of the streams bein impacted (in-kind), these miti ation streams are tributaries to Todd Fork. The Ohio EP 1 's Little Miami River Basin TS 8 (2000) lists non-point sources in the headwaters of Todd Fork as a possible source of impairment within the watershed (by causing sedimentation with fine sand and gravel). Preservin these on-site primary headwater streams and their corridors will protect them from t 91 e possibility of future development or agricultural practices, and should play a role in reducing the possibility of future non-point source impairments in the basin.

Off-site Mitiaation parcel alonq Todd Fork This mitigation area was selected due to its close proximity to the project area (within the same 11 digit hydrologic unit) and based on its importance to the future sustainability of the watershed. Todd Fork is the receiving stream for waters draining from the entire project area. As a result, it was considered appropriate compensatory mitigation to participate in preserving the integrity of this stream. The Todd Fork parcel purchased by ODOT possesses an approximately 12.0 acre wooded riparian buffer and high quality aquatic habitat characteristics. Prior to purchase of the site by ODOT, the

W parcel was on the open market, to be sold for potential residential development. If it had been sold to a private entity, it is likely that Todd Fork would have been impacted (to sollie degree) by development at the site. As mitigation, the entire 17.8 acre site will be free from development and will be protected in perpituity through a deed restriction. In addition, the preservation of this parcel will complement existing conservation easements located on the adjacent property to the north, and provide a larger contiguous area of preserved buffer along Todd Fork.

Off-site wetland rnitiaation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitiqation Area Due to the minor amount of wetland im~ac t ex~ected for this ~ro iect (0.079 acre) and ~ ~~

the quality of the wetlands being impacted (all OEPA ca tego j 1 ieatures) ODOT proposes that the impacts to wetlands resulting from this project be mitigated through off-site mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area (see Appendix G).

Wetland mitigation is established by Ohio EPA Wetland Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745-1-54), which for impacts to Category 1 wetlands, requires that:

mitigation be at a 1.5:1 ratio (for both on-site or off-site mitigation, forested or non-forested features), replacement features be either Category 2 or 3 wetlands, and off-site mitigation be within the same United States Army Corp Engineers (USACE) District as the impacted feature (USACE, Louisville District).

Designating 0.1 18 acre of the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area as mitigation for the proposed project will comply with all regulatory requirements, and will result in replacement of the impacted wetlands with higher quality wetlands within the

W USACE District.

5.2 Future Sustainability On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites All of the stream preservation parcels acquired as mitigation for the project will be preserved in perpetuity by ODOT by way of a restrictive covenant. Documentation of these restrictive covenants will be provided to the USACE and the Ohio EPA within one year of final approval of the 4041401 waterway permitlcertification. ODOT reserves the right to transfer the mitigation parcels, with the restrictive covenant in place, to other conservation oriented government entities or non-profit groups.

Off-site wetland mitiqation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitiqation Area The ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area will be preserved in perpetuity by way of a restrictive covenant. The area of the mitigation site associated with Phase I has already been purchased by ODOT, and the wetlands constructed (7.39 acres). Appendix G contains a plat map showing the 15.15 acre parcel purchased by ODOT as part of Phase I, as well as the remaining 11.31 acres that will be purchased for Phase II. Following final approval by the USACE and the Ohio EPA, ODOT will likely transfer ownership of the wetland mitigation parcel to the Butler County MetroParks, or other conservation oriented government entity or non-profit group, with a restrictive covenant in place. Butler County MetroParks currently owns 20 acres along Indian Creek and in the oxbow area adjacent to the mitigation site.

b w 6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLANS

6.1 On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites Aside from purchasing the mitigation parcels and placing a restrictive covenant on the deed, the stream preservation sites do not require any additional work activities. Parcel deed information and documentation of restrictive covenants will be provided to the USACE and the Ohio EPA within one year of final approval of the 4041401 waterway permitlcertification.

6.2 Off-site wetland mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area The general concept for the mitigation bank is to develop the wetland mitigation bank in two phases. With the exception of seeding and planting the wetland, Phase 1 has already been constructed (7.39 acres of wetlands), and monitoring began in May 2006 (see as-built survey in Appendix G). Design and construction of phase 2 of .the proposed bank would likely begin in 2009. Section 5.0 of the Prospectus for the Creation of the ODOT Green Heron Mitigation Bank (2004) (see Appendix G) lists the details of both phases of the mitigation work plan.

7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

7.1 On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites No applicable performance standards will be applied to these preservation areas.

Lu

'"I.. 7.2 Off-site wetland mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area The following performance standards apply to Phase I of the Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area:

Within five years after completion of construction of Phase I, the mitigation area will obtain Category 2 status (or better) based on a VlBl assessment.

o Category 3 credit will only be requested at the mitigation site following a VlBl assessment that indicates the site has achieved, or is on a clear trajectory towards achieving, Category 3 characteristics.

Within five years after completion of construction of Phase I, ,the native vegetation within the mitigation area, including buffer habitat, will have become established to a point of 90% cover. The wetland will be inundated or saturated for >5% of the growing season (>10.5 days). Within five years after completion of construction of Phase I, the mitigation area will have less than 1 0% of its total area as unvegetated open water (inundated areas without emergent or aquatic bed plant species).

Additional details on performance standards can be found in Section 11.0 of the Prospectus for the Creation of the ODOT Green Heron Mitigation Bank (2004) (see Appendix G).

8.0 SITE PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE w

8.1 Responsible Parties Following purchase of the stream preservation sites and construction of the mitigation welland, ODOT will be responsible for placing a restrictive covenant on the parcels to assure they are protected in perpetuity. ODOT will remain responsible for the protection, maintenance, and monitoring (if applicable) of these sites, unless ownership of these sites is transferred (with the restrictive covenant in place) to conservation oriented government entities or non-profit groups. Upon transfer of ownership of any of the mitigation parcels, the responsibility of protection and maintenance of the parcels will be transferred to the corresponding conservation oriented government entity or non- profit group.

For Information on Responsible Parties Contact: ODOT, Office of Environmental Services Waterway Permit Unit 1980 W. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43223 (61 4) 466-71 00

8.2 Legal Protection All mitigation parcels will be protected in perpetuity. ODOT will manage and maintain the wetland mitigation site throughout the monitoring period. If ODOT relinquishes control of the mitigation parcels, ODOT will identify a qualified entity that will manage *

w and maintain the mitigation site under a restrictive covenant (deed restriction, conservation easement, or fee simple assignment of the property to a conservation organization dedicated to the protection of the site in its most natural state). If this occurs, ODOT will provide the USACE and the Ohio EPA with the name address, and phone number of an organization to contact for information on the mitigation site, or for permission to enter the mitigation site, if necessary.

8.3 Maintenance Plan and Schedule On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites Stream preservation parcels will be monitored annually by ODOT to determine if there has been any disturbance or illegal activity (cutting trees, etc ...). Once (or if) ownership of a parcel(s) has been transferred to a conservation oriented government entity or non- profit group, it will become the responsibility of the organization to monitor the integrity of the parcel(s).

Off-site wetland mitiaation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Miticlation Area Through the period of project inception to construction and monitoring, ODOT will be responsible for invasive species management and assurance of a successful wetland creation project. ...). Once (or if) ownership of the mitigation site has been transferred to a conservation oriented government entity or non-profit group, it will become the responsibility of the organization to monitor the integrity of the wetland.

9.0 MONITORING PLAN 'C

9.1 On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites Aside from monitoring the stream preservation parcels to determine if there has been any disturbance or illegal activity, ODOT will not monitor the streanis or buffer areas. Documentation indicating preservation of these parcels will be provided to the USACE and the Ohio EPA within one year of final approval of the 4041401 waterway permitlcertification.

9.2 Off-site wetland mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area The Following Monitoring and Sampling procedures will be used for Phase I of the Green Heron Pooled Wetland Mitigation Area:

Monitoring Reports: Annual reports containing monitoring and assessment information will be submitted to the USACE and the Ohio EPA for each of .five consecutive years following completion of the project. The first annual report is due to Ohio EPA by December 31 of the first full year following the project (2006). All subsequent reports will be submitted by December 31 st of each of the subsequent monitoring years. ODOT may include any additional information that it believes relevant for the USACE or Ohio EPA's consideration.

Physical Measurements: An as-built survey including 1 foot topographic contours of the mitigation site will be provided to the USACE and Ohio EPA for the mitigation wetland.

Water Che~iiistry Monitoring: A grab sample will be collected in May of each monitoring year in the wetland mitigation area. At a minimum, the samples will be analyzed for pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and temperature.

Hydrology Monitoring: Water level data will be collected in May and late August of each monitoring year. Ground water levels shall be measured in the absence of inundated conditions.

Soils Monitoring: Soil profiles (to a depth of 12 inches) will be conducted at representative selected monitoring sites to track the development of hydric soil characteristics. The soil profiles and hydric soil characteristics at each sample location shall be described in the monitoring report.

Vegetation Monitoring: The location and name of each plant community type within the mitigation area and buffer area will1 be marked on a scaled drawing or scaled aerial photograph (base map) and named. A representative observation point will be selected in each plant community type in each distinct wetland rr~itigation area. This will be a point which best represents the characteristics of the entire plant community. The observation points will be marked on the base map. -The dominant plant species will be visually determined in each vegetation layer of each community type, and the scientific names of these species shall be included in the report. Dominant species are those species which have the greatest relative basal area (woody overstory), greatest height (woody overstory), greatest percentage of aerial coverage (herbaceous understory), and/or greatest number of stems (woody vines).

lnvasive Plant Species - Vegetation monitoring will include a description of invasive plant species encroaching upon or within the wetland mitigation area. The relative abundance of invasive plant species will be noted in the report.

Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI): ODOT will assess the mitigation wetlands to obtain a VlBl score during the growing season of the fifth year following the completion of construction of Phase I of the mitigation wetland

Third-Year Site Review: ODOT will arrange an on-site mitigation meeting with the USACE and Ohio EPA during the growing season after the third year report has been submitted. The purpose of this inspection will be to determine if the mitigation project has been constructed in accordance with the agreement between ODOT, the USACE, and the Ohio EPA. If necessary, the USACE and the Ohio EPA may make recommendations to improve the wetland. ODOT will be responsible for undertaking any reasonable modifications identified by the USACE or the Ohio EPA.

Wetland Delineation: ODOT will conduct a delineation of the created miligation wetland during the growing season of the fifth year after con-lpletion of construction of the wetland using the United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (or successor document).

Following completion of Phase I of the wetland mitigation project, ODOT will notify the USACE and the Ohio EPA in writing that construction has been completed (first year monitoring report). The USACE and the Ohio EPA will notify ODOT in writing following the fifth year site visit and receipt and review of the fifth year monitoring report, as to whether the wetland mitigation project has satisfied the terms and conditions of the mitigation requirements.

10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

10.1 On-site and Off-site stream preservation sites Once purchased, ,the stream preservation parcels should remain preserved in perpetuity (through a restrictive covenant). Should circumstances arise that result in impacts to the preserved parcels (legal or illegal), ODOT (or the responsible party the parcels may have been transferred to) will either repair the impacted site, or seek out new or additional mitigation areas.

10.2 Off-site wetland mitigation at the ODOT Green Heron Pooled Wetland 'l.r Mitigation Area

ODOT will be responsible for management and development of the wetland mitigation site. ODOT will closely monitor the site to determine wheter or not project mitigation requirements are being satisfied. Based on the results of monitoring, and feedback from Ohio EPA and the USACE, measures may be implemented to irrlprove performance at the site. If performance of the mitigation site does not fulfill anticipated expectations (i.e. acres developed, quality, function), ODOT will work with the Ohio EPA and the USACE to develop a contingency plan.

If the wetland mitigation project is not performing as proposed by the end of the fifth year of post construction monitoring, the monitoring period may be extended and or ODOT may be required to revise the existing mitigation or seek out new or additional rrlit igation areas.

11.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

Funding for this project will come from State and Federal funds earmarked for ODOT transportation projects.

12.0 LITERATURE CITED

Balke American and Woolpert, Incorporated. September 2005. Mitigation Opportunities Inventory Relocated SR 73, Wilmington Bypass. Cincinnati, 0 hio.

Balke American and Woolpert, Incorporated. Janl~ary 2006. Technical Memorandum: Stream and Wetland Conceptual Mitigation Plan, Relocated SR 73, Wilmington Bypass. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Services Program Rept. FWSIOBS-79/31. 103 p.

Environmental Laboratory. 1 987. Corps 0.f Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Ar my Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburq, Miss.

Lucht, Terrence E., Stephen J. Hamilton, and Matthew H. Deaton. November 2003. Soil Sunley of Clinton County, Ohio. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service-Soil Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS-SCS). Columbus, Ohio.

OEPA 2000. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami River Basin, 1998. '9lv Clark, Greene, Montgomery, Warren, Clermont, and Hamilton Counties, Ohio.

OEPA. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 5.0, User's Manual and Scoring Forms. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET12001 -1. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water. Columbus, Ohio.

OEPA 2002. Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's Primary Headwater Habitat Streams (v 1.0). Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water. Columbus, Ohio.

Appendix A: Aerial Photographs of the Stream and Wetland Resources Impacted

STREAMS AND WETLANDS - MHIBCT3b

CLI-SR73-6.20 Relocated State Route 7 3 PID Ma. 16621

A), I

- lulls

- ALTERNATIVE 5C CONSTWTIO)( LIMITS

LIMATLO WETLAM OUTSIDE WTRUCTION LIMITS E z ' T W F

P u a OR LAKE S T R E W

Ih

EXHIBIT 31 WETLAND DELINEATION MAP CLI -SR73-6 .20 Relocated S.R. 7 3 PID No. 16621

Exhibit 3g

- - - - PROSCT CORRIDOR LIMITS - EXPAKKO PR(XIECT LIMITS EXHlBrr 3J

U T - T I V E X C m T w t l O N L I Y i T S W E T L A N D D E L I N E A T I O N M A P ELIMATED WETLAW IMIOE c ~ T ~ T I O N L i M I T S ( I M P A C T A R E A ) C L I - S R 7 3 - 6 . 2 0 R e l o c a t e d S . R . 7 3 OELINEATED R T L W OUTSIDE

1 7 COnSTRUCTlON LIMITS

T WH) OR L M E PID No. 16621

<..d:. S'fREkyS

@ STEAM L00TION

&b- WETLAW DATA POINT

WETLINO OETERMlMTlON -n OCIIEDImr .c-- -

. .

WETLAND I I

Total Size 0.185 acres Impacl Area = 0.017 acre8 I

' % Wetland Area Not Impacted - 85.

- - GEND

PROJECT COllRlOOR LIMITS - EXP(PUMD P R U C T CORRIDOR LIMITS EXHIBIT 3k

uTmTlvLXCOMTRCICTloNLYITS WETLAND DELINEATION MAP OELIYATED WfTLUD CTAREA CONSTRUCTION LIYITSltffiB OELIr€ATED IETLAH) OUTSIDE

CLI-SR73-6.20 Relocated S.R. 73 CO~~STRUCTION LIMITS PID NO. 16621 STREAMS

STREAM LOCATlOW

IETLAH) DATA POINT . --O- - m€TLUD OETEWUWllOW *IPQIY

.C-- - ~ m m

Appendix B: Plan Sheets Depicting the Location of the Strearns and Wetlands lrnpacted

Culvert Profile Law

OPOSED SR 73 WILY

" -Ti=- " WSTINQ STREAM CHANNEL 477-'- &---

# #'

Y' So =P I Y1 'Y M

Y'

Hiahwav Profile with existina channel section

I Appmxbnata Plan Scab 1" = 72' Approxlmata Culvert Profib Scale: 1" = 16' Ao~roxlmab Hbhwav Pmfik Scah: 1" = 22' I

Exhibit 2 Site Plan for Proposed Activity

Site S4c Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork

- - Retocated SR 73, Wilmlngton Bypass, Clinton County, Ohio

CLI-73-6.20; PID 16621

0 E PA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Application

. . .. - Exhibit 2 of 12

m l5le

L9m Lw!

Qw

PPP:

PIP: CONDUIT, TYPE*. 707.0(~3.17%

H w U w r m ~ ME RAP USING 8" RBIFORCED

CONCRm SLAB Culvert Profile

LBIP: tLL ROAD law

\ ~ W S T I N O ~ R W W D ~ lam --a

--% la##!

E A M CHANNEL (CULVE

ILP: lgl

9m!

Y I 1 '7 I

ILP:

I U

@ @ Duk.n Y. Lly.n. Tn1.1.. Hiahwav Profile v l

with existina channel section Approximate Cutvat Profile Scale: 1" = 32'

Exhibit 3 OEPASection 401 Water Quality

Site Plan for Proposed Activity Certltication

Site S4 Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork Application

--Relocated SR 73, Wllmington Bypass, . .

Clinton County, Ohio CLI-73-6.20; PID 16621

Exhibit 3 of 12

135 x 27" CONDUIT. W E 4 70&[email protected]% -

PPPl ua!

PIP: LPP: ROCK CHC)*IEL

A m

l J S ' x 2 T m . W P E 4 - M

nrmr Q a m IPP:

Culvert Profile

-PROPOSED SR 73 WLMROTON BYPASS PROFILE 1

nn: '?' UZ 551 SY U5 3sa 3sa m!


Approximate Culvert Protile Scale: 1" = 33'

Exhibit 4 OEPA Sectlon 401 Water Quailty

Site Plan for Proposed Activity Certlficatlon


- %/mated SR 73, Wilrnington Bypass, Clinton County, Ohio

CLC73-6.20; PID 16621 Exhiblt 4 of 12

Culvert Profile lNwthC(

IP1P:

IBPP:

LIP:

LIP:-

PROPOSED SR 73 WILUINQTON BYPASS

I I I 'I= I 51e I 'P I 5)' I I

Hiqhwav Profile with existina channel section

I Approximate Plan Smk: 1" = 104' Approxlnuh Culvert P r d k Scale: 1" = 45' I

) &proxknah Highway Profile Scale: 1" = 24'1

Exhibit 5a OEPA Section 401 Water Quality

Site Plan for Proposed Activity Certification Application

--etucated SR 73, Wllmington Bypass, Clinton County, Ohlo

CLI-73-6.20; PID 16621 Exhiblt 5a of 12

W P W USW C REwoRcEO CONCReTeSW Culvert Profile


I North + I

Approximate Plan Scah: 1" = 110' Approximate Culvert Profile Scale: 1" = 42' Approximate Hkghway Pmflie Scab 1' = 24' r

Y

k3aGh Exhibit 5b OEPA Section 401

Site Plan for Proposed Activity Water Quality

d Certlflcation

Site S6 (at M~tchell Rd. Applicatlon

',( 1 Unnamed Tr~butary to Tod Fork *elocated SR 73, Wilmington Bypass, . -

Clinton County, Ohlo CLC73-6.20; PID 16621 Exhlbit 5b of 12

CHANNEL AU(YIYNT AND W O WOW<

ROCK -EL PROTECTKM

NOTE SM.d Am. Rapnmlb W.thg I - m ~ . u a M c t m d I I

Plan

I See Exhibit 6b for Culvert and Highway Profiles I

@ Junu L and Joyce L ltky

OEPA Section 401 Water Quality Certlflcatlon Application

Exhlblt 6a of 12

L

Exhibit 6a Site Plan for Proposed Activity

Site S13 Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork

9 d o c a t e d SR 73, Wilmington Bypass, Clinton County, Ohlo

CLI-73-6.20; PiD 16621

L.nglhofChnnlM.(ub.d: 5 ( 1 7 h u h t RVoIumBdawOHW: 28.5 cubic yrd. R ~ M O M N : 0.046 a m

1w x s4- CON

I

l&a! TINO STREAM CHANNEL l&o!

3wL =---------------------I-------------------- - --3-------

-.& ------------ -'+ uu!

IBPTq4 * w P w ISPPI - Hiahwav Profile [Pro~osed SR 73 Mainline) 1 NO^

with existina channel section Approximate Scale: 1- = 45'

UW I 79.00' ECONSTRUCTDN N. NELSON AVE. 1

Hiahwav Profile [North Nelson Ave.) with existina channel section ~ p p r ~ ~ i r m r h Scale: 1- = 20'

Exhibit 6b OEPA Section 401 Water Quality

Site Plan for Proposed Activity Certification


- - - - Relocated SR 73, Wilmington Bypass,

Cllnton County, Ohio CLC73-6.20; PID 16621 Exhibit 6b of 12

Culvert Profile

--- UMmNO S7lEAM CHANNEL

s 5 S a sn 600 6ol 602 em


Approxhata Culvert Proflb Scale: 1" = 42'

OEPASection 401 Exhibit 7 Water Quality

Site Plan for Proposed Activity Certification Application

Site S21 Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork

---- -Retocated SR 73, Wilmington Bypass, Clinton County, Ohio

CLC73-6.20; PID 16621 Exhibit 7 of 12

I

ROCK C- PROTECllON W n h 3 6 - T H C K r n FILER

102- WV. 1,04Mo' 1s- WV. 1-

PmTECllON T Y P C A , ~ T H Q ( w m mlER Culvert Profile

PROPOSED SR 73 WLUNQTON BWASS PROFILE

ED SR 73 WlMNoTON BWASS PROFILE - - -- 7--

-- L O M - ----- I

OOSTHOSTREIY

ld%#!


h ~ r o x i m a t e Plan Scale: 1" -132' proximate Culvert Profib Scale: 1" = 56' Approximate Highway Pmfik Scak: 1' = 28'

u( AaBA

1 I


Site S23 Indian Run -- Relocated SR 73, Wllmlngton Bypasq

Clinton County, Ohlo CLC73-6.20; PID 16621

OEPA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Application

--

Exhibit 8 of 12

LngIhofChmndDDkturbmk 6 1 7 h u f M Fill volume B&W cnw CHANNEL ALI~NMM \EVAT = i.068.06~ I I , AND WADING WORK

- - . - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - . --- Fill Ama M o w o m NOTE: Shadmd Aru Repnnnts Exlrtlng

Strum Bottom, Not O M Ch8nml

ROCK CHANNEL PROTECTION TYPE C. 18" THICK WITH

IN WSTNQ CULVERT

p CONSTRUCTION SR 73

113'-s" l53#!

w-3"

E*SmouND 0

17C x W M))IDUII. ROCK C- PROTECTION

TWEh706.02Q0.5TX N P E C 18- THICK wmc FILTER

Culvert Profile

*cO-

t lam

PROPOSED 5R 73 WILMW3TON BYPASS PROFlLE L- --

3 l.w ----- IBPP: -4

Hiqhwav Profile ~ p ~ ~ ~ l n u h Culvsrt Profik Scale: 1- = 36' with existina channel section


Site S24 Unnamed Tributary to Indian Run

Retacated SR 73, Wilmhgton Bypass, Clinton County. Ohio

CLI-73-6.20; PID 76621

OEPA Section 401 Water Quality Certlflcation Application

I Exhibit 9 of 12

Plan

INorthtl Approximate Plan Scale: 1" - 76'

(3 Exhibit 11 OEPA Section 401 Water Quality

Site Plan for Proposed Activity Certification

Wetland 3 Application

-hated SR 73, Wilmington Bypass, - --- -

Clinton County, Ohio CLI-73-6.20; PID 16621 Exhibit I 1 of 12

I 9 Watland AM Impactul 0.015 .c:

Total Wetland S1u 0.015 ac

Plan

116 J a m E. 6 J o y u L AUey I E l Approximato Plan Scak: 1" = 110'


Wetland 10

Relocated SR 73, Wilmington Bypass, Clinton County, Ohio

CLI-73-6.20; PID 16621

OEPA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Application

Exhibit 12 of 12

Appendix D: Data Forms for Stream Mitigation Parcels

Primary Headwater Habitat Evaluation Form HHEl Score (sum of metrics 1 2 . 3 ) :

* SITE NAMEROCATION Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork

SITE NUMBER S4 RIVER BASIN Todd Fork DRAINAGE AREA (mt) 0.46

LENGTH OF STREAM REACH (ft)200 LAT. N3g02T48" LONG. W83O52'24" RIVER CODE RIVER MILE 1.03

DATE 09/01/05 SCORER Michael de Villiers COMMENTS

NOTE: Complete All Items On This Form - Refer to " Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's PHWH Streams" for Instructions

STREAM CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS:

. NONE 1 NATURAL CHANNEL RECOVERED RECOVERING RECENT OR NO RECOVERY

This information & also be completed RIPARIAN ZONE AND FLOODPLAIN QUALITY * NOTE: River Left (L) and Right (R) as looking downstream* RIPARIAN WIDTH FLOODPLAIN QUALITY

L R (Per Bank) L R (Most Predominant per Bank) L R Wide>lOm Mature Forest, Wetland Conservation Tillage . Moderate 510m Immature Forest, Shrub or Old Urban or Industrial

Field

1. SUBSTRATE (Estimate percent of every type of substrate present. Check ONLYmpredominant substrate TYPE boxes (Max of 32). Add total number of signhicant substrate types found (Max of 8). Final metic score is sum of boxes A& B.

rn PERCENT TYPE PERCENT BLDR SLABS [16 pts] 00 SlLT[3pts] 10 BOULDER (>256 mm) [16 pts] 3 LEAF PACWOODY DEBRIS [3 pts] 1

BEDROCK 116 pts] FINE DETRITUS [3 pts] . COBBLE (65256 mm) 112 pts] 35 CLAY or HARDWN [0 pts] 1

35 . GRAVEL (284 mm) (9 pb] MUCK [0 pts]

SAND (<2 mm) [6 pts] 15 ARTIFICIAL [3 pts]

Total of Percenhges of Bldr Slabs, Boulder, Cobble, Bedrock 38

(A) (6)

SCORE OF TWO MOST PREDOMINATE SUBSTRATE TYPES: El TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBSTRATE TYPES:

evaluation. Avoid plunge pools from road culverts or storm water pipes) (Check ONLY one box):

E l 2. Maximum Pool Depth (Measure the maximum pool depth within the 61 meter (200ft) evaluation reach at the time of . > 30 centimeters [20 pts] >5cm-lOcm[15pts]

> 22.5 - 30 cm 130 pts] < 5 cm [5 pts] > 10 - 22.5 cm 125 pts] NO WKTER OR MOISTCHANNEL [0 pts]

COMMENTS One deep pool likely due to recent heavy rain MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH (centimeters):

3. BANK FULL WIDTH (Measured as the average of 3-4 measurements) (Check ONLY one box): E l

> 4.0 meters [30 pts] > 1.0-1.5m[15pts] . > 3.0 m - 4.0 m [25 pts] <_ 1.0 m [5 pts] >1.5m-3.0m[20pts]

Narrow < 5m Residential, Park. New Field Open Pasture, Row Crop

None Fenced Pasture Mining or Construction COMMENTS

HHEl METRIC POINTS

Substrate Max = 40

A + B

Pool Depth Max = 30

El Bankfull Width

Max = 30

FLOW REGIME (At Time of Evaluation) (Check ONLY one box): . Stream Flowing Moist Channel, isolated pools, no flow (Intermittent) Subsurface flow with isolated pools (Interstitial) Dry Channel, no water (Ephemeral) COMMENTS Flow slightly above normal

COMMENTS AVERAGE BANWULL WIDTH (meters):

SlNUOSrlY (Number of bends per 61 m (200 ft) of channel) Check ONLYone box): None 1.0 A 2.0 3.0 0.5 . 1.5 2.5 >3

STREAM GRADIENT ESTIMATE b Flat (0.5 wioon) . Flat to Moderate Moderate (2 wloofl) Moderate to Severe Severe ( lo wioo n)

Odober 24.2002 Revision- PHWH Form Page - 1

QHEI PERFORMED? - . Yes No QHEI Score 60.25 (If Yes.Attach Completed QHEI Form)

DOWNSTREAM DESIGNATED USE(S) . WWH Name: Todd Fork Distance from Evaluated Stream 1.03 miles

CWH Name: Distance from Evaluated Stream EWH Name: Distance from Evaluated Stream

MAPPING: AllACH COPIES OF MAPS, INCLUDING THE ENTlRE WATERSHED AREA. CLEARLY MARK THE SITE LOCATION

USGS Quadrangel Name: Wilmington Quadrangle NRCS Soil Map Page: Sheet 14 NRCS Soil Map Stream Order 2""

County: Clinton Township I City Union / Wilmington

MISCELLANEOUS

Base Flow Conditions? (YIN): N Date of last precipitation: 8/31/05 Quantity: 0.37 inches

Photograph Infomation: 3 0 s 1 (downstream). 2 (upstream), and 3 (upstream)

Elevated Turbidity? (YIN): N Canopy (% open): 15

Were samples collected for water chemistry? (YIN): N (Note lab sample no. or id. and attach results) Lab Number:

Field Measures: Temp (C) 19.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mgll) 6.5 pH (S.U.) 7.8 Conductivity (pmhoslcm) 550

Is the sampling reach representative of the stream (YIN) 1 If not, please explain:

Additional mmmentsldescription of pollution impacts:Ew slightly above normal

BIOTIC EVALUATION

Performed? (YIN): Y (If Yes, Record all observations. kucher collections optional. NOTE: all vwcher samples must be labeled with the site ID number. lndude appropriate field data sheets from the Primary Headwater Habitat Assessment Manual)

Fish Observed? (YIN) N Voucher? (YM)& Salamanders Observed? (YM) Voucher? ( Y I N ) L Frogs or Tawles Observed? (YIN) N Voucher? ( Y 1 N ) N Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Observed? (YIN) 1 Voucher? (YIN) N Comments Regarding Biology: See HMFEl scaling sheet

DRAWlNG AND NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF STREAM REACH ( T h i s b e comp le ted ) :

Include imwrtant landmarks and other features of interest for site evaluation and a narrative description of the stream's location

b o d e d 2;

. .

&XT,DL.I O J ~ - ( ~ ~ (2 ;pa&+ 103 -./

I 5 icsp I7c'r.k ) ---LN-cc-/ -4 ..&G,-L-IL--

t &dJ

-.-&-/-<,J-- ..-A/*> - 4 - L

PHWH Form Page - 2 Odober 24,2002 Revision

3. Macroinvertebrate Scoring Sheet: (Stream Site S4) THE HEADWATER MACROINVERTEBRATE FIELD EVALUATION INDEX (HMFEI) SCORING SHEET

Indicate Abundance of Each Taxa Above each White Box.

R e d HMFEl Scoring Value Points- each Box.

For EPT taxa, also indicate the dierent taxa present.

Key: V = Very Abundant ( > 50); A = Abundant (10-50); C = Common (3 - 9); R = Rare ( < 3) Sessile Animals (Porifera, Crayfish (Decapoda) Fishfly Larvae

Cnidaria, Bryozoa)

(HMFEI p k = I ) 0 Aquatic Worms (Turbellaria,

(ho~oda) I~limidae, Ptilodactylidae) I(llpulidae) n

Oligochaeta, Hirudinea)

(HMFEI pts = I ) Sow Bugs

I(

(HMFEI pk = 2)

Dragonfly Nymphs 0 (Corydalidae)

(HMFEI pts=3) Water Penny Beetles

(Anisoptera)

(HMFEI pk = 2) RMe Beetles (Dryopidae,

0 (HMFEI pts = I) I '(HHMEI pts = 2) I ~(HMFEI pts = 3) U

(Psephenidae)

(HMFEI pts = 3) Cranefly Larvae

Scuds (Amphipoda)

(HMFEI pts = I ) I(J Water Mites (Hydncarina)

(HMFEl pk = 1)

DamseMy Nymphs

-

'Note: EPT identification based upon Family or Genus level of taxonomy

Voucher Sample ID Time Spent (minutes): 30 minutes Notes on Macroinvertebrates: (Predominant Organisms; Other Common Organisms; Diversity Estimate)

Predominant organisms include aquatic sow bugs, gastropods and caddis fly larvae (Hydropsychidae)

Larvae of other Flies I EPT TAXA*

(Diptera) Name:

(HMFEI pts = I ) Total No. EPTTaxa = - Midges (Chironomidae) Mafly Nymphs (Ephemeroptera)

(HMFEI pts = I ) Taxa Present:

No. Taxa (x) 31 Snails

Hemiptera (Abundant)

Other Taxa:

Final HMFEl Calculated Score (Sum of All White Box Scores) = 1 8 1 IF Final HMFEl Score is > 19, Then CLASS Ill PHWH STREAM

IF Final HMFEl Scon? is 7 to 19. Then CLASS iI PHWH STREAM u

(HMFEI pts = 1 )

Other Taxa:

I IF Final HMFEl Scon? is < 7. Then CLASS I PHWH STREAM I

Alderfly Larvae

(Sialidae)

(HMFEI pts = 1) 0 Other Beetles

(Cokopten)

(HMFEI pts = 1)

1 other ~axa :

Taxa Present: Hydropsychidae A [HMFEI p k =

No. Taxa (x) 31

PHWH FORM - Page 4

Clams Stonefly Nymphs (Plecoptera)

(Bivalvia) Taxa Present:

(HMFEI pts = 1)

No. Taxa (x) 31 Other Taxa:

Other Taxa: Caddisfly Lawae (Trlchophra)

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Field Sheet QHEI SCORE: ml

Stream:& Rhf: 1.03 Date: 9/01/05 River Code: Location: North side of existing SR 73 (see Exhibit 4) . . Crew-1 de Vill~ers

I) SUBSTRATE (Check ONLYTwo Substrate TYPE BOXES; Estimate %present rY3!E POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE SUBSTRATE O U m

SUBSTRATE SCORE: 1 17 1 UJ--BLDERISLABS (10) O--GRAVEL(7) 30 ~ ~ t r a t ~ oriein (check 1 or 2 &

Max 20 Average Silt Cover (Check 1 or 2 &

m--BOULDER (9) 5 m--SAND (6) 10 10 0--LIMESTONE (I) 0--RIP/R4P (0) ) 0--SILT HEAW (-2) O--COBBLE (8) 40 R7--BEDROCK (5) .--TILLS (1) 0--HARDPAN (0) .--SILT M O D E W E (-I) m--HARDPAN (4) 15 5 m--DETRITUS (3) 0--SANDSTONE (0) 0--WETLANDS (0) 0--SILT NORMAL(0) m - - w c ~ (2) -- m--ARTIFIC. (0) 0--SHALE (-1) 0--LACUSTRINE (0) 0--SILT FREE (1) m--SILT (2) 10 5 -- P-COAL FINES (-2)

TOTALNUMBER OF SUBSTRATE TYPES: .-- 5 or more (2) 0 - - 4 or less (0) NOTE: (Imore sludae that orieinates bom ooint-sources: score is based on natural substrates)

€Em beddedness (Check 1 or 2 & A v e r a d o 0--EXTENSIVE (-2) .--NORMAL (0) 0--MODERATE (-1) 0--NONE ( I )

2) INSTREAM COVER (See back for instructions for additional cover scoring method) COVER SCORE:

A M O W (Check ONLY 1 or check 2 Max 20 TYEE (Check ALL That Apply) and A VERA GE)

.--UNDERCUT BANKS ( 1) 0--POOLS > 70cm (2)O--OXBOWS, BACKWATERS (1) 0--EXTENSWE >75% (1 1)

.--OVERHANGING VEGETATION (1) .,ROOTWADS (1) 0--AQUATIC MACROPHYTES (1) 0--MODERATE 25-75% (7) 0--SHALLOWS (IN SLOW WATER) (1) .--BOULDERS (I) .,LOGS OR WOODY DEBRIS (1) .--SPARSE 5-25% (3) 0,ROOTMATS (1) 0--NEARLY ABSENT 4% ( 1 ) COMMENTS:

3) CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY (Check ONLYOne PER Category OR check 2 and AVERAGE) CHANNEL: SINUOSITY DEVELOPMENT -ATION STABILITY M -& Max 20 0--HIGH (4) 0--EXCELLENT (7) .--NONE (6) .--HIGH (3) 0--SNAGGING O--IMPOUND. .--MODERATE (3) 0--GOOD (5) 0-RECOVERED (4) 0--MODERATE (2) 0--RELOCATION O--ISLANDS . . . . 0--LOW (2) .--FAIR (3) 0--RECOVERR'(G (3) 0--LOW (1) 0--CANOPY REMOVAL 0--LEVEED

kW' 0--NONE (1) 0--POOR (1) O-RECENT OR NO 0--DREDGING 0--BANK SHAPING RECOVERY (I ) D O N E SIDE CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS

4) RIPARIAN ZONE AND BANK EROSION - (Check ONE box per bank or check 2 and AVERAGE per bank) RIPARIAN: 1 6.75 1 River Right Looking Dowastream* Max 10 - EROSION 1 RUNOFF - FLOODPLAIN OUALITY

L R (Per Bank) L R (Most Predominant Per Bank) L R (Per Bank) - L R (Per Bank)

OO--WIDE >50m (4) =--FOREST, SWAMP (3) m--URBAN OR INDUSTRW (0) m--NONE OR LIlTLE (3) =--MODERATE 10-50m (3) m--OPEN PASTURE / ROWCROP (0) m--SHRUB OR OLD FIELD (2) =--MODERATE (2) O.--NARROW 5- IOm (2) O--RESID., PARK, NEW FIELD (1) m--CONSERV TILLAGE (1) m--HEAVYOR SEVERE ( I ) OO--VERY NARROW 1-5m (1) O.--FENCED PASTURE (1) OO--MINING / CONSTRUCTION (0) m--NONE (0) COMMENTS:

5) POOL / GLIDE AND RIFFLE / RUN QUALlTY MAX. DEPTH (Check I) MORPHOLOGY POOL / RUN / RIFFLE CURRENT VELOClTY

POOL: m Max 12

0-->lm (6) (Check One or 2 & Average) (Check ALL That Apply) 0--0.7-lm (4) .--POOL WIDTH > RIFFLE WIDTH (2) 0--TORRENTIAL (- 1) U--EDDIES (I) I I

----------- W--0.4-0.7m (2) 0--POOL WIDTH = RIFFLE WIDTH (I) 0--FAST (1) 0--INTERSTITIAL (-1) I U--NO POOL(0) I 0--0.2-0.4m (1) 0--POOL WIDTH < RIFFLE WIDTH (0) .--MODERATE (1) 0--INTERMITTENT (-2) - - - - - - -- - - 0 - 4 0.2m (Pool = 0) .--SLOW (1) COMMENTS: Flow slightly above normal

CHECK ONE OR CHECK 2 AND AVERAGE RIFFLE: RIFFLE DEPTH RIFFLE 1 RUN SUBSTRATE RIFFLE 1 RUN EMBEDDEDNESS Max 8 0--* Best Areas > l0cm (2) 0--MAX > 50 (2) .--STABLE (e.g., Cobble, Boulder) (2) 0--EXTENSIVE (-1) .--MODERATE (0) .--Best areas 5-lOcm (1) .--MAX < 50 (1) .--MOD. STABLE (e.g., Large Gravel) (1) 0--LOW (1) 0--NONE (2) 0--Best areas < 5cm (Rime = 0) 0--UNSTABLE (Fine Gravel, Sand) (0) r-----------

COMMENTS: Flow slightly above normal I 0--NO RIFFLE(0) I I --------- - -1

Best areas must be large enough to support a population of rime-obligate fish species

GRADIENT: Max 10

6) GRADIENT (feet / mile)&DRAINAGE AREA (sq.mi)= % P O O L : ~ ~ % R I F F L E : & GLIDE:^ RUN:^ (&om USGS)

tp

QA Manual (6th Update) - Fish - September 30, 1989 (Revised 7/18/98)

ileiweu dllsolu lauueqj SI :mJ MoH jUeailSUMOp as013 Jalem aiaql SI

:iej MOH jmansdn mlem uaq j s~ ~(s lods dump d p o lo h p dll~108 'slood ou) le iamqda weans s~

- ONIsaA

.slood Imo!lmnj 'paugap-llam 'daap lo 'web ,s~~/lJ/daap u! spermooi padola~ap [[am 'alqels am leq, s8ol ialalue!p a8.q ' JJI~M ISEJ 10 daap a! slaplnoq a8ml &A apnpu! iaAoJ 41lenb ~saq81q~o sa~durexa 'slunolue 1aIeaB l o altllapolu u!

&!led ~saq%yjo a d 4 J J A O ~ - E !di!lmb lsaq%gjo slunoue llerus u! 10 4yenb 1saqSgjo ,ou Jnq 'slunorue a8empom u! loasaid adkl J J A O ~ - i: f 4 q e d ~eo@mmjo uommo~ aiow J! 10 slunolue llems LWA u! loasaid ad& J J A O ~ - 1 !,uasqe ad& iaAo3 - 0

:aiaqM 'E pue 0 warmaqjo aioJs E aA!aJai plnoqs adL,iaaoJ qmg : y a w m ~ o 3 a~!]earaqy aq, SUUOJS JOJ S U O ! ~ J N I S ~

- ~ , d l M M l=Ys"P"I auoN

:(dlddv l e u IIV TJ993) s l m d q j o saJmoS pal~adsris io tqq

@!H - ' a w p o w - 'MOT - ,='!Pit)

VN VN VN VN i VN i laa3 E.ZI i l ag p.1 ; paJ p.0 i laa3 g I

%S I 1-ON "113 " OSI VN sssd Xuydrues JAoqv ~19l%!Is I=!d

: u a Q y, -Moue3 :~SEIS -em :h(lue13 BI~M :a~ut.lsm :ma9

Primary Headwater Habitat Evaluation Form HHEl Score (sum of metrics I. 2,3) :

SlTE NAMEILOCATION Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork

SITE NUMBER S5 RIVER BASIN Todd Fork DRAINAGE AREA (mi?)o.ol

LENGTH OF STREAM REACH (ft)200 IAT. N392749' LONG. W8352'20" RIVER CODE RIVER MILE 0.008

DATE 09/01 105 SCORER Michael de Vllllers COMMENTS

NOTE: Complete All Items On Thls Form - Refer t o " Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's PHWH Streams" for Instructions

STREAM CHANNEL . NONE I NATURAL CHANNEL RECOVERED RECOVERING RECENT OR NO RECOVERY MODIFICATIONS:

This information &also be completed RIPARIAN ZONE AND FLOODPLAIN QUALITY * NOTE: River Left (L) and Right (R) as looklng downstream*

FLOODPIAIN QUALITY L R (Per Bank) L R (Most Predominant per Bank) L R 00 Wide>lOm U Mature Forest. Wetland Conservation Tillage . . Moderate 5-lOm IJ 17 Immature Forest. Shrub or Old Urban or Industrial

Field

1. SUBSTRATE (Estimate percent of every type of substrate present. Check ONLY Wpredominant substrate TYPE boxes

. . Narrow < 5m . . Residential. Park, New Field Open Pasture, Row Crop

(Max of 32). Add total number of significant substrate types found (Max of 8). Final metic scare is sum of boxes A& B.

TYPE PERCENT TYPE PERCENT BLDR SLABS [16 pts] SILT [3 pts] 25 BOULDER (>256 mm) 116 pts] 2 17 q LEAF PACWOODY DEBRIS [3 pts] 4

q BEDROCK [16 pts] FINE DETRITUS [3 pts]

q COBBLE (65256 mm) 112 pts] 4 17 CIAY or HARDFNN [0 pts] 10 q GRAVEL (2-64 mm) 19 pk] MUCK [0 pts]

q SAND (<2 mm) [6 pts] 55 17 q ARTIFICIAL [3 pts]

Total of Percenhges of Bldr Slabs, Boulder, Cobble. Bedrock 6

(A) (B)

SCORE OF TWO MOST PREDOMINATE SUBSTRATE TYPES: E l TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBSTRATE TYPES:


E l 2. Maximum Pool Depth (Measure the maximum pool depth within the 61 meter (200 R) evaluation reach at the time of

q > 30 centimeters [20 pts] >5crn -10cm[ l5p ts ]

None . . Fenced Pasture 17 Mining or Construction COMMENTS

HHEl METRIC POINTS

Substrate Max = 40

El A + B

Pool Depth Max = 30

FLOW REGIME (At Time of Evaluation) (Check ONLY one box): q Stream Flowing Moist Channel, isolated pools, no flow (Intermittent)

Subsurface flow with isolated pools (Interstitial) . Dry Channel, no water (Ephemeral) COMMENTS

SINUOSITY (Number of bends per 61 m (200 R) of channel) None q 1.0 3.0 . 0.5 1.5 2.5 >3

> 22.5 - 30 cm [30 pts] q < 5 c m [ 5 pts] q > 10 - 22.5 cm [25 pts] . NO WATER OR MOISTCHANNEL [0 pts]

COMMENTS Moist channel likely due to recent heavy rain MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH (centimeters):

STREAM GRADIENT ESTIMATE pe*. Flat (0.5 wioo n) Flat to Moderate q Moderate (2 Mloo n) . Moderate to Severe Severe (lo wioo n)

3. BANK FULL WIDTH (Measured as the average of 3 4 measurements) (Check ONLYone box): > 4.0 meters [30 pts] q > 1.0- 1.5 m [15 pts] > 3.0 m - 4.0 m [25 pts] . 11.0m[5pt~]

q > 1.5 m - 3.0 m [20 pts]

PHWH Form Page - 1

Bankfull Width

Max = 30


ADDITIONAL STREAM INFORMATION lThis Information Must Also be Comdeted!:

QHEI PERFORMED? - Yes . No QHEI Score (If Yes,Attach Completed QHEl Form)

DOWNSTREAM DESIGNATED USE(S)

w WWH Name: Todd Fork Distance from Evaluated Stream 1.09 miles


MAPPING: ATIICH COPIES OF MAPS, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE WATERSHED AREA. CLEARLY MARK THE SITE LOCATION

USGS Quadrangel Name: Wilmington Quadrangle NRCS Soil Map Page:Sheet 14 NRCS Soil Map Stream Order I"

County: Clinton Township I City Union l Wilmington

MISCELLANEOUS

Base Flow Conditions? (YIN): Y Date of last precipitation: 8/31/05 Quantity: 0.37 inches

Photograph Information: Photo 4 (upsham)

Elevated Turbidity? (YIN): N Canopy (36 open): 10


Field Measures: Temp ( ' C ) N A Dissolved Oxygen (mgll) NA pH (S.U.) NA Conductivity (pmhos/cm) NA

Is the sampling reach representative of the stream ( Y I N ) Y ~f not, please explain:

Additional comments/description of pollution impacts: Channel moist likely due to recent rain

BIOTIC EVALUATION

Performed? (YIN): N (If Yes, Record all observations. bucher collections optimal. NOTE: allvoucher samples must be labeled with thesite ID number. lndude appropriate field data sheets from the Primary Headwater Habitat Assessment Manual)

Fish Observed? (YIN) N Voucher? ( Y / N ) L Salamanders Observed? ( Y N L Voucher? ( Y 1 N ) N Frogs or Tamales Observed? (YIN) N Voucher? (Y1N)NAqua t i c Macroinvertebrates Observed? ( Y 1 N ) N Voucher? (ym) N Comments Regarding Biology: No biological organisms present

DRAWING AND NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF STREAM REACH uhis be completed):

Include important landmarks and other features of interest for site evaluation and a narrative description of the stream's location

FLOW '7

t f v e d il*csf ? c c ; r ~ r , c

-

PHWH Form Page - 2 October 24, 2002 Revision

Primary Headwater Habitat Evaluation Form HHEl Score (sum of metria I. 2.3) : a

. 1~y SlTE NAMULOCATION Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork

SITE NUMBER S6 RIVER BASIN Todd Folk DRAINAGE AREA (mi')0.03

LENGTH OF STREAM REACH (ft)200 LA1 N3g027'48" LONG. W83"52'19" RIVER CODE RIVER MILE 0.004

DATE 09/01/05 SCORER Michael de Villiers COMMENTS

NOTE: Complete All Items On This Form - Refer t o " Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's PHWH Streams" for Instructions

STREAM CHANNEL . NONE 1 NATURAL CHANNEL q RECOVERED RECOVERING n RECENT OR NO RECOVERY MODIFICATIONS:

This information must also be completed RIPARIAN ZONE AND FLOODPLAIN QUALITY NOTE: Riier Lefl (L) and Right (R) as looking downstream*

RIPARIAN WIDTH FLOODPLAIN QUALITY L R (Per Bank) L R (Most Predominant per Bank) L R 00 Wide>lOm q Mature Forest, Wetland Conservation Tillage

1. SUBSTRATE (Estimate percent of every type of substrate present. Check ONLYmpredominant substrate TYPE boxes (Max of 32). Add total number of significant substrate types found (Max of 8). Final metic score is sum of boxes A& B.

TYPE PERCENT TYPE PERCENT q q BLDR SLABS [16 pts] SILT [3 pts] 20 q q BOULDER (>256 mm) [16 pts] LEAF PACWOODY DEBRIS [3 pts] q BEDROCK [ I 6 pts] q FINE DETRITUS [3 pts]

q COBBLE (65256 mm) [12 pts] 5 q CLAY or HARDFNN [O pts] 15 q GRAVEL (2-64 mm) [9 pk] q q MUCK [0 pts] . SAND (<2 mm) [6 pts] 60 ARTIFICIAL [3 pts]

Total of Percenhges of Bldr Slabs, Boulder, Cobble, Bedrock 5

(A) (6)

SCORE OF TWO MOST PREDOMINATE SUBSTRATE TYPES: E l TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBSTRATE TYPES:

evaluation. Avoid plunge pools from road culverts or storm water pipes) (Check ONLY one box): 2. Maximum Pool Depth (Measure the maximum pool depth within the 61 meter (200ft) evaluation reach at the timeof

> 30 centimeters [20 pts] q >5crn- lOcm[15pts] q > 22.5 - 30 crn [30 pts] . < 5 crn [5 pts] q > 10 - 22.5 ern [25 pts] q NO WATER OR MOISTCHANNEL [0 pts]

COMMENTS Isolated pools likely due to recent heavy rain MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH (centimeters):

3. BANK FULL WIDTH (Measured as the average of 3 4 measurements) (Check ONLYone box): > 4.0 meters [30 pts] q > 1 .O - 1.5 m [ I 5 pts] > 3.0 rn - 4.0 rn [25 pts] . <_l.Orn[5ptsj

q > 1.5 rn - 3.0 m [20 pts]

. . Moderate 5-1 Om . Immature Forest, Shrub or Old q Urban or Industrial Field

q Narrow c 5m q q Residential. Palk, New Field Open Pasture. Row Crop

HHEl METRIC POINTS

Substrate Max = 40

E l A + B

Pool Depth Max = 30

Bankfull Width

Max = 30

q q None 11 Fenced Pasture Mining or Construction COMMENTS Horse farm immediately adjacent to riparian corridor on river right


FLOW REGIME (At Time of Evaluation) (Check ONLY one box): Stream Flowing . Moist Channel, isolated pools, no flow (Intermittent) Subsurface flow with isolated pools (Interstitial) Dry Channel, no water (Ephemeral) COMMENTS Isolated pools likely due to recent heavy rain

SINUOSITY (Number of bends per 61 m (200 ft) of channel) Check ONLYone box): None 1.0 2.0 3.0

q 0.5 q 1.5 q 2.5 q >3

STREAM GRADIENT ESTIMATE q Flat (0.5 wioon) q Flat to Moderate . Moderate (2 w l m n ) Moderate to Severe Severe ( l o wloo n)

October 24.2002 Revision- PHWH Form Page - 1

ADDITIONAL STRFAM INFORMATION mhis Information Must Also be Comdetedl:

QHEI PERFORMED? - Yes . No QHEI Score (If Yes,Attach Completed QHEl Form)

DOWNSTREAM DESIGNATED USE(S) . WWH Name: Todd Fork Distance from Evaluated Stream 1 .I 3 miles

CWH Name: Distance fmm Evaluated Stream EWH Name: Distance from Evaluated Sbeam

USGS Quadrangel Name: Wilmington Quadrangle NRCS Soil Map Page: Sheet 14 NRCS Soil Map Stream Order 1"

County: Clinton Township I City Union / Wilmington

MISCELLANEOUS

Base Flow Conditions? (YIN): Y Date of last precipitation: 8/31/05 Quantity: 0.37 inches

Photograph Information: Photos 5 (upstream) and 6 (upstream)



Field Measures: Temp C C ) 1 8 . 8 Dissolved Oxygen (mgll) 6.9 pH (S.U.) L C o n d u c t i v i t y (prnhoslcm) 793

Is the sampling reach representative of the stream ( Y 1 N ) Y If not, please explain:

Additional commentsldescription of pollution impacts: Roll offense wire in stream channel

BIOTIC EVALUATION

Performed? (YIN): N (If Yes, Record all observations. mucher collections optimal. NOTE: all voucher samples must be labeled with the site ID number. Include appropriate field data sheets from the Primary Headwater Habitat Assessment Manual)

Fish Observed? (YIN) N Voucher? C / / N ) L Salamanders Observed? ( Y I N L Voucher? ( Y I N ) L Frogs or Taaoles Observed? C ( / N ) N Voucher? (Y1N)NAqua t i c Macroinvertebrates Observed? ( Y 1 N ) N Voucher? (ym) N Comments Regarding Biology: N o biological organisms present

DRAWING AND NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF STREAM REACH (This be completed):


FLOW *

PHWH Form Page - 2 Odober 24.2002 Revision -

Primary Headwater Habitat Evaluation Form HHEl Score (sum of metria 1.2.3) :

SITE NAMULOCATION Unnamed Tnbutary to Todd Fork

SITE NUMBER S21 RIVER BASIN Todd Fork DRAINAGE AREA (mt)o.89

LENGTH OF STREAM REACH (ft)200 l A T N3go2T38" LONG. W83"46'50" RIVER CODE RIVER MILE 0.80

DATE 09101105 SCORER M~chael de Vllllen COMMENTS

NOTE: Complete Al l Items On This Form - Refer to " Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's PHWH Streams" for Instructions

STREAM CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS:

NONE I NATURAL CHANNEL RECOVERED . RECOVERING RECENT OR NO RECOVERY

This information &also be completed RIPARIAN ZONE AND FLOODPLAIN QUALITY fk NOTE: River Left (L) and Right (R) as looking downstream*

RIPARIAN WIDTH FLOODPLAIN QUALITY L R (Per Bank) L R (Most Predominant per Bank) L R . . Wide> lOm Mature Forest, Wetiand Conservation Tillage

17 Moderate 5-10m . Immature Forest, Shrub or Old Urban or lndusbial Field

1. SUBSTRATE (Estimate percent of every type of substrate present. Check ONLY mpredominant substrate TYPE boxes

. Nanow <5m Residential, Park, New Field . . Open Pasture, Row Crop

(Max of 32). Add total number of significant substrate types found (Max of 8). Final metic score is sum of boxes A& B.

TYPE - PERCENT - TYPE PERCENT BLDR SLABS [16 pts] . . SILT [3 pts] 60 BOULDER (>256 mm) [16 pts] 11 LEAF PACWOODY DEBRIS [3 pts] 2

BEDROCK [ I 6 pts] FINE DETRITUS [3 pts]

17 COBBLE (65-256 mm) (12 pts] 1 17 ClAY or HARDWN [0 pts] 15 GRAVEL (2-64 mm) (9 pk] MUCK (0 pts] 2

13 SAND (<2 mm) (6 pts] 20 17 ARTIFICIAL [3 pts]

Total of Percenkges of Bldr Slabs, Boulder, Cobble, Bedrock 1

(A) (6)

SCORE OF TWO MOST PREDOMINATE SUBSTRATE TYPES: El TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBSTRATE TYPES:


E l 2. Maximum Pool Depth (Measure the maximum pool depth within the 61 meter (200ft) evaluation reach at the timeof . > 30 centimeters (20 pts] ~ 5 c m - 1 0 c m [ 1 5 p t s ]

> 22.5 - 30 cm [30 pts] < 5 cm [5 pts] > 10 - 22.5 cm [25 pts] NO WATER OR MOISTCHANNEL [0 pts]

17 None Fenced Pasture Mining or Construction COMMENTS Adjacent row crop is soybean

HHEl METRIC POINTS

Substrate Max = 40 1m A + B

Pool Depth Max = 30

FLOW REGIME (At Time of Evaluation) (Check ONLY one box): . Stream Flowing Moist Channel, isolated pools, no flow (Intermittent) Subsurface flow with isolated pools (Interstitial) Dry Channel, no water (Ephemeral) COMMENTS Flow slightly above normal

COMMENTS Slightly above normal flow likely due to recent heavy rain MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH (centimeters):

3. BANK FULL WIDTH (Measured as the average of 3-4 measurements) (Check ONLYone box):

,+ Bankfull

> 4.0 meters [30 pts] > 1.0- 1.5 m [15 pts] Width . > 3.0 m - 4.0 m [25 pts] 5 1.0 m [5 pts] Max = 30 >1.5m-3.0m[20pts]


SINUOSITY (Number of bends per 61 m (200 ft) of channel) Check ONLYone box): None 1.0 A 2.0 . 3.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 >3

STREAM GRADIENT ESTIMATE k . Flat (0.5 wiw n) . Flat to Moderate Moderate (2 fulwfl) Moderate to Severe Severe (10 fulw fl)

October 24. 2002 Revision- PHWH Form Page - 1

ADDITIONAL STRFAM INFORMATION (This Information Must Also be Comdetedk

QHEI PERFORMED? - . Yes No QHEI Score 52.25 (If Yes,Attach Completed QHEI Form)

DOWNSTREAM DESIGNATED USE(S) . WWH Name: Todd Fork Distance from Evaluated Stream 0.80 miles


MAPPING: AllACH COPIES OF MAPS, INCLUDING THE ENTlRE WATERSHED AREA. CLEARLY MARK THE SITE LOCATlON

USGS Quadrangel Name: Earnington Quadrangle NRCS Soil Map Page:Sheet 22 NRCS Soil Map Stream Order Td

County: Clinton Township I City Union 1 Wihington

MISCELLANEOUS

Base Flow Conditions? (YIN): N Date of last precipitation: 8/31/05 Quantity: 0.37 inches

Photograph Information: Photos 9 (downskeaml 10 (upstream). and 'I 1 (upstream)



Field Measures: Temp (C) 24.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mgll) 7.1 pH (S.U.) L C o n d u c t i v i t y (pmhos/cm) 250

Is the sampling reach representative of the stream ( Y I N ) Y If not, please explain:

Additional commentsldescription of pollution impacts: Heavy siltation; flow slightly above normal

BIOTIC EVALUATION

Performed? (YIN): N (If Yes, Record all observations. bucher wlleclions optional. NOTE: all voucher samples must be labeled with the site ID number. lndude appropriate field data sheets from the Primary Headwater Habitat Assessment Manual)

Fish Observed? (YIN) 'f Voucher? ( Y I N ) N Salamanders Observed? ( Y / N ) N Voucher? ( Y 1 N ) N Frogs or Taaoles Observed? ( Y I N ) Y V o u c h e r ? (Y1N)NAqua t i c Macroinvertebrates Observed? ( Y 1 N ) Y Voucher? (ym) N Comments Regarding Biology: Many small sunfish likely from overflow from golf course pond upstream; many snails; a few leeches, water sbiders,

and caddis flies; one mayfly larvae; a few frogs

DRAWING AND NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF STREAM REACH (This b e c o m p l e t e d ) :


ro.r..u W S C ~ ~ Z ~

-i FLOW i

/'

PHWH Form Page - 2 October 24,2002 Revision -

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Field Sheet QHEI SCORE:

Stream: Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork; Stream S21 RM: 0.80 Date: 9/01/05 River Code: Location: North of S R 22, west of Starbuck Road (see Exhibit 6) . .

Crew.&hhel de Villlers

I) SUBSTRATE (CheckONLYTwo Substrate TYPE BOXES; Estimate %present rLk!E POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE SUBSTRATE OU-

SUBSTRATE SCORE: 1 3.5 1 . . Max 20

OO--BLDERISLABS (1 0) OO--GRAVEL(7) 5 40 Substrate Onen (check 1 or 2 & Ayera Silt Cover (Chec & Averam) OO--BOULDER (9) m--SAND (6) 15 25 0--LIMESTONE (1) 0--RIPRAP (O)& .--SILT H E A W W OO--COBBLE (8) 5 OO--BEDROCK (5) .--TILLS (1) 0--HARDPAN (0) 0--SILT M O D E M E (-1) OO--HARDPAN (4) m--DETRITUS (3) 0--SANDSTONE (0) 0--WETLANDS (0) 0--SILT NORMAL(0) m--MUCK (2) 10 -- 00--ARTIFIC. (0) 0--SHALE (-1) 0--LACUSTRINE (0) 0--SILT FREE (1) =--SILT (2) 70 30 -- P-COAL FINES (-2)

.--MODERATE (-1) 0--NONE (1) TOTALNUMBER OF SUBSTRATE TYPES: B-- 5 or more (2) 0 - - 4 or less (0) NOTE: (Ignore sludge that originates &om point-sources; score is based on natwal substrates) COMMENTS:

COVER SCORE: 2) INSTREAM COVER (See back for instructions for additional cover scoring method) AMOUNT (Check ONLY 1 or check 2 z0

(Check ALL That Apply) and A YERA GE) --UNDERCUT BANKS (1) 0--POOLS > 70cm (2)O--OXBOWS, BACKWmERS (I) 0--EXTENSIVE >75% (1 1) .--OVERHANGING VEGETmION (1) .--ROOTWADS (1) 0--AQUATIC MACROPHYTES (1) .--MODERATE 25-75% (7) 0--SHALLOWS (IN SLOW WATER) (1) 0--BOULDERS (1) .--LOGS OR WOODY DEBRIS (1) .--SPARSE 5-25% (3) .,ROOTMATS (1) 0--NEARLYABSENT 4 % (1) COMMENTS:

3) CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY (Check ONLY One PER Category OR check 2 and AVERAGE) CHANNEL: - .

sINmsm DEVELOPMENT CHANNELIZATION STABILITY -R Max 20 .--HIGH (4) 0--EXCELLENT (7) .--NONE (6) 0--HIGH (3) 0--SNAGGING 0--IMPOUND. 0--MODERATE (3) 0--GOOD (5) 0--RECOVERED (4) 0--MODERATE (2) 0--RELOCATION 0--ISLANDS 0--LOW (2) .--FAIR (3) 0-RECOVERING (3) .--LOW (1) 0--CANOPY REMOVAL 0--LEVEED 0--NONE (i) m- POOR(^) O--RECENT OR NO

RECOVERY (1) 0--DREDGING 0--BANK SHAPING 0--ONE SIDE CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS

COMMENTS:

4) RIPARIAN ZONE AND BANK EROSION - (Check ONE box per bank or check 2 and AVERAGE per bank) RIPARIAN: River Right Looking Downstream*

RIPARIANWIDTH EBoSION I RUNOFF - FLOODPLAIN OUALITY L R (Per Bank) L R (Most Redominant Per Bank) L R (Per Bank)

Uax 10 - L R P e r Bank)

---WIDE >som (4) I-IFOREST, SWAMP (3) 00-:URBAN'OR INDUSTRIAL (01 m-:NONE OR LITTLE (3) OO--MODERATE 10-50m (3) OO--OPEN PASTURE / ROWCROP (0) m--SHRUB OR OLD FIELD (2) ---MODERATE (2) OO--NARROW 5-lOm (2) OO--ram., PARK. NEW FIELD (1) OO--CONSERV TILLAGE (1) Ul--HEAVYOR SEVERE (I) =--VERY NARROW 1-5m (1) OO--FENCED PASTURE (1) CU--MTNING / CONSTRUCTION (0) m--NONE (0) COMMENTS:

5) POOL / GLIDE AND RIFFLE / RUN QUALITY MAX. DEPTH (Check 1) MORPHOLOGY POOL / RUN / RIFFLE CURRENT VELOCITY

POOL: rn Max 12

0-->lm (6) [Check One or 2 & Avera~e) (Check ALL That Apply) 0--0.7-lm (4) .--POOL WIDTH > RIFFLE WIDTH (2) 0--TORRENTIAL (-1) LEDDIES (I) I I

----------- 0--0.4-0.7m (2) 0-POOL WIDTH = RIFFLE WIDTH (I) 0--FAST (1) 0--INTERSTITIAL (-1) I 0--NO POOL(0) I .--0.2-0.4m (1) 0--POOL WIDTH < RIFFLE WIDTH (0) .--MODERATE (1) 0--INTERMITTENT (-2) L - - - - - - - - - - 0--< 0.2m (Pool = 0) .--SLOW (1) COMMENTS: Flow slightly above normal

CHECK ONE OR CHECK 2 AND AVERAGF. RIFFLE: RIFFLE DEPTH RUN DEPTH RIFFLE / RUN SUBSTRATE RIFFLE / RUN EMBEDDEDNESS 8 0--* Best Areas > l0cm (2) 0--MAX > 50 (2) &STABLE (e.g., Cobble, Boulder) (2) .--EXTENSIVE (-1) 0-MODERATE (0) .--Best areas 5-10cm (1) .--MAX < 50 (1) .--MOD. STABLE (e.g., Large Gravel) (1) 0--LOW (1) 0--NONE (2) 0--Best areas < 5cm (Riffle = 0) .--UNSTABLE (Fine Gravel, Sand) (0) r-------'--.

COMMWS: Flow slightly above normal I 0--NO RIFFLE@) I I -, - - - - - -, - - I

Best areas must be large enough to support a population of rifle-obligate fish species GRADIENT: 101

Max 10 6) GRADIENT (feet / ~~I~)&DRAINAGE AREA ( s q . m i ) m % P O O L : ~ ~ % R I F F L E : % % G L I D E : ~ % R U N : ~

(6om USGS)

b v QA Manual (6th Update) - Fish - September 30, 1989 (Revised 7/18/98)

Is Sampling Reach Representative of the Stream ( Y / N ) Y If Not, Explain:

Gear: Distance: Water Clarity: Water Stage: Canopy- %Open: F i ~ t Slightly Above

Sampbng Pass NA 150 m Clear Normal 15%

Subjective Aesthetic Stream Measurements: Rating Rating A v q e Avem e Maximum Av Bankfull Bankfull W/p Bankfull Max Flood rone Entrench. (1-10) (1-10) w~dt% ~ e ~ t % Depth %idth Mean Depth Ratlo Depth Area Gidth Ratio

I 11 feet : 0.4 feet : 1.4 feet ! 11.2 feet : NA : NA : NA : NA : NA

Gradient . - Low, - Moderate, - High

Major Suspected Sources of Impacts (Check All That Apply):

Nope Industrial

WWTP n Ag R

Livestock Silviculture

Construction . Urban Runoff.

c s o s Suburban Imoacts

Natural Dams

Other,Flow Alteration Other S~ltatlon .

Instructions for Scoring the Altemative Cover Metric: Each cover type should receive a score of between 0 and 3, where: 0 - Cover type absent; I - Cover type present in very small amounts or if more common of marginal quality; 2 - Cover type present in moderate amounts, but not of highest quality or in small amounts of highest quality; 3 - Cover type of highest quality in moderate or greater amounts. Examples ofhighest quality cover include very large boulders in deep or fast water, large diameter logs that are stable, well developed rootwads in deeplfast water, or deep, well-defined, functional pools.

. Is Stream Ephemeral (no pools, totally dry or only damp spots)? Is there water upstream7 How far: Is there water close downstream? How far: Is dry channel mostly natural?

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Field Sheet QHEl Score: b R~ver ode: _ RM: Iq Stream: --. 1 cop ;r. _ _- -

- 7 ~ ..~

~ ~ t ~ : ~ " - 3 b Location: ~ ~ j p y ' ~.&l~-_*,iu~~i I . . I ~ - a -, , ; --- , . -; , . -. , ,. ,. '> . --

- p l y ' Scorers Full Name:_/;', :':: ( 1 : ! - 1.~3 Affiliation:-__....."i'.. - - ' ,L , . .

11 SUBSTRATE (Check ONLY Two SubstrateTYPE BOXES; Estimate % present TYPE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE SUBSTRATE ORIGIN SUBSTRATF QUALlTY

0-BLDR ISLBS[10] 0-GRAVEL [7] 'Check ONE (OR 2 h AVERAGE) Check ONE (OR 2 tt AVERAGE)

-BOULDER [9] USAND 161 q -LIMESTONE [I ] SILT: 0- SILT HEAW [-21 BECOBBLE [8] ' . UBEDROCK[5] H -TILLS [I] q -SILT MODERATE [ - I ] Substrate q UHARDPAN [4] [IDETRITUS[J] - -WETLANDS[O] -SILT NORMAL [0] q UMUCK [2] UARTIFICIAL[O] -HARDPAN [0] q -SILT FREEljl - - q U S L T [2] -- NOTE Ignore 'Iudge Ong'n*'ng -SANDSTONE [0] EMBEDDED q -EXTENSIVE [-21 Fmm Pmt Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Max 20

q -RIPIRAP [0] NESS: BI -MODERATE [- 1 J - - NUMBER OF SUBSTRATE TYPES: &4 or More [Z] q -LACUSTRINE [0] S -NORMAL [O] - J~ -? (High Quatity Only, Score 5 or .) ~3 or Less [o] -SHALE [ - I ] q -NONE [ I ] -,

COMMENTS PCOAL FINES [-21 -. - 0 r i

21 INSTREAM COVER (Give each cover type a score of 0 to 3, see back for instructions) AMOUNT (Check ONLY One or (Structure) TYPE: Score All That Occur check 2 and AVERAGE )

I UNDERCUT BANKS [ I ] -? - - - POOLS> 70 cm [2] LOXBOWS, BACKWATERS [I] q - EXTENSIVE > 75% [ I 1]

OVERHANGING VEGETATION [I ] - -ROOTWADS [I] AQUATIC MACROPHYTES [I ] U - MODERATE 25.75% p] ! BOULDERS [I] SHALLOWS (IN SLOW WATER) 1.11 - SLOGS OR WOODY DEBRIS [I] - SPARSE 5-25% [3] Max 20

-ROOTMATS [I ] COMMENTS: q - NEARLY ABSENT < 5%[1] 31 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY: (Check ONLY One PER Category OR check 2 and AVERAGE )

SINUOSITY DEVELOPMENT CHANNELRATON STABILIlY MODFCATIONSIOTHER q - HIGH [4] W - EXCELLENT [7] - NONE 161 H - HIGH [3] q - SNAGGING q - IMPOUND. H - MODERATE [3] - GOOD [5] - RECOVERED [4] - MODERATE [2] 0 - RELOCATION - ISLANDS q - LOW [2] - W R [3] 3 - RECOVERING 131 - LOW [ I ] 0 - CANOPY REMOVAL - LEVEED Max 20 q - NONE [I] q - POOR [ I ] '" q - RECENT OR NO - DREDGING q - BANK SHAPING

RECOVERY [I ] q - ONE SIDE CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS COMMENTS: * 41 RIPARIAN ZONE AND BANK EROSlOh(check ONE box per bank or check 2 and AVERAGE per bank) Y R~ver Right Laok~ng Downstream $

RIPARIAN WIDTH FLOOD PLAIN QUALITY (PAST I00 Meter RlPARlANl BANK EROSION Rlpa"an L R (Per Bank) L R (Most Predominant Par Bank) L R L R (Per Bank) M U - WIDE . 50m [4] BFOREST, SWAMP [3] DCONSERVATION TILLAGE [ I ] E E -NONEILITTLE [3]

- MODERATE 10-50111 [3] DSHRUB OR OLD FIELD [2] q -URBAN OR INDUSTRIAL [0] H-MODERATE [2] q 0 - NARROW 5-10 m [2] DRESIDENTIAL,PARK,NEW,F [ I ] q -OPEN PASTURE,ROWCROP [O] q -HEAWISEVERE[~]~~ lo

0- VERY NARROW + q [ l ] q .-FENCED PASTURE [ l l 12 ay q q -MININGICONSTRUCTION [O] 00-NONE[O] ? ' I -- -1' COMMENTS:

-

5,lPOOUGLIDE AND RIFFLEIRUN QUALIN Pool1 MAX. DEPTH MORPHOLOGY CURRENT VELOCITY r POOLS & RIFFLES! 1 Current

(Check 1 ONLY!) (Chedc 1 or 2 & AVERAGE) (Check All That Apply) l3- > lm [6] El -POOL WIDTH > RIFFLE WIDTH [2] a -EDDIES[l] q -TORRENTIAL[-11 0- 0.7-lm [4] -POOL WIDTH = RIFFLE WIDTH [ I ] 8 -FAST[l] 0-INTERSTITIAL[-11

lo] Max 12

- 0.4-0.7m [2] q -POOL WIDTH < RIFFLE W. [0] H-MODERATE [ I ] 0-INTERMITENT[-21 q - 0.2- 0.4m [ I ] -SLOW [I] -VERY FAST[l] q - < O.2m [POOL=O] COMMENTS: ........................................

CHECK ONE OR CHECK 2 AND AVERAGE RiffleIRun

RIFFLE DEPTH RUN DEPTH RIFFLEIRUN SUBSTRATE RIFFLEIRUN EMBEDDEDNESS E4 - '~es t Areas >10 cm [2] P - MAX r 50 [ I ] *STABLE (e.s.,Cobble, Boulder) [2] - NONE (21 c, q - Best Areas 5-10 cm[l ] q - MAX < 50[1] DMOD. STABLE (e.g.,Large Gravel) [ I ] El - LOW [ I ] L(: Max 8

q - Best Areas < 5 cm DllNSTABLE (Fine Gravel,Sand) [0] 8 - MODERATE [r ' Gradient [RIFFLE=O] q - EXTENSIVE [ - I ]

COMMENTS: q - NO RIFFLE [Metricso]

Instructions for scoring the alternate cover metric: Each cover type should receive a score of between 0 and 3, Where: 0 - Cover type absent; 1 - Cover type present in very small amounts or if more common of marginal quality; 2 - Cover type present in moderate amounts, but not of highest quality or in small amounts of highest quality; 3 - Cover type of highest quality in moderate or greater amounts. Examples of highest quality include very large boulders in deep or fast water, large diameter logs that are stable, well developed rootwads in deeplfast water, or deep, well-defined, functional pools.

Gear: Distance: Water Clarity: Water Stage: Canopy -% Open ,, First

Sampling Pass r /- ,

Stream Measurements: Subjective Aesthetic Average Average Maximum Av. Bankfull Bankfull Mean WID Bankfull Max Floodprone Entrench.

Ratin Rating Width Depth Depth Width Depth Ratio Depth Area Width Ratio (1 -1 O! (1-10)

Gradient: q - Low, . - Moderate,U -High I

YesINo Is Stream Ephemeral (no pools, q q totally dry or only damp spots)?

Ag L~vestock

S1lvicultureC3 Construction q

Urban Runoff c s o s

Suburban Impacts q Mining g

Channelization q Riparian Removal

Landfills Natural q

Dams Other Flow Alteration q Other:

Is there water upstream? 00 How Far:

Is There Water Close Downstream? q q How Far:

\ h? I ,\EL - * \ l a c L .

, ; / IL Lde+"+ 4 x , , I ..* # +P \ - , , r ,# ' .. a- ---As--

3 .i >. - r-- +rP

- 4 *s* ,' - ' ' .--- ,:,, ,> I>. C- .

, d" ,\ .... ., . - - " - ,+.F , . ' , 17 %

2 ,.\, /"*

GC 8' -1

?<i _ . 1 ' \ t, , - ,' . - , <

. s L d 4 C /

.*' , - >

9 - . \ > 1 <- 1 "I J* -- - - ----- , \ ,HL, ---- \_. '

6 % - 'A . ,

/ ..+ \ ,' J.' ;

" *... L- . - --

, . % -c

\. %** -FA -, 1 %. a . i

- 3 . _

11 Is Dry Channel Mostly Natural?

Appendix E: Additional Photographs of Stream Mitigation Parcels

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Stream and Wetland Conceptual Mitigaffon Plan CLi-73-6.20; PID Number 16621 Relocated SR 73, Wilmlngton Bypass Clinton County, Oh10

tbutary to Todd FOR; STA. HWH; Facing Downstream

Photo 2: Site S4, Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork; STA. 332+00; Provisional Class II PHWH; Fadng Upstream (Parcel E-25).

I ..uw v. "l." -, u. .. ."...vu I . m u " - . , .r w r r . u. .., r .'A. 333+00; Provisional Class II PHWH; Facing Upstream (Parcel E- 25).

la- Photo 5: S6, Unnamed Tributary to Todd Folk; STA. 336+00; Provisional Class I PHWH; Facing - Upstream - (Parcel E-25).

Provisional class I PHWH; ~ a c i n ~ Upstream (parcel E-25). '

L- J

Photo 6: S6. unnamed Tributarv to Todd ~or:k TA. 337+00: Provisional class I PHWH; ~ a c i ; ~ ~ Upstream (parcel E-25).

Balke American Page 1 of 2

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Stream and Wetland Conceptual MItigatlon Plan CLI-73-6.20; PID Number 16621

- Photo 7: Site S21, Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork; STA. 600+00; Provisional Modiied Class II PHWH; Facing Downstream (Parcel E-591111).

I I

Photo 9:Site S21, Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork; STA. 60090; Provisional Modified Class II PHWH; Facing Upstream (Parcel E-591111).

Photo 1 1 : Site S21. Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork; STh Provisional Modlfied Class II PHWH; Facing Upstream

(Parcel E-5911 I1 ).

Photo 8:Site S21. Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork; STA. 600+00; Provisional Modlfied Class II PHWH; Facing Upstream (Parcel E-591111).

I

Photo 10: Site S21, Unnamed Tributary to Todd Fork; STA. 300+00; Provisional Modified Class II PHWH; Facing Upstream (Parcel E-591111).

Page 2 of 2

Photographs of Todd Fork (and the adjacent high flow oxbow channel) within the mitigation preserved mitigation parcel (611 5/06).

FINAL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN - … STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN RELOCATED SR 73,...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN - … STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN RELOCATED SR 73,...