Abstract Environmental Impact Statements As They

ABSTRACT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 9-STEP TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AN INTERNSHIP WITH BALKE AMERICAN

by Katherine Elizabeth Kettler

My internship with Balke American commenced January 5, 2004 and ended July 5, 2004. Balke American is located in Cincinnati, Ohio and is a private engineering consulting firm that specializes in the transportation sector in several states including: Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. While I worked on many different projects, I concentrated most of my efforts on the Interstate 75 and the Eastern Corridor (Eastgate) projects, located in Butler, Warren and Clermont Counties, Ohio. Over the course of my internship, I spent the majority of my time focused on ecological categorization of wetlands, woodlands, streams and riparian corridors. I also practiced another very important aspect of environmental work, report writing. My time spent at Balke American was a true hands-on education in the professional world, where I could truly apply the knowledge that I gained while I attended Miami University.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 9-STEP TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

An Internship Report

Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Science Institute of Environmental Sciences by Katherine Elizabeth Kettler Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2004

______Advisor: Gene E. Willeke, Ph.D

______Committee Member: Jerry E. Green, Ph.D

______Committee Member: Bruce Steinly, Ph.D

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... III LIST OF EXHIBITS ...... III LIST OF APPENDICES ...... III ACRONYMS...... IV ACRONYMS...... IV SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT ...... 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 2 BALKE AMERICAN ...... 4

HISTORY...... 4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES ...... 4 Ecological Services ...... 5 Planning Services ...... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS...... 5 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) 9-STEP TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS...... 6

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)...... 6 OVERVIEW OF THE...... 7 PROJECTS...... 10

STATE ROUTE 161/37 IMPROVEMENTS, FRANKLIN AND LICKING COUNTIES, OHIO ...... 10 CLIENT: ODOT ...... 10 INTERSTATE 66 EXTENSION, LAUREL AND PULASKI COUNTIES, KENTUCKY...... 13 CLIENT: HMB ...... 13 INTERSTATE 75 IMPROVEMENTS, BUTLER AND WARREN COUNTIES, OHIO...... 18 CLIENT: ODOT ...... 18 EASTERN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, HAMILTON AND CLERMONT COUNTIES, OHIO ...... 25 CLIENT: HAMILTON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (HCTID)...... 25 CONCLUSIONS ...... 30 REFERENCES...... 32 TABLES...... 33 EXHIBITS ...... 38 APPENDICES...... 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Indirect Impacts in Pulaski and Laurel Counties, Kentucky ...... 33 Table 2: Summary of Conditions at Stream Survey Sites...... 34 Table 3: Summary of Jurisdictional Wetlands Identified in Detailed Project Study Area36 Table 4: Terrestrial Habitat Types Identified in Project Study Area...... 23

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: 161/37 Project Location Map...... 38 Exhibit 2: I-75 Project Location Map ...... 39 Exhibit 3: I-75 Study Area Map...... 40 Exhibit 4: Eastern Corridor Study Area...... 41

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Ohio's 9-Step Transportation Development Process...... 42 Appendix B: 161/37 CD Label ...... 43 Appendix C: I-66 KDOW Stream Assessment Form...... 44 Appendix D: I-66 Stream Assessment Photos...... 46 Appendix E: I-75 Property Owner Letter ...... 51 Appendix F: USFWS Request Letter...... 52 Appendix G: ODNR Request Letter...... 53 Appendix H: I-75 Field Investigation Report April 9, 2004...... 56 Appendix I: I-75 HHEI Stream Assessment Form ...... 60 Appendix J: I-75 Stream Photos ...... 62 Appendix K: I-75 Routine Wetland Assessment Form ...... 65 Appendix L: I-75 ORAM Wetland Assessment Form ...... 67 Appendix M: I-75 Wetland Photos...... 69 Appendix N: I-75 Woodland Assessment Form...... 71 Appendix O: I-75 Terrestrial Photos...... 73 Appendix P: I-75 Hazmat Photos ...... 75 Appendix Q: I-75 Hazmat Checklist...... 77 Appendix R: USFWS Response Letter...... 78 Appendix S: ODNR Response Letter ...... 80 Appendix T: Eastern Corridor Acronyms...... 82 Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary...... 85 Appendix V: PDF Instructions...... 93 Appendix W: Eastern Corridor Property Owner Letter...... 96 Appendix X: Eastern Corridor Study Area Map...... 97

iii

ACRONYMS

Above Storage Units (AST’s) Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Categorical Exclusions (CE) Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Division of Surface Water (DSW) Environmental Assessments (EA) Environmental Assessment of Feasible Alternatives (EAFA) Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District (HCTID) Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI) Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES) Kentucky Department of Water (KDOW) Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) Level of Service (LOS) Major Investment Study (MIS) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Notice of Intent (NOI) Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services (ODOT-OES) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (ORAM) Ordinary High Water (OHW) Preliminary Alternatives Summary (PAS) Preliminary Draft EIS (PDEIS), Draft EIS (DEIS) and the Final EIS (FEIS) Record of Decision (RD) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) Transportation System Management (TSM) US Department of Transportation (USDOT) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Underground Storage Units (UST’s) United States Geological Survey (USGS)

SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT

This document is the result of my work as a graduate student at the Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES) at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. An internship report and subsequent defense are the final requirements to complete a Master of Environmental Science (M.En.) degree. The purpose of this internship report is to document my learning experience at the private consulting firm of Balke American. During the course of this document, I will outline the role I played as a member of the environmental department. Balke American follows a problem-solving framework similar to the problem-solving method outlined by IES. Since I was involved on several projects, I experienced first hand many different components of the problem-solving framework, including attending public meetings, conducting ecological fieldwork, development of alternative corridors, and report writing (Environmental Impact Statements, EIS). Therefore, this document contains a general overview of example projects in different stages of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) 9-Step Transportation Development Process, with a particular emphasis on report writing and the steps that led to this type of documentation.

INTRODUCTION

As part of my fulfillment for my Master of Environmental Sciences (M.En.) degree at Miami University, I completed an internship at Balke American. I was hired as an environmental scientist intern on January 5, 2004 and completed my internship on July 5, 2004. I was hired with the understanding that I would be working on several different projects, all of which would deal with transportation planning. Through my experience at Balke American, I was able to collaborate on several projects where I applied my previous knowledge and gained more in the process. One of the most important skills I learned during my internship was time management; you have to evaluate what you have to work on and the deadlines that have to be met. Therefore, devising a weekly schedule and following through was essential to the success of any of the projects.

During the beginning of my internship with Balke American, I focused my efforts on preparing for the field season. Preparing for the field season included: preparing and sending appropriate letters to property owners in the project study area, aerial mapping with soils and hydrology, and demarcation of the study area. Some projects had not progressed to the point of fieldwork; these projects needed a different kind of preparation. The first step in a given project is to assess the most appropriate path for the new corridor. This early-stage research includes looking at the local topography, hydrology, industrial building/sites, commercial and residential buildings, karst locations, relation to state and national parks, and wild and scenic rivers, historical and cultural sites/buildings. The field season, which commenced during the spring, began on April 15, 2004 and thus started my ecological field experience. During the course of the ecological fieldwork, my responsibilities included ecological assessments (e.g., floral and faunal, wetland identifications). These ecological studies were an initial crucial step, as I quickly learned fieldwork is an integral part of ecological documents like Categorical Exclusions (CE), Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).

BACKGROUND

Like many in the program, my interest in the natural world began at a young age. I always knew that I would pursue a career in the scientific world, but I did not know which discipline I would choose until I began college. I started my college career at the University of Missouri-Columbia and soon found that, as a general biology student at a large state institution, one does not always get much one-on-one interaction with the professors. I felt as though I did not get the attention and interaction many students require in order to succeed. Therefore, shortly after the fall semester commenced, I starting looking for a new option. As I was doing some research for a new school, I came across Miami University. Miami University initially caught my attention because it was one of the only schools I found that split botany, microbiology, and zoology into separate majors. The option to specialize in one area of biology was particularly attractive to me because I felt

University of Missouri’s biology degree to be too broadly sweeping for my interests. Furthermore, Miami University had a graduate program in environmental science. Since I knew that I would be interested in more than just a bachelor’s degree, Miami University seemed to be the best undergraduate institution for me. After all, it was much smaller and offered a more specialized route to my ultimate goal- pursuing graduate work in the environmental sciences. During my several years as an undergraduate botany with an emphasis in environmental science at Miami University, I worked in a research lab developing a protocol for in vitro propagation of cold-hardy members of the palm family (Arecaceae). I learned first-hand the importance of a problem solving method. This research experience helped me develop my skills as a scientist, as well as providing me with the opportunity to attend and present at several local, regional, and national meetings around the country each year. Even though this opportunity was wonderful for me, I still yearned for more. I wanted to be able to escape from the confines of a laboratory; I wanted to be able to explore the natural world; and, most of all, I wanted to be able to apply my knowledge and skills for the protection of our natural world for generations to come. As Miami University had been a perfect fit for my undergraduate career and I had a good sense of what was expected out of me and what the university could offer me in return, I began to consider pursuing graduate studies at Miami University. I was fairly certain that graduate studies in the Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES) was the solution. The program particularly caught my attention because it is one of the oldest and largest of its kind in the United States. IES offered me an environment in which I could grow intellectually while simultaneously allowing me an opportunity to define and tailor a career path for myself. I viewed the interdisciplinary and group-oriented nature of IES as one of the greatest strengths of Miami University. Upon being admitted into IES, I quickly selected resource analysis as my area of concentration because it allowed me a forum in which I could effectively combine my interests in computer tools (i.e., geographic information systems and remote sensing) and the natural world. I entered the program in the fall of 2002 and I finished my coursework in the fall of 2003. My internship with Balke American soon began and I was able to see how

environmental professionals make a difference in our everyday lives. The efforts that are made today in planning will be felt for many generations to come. Miami University and Balke American allowed me to see how I could use my love of the natural world and make a difference and a career at the same time.

BALKE AMERICAN

History Balke Engineers was founded in 1947 by Mr. Harry Balke as a private transportation planning consulting firm. Recently, Balke Engineers and American Consulting Engineers, PLC combined forces on February 10, 2003 to form Balke American. Balke American is a private architecture, design, and planning consulting firm that operates in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Balke American provides a full range of engineering and environmental services to municipal, township, and county governments; state and federal government agencies; and corporate and private sector interests. Balke American has offices in Cincinnati, Ohio; Lexington, Louisville, and Grayson, Kentucky; and Chicago and Mokena, Illinois. Balke American’s focus is transportation planning and its qualified professionals provide services such as: • Transportation Services • Environmental and Planning Services • Structural Design and Engineering • Surveying • Water and Wastewater Services • Construction Management Environmental and Planning Services The Environmental and Planning Services department at Balke American was a good fit for someone of my background and skills. The Cincinnati office of Balke American is the only office that continues to provide Environmental Services to its clients. The environmental sector is one of the main reasons American acquired Balke Engineers. Since environmental science is a rapidly growing field it is not a surprise that this sector of the company has also grown significantly in the last couple of years with the rigid environmental standards in place today. 4

The environmental and planning services department at Balke American is further divided into two separate divisions: environmental science and environmental planning. Planning is such an integral part of making a project feasible (enhancing urban life and protecting the natural environment) in the long run that the two sectors work hand-in- hand.

Ecological Services Balke American provides many different ecological services to their clients as part of transportation development. The most common requests include: • Corridor Studies • Wetland Identification/Delineation/Monitoring • Aquatic Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates, water quality testing) • Terrestrial Studies (habitat evaluation, composition, speciation)

Planning Services Although I focused primarily on ecological tasks while interning at Balke American, it is essential to note that many planning services are conducted alongside ecological work in the construction of an environmental document [Environmental Assessments (EA), Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and Categorical Exclusion CE)]. These services include: • Noise Analysis • Traffic Studies • Corridor Studies • Multimodal Studies

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for all major federal actions. EIS’s are the most stringent environmental analysis required under federal law. There are many forms of an EIS, including the Preliminary Draft EIS (PDEIS), Draft EIS (DEIS) and the Final EIS (FEIS). Federal law requires that the public have the opportunity to review the DEIS

before an FEIS can be prepared. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service NEPA Reference Handbook, an EIS includes: • All the environmental impacts of a proposed project • Any adverse impact which cannot be avoided by the preferred alternative • All alternative courses of action • The relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity • Description of the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) 9-STEP TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1969, responding to growing concerns about the current state of the environment. As the Environmental Protection Agency (1988) states, “The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet this requirement, federal agencies prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)”

Along with considering environmental impacts, NEPA required agencies to involve the public and incorporate their input into the development process. Following the adoption of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was formed. In addition to developing the guidelines for the EIS process, the council laid the basis for almost all current environmental legislation [i.e., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Safe Drinking Water Act, etc.] that exists today except for Superfund and asbestos control legislation. However, when the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) refused to make public comments made by the EPA on the Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed Supersonic Transport Aircraft, Congress took action. The result was an addition to the Clean Air Act of 1970, Section 309, which stated that the EPA must comment on all EISs and those comments must be made public as soon as the EPA finished its review (Alm, 1988). Under NEPA,

any federal agency can refer another agency’s final EIS to the CEQ for review. The EPA can, however, refer a broader range of federal activities (not just projects that produce EIS’s) to the CEQ, where a final decision is made (Alm, 1988). Balke American conducts many studies for federal agencies (mainly through the Ohio Department of Transportation, ODOT); therefore, environmental impacts need to be addressed by the production of an environmental document such as an EIS. If a project is financed partially or in full by the federal government, it has to comply with NEPA requirements by documenting the expected environmental effects. To help firms comply with NEPA requirements on transportation projects, the Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services (ODOT-OES) devised a 9-Step process. The plan includes several public involvement steps, as well as preparation of documents and studies that eventually lead to a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (RD) before construction can commence. Overview of the 9-Step Process (Appendix A) On average, the transportation development process can take several years to complete; therefore, an intern, such as myself, with a six-month position cannot possibly experience each step first hand. However, my internship at Balke American did afford me the opportunity to participate in several of the steps while working on several different projects. I gained insight into the process and an appreciation for the time and effort that goes into each and every step. The 9-Step process includes: 1. Planning and Programming 2. Purpose and Need 3. Environmental Scoping 4. Selection of Corridors 5. Development of Feasible Alternatives 6. Identification of Preferred Alternative 7. Approval of Environmental Document 8. Issuance of FONSI/ROD 9. Final Design/Construction Step 1 identifies the need for planning and the funding required for a particular project. Step 1 produces: traffic and planning studies, Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) approval, programming package and inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) (ODOT-OES, 2001). 7

Step 2 initiates the NEPA process by producing the Purpose and Need document, which outlines the transportation need and determines the logical termini and project study area. The Purpose and Need document is designed to be open to modification during the course of the 9-step process. Another important aspect of step 2 is the development of a list of stakeholders and a plan to keep the public involved (ODOT- OES, 2001). Step 3 identifies the environmental concerns through environmental scoping, which commences with the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI). Study area inventory and mapping, and identification of preliminary study corridors, are also part of Step 3. Study corridors are reviewed by ODOT Office of Environmental Services (ODOT-OES), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and selected stakeholders. After approval from all appropriate parties is obtained, a Preliminary Alternatives Summary (PAS) is written. A PAS formally identifies the corridors that will be further studied in subsequent steps. Following the production of the PAS, the first meeting with stakeholders is held. This meeting is a forum in which stakeholders can comment on the Purpose and Need document, study area exhibits, and the PAS itself (ODOT-OES, 2001). Directly following the stakeholder meeting, Step 4 addresses the comments made by the public and the coordinating agency and often results in adjustment (within reason) of the preliminary proposed corridors. Selection of corridors, and designation of the no- build alternative (used as a baseline reference for the alternative corridors), also occurs in Step 4. Following the identification of corridors, affected property owners are identified and notified of the impending field studies. Fieldwork is then conducted to obtain pertinent qualitative and quantitative data. This information includes cultural assessments, history-architecture surveys, socio-economic surveys, environmental justice issues, ecological resources surveys, and environmental site assessments. A final map is created, containing the selected corridors and locations of the previously identified critical resources (ODOT-OES, 2001). Step 5 incorporates all previous information to determine feasible alternatives within the study area corridors. Resources identified from the previous step are utilized, along with the engineering services such as: location of interchanges, intersections, service roads, access points, traffic data, alignment and profiles, drainage areas, and

utilities. The alternatives are considered individually to identify ecological resource impact, historic architecture, noise impact, community impacts and farmland impacts, which are then mapped. The result is an Environmental Assessment of Feasible Alternatives (EAFA) document, which ODOT then reviews. Step 6 begins with the reviewing of public comments, resulting from the map and EAFA document created during Step 5. The information gained from the public is used in the decision making for the preferred alternative. Once the preferred alternative is recognized, an environmental document, either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), is produced. Step 6 concludes with the production of Phase I and II Archaeological Survey Reports, Ohio Historical Preservation Organization coordination, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Documentation for Consultation, Data Recovery Plan, Wetland Delineation Plan, Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Preliminary EA or EIS, Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Preferred Alternative Map (ODOT-OES, 2001). Step 7 begins after the environmental document (EA or EIS) is submitted to the FHWA for approval. More public input is also acquired during this step in the form of public hearings, along with the submittal of 404/401 permits. A final environmental document (FEIS) is prepared with the appropriate public input incorporated for agency review. Step 8 occurs after all the environmental documents have been submitted and reviewed by agencies and the public (stakeholders). At this point, the sponsoring agency requests a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Record of Decision (ROD) from the FHWA. If the FHWA determines that little impact on the natural and man- made environment will occur because of the project, a FONSI is issued, thus canceling out the need for a FEIS. If the FHWA determine that significant impacts are expected, a ROD is issued, explaining why they consider the benefits to outweigh the costs. At this point, 404/401 permits and Mitigation Plans are finalized, and director’s authorization and notification letters are issued (ODOT-OES, 2001). Step 9 incorporates the commitments agreed upon in the permitting process, as well as those outlined in the environmental document, into the design and construction of

the planned project. Mitigation plans and monitor commitments during and after construction are also part of Step 9 (ODOT-OES, 2001). The ODOT 9-Step Transportation Development Process is a good example of a well-working interdisciplinary approach, which aids agencies in meeting NEPA’s requirements. Thus, is it easy to see similarities to the IES coursework and problem solving process. The preparation I received in the program at Miami University helped me greatly over the course of my internship experience. There are many requirements within each step of the transportation development process; therefore, it is comprehensible that the process takes several years to complete one project. During the course of my internship with Balke American (January – July 2004), I worked mainly of four different projects, including the State Route 161/37 Improvement, Interstate 66 Extension, Interstate 75 Improvement, and Eastern Corridor Improvements, and contributed to Steps 3- 7 of the transportation development process. The bulk of my efforts were dedicated to Step 4 because of the preceding public notification, the time consuming fieldwork in the warmer months, and report writing once relevant information was collected.

PROJECTS

Most of my work at Balke American was conducted in Ohio and Kentucky, while most of my fieldwork experience was in the state of Ohio. The majority of my time was spent on the Interstate 75 or Eastern Corridor projects, both of which originate in Ohio. Fortunately, I was able to work on two additional projects, which allowed me to experience both Step 3 and Step 7, further diversifying my internship experience. My internship started in the winter months and, as a result, my work was confined to report writing and finishing touches on the 161/37 and I-66 projects. State Route 161/37 Improvements, Franklin and Licking Counties, Ohio Client: ODOT This improvement project originates in the Villages of New Albany, located in northeastern Franklin County, Ohio, and Granville, located in central Licking County, Ohio (Exhibit 1). The proposed project consisted of proposed transportation updates for a 12.6-mile segment of State Route 161 and State Route 37. Proposed updates included a

new multi-lane facility, to increase highway capacity on an existing or a new alignment. Currently, State Route (SR) 161/37 is a two-lane highway, which connects Interstate Routes 270 and 77; consequently, State Route 161/37 is an important east-west corridor in central Ohio. Improvements are required in this section of State Route 161/37 because, since 1996, the average daily traffic volumes on State Route 161/37 have increased roughly 80 percent. There are also safety issues with the current SR 161/37; the 1996-1998 accident rate was 70 percent higher than the statewide average for a rural two-lane principal arterial highway. Additionally, this particular section of SR 161/37 is one of last two remaining unimproved segments of the SR 161/37/16/US 36 macro-corridor. The clients for this particular project were the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Ohio Department of Transportation. Alternatives evaluated for this corridor included No Action (continued use of the existing roadway with no improvements); Traffic Operational Improvements (motorist information systems and existing road improvements); New Highway Facility; Transportation Demand Management (carpooling, telecommuting, alternative work hours); High Occupancy Vehicle Facility, Access Management, Intelligent Transportation Systems (electronic messaging and motorist communication); Public Transit (bus); Nontraditional Transportation Modes (bicycle, pedestrian facilities); Congestion Pricing (toll roads); and, Growth Management/Mass Transit. Of these alternatives, the one that was recommended by Balke American was a new multi-lane (four lanes, minimum) limited access highway facility with a consideration of rideshare/park-n-ride/transit connections to the new highway. The project began in 2000, and by spring 2001, the Purpose and Need and Environmental Scoping were complete. By summer 2002, property owners had been notified and initial environmental work began on the feasible alternatives. One year later, the preferred alternative was identified and all that remained was some final touches, which would lead to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The result were the following documents: Purpose and Need; Public Involvement Plan; Preliminary Alternatives study (with study area exhibit/corridors); Economic Impacts; Phase I

Architecture; Hazardous Materials Studies; PDEIS; Ecological Resources; and, Phase I Archaeology. The SR 161/37 Improvement also offered me my only opportunity to work on the preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS was scheduled to be finalized in early 2004. I was approached by Jesse Binau, the project manager for the 161/37 Improvement, to review the current document and to update a few tables. The document had a few minor errors, but the tables required a great deal more work. Two tables, Table 1 and Table 9, needed to be reviewed and checked for congruence. The second table, Table 9, was a table on wetlands and I focused particularly on the wetland category. I had to ensure that the wetland category assigned to a particular wetland was consistent throughout the document. In addition, mathematical computations were verified and the correct amount of impacted wetland areas was double checked. After the document had been thoroughly reviewed by several people, the document had to be transformed into an electronic document for submittal to the client in addition to the hard copy. I was tasked with the assignment of making the entire document into a pdf (portable document format) file. The document was several hundred pages and included many exhibits. The inclusion of these exhibits made the task slightly more complicated, since the entire pdf was to fit on one CD so that the information contained within the document could be linked. Once I had successfully turned all the written text into separate pdf files, I started in on the exhibits. The exhibits are figures that are referenced within the document to graphically display of the study areas and the different alternatives. Most of these are maps, and the maps are made by using a GIS program called ArcView. Since these maps are so image intensive, the files are quite large. The maps were subsequently exported to a program called Corel. Once the image was in Corel, it could be “printed” as an adobe file, thus converting the jpeg (joint photographic experts group) into a pdf file. All the text and exhibits were then complied into one very large pdf file. The resulting file was too big to fit on one CD and, since none of the information was to be removed from the document, the document had to be compressed. Adobe 6.0 allows you to shrink the size of a document; therefore, the FEIS was shrunk to a reasonable size with the additions of security codes so that the document

could not be tampered with or altered, additionally one copy was imprinted with the capacity to view the file but not the capacity to print the file. These measures are put into place to protect against defacement of the original document and the mass distribution of the document. My final task for this project was to create the label that would be imprinted on the CD. The label had to contain the title, contents, client, date, project number and the Balke American logo. Balke American had just received a new printer that would print the CD labels directly on the CD. This allows the company to bypass one more trip to the copy shop and save time. The final CD design consisted of a background that faded from dark blue to lighter blue with the appropriate information in different sized text and colors (Appendix B). Interstate 66 Extension, Laurel and Pulaski Counties, Kentucky Client: HMB Funding for an interstate highway that would extend from the east coast to the west coast (US) started in 1991, supported by the United States Department of Transportation Appropriations Act. This proposed Transamerica Corridor includes a bisection of Kentucky that would pass through the cities of Pikeville, Jenkins, Hazard, London, Somerset, Columbia, Bowling Green, Hopkinsville, Benton, and Paducah. The initial study found that, while the whole Transamerica Corridor might not be feasible, a corridor through southern Kentucky would substantially stimulate the economic development and quality-of-life in southern Kentucky. The corridor section between Somerset and London became a high priority because there was growing traffic volumes between the two cites and safety concerns with truck traffic, including problems with narrow lanes and shoulder widths, and substandard geometrics. This route would connect the Cumberland and Hal Roger Parkways, thereby linking Interstate 75 with Interstate 65, and meet the need for increased accessibility and mobility to facilitate the economic growth of Southeastern Kentucky. There were a total of 10 separate corridor alternatives under consideration. Each alternative was evaluated based on: traffic and socioeconomic issues; environmental issues; and cost estimates. A northern alternative seemed to impact fewer natural areas

and historic structures than any of other alternative. A 2000-foot wide alternate corridor was established as the general area of the proposed project. The proposed segment was to connect with the proposed Somerset Northern Bypass (a separate project) near KY 80, which is west of Somerset, and continue east past Interstate 75, terminating near London, Kentucky.

Currently, KY 80 is the only west-east connection between the cities of Somerset and London. A separate study, the I-66 Southern Kentucky Corridor Planning Study, analyzed past traffic conditions in order to estimate future traffic problems. Annual average daily traffic (AADT) and level of service (LOS) indicate that the current service is adequate, with an LOS rating of “B”. However, by the year 2030, the LOS is predicted to drop to a rating in the range of “D” to “F” and AADT is expected to rise substantially (more than doubling). The LOS ratings range anywhere from “A” to “F” (“A” being the highest rating), with “C” being the generally accepted standard. Another study (Southern Kentucky Corridor, I-66, Economic Justification and Financial Feasibility Study) was conducted to describe the economic and financial situation in southern Kentucky. It found that as many as 28 counties in southern Kentucky have the potential to be directly impacted by I-66 (construction or economic development). Per capita income in Pulaski, Laurel, and surrounding counties is substantially lower than average for the state of Kentucky, which is significantly lower than the U.S. average. In addition, unemployment rates are higher than the state average in Laurel, Pulaski, and surrounding counties, which again is higher than the U.S. average. Therefore, the project would benefit the local economies of the Laurel and Pulaski, in addition to the overall regional economy of the surrounding counties. Tourism, one of the top revenue generators and employers, is very important to Kentucky’s economy as well as the local economy (Laurel and Pulaski Counties). The major tourist attractions in the area include: Lake Cumberland; Laurel River Lake; Daniel Boone National Forest; and, Levi Jackson Wilderness Road State Park. The proposed project would improve access to these areas, and, in return, increase the local economy. Both Pulaski and Laurel Counties have developed industrial parks to encourage industrial and technological development in the region. With the development of these manufacturing sites, there is a need for improved connectivity to further attract economic

development. Without the proper accessibility to larger markets, the industrial companies will have no desire to reside in the region. Balke American was subcontracted by HMB Professional Engineers, Inc. to conduct environmental studies related to the I-66 extension. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) issued a notice of intent (NOI) for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement in April of 2002, signifying the beginning of the study. During the summer 2003 field season, several ecological studies, concerning streams and bats, were conducted. By spring 2004, several public meetings were held, the corridor study bands were further defined (preliminary engineering and ecological studies) highlighting the costs and benefits of the different alternatives, and initial mapping was conducted. I experienced the initial stages of the transportation development process with the I-66 extension; it was also the only project I worked on that was in the state of Kentucky. The I-66 extension was in a much earlier stage of the transportation development process than the 161/37 project. Preliminary background research had to be conducted in addition to initial fieldwork.

On this particular project, I worked with Deb Osborne, the project manager, and Chris Young, environmental specialist (both graduates of the IES program). The main focus was the compilation of similar projects. For several weeks, I searched and accumulated a mass of similar studies from the same region of Kentucky (preferably in Pulaski and Laurel Counties). I was looking for studies that were focused on planning and that contained a section on the environmental impacts to the area. One of the major studies I found was done on the Daniel Boone National Forest, which would be the site of a large part of the I-66 extension. After printing a copy to keep on file, I proceeded to write a summary of the areas and the impacts that were similar to our project. The project gave us insight as to the impacts that we would encounter in our study. We also wanted to see the current plans for the area; research was conducted to see what was in the Kentucky Transportation Cabinets (KYTC) 20-year plan, both regionally and locally. The 20-year plan gave us insight into the areas of future transportation improvement in the area. A large topographic map of the area was printed and I drew the

long-range transportation improvements, indicating their locations in relation to the I-66 project. No major upgrades were expected in the immediate area, as the closest improvement would be the northern bypass of Somerset. However, there were several improvements scheduled in the two counties, including improvements to US 27 in Pulaski County and Interstate 75 and KY 30 in Laurel County (Figure 1). (Long-range 20 year projects shown in blue, while short-range projects are shown in pink, green, and orange)

Figure 1: Kentucky Statewide Transportation Plan (Highways) Source: Adapted from Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, December 1999 The next few tasks I worked on were essential to the selection of corridors. I worked on ecological data that would be useful in the construction of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Fieldwork was conducted in the summer of 2003 in Kentucky and a report had been started. Initially, I updated and checked over the stream data sheet forms [i.e., Kentucky Department of Water (KDOW) Biological Assessment Methods] that were used in the field to collect data (Appendix C). The forms had to be transposed into electronic form for the purpose of legibility and mass production because the forms would be included in a final environmental document. There were only a few minor discrepancies, which were easily corrected.

Since I was more familiar with the stream sites in question, I was asked by Chris Young to incorporate an appropriate stream description of each site into an Aquatic Resources (Stream) Assessment Report. The report presented HMB with the results and findings of stream habitat and biological and water quality sampling and analyses that were conducted for the three recommended bands for the project. During summer 2003, full or partial water quality analyses were performed at 49 of the 59 stream sites. Chemical water quality data included measurements of ammonia nitrogen, phosphates, iron, sulfate, alkalinity, chloride, hardness, color, carbon dioxide, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, total dissolved solids, and temperature. Biological data included inventory of fish and macroinvertebrates. Each stream description included: general drainage characteristics [United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream order, location, and the direction and habitat where the stream flows]; site location and channel conditions (estimated reach of stream sample, band the stream occurred in, surface water conditions, channel width, depth, velocity, bottom substrate, and habitat structure); and streambank and riparian conditions (streambank stability, width of the riparian corridor, vegetation and strata, and adjacent land use). See Appendix C for a sample of the KDOW stream data sheet used at each site. Fish and macroinvertebrates were inventoried as part of the ecological study. I was asked to determine the presence of any state or federally listed endangered, threatened, or concerned species. This information was then incorporated into the Aquatic Resources (Stream) Assessment Report for HMB. After completion of the stream descriptions, I was asked to create a photo page that would be included in the Appendix section. Each photo caption included: the photo number, date, site number, the stream, and the direction the photo was taken, and stream quality information collected (Appendix D). Balke American was asked, as part of their work, to include information on the cumulative direct and indirect impacts of the I-66 project. I was asked by Deb Osborne to collect some background information on similar projects in the area so that indirect impacts could be assessed. I complied a table, as well as a map of the locations of the

transportation projects that were either in the 6 year short-range transportation plan (STIP) or the 20 year long-range transportation plan (TIP) (Table 1). Interstate 75 Improvements, Butler and Warren Counties, Ohio Client: ODOT The Interstate 75 project consists of improvements to approximately 8.0 miles of the interstate in two Ohio Counties, Butler and Warren (Exhibit 2). With the exception of a three mile segment of I-75 extending from approximately 1.1 miles south of the Butler County/Warren County line north to a point approximately 1.9 miles north of the Butler County/Warren County line, the existing study area of I-75 begins just north of the Cincinnati-Dayton Road/I-75 interchange in Butler County and continues to approximately 0.7 miles south of the SR 122/I-75 interchange in Warren County, Ohio (Exhibit 3). The major improvements include: construction of additional median lanes (one in each direction); major pavement rehabilitation; and, pavement resurfacing on mainline I- 75. Minor improvements include widening paved shoulders and the placement of concrete median barrier between Tylersville Road and the north project terminus, just south of State Route 122. In addition, the project includes upgrades to four overpass bridges-Bethany Road, Princeton Road, Millikin Road, and Kyles Station Road) consisting of elevations and rehabilitation. Bridgework also included in this project consists of preventive maintenance work (Tylersville Road and Hamilton-Mason Road) and the lowering of mainline I-75 pavement under Greentree Road, Hendrickson Road, and Hamilton-Mason Road overpass bridges to obtain proper clearance. The need for this study grew out of concern over several factors including: capacity and level of service inadequacies; travel safety considerations; and system linkage. Since the project is located entirely within Butler and Warren Counties, Ohio, it is within the jurisdiction of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The I-75 improvement needs are addressed in both regional and statewide long range plans and transportation improvement programs.

As stated earlier, level of service (LOS) is a qualitative and quantitative measure of traffic operations and conditions that takes into account the effect of several factors

including: traffic; truck volumes (as a percentage of total); speed (design and actual); travel time; traffic interruptions; freedom to maneuver; safety; driving comfort; convenience; and, operating costs. According to ODOT’s Office of Technical Services, traffic data (as recent as January 2004) indicates that I-75 carries 82,670 to 108,680 vehicles per day, which corresponds to a LOS rating of “C” to “D” during peak hours. The same report states that traffic will increase by 26 to 37 percent by 2030 (Balke American, April 2004). Without the proposed improvements, the LOS rating will drop to a range between “D” to “F” by 2030. Traffic accident data was analyzed for a thee-year period (2000-2003), indicating that portions of the I-75 project area have accident rates that exceed statewide averages. Accident data suggests that accident rates will continue to increase in the future as LOS decreases (Purpose and Need I-75, 2004). Therefore, overall travel safety will decline in the project study area. The improvements to I-75 are part of an regional and local plan to improve transportation in the I-75 region. This project was also associated with improvements to other parts of I-75, including those from 275 to Cincinnati-Dayton Road, the interchanges of state routes 63, 129, and 122, and SR 122 to Montgomery County Line.

The initial steps of the transportation development process were done for the I-75 improvements. However, several studies needed to be conducted before an Environmental Impact Statement could be written. Preparation for fieldwork included informing the property owners in the area of the impending ecological, noise and hazardous materials studies.

The I-75 project study area was fairly large, encompassing approximately 8.0 miles with large sections of residential and commercial property. My first task was to identify the affected parcels and determine the owner’s name(s) and mailing address. The tool I had available was a map with an aerial photograph in the background and the parcels outlined and numbered. Then, by using the public property records for Butler and Warren Counties, I was able to use the Internet to identify the property owners and their mailing address. A master list was then compiled into a spreadsheet of the relevant information. Overall, the affected project study area included almost 400 parcels.

A property letter generated by the client (ODOT) was issued to inform the public of Balke American’s upcoming fieldwork in the vicinity of their property. The letter also stated that the field crew would attempt to notify the property owner in person if they were going to be on their property (Appendix E). The majority of my fieldwork was ecological studies (i.e., wetlands, streams, and woodlands); however, I also participated in the noise and hazardous materials studies.

The first field study I participated in was the noise analysis. Since this was not dependent on vegetation growth, it could be done before the field season, which spans from April 15 through October 15. The noise analysis involved measuring the highway noise from the property of some of the affected individuals. Noise measurements were taken at 10-minute intervals at several locations on both sides of I-75. Additionally, traffic data was collected delineating between cars, small trucks, and large semi vehicles. This information was then placed into a computer model to predict future noise levels. The result was a Noise Impact Analysis report that compared the current and future noise levels to the design noise level guidelines. If an area was above, or predicted to be above, design noise levels then various noise abatement options were considered (i.e., noise walls, etc.).

The Ecological Survey Report has to include information on federal and state listed threatened and endangered species. This information was acquired from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as well as the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). I was approached by the project manager, Jesse Binau, to draft two letters - one to each of the above agencies, requesting the information for all the topographic quads in the project study area (Appendix F & G).

To prepare for the upcoming ecological fieldwork, I was given a field evaluation manual for Ohio’s Primary Headwater Habitats (PHWH) as background material on wetlands. The information was written by OEPA Division of Surface Water (DSW) and included information on the distinction between jurisdictional wetlands and roadway ditches. The guide to jurisdictional wetlands also provided descriptive information on the types of macroinvertebrates that are found in wetlands.

After I became familiarized with the project study area, Michael De Villiers and I went out to the project study area and conducted a walkover survey. Our visual survey was aided by the use of maps with the project study area overlaid on aerial photos. The map was used as a guide and it doubled as the field notebook as we marked streams and wetlands of concern and their corresponding picture number. There was only one National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapped wetland in the project study area; however, several other wetlands were discovered in the initial survey. Many streams were not USGS blueline streams; therefore, they were assessed to see if they had an Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark. At the conclusion of each of the initial walkover surveys, I wrote a Field Investigation Report. These reports were a summary of what occurred that particular day as well as the weather conditions. The Field Investigation Reports for April 9, 2004 and April 14, 2004 are presented in Appendix H.

After the initial survey of stream sites, 47 were identified as possible quality features for further study. The initial wetland survey indicated approximately 28 separate features based on the field survey and secondary sources such as aerial photos and soil surveys. Detailed stream and wetland fieldwork was done from late April to early May 2004. Aquatic features were assessed with the Ohio Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI). Wetlands were surveyed with routine wetlands determination forms (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) and by the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (ORAM) (OEPA, 2001). HHEI and ORAM forms are scored out of possible 100 points, with larger numbers indicating a higher quality feature. Woodlands were assessed using a method adapted from Anderson (1982). Terrestrial and faunal features were noted at each stream, wetland, and woodland feature. Again, maps of the project study area overlaid on aerial photos were used as reference and for study site notes, including the site numbers and corresponding photo numbers and the direction the picture was taken.

Streams were assessed using the HHEI score developed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). The form helped us inventory the biotic, as well as abiotic, components of the environment such as: stream modifications; substrate; pool depth; bank full width; riparian health; water quality (turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity); biotic inventory; and a sketch of the representative sample site (Appendix I). A Garmin Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) 21

unit was used to obtain latitude and longitude information for each stream site so the site could be mapped later. See Appendix J for pictures of the stream sites.

Wetlands required two separate forms. The first form, the routine wetland determination, was a little more detailed and involved noting the vegetation (i.e., herbaceous, trees, shrubs, saplings, woody vines), hydrology (i.e., depth of saturation and surface water, hydrology indicators such as water marks, drift lines, oxidized root channels), and soils (Munsell matrix and mottle, gley or low chroma colors, listed on local/national hydric soil list) (Appendix K). As a means of comparison, a routine wetland determination form was also filled out for a proximal upland point.

The second form was the ORAM, which involved an evaluation of: wetland area; buffer size; hydrology (i.e., sources of water, connectivity, water depth, modification to natural hydrology); habitat alteration and development; and, types of vegetation communities (Appendix L). A GPS point was also taken at each wetland site for future mapping. See Appendix M for pictures of the wetland sites.

Since the area had been heavily developed, there were only a few woodlands in the I-75 study area. Woodlands contained many layers, which consisted of canopy species, subcanopy species, shrubs, and herbaceous species. Woodlands were large in size and usually occurred near riparian corridors and were assessed qualitatively by species inventory, stability, geology, soil classification, and disturbance features (Appendix N).

After fieldwork was complete, the forms were analyzed and HHEI and ORAM scores were calculated. Some forms could not be completed in the field, including those for drainage area; downstream-designated use; geology; and, soil classification. The April-May 2004 fieldwork yielded 28 streams sites of high quality, 16 jurisdictional wetlands, and two woodlands.

The detailed stream survey indicated that there were five good, six moderate, and 17 limited quality streams in the project study area. The streams were small in size and were unnamed tributaries of local streams or tributaries to unnamed tributaries. Water quality data was obtained from all 28 sites while aquatic biota data was acquired from most sites (Table 2). Water quality results indicated that the streams were moderately 22

degraded, as indicated by substandard dissolved oxygen and conductivity for wadeable streams in Ohio.

The detailed wetland survey indicated that most of the 16 wetlands were small, isolated, limited quality, and associated with agricultural or other disturbed areas. These wetlands were typically emergent features that occurred in drainage swales, low spots in fields, or depressional areas in previously disturbed sites. Of the 16 features, 13 were category 1 (limited value) wetlands and 3 were category 1 or 2 (limited/moderate quality) features (Table 3).

The two woodland features, one on each side of I-75, occurred near unnamed tributaries to Millers Creek. These features were the oldest and largest wooded features in the project study area, containing many trees, shrubs and, herbaceous species. Habitat varied greatly in the project study area, consisting of the 12 total categories (Table 4).

Table 4: Terrestrial Habitat Types Identified in Project Study Area Terrestrial Habitat Map Code Residential / Commercial RC Right-of-Way ROW Wooded Fencerow WF Agricultural Cropland AC Agricultural Pastureland AP Newfield NF Open Riparian Corridor ORC Wooded Riparian Corridor WRC Upland Woodland UW Bottomland Woodland BW Wetlands W Ponds P Study area examples of each terrestrial feature can be found in Appendix O.

In addition to the ecological field experiences, I also participated in the Hazmat screening. In March 2004, FirstSearch Technology Corporation performed an environmental database search. The search targeted solid waste landfills, registered and/or leaking underground storage tanks, regulated and unregulated hazardous waste sites, and hazardous substances and/or petroleum spills. Through the database (NPL,

CERCLIS, RCRA, etc.) search, identified nine sites, which were within the Environmental Site Assessment Screening study area, were identified. Most of these sites were gas stations or commercial retail stores with generators; however, one site was the site of a 75-gallon diesel spill, which occurred in the median of I-75 in 1998. Since it is located in an area that will be directly affected by the addition of highway lanes in the median, the diesel spill site is the only one from the nine sites to warrant a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. See Appendix P for pictures of the Hazmat sites of concern.

Visual inspection of these sites, as well as several other potential sites, was conducted in April-May 2004. Jesse Binau, the project manager, approached me with the task of field checking these sites with the aerial project mapping and the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Screening Checklist (see Appendix Q). A form was filled out for each site with the following information: owner; current and past land use; any environmental database records (NPL, CERCLIS, RCRA, etc.); and, any above or underground storage tanks (UST’s, AST’s), drums, landfills, ponds/lagoons, surface staining, damaged vegetation, and odors. If upon visual inspection there were UST’s, AST’s, drums, etc., a picture was taken and documented on the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Screening Checklist and the aerial map.

In conjunction with the written Ecological Survey Report, electronic copies were made of the HHEI, routine wetland determination, ORAM, and woodland forms. These forms would be more legible than the field forms for the purpose of mass production because the forms would be included in a final environmental document. Electronic copies of the Environmental Site Assessment Screening Checklists (Hazmat) were made for the same reasons.

After all the ecological and Hazmat data was collected, I was given the task of writing the Ecological Survey Report. Many things go into an ecological report, including the current conditions and the expected ecological impacts of the proposed project. The report assesses the current ecological features within the project study area based on fieldwork, and presents the expected impacts to ecological features due to the proposed improvements. The document is written in the same format as a scientific

paper and contains an introduction with background information, a methods section, a results section, and a discussion of the expected ecological impacts.

The document starts by describing the environmental setting (i.e., climate, physiography, relief and drainage, geology, soils, land use, groundwater, floodplains, natural resources, and threatened and endangered species). The second section of the document contains the methods used in conducting the ecological survey and gives a detailed account of methods for streams, wetlands, and terrestrial features, and threatened and endangered species.

The results present each ecological feature and specific information for each site, and include many tables and figures, which illustrate the written results in a simplified manner. This is the step where the majority of the fieldwork was incorporated, as well as information from other agencies like the USFWS and ODNR. USFWS and ODNR responded to our threatened and endangered species inquires with a list of species that are threatened or endangered in the project study area (Appendix R & S).

The next section usually outlines the ecological impacts and discusses each alternative, comparing the impacts for each alternative, and eventually selects a preferred alternative. Since the project included improvements to the main highway and no extensions or widening, there were no alternatives to be discussed with the I-75 project. The expected ecological impacts section included a discussion of each ecological impacts, as well as the acreage that will be lost as a result of the proposed project.

Eastern Corridor Improvements, Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio Client: Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District (HCTID) The Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects is a long-range multi-modal transportation planning and implementation study. The project’s goal is to improve long- term mobility between Cincinnati and its eastern suburbs. On the federal level, the lead agency for this project is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in coordination with the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) and the USEPA. The project is overseen by many state, county and city agencies that are lead by the HCTID. The study’s progress is overseen by OKI, ODOT, Clermont and Hamilton Counties, the City of Cincinnati, and the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA)/Metro. An initial Major

Investment Study (MIS) was conducted that covered almost 200 square miles in Ohio and Kentucky. A MIS is a highway or transit improvement study that results in a document that is required for major improvement projects involving significant federal funds. MIS’s are done when there is an expected significant effect on capacity, traffic, level of service, or mode share at the transportation corridor or subarea level. After preliminary engineering/environmental impact phase, alternatives were selected and the detailed study area was refined to contain approximately 14 square miles (Exhibit 4). The Multi-Modal Transportation improvement project focuses on four different modes of transportation, including transportation system management (TSM) improvements; new and expanded bus transit service; new rail transit service; and highway capacity improvements. All of these modes are designed around a desired land use, as opposed to land use conforming to transportation improvement project. TSM improvements consist of improving the existing transportation network (e.g., intersection improvements, signal timing, new bike trail, new park and ride locations). Bus transit will be improved and expanded with 10 new or extended bus routes. New rail transit focuses on using existing freight rail for new passenger rail service with diesel multiple unit (DMU) vehicles. Highway capacity improvements focus on SR 32, Newtown Road improvements, a new connection to Ancor, and SR 32/I-275 interchange. Some of the desired land uses in the Eastern Corridor are preserving existing land in river plains, parks and greenspaces, creating new parks and greenspaces, revitalizing neighborhood business districts, reducing flood hazards and moderating urban storm runoff, and encouragement of industrial/office land uses. The Eastern Corridor project developed as a desire to alleviate current and avoid future transportation problems by a land use driven approach. Currently, there are many transportation inadequacies in the region, including insufficient capacity on many of the roadways, safety issues, limited alternative transportation options, and inadequate linkage to key transportation corridors and to developing social and economic centers. In addition, future economic and population growth will have an impact in the corridor. Many of the roads in the Eastern Corridor have traffic volumes that exceed capacity that result in below standard (“C”) level of service (LOS) and safety issues. The project area is also plagued by its limited transportation options. Most of the roads in the

area are highways that were built between 1960 and the 1980’s. Furthermore, no major capacity improvements have occurred in the project area since original road construction. The results are congestion and bottlenecking in many of the areas within the Eastern Corridor. Alternative forms of transportation (i.e., bus, rail and bike) are also considered as inadequate. Bus and bike transit are limited, and rail transit is non-existent. Certain portions of the project area are not directly connected by interstate highways, which tie residential areas to the employment and economic center of Cincinnati. By 2030, population growth in the area is expected to increase by 7 percent, while employment is expected to increase by 19 percent. The goal of the Eastern Corridor project is to implement a multi-modal solution that involves transportation improvements that will fit with the future land use, support the regional economy, and incorporate the environmental goals for the region. This can be accomplished through a two-tiered approach to the NEPA requirements (USEPA, March 2004). The tiered EIS strategy works better for complex or large projects like the Eastern Corridor multi-modal project. Tiering involves a two-step process, which produces an EIS in Tier 1 that evaluates a broad study area, set of modes, and/or potential corridors associated with a major federal action. The goal of a Tier 1 EIS is to present information regarding preliminary engineering, inventory of key environmental resources, preliminary impact assessment, and preliminary performance and cost analyses. This information will then be used to make a decision on the alternatives that will be carried into Tier 2 (USEPA, March 2004). Tier 2 involves more detailed alternative development, environmental field studies, environmental impact assessment, and identifies mitigation measures. Tier 2 results in the preparation of separate NEPA documents, which could be EIS’s, environmental assessments (EA), or categorical exclusions (CE). The number of documents and type of document (i.e., EIS, EA, CE) depends on the number of projects (alternatives/modes of transportation) carried over from Tier 1. The Eastern Corridor project allowed me to work on a much larger project, which included a different approach to the NEPA process. This project has a two-tiered NEPA method because of its size and multi-modal complexity. I worked on several different

stages of the transportation development process and environmental documentation. During Tier 1 of this project, I was involved with a range of work. I attended public meetings, conducted fieldwork, and compiled the Preliminary Draft of the Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS). My first involvement on the Eastern Corridor project was in January 2004. Round three of the public workshops started on January 29, 2004, followed by several meetings in each of the affected geographic regions within the project area. Several graphics displaying the affected communities and the multiple modes of transportation had to be created. Most of the graphics were made using a GIS program, which allowed several layers to be easily combined and displayed to show the desired data. Each public meeting drew 50 to 150 people, depending on the location and the weather conditions. The three hour meetings consisted of the graphic boards illustrating the project background and progress. Additionally, each station was equipped with comment boards for public feedback. Many people were interested in locating their homes on the aerial photo in order to see where their properties were located relative to the alternatives. Most people seemed very engaged and some were very concerned. One man, in particular, was personally concerned because his family owned a sod farm near the Little Miami River. The farm had been in the family since the late 1700’s and he was concerned because one of the alternatives went through his and neighbors’ fields. In fact, this particular man provided us with some valuable insight on the natural flow of the river in the area. Other individuals were concerned with how they would be affected by the improvements. Some were angry and voiced their opinions verbally and on the comment boards. It seemed that many people did not understand that these processes take a great deal of time, and none of the proposed changes are going to happen anytime soon. At first, many people did not realize that these were just preliminary alternatives and their opinions mattered a great deal. Overall, I learned how important it was to keep the public well informed and how much valuable insight they can provide. A response letter was written to every one of the public comments/questions regarding the project. The comments, as well as the response, are documented and placed in the appendix section of the EIS. After the comments were taken into

consideration, appropriate changes were made and the PDEIS was finalized for internal review (within the company and ODOT). The project manger was Deb Osborne and I was given the task of reviewing the PDEIS and revising the table of contents, the chapters, and the exhibits. In addition, I was asked to create an acronym list of terms and agencies that were used in the document (Appendix T). I was also asked to make a glossary of terms used in the document since some of the reviewers found the document confusing (Appendix U). Both of these indices were included in the PDEIS, following the table of contents. Once all the corrections/comments had been incorporated into the document, it was time to prepare the document for distribution (FHWA, etc.). In addition to the hard copy, the document was also made into a pdf file. I completed the task of converting all the chapters, exhibits and the appendices of the document into pdf files. The document had to be easily accessible and readable; therefore, I created bookmarks for each of the chapters, references, appendices, figures and tables. Each of these bookmarks also corresponded to the table of contents so that one could start at the table of contents and jump to any chapter, figure, etc. In addition, I created links within each chapter of written text. Whenever a figure or table was mentioned, a link was created so that one could click on the link and the corresponding graphic would be shown. The document was over 500 pages and contained approximately 60 figures (exhibits). This information could not fit onto one CD; however, in order for the bookmarks and links to work correctly, all the information had to fit on one CD. Consequently, I used Adobe 6.0 to compress the file so that it would fit on one CD. Additionally, a security code was set and two versions of the document were made. One version was created to prevent printing, while both versions allowed viewing of the document, but prevented the viewer from altering the document. By this time, I was very accustomed to using Adobe 6.0 and I was asked by Deb Osborne to create some instructions on the use of Adobe for creating pdf files and their related bookmarks/links for Balke American (Appendix W). After the PDEIS was submitted for review, it was time to start the more detailed fieldwork. I was given a map, displaying the transportation alternatives and the outline of the parcels, of the Eastgate area within the Eastern Corridor project. I was

given the task of identifying the affected parcel and making a spreadsheet of the owners and their addresses. The next step involved notifying the property owners of the upcoming fieldwork. Again, as in the Interstate 75 project, a letter was drafted by ODOT; the only difference was the inclusion of a map that depicted the Eastgate study area portion of the Eastern Corridor (Appendix W & X). Fieldwork for the Eastgate area involved assessing streams, wetlands, and terrestrial features. The same methods used for the I-75 study were subsequently used for the Eastgate area (see I-75 study). Please refer to the I-75 section of this document and Appendix I, L, M, and N for examples of the assessment forms. The results of fieldwork, along with several other studies (i.e. Hazmat, noise, cultural, engineering etc.), will be used in the construction of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). In addition to time, there are many steps and studies that go into the process of environmental documentation before any construction can commence. Without a process like the 9-Step Transportation Development Process, it would be very difficult to meet the requirements of NEPA. The process makes it much easier to properly meet all the requirements of an Environmental Impact Statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Balke American was a perfect place to make the most of my educational background. I was able to use the knowledge I had gained from certain classes, including environmental methodology, environmental measurements, introductory and advanced GIS, remote sensing, aerial photo interpretation; and regional land use capability analysis. Overall, these courses taught me how to analyze and solve environmental problems. Furthermore, the techniques and tools I acquired in my coursework were applied to solve problems during the course of my internship at Balke American. Balke American was my first experience in a professional setting outside of educational institutions. I was very pleased to have an internship that showed me that I could have a career where I could keep exploring the natural world while protecting it at the same time. Unfortunately, we cannot protect every aspect of the natural world and development will occur whether we want it to or not. Balke American helped me see that development can occur while keeping the fragility of the natural world in mind. By 30

incorporating fieldwork, engineering, and public insight, a project is more likely to protect natural features, and preserving them for many generations to come. Overall, my time at Balke American was spent both in the field and in the office working on a variety of projects, meeting a variety of steps in the transportation planning process. I truly enjoyed the fact that I could work and compile written reports that would communicate the ecological information obtained from fieldwork. One of the more interesting field experiences involved a rainy afternoon of wetland, stream, and woodland assessment in the Eastgate area of the Eastern Corridor. My coworker Chris Young and I were walking back from lunch at a shelter in a nearby park when we felt the electric shock from a bolt of lightning, which struck immediately behind us. Luckily, neither Chris nor I were seriously injured from the experience, but it is one that I will never forget. I am very satisfied with the experience that I had at Balke American and I look forward to the chance of working in a similar setting in St. Louis. I know I will never be satisfied in a career unless I feel like I am making a positive difference for the future of our natural environment. Balke American showed me that this could be accomplished in a professional setting.

REFERENCES

Alm, Alvin L. NEPA: Past, Present, and Future. January/February 1988. EPA Journal. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/nepa/01.htm. Accessed June 19, 2004.

Anderson, D. M. 1982. Plant communities of Ohio: A preliminary classification and description. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio.

Balke American. April 2004. Purpose and Need. Interstate 75 Improvements Butler and Warren Counties, Ohio. ODOT PID #24664. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical ReportY-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Fish and Wildlife Service NEPA Reference Handbook. http://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/Intro/Glossary.PDF. Accessed June 18, 2004.

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Statewide Transportation Plan (FY 1999-2018). December 1999. http://transportation.ky.gov/planning/stp/exhibits/Exhibit%2030.pdf Accessed June 11, 2004.

Ohio Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Services. 2001. The Nine- Step Transportation Development Process. Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). September 2002. Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio’s Primary Headwater Habitat Streams. Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method (ORAM) for Wetlands, Version 5.0, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Environmental Policy Act. Implementing Procedures. March 1, 2004. Volume 69, Number 40. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2004/March/Day-01/i4338.htm Accessed June 15, 2004.

TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Indirect Impacts in Pulaski and Laurel Counties, Kentucky Length Number County Project Description Plan (Miles) Long- Somerset Southeast Bypass-Major widening 1 Pulaski KY 914 2.8 Range to 4 lanes from KY 769 to KY 80 (TIP) Reconstruct from US 27/KY 90 2 Pulaski KY 1247 3.7 TIP intersection to Somerset SE Bypass Southwest Bypass Southwest Bypass of Somerset from US 27 South of 3 Pulaski 5.5 TIP of Somerset Somerset to the Cumberland Parkway West of Somerset Major widening for 2 additional lanes (4 to 6 lanes) from 4 Laurel I-75 KY 80 at London to Sand Hill Rd. overpass (formerly KY 13.3 TIP 2791) 5 Laurel KY 1006 Reconstruction from KY 192 to Main St. in London 1.5 TIP New Interstate Facility from I-75 near London to Daniel New Interstate 6 Laurel Boone 9.1 TIP Facility Parkway East of London New Interstate New Interstate Facility from Daniel Boone Parkway 7 Laurel 56.2 TIP Facility East of London to Hazard Short- Major Widening from KY 80 at Somerset to 8 Pulaski US 27 4.5 Range the Norwood Road (98KYD) STIP 9 Pulaski US 27 Major Widening from the Norwood Road to KY 452 4.3 STIP Major Widening from KY 452 N Through KY 70 10 Pulaski US 27 4 STIP Intersection New Route, Construct Somerset Northern Bypass (I-66) Somerset from the Louie B. Nunn Parkway (Cumberland Parkway) 11 Pulaski Northern 10 STIP @ Somerset Bypass North and East to KY 80 East of Somerset New Route, Somerset Southwest Bypass US 27 South to Somerset the 12 Pulaski Southwest 5.5 STIP Louie B. Nunn Parkway (Cumberland Parkway) West of Bypass Somerset Reconstruction from US 27/KY 90 I-Section 13 Pulaski KY 1247 3.4 STIP to Somerset Southeast Bypass New Interchange, Construct Interchange at 14 Pulaski US 27 0.5 STIP KY 1247/US 27/KY90 Intersection South of Somerset Safety, Design a Replacement Structure Using High 15 Pulaski KY 1577 Performance Steel 70W for the Monticello Street 1.1 STIP Underpass in Somerset Safety-Hazard, Add Shoulder and Guardrail on KY 1247 16 Pulaski KY 1247 0.5 STIP in Somerset to Improve Safety Widen to 6-Lanes from KY 80 at London to 17 Laurel I-75 5.4 STIP 0.2 Mile North of the North US-25 Overpass Federal Lands Highways Funds Dedicated to Cold 18 Laurel Cold Hill Rd. -- STIP Hill Road in the Daniel Boone National Forest Surface, Reconstruct From London (DBP) to 19 Laurel KY 30 4.12 STIP East Bernstadt (Surfacing) Add Left Turn Lanes on KY 363 at Intersection and 20 Laurel KY 363 0.2 STIP Relocate East KY 1006 Approach 33

Table 2: Summary of Conditions at Stream Survey Sites

USGS Observed Stream Features / Conditions Preliminary Stream Site Stream (Non- Blue Bottom Riparian Adjacent HHEI Name # Stream Regime Quality Official) Line Substrate Corridor Habitats Stream Class Mostly artificial and Highway Right- Unnamed Subsurface flow Continuous, cobble; some of-Way (ROW), Modified Class Tributary 1 NO with isolated wide; scrubby 60 Limited boulder slab; little upland woods II PHWH #1 pools; channelized honeysuckle gravel and silt and residential Mostly cobble and Unnamed Flowing; Continuous, Highway ROW, sand; some boulder Class III Tributary 2 NO recovered natural wide; scrubby, upland woods, 73 Good slab, silt and PHWH #2 channelized wooded and residential artificial Discontinuous, wide and Unnamed Mostly gravel and Flowing; narrow, open on Highway ROW Modified Class Tributary 4 NO sand; some boulder 40 Limited channelized one side; and residential II PHWH #3 slab, cobble and silt scrubby honeysuckle Mostly artificial; Discontinuous, Unnamed Flowing; some sand; little moderately Highway ROW Modified Class Tributary 5 NO 44 Limited channelized cobble, gravel and wide; scrubby and residential II PHWH #4 silt honeysuckle Mostly sand and Continuous, Unnamed Moist channel, silt; some gravel; moderately wide Highway ROW Modified Class Tributary 6 NO isolated pools, no 24 Limited little cobble and leaf and narrow; and residential I PHWH #5 flow; channelized pack/woody debris scrubby Mostly gravel and sand; some Unnamed Moist channel, Continuous, artificial; little Highway ROW Modified Class Tributary 7 NO isolated pools, no moderately 42 Limited boulder slab, and residential II PHWH #6 flow; channelized wide; scrubby cobble, silt and leaf pack/woody debris Mostly gravel and Unnamed Discontinuous, Highway ROW, Flowing; sand; some cobble Modified Class Tributary 8 NO wide and commercial and 50 Limited channelized and silt; little II PHWH #7 narrow; scrubby residential boulder slab Discontinuous and open; Highway ROW, Unnamed Flowing; moderately in-stream Modified Class Tributary 10 NO Mostly sand and silt 46 Limited channelized wide; scrubby wetland and II PHWH #8 honeysuckle and agricultural field willow Unnamed Mostly open; Flowing; Mostly silt; some Highway ROW Modified Class Tributary 12 NO some narrow; 29 Limited channelized sand and artificial and golf course I PHWH #9 scrubby Mostly open; Highway ROW, Unnamed Moist channel, Mostly silt; some some narrow; wooded corridor Modified Class Tributary 15 NO isolated pools, no gravel and sand; 30 Limited scrubby and agricultural I PHWH #10 flow; channelized little cobble honeysuckle field Millers Discontinuous, Mostly cobble and Highway ROW Creek Flowing; moderately wide Modified Class 16 NO gravel; some sand and agricultural 45 Limited Headwate channelized to absent; II PHWH and silt field rs scrubby Mostly boulder slab Continuous, Unnamed Flowing; Highway ROW, and cobble; some wide; immature Class III Tributary 17 NO recovered natural woodland and 78 Good gravel; little sand woods and PHWH #11 channel agricultural field and silt scrubby

USGS Observed Stream Features / Conditions Preliminary Stream Site Stream (Non- Blue Bottom Riparian Adjacent HHEI Name # Stream Regime Quality Official) Line Substrate Corridor Habitats Stream Class Mostly gravel and Discontinuous, Unnamed Flowing; sand; some cobble Highway ROW, wide and Class III Tributary 18 NO recovered natural and silt; little leaf rest area and 71 Good narrow; some PHWH #12 channel pack/woody debris upland woods open and artificial Mostly cobble and gravel; some Unnamed Flowing; Highway ROW, boulder slab and Continuous, Class III Tributary 19 YES recovered natural rest area and 78 Good sand; little boulder, wide; wooded PHWH #13 channel upland woods silt and leaf pack/wood debris Mostly cobble and Unnamed Discontinuous, Highway ROW Flowing; gravel; some sand Modified Class Tributary 24 YES narrow to absent; and residential 66 Moderate channelized and silt; little II PHWH #14 scrubby horse farm boulder slab Mostly gravel and Unnamed Open; some in- Highway ROW Flowing; silt; some sand and Modified Class Tributary 25 YES stream willow and agricultural 46 Limited channelized leaf pack/woody II PHWH #15 clumps fields debris Mostly cobble; Highway ROW, Unnamed Flowing; some gravel and Continuous, rest area, upland Modified Class Tributary 26 NO 61 Moderate channelized sand; little boulder wide; wooded woods and II PHWH #16 slab and silt residential Mostly sand; some Highway ROW, Unnamed Moist channel, cobble, gravel and Continuous, rest area, upland Modified Class Tributary 27 NO isolated pools, no leaf pack/woody wide; scrubby 28 Limited woods and I PHWH #17 flow; channelized debris; little boulder wooded residential slab and silt Mostly gravel; some Highway ROW, Unnamed Discontinuous, Flowing; cobble and silt; little woodland and Modified Class Tributary 28 NO narrow to absent; 36 Limited channelized boulder slab and residential II PHWH #18 scrubby sand farmland Mostly sand; some Discontinuous, Unnamed cobble, gravel and Flowing; narrow to absent; Highway ROW Modified Class Tributary 32 NO silt; little fine 51 Limited channelized scrubby and residential II PHWH #19 detritus and honeysuckle artificial Mostly cobble and Discontinuous, Unnamed gravel; some sand Flowing; narrow to absent; Highway ROW Modified Class Tributary 34 NO and artificial; little 63 Moderate channelized scrubby and commercial II PHWH #20 boulder slab, honeysuckle boulder and silt Mostly sand; some Continuous, Unnamed Moist channel, cobble and gravel; moderately Highway ROW Modified Class Tributary 35 NO isolated pools, no little boulder slab, 29 Limited wide; scrubby and commercial I PHWH #21 flow; channelized boulder, silt and honeysuckle clay Mostly cobble and gravel; some Unnamed Flowing; boulder slab, Continuous, Highway ROW, Class III Tributary 36 YES recovered natural boulder, sand and wide; wooded commercial and 74 Good PHWH #22 channel silt; little leaf and scrubby residential pack/woody debris and artificial

USGS Observed Stream Features / Conditions Preliminary Stream Site Stream (Non- Blue Bottom Riparian Adjacent HHEI Name # Stream Regime Quality Official) Line Substrate Corridor Habitats Stream Class Mostly artificial and Unnamed cobble; some Continuous, Highway ROW, Flowing; Modified Class Tributary 37 YES boulder slab and wide; wooded woods and 66 Moderate channelized II PHWH #23 sand; little gravel and scrubby residential and silt Unnamed Moist channel, Agricultural Modified Class Tributary 40 NO isolated pools, no Mostly sand and silt Open 21 Limited fields I PHWH #24 flow; channelized Mostly gravel and Unnamed Subsurface flow Continuous, sand; some cobble, Roadway ROW Modified Class Tributary 41 NO with isolated narrow; scrubby 30 Limited silt and leaf and residential I PHWH #25 pools; channelized honeysuckle pack/woody debris Mostly cobble and Unnamed Flowing; Discontinuous, gravel; some sand Roadway ROW Class III Tributary 42 YES recovered natural narrow to absent; 72 Moderate and artificial; little and residential PHWH #26 channel scrubby boulder and silt Mostly cobble and Unnamed Subsurface flow Discontinuous, Roadway ROW, sand; some gravel; Modified Class Tributary 47 NO with isolated narrow to absent; residential and 53 Limited little silt and leaf II PHWH #27 pools; channelized scrubby pastureland pack/woody debris

Table 3: Summary of Jurisdictional Wetlands Identified in Detailed Project Study Area

OEPA Approx. ORAM Wetland Classification/Description Wetland Size Score Category

Emergent wetland in low spot in field 0.04 ha 1 16 adjacent to a large pond (palustrine) (0.1 ac) Category 1

Scrub-shrub/emergent wetland in low spot in field and man-made drainage 0.04 ha Category 1 2 33 ditch adjacent to Little Muddy Cr. (0.1 ac) or 2 tributary (palustrine)

Emergent wetland (NWI – Mapped 0.09 ha Category 1 3 PEMC) in field adjacent to a Millers Cr. 34 (0.22 ac) or 2 tributary (palustrine)

Emergent wetland in drainage swales 0.08 ha Category 1 4 adjacent to a large pond and a Millers Cr. 32 (0.2 ac) or 2 tributary (palustrine)

Emergent wetland in low spot in field 0.04 ha 5 20.5 Category 1 adjacent to residential area (palustrine) (0.1 ac)

Emergent wetland in low spot near man- 0.04 ha 6 18.5 Category 1 made drainage ditch (palustrine) (0.1 ac)

Emergent wetland in low spot in field 0.04 ha 7 27 Category 1 (palustrine) (0.1 ac)

Table 3: Summary of Jurisdictional Wetlands Identified in Detailed Project Study Area

OEPA Approx. ORAM Wetland Classification/Description Wetland Size Score Category 8 Emergent wetland in man-made drainage 0.04 ha 24.5 Category 1 ditch (palustrine) (0.1 ac)

Emergent wetland in man-made drainage 0.04 ha 9 19 ditch (palustrine) (0.1 ac) Category 1

Emergent wetland in man-made drainage 0.04 ha 10 20 ditch (palustrine) (0.1 ac) Category 1

Emergent wetland in drainage swale 0.04 ha 11 20 (palustrine) (0.1 ac) Category 1

Emergent wetland in median near a 0.04 ha 12 19 Gregory Cr. tributary (palustrine) (0.1 ac) Category 1

Emergent wetland in median near a 0.04 ha 13 19 Gregory Cr. tributary (palustrine) (0.1 ac) Category 1

Scrub-shrub/emergent wetland in 0.04 ha 14 29.5 drainage swale (palustrine) (0.1 ac) Category 1

Scrub-shrub/emergent wetland in low 0.04 ha 15 spot in field adjacent to residential area 23.5 Category 1 (0.01 ac) (palustrine)

Emergent wetland in low spot in field 0.04 ha 16 22.3 Category 1 adjacent to pond (palustrine) (0.01 ac)

37 Exhibit 1: 161/37 Project Location Map

38 Exhibit 2: I-75 Project Location Map

39 Exhibit 3: I-75 Study Area Map

40 Exhibit 4: Eastern Corridor Study Area

Appendix A: Ohio's 9-Step Transportation Development Process

Appendix B: 161/37 CD Label

Appendix C: I-66 KDOW Stream Assessment Form

Appendix D: I-66 Stream Assessment Photos

Appendix E: I-75 Property Owner Letter

Appendix F: USFWS Request Letter

Appendix G: ODNR Request Letter

Appendix H: I-75 Field Investigation Report April 9, 2004

Appendix H: I-75 Field Investigation Report April 14, 2004

Appendix I: I-75 HHEI Stream Assessment Form

Appendix J: I-75 Stream Photos

Appendix K: I-75 Routine Wetland Assessment Form

Appendix L: I-75 ORAM Wetland Assessment Form

Appendix M: I-75 Wetland Photos

Appendix N: I-75 Woodland Assessment Form

Appendix O: I-75 Terrestrial Photos

Appendix P: I-75 Hazmat Photos

Appendix Q: I-75 Hazmat Checklist

Appendix R: USFWS Response Letter

Appendix S: ODNR Response Letter

81 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix T: Eastern Corridor Acronyms CHAPTER ACRONYMS

Terms ADT Average Daily Traffic APD Anderson Park District ARTIMIS Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and Information System AWS Agricultural Water Supplies BMP Best Management Practices BVAS Buried Valley Aquifer System CAGIS Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System CAUV Current Agricultural Use Value CBD Central Business District CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Recovery Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSO Combined Sewer Overflow CTER Cincinnati Terminal Railway CVG Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport DBH Diameter at Breast Height DMU Diesel Multiple Unit EB Expanded Bus ECLUVP Eastern Corridor Land Use Vision Plan EIS Environmental Impact Statement EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitats FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement GIS Geographic Information System HERS Highway Economic Requirements System HOV High Occupancy Lanes ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act IWS Industrial Water Supplies LMR Little Miami River LOS Level of Service LQG Large Quantity Generators LRT Light Rail Transit LRW Limited Resource Waters LUVP Land Use Vision Plan LWCFA Land and Water Conservation Fund Act MIS Major Investment Study MMP Multi-Modal Plan MMPLUVP Multi-Modal Plan with Land Use Vision Plan MSL Ohio Master List MSL Mean Sea Level MWWH Modified Warmwater Habitat NBD Neighborhood Business Districts NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

82 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix T: Eastern Corridor Acronyms NPL National Priority List NOI Notice of Intent NR National Register NS Norfolk Southern NWI National Wetland Inventory OAI Ohio Archaeological Inventory OHI Ohio Historic Inventory OHW Ordinary High Water OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark O&M Operation and Maintenance ORAM Ohio Rapid Assessment Method ORC Ohio Revised Code PCR Primary Contact Recreation PDEIS Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement PE/EIS Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Impact Statement PWS Public Water Supplies QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index RB Regional Baseline RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REMI Regional Economic Model Incorporated RM River Mile ROD Record of Decision RT Rail Transit RTDM Regional Travel Demand Model SCR Secondary Contact Recreation SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle SP Standard Procedures SRW State Resource Waters STIP State long-range plan transportation SWF Solid Waste Facilities SWPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TDM Transportation Demand Management TIP OKI=s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan TIP Transportation Improvement Plan TNM Traffic Noise Model TSD Transportation/Storage/Disposal Facilities TSM Transportation System Management VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay VHT Vehicle Hours of Travel VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel VOC Vehicle Operating Cost WHPA Wellhead Protection Areas WWH Warmwater Habitat

AGENCIES CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CEQ Council on Environmental Quality DOI Department of the Interior

83 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix T: Eastern Corridor Acronyms

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Authority HCTID Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District I&O Indiana and Ohio Railway System MSD Metropolitan Sewer District MVRPC Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency OES Office of Environmental Services OHPO Ohio Historic Preservation Office OKI Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana Regional Council of Governments SORTA Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority TANK Transit Authority of Kentucky TRAC Transportation Review Advisory Council USCG United States Coast Guard USCOE United States Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

84 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary GLOSSARY

Accessibility – The ability of people to reach desired destinations (such as employment, shopping, recreational facilities, medical facilities, cultural centers, airports, etc.). Accessible regions allow residents to reach many such destinations in a shorter period of time. Inaccessible regions allow residents to reach fewer destinations, and require longer periods of time.

Access Ohio – Ohio’s long-range multi-modal transportation plan helps guide Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in the development of an efficient, intermodal transportation network in Ohio through the year 2020.

Alternatives (Corridors) – Approximately 60 possible multi-modal alternatives/upgrades for the Easter Corridor, which involve TSM, expanded bus transit, rail transit, highway improvements and bikeway, plus a No Build alternative (Do Nothing alternative that is used as a baseline for the assessment of feasible alternatives and preliminary environmental impacts).

Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) – Is a network that connects all of the multi-state Appalachian Region to important eastern seaboard export markets. ADHS is concerned with economic development and commerce.

Aquatic Life Use Designations – Designations are assigned based on index thresholds of biocriteria. There are two indices of biocriteria, one based on stream fish (IBI) and the other based on stream macroinvertebrates (ICI). Waterbodies are assigned designations based on the biocriteria score in relation to the score of the reference site for a particular regional landscape. One river and eight streams in the Eastern Corridor are designated by the OEPA (per OAC 3745-1-18: effective July 21, 2002), as Warmwater Habitat (WWH) or Limited Resource Waters (LRW).

Bus Circulator and Design Routes (County Circular Routes) – New bus circulator routes to serve rail and maximize right-of-way efficiency and support the land use vision goals. Expanded bus and bus circulator routes are to aid in proposed transit hubs to support pedestrian and transit friendly planned development.

Conceptual Alternative – Conceptual alternatives were developed for each mode (TSM, Expanded Bus, Rail Transit, and Highway) of transportation early in the PE/EIS phase based on Eastern Corridor MIS recommendations. These Alternatives were used to identify the study area needed for detailed environmental field work to be conducted during Part A and feasible alternatives development.

Congestion – Occurs when the number of vehicles using a route approaches the capacity of that route and results in delays caused by reduced travel speeds and stop- and-go traffic. Many routes in the Eastern Corridor have a limited capacity and since the routes are in close proximity to Cincinnati they are reaching or exceeding capacity, therefore causing congestion.

85 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary Controlled Access – Consolidation and management of access points along roadways. In the Easter Corridor project the controlled access points are part of the highway capacity improvements.

Core Study Area – Original area of the Eastern Corridor PE/EIS phase encompassed 165-mile portion (Figure 1.1) of the MIS study area. This is the area that was identified by the MIS recommended plan as requiring further evaluation based on early environmental work. The area was further refined based on comments received at the first round of public meetings where conceptual alternatives were displayed (see Detailed Study Area).

Cumulative Impact – The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations defines cumulative impacts as ”The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (CEQ Regulations). Therefore, these impacts include the compounding direct and indirect impacts of a project and the future actions of others.

Detailed Study Area – Spans an area approximately 14 square miles and extends from the Cincinnati Central Business District and riverfront redevelopment area in Hamilton County, east to the I-275 outerbelt corridor in Clermont County. Established from the original study area (see Core Study Area) after it was refined following the PE/EIS work. The refined area is known as the Eastern Corridor Detailed Study Area (Figure 1.2) and is the focus of the environmental work presented in this PDEIS.

Direct Impact – The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation defines direct impact as “effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place” (CEQ Regulations). An example of a direct impact for this project is the destruction of stream bottom and aquatic habitat for the construction of culverts or bridge piers.

Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) – A rail technology that is a feasible alternative (Oasis Line) for rail transit extending from downtown Cincinnati to Milford. Unfortunately, it cannot be operated concurrently with freight traffic and will require implementation of temporal separation of transit and freight operations in areas of shared track.

Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) – Work on the Eastern Corridor project is occurring in two parts, corresponding to a two-tiered NEPA process. The purpose of the DEIS is to gain agency and public input. The information in this document is Part A of the two-tiered process and consists of the preparation of a Tier 1 EIS and ROD. These documents contain information on the transportation need in the area, key environmental resources, the development and evaluation of feasible alternatives, a preliminary assessment of expected impacts, a preliminary cost/benefit analysis, and the identification of a recommended transportation plan (set of feasible alternatives), which will be looked at in more detail during Part B.

Existing + Committed (E + C) – A model used to evaluate the existing roadway and transit network, plus committed regional and state improvements (TIP and STIP projects). The E + C does not include regional rail corridor or any major new capacity

86 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary improvements within the Eastern Corridor, highway or transit. The model was used as the baseline for comparison of modal and multi-modal model results.

Eastern Corridor (EC) Geographic Area – Feasible modal alternatives developed for the Eastern Corridor project were grouped together by six geographic areas, corresponding to the Focus Areas and/or combinations of portions of the Focus Areas used in the Land Use Vision process.

Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898 states that low-income and minority populations must be included in the planning process to promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs. Environmental Justice communities/populations in the Eastern Corridor Study Area were identified using 2000 Census Tract. The Environmental Justice target groups identified in the Eastern Corridor Study Area are as follows: 1) minority, 2) low-income, 3) elderly, 4) persons with disabilities and 5) zero-car households.

Feasible Alternative – Are not specific alignment locations, but rather alternative corridors that will be further developed and evaluated during Part B of the Eastern Corridor study. Overall, preliminary engineering work was conducted to understand the general spatial requirements of the various modal alternatives however; alignment location, configuration and access detail have not been established. Part A identifies the expected range of the conditions, costs, impacts, etc. for multi-modal alternatives that will be further developed in Part B.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain – A floodplain is an area that will be inundated by a flood from a waterbody (i.e. river, creek, ditch, lake, etc.). FEMA is a federal agency that regulates the area known as the 100-year floodplain, which is the area that will be inundated by the 100-year flood. The agency regulates community development through a local ordinance conforming to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The area FEMA regulates is limited to floodplain channels that have a watershed (area that drains to them) greater than one square mile.

Focus Area – The Eastern Corridor Study Area was broken down into six geographic Focus Areas (Wasson, Red Bank, Wooster, Ohio 32, Eastern Avenue/Lunken and River Plains), covering an approximately 70 square mile study area, in which input from numerous meetings and workshops was obtained during detailed planning work.

Geographic Information System (GIS) – By using computers GIS allows users to manipulate data sets in order to show spatial relationships. GIS allows you to see the geographical distribution/physical location of data. Each data set is a separate layer; layers can then be superimposed to show the relationship between the locations of different items.

Hazardous Materials Concern Site – Review of federal and state environmental records was conducted early in the Eastern Corridor study to identify suspect hazardous materials sites within the project study area. Twenty-two sites were determined to be sites of hazardous materials concern, with 12 of the 22 sites (20 within the study area

87 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary and two just outside) identified as high risk (priority) hazardous materials sites. Eight out of the 12 sites may warrant further environmental study that will be determined in Part B.

High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) – Is any vehicle that contains a driver and one or more (or sometimes two or more, or three or more) passengers, this also includes buses and vans. These vehicles are allowed to travel in special road lanes on which single occupant vehicles are prohibited. These lanes are usually reserved for HOV during peak hours but in some areas of the country these lanes are HOV only full-time.

Implementation Group (Partners) – Is a group enlisted by the Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District (HCTID) to oversee the study’s progress and direction. The group includes the Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI), the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Clermont County, Hamilton County, the City of Cincinnati, and the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA)/Metro.

Indirect Impact – The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations defines indirect impacts as “effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate…” (CEQ Regulations). An example of an indirect impact for this project is the conversion of an old-field into a new interchange.

Limited Access – Are special purpose through lanes for through traffic to be used for commercial traffic, HOV, express bus, user fee, simple bypass or combination.

Level of Service (LOS) – Is a qualitative measure of traffic conditions taking into account the effect of a number of factors such as traffic volumes (including trucks), speed (design and actual), travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, convenience and operating costs. The LOS rating is based on a scale ranging from “A” for free flowing traffic (best travel conditions) to “F” which indicates highly congested conditions, with an LOS of “C” being the generally accepted standard.

Light Rail Transit (LRT) – Is an electrically powered (overhead power source) rail vehicle that operates in a right-of-way that is typically shared by other vehicles. The Wasson Line recommended rail transit line is a proposed Electrically Powered Light Rail.

Major Investment Study (MIS) – Is a highway or transit improvement study and document that is done for major improvement projects involving significant Federal funds. MIS are done when there is an expected significant effect on capacity, traffic, level of service or mode share at the transportation corridor or subarea level. MIS contain input from the public, intergovernmental agencies, and evaluate the potential community and ecological impacts of a project. For the Eastern Corridor project the MIS was completed in April 2000 and recommended a comprehensive multi-modal strategy for addressing current and projected transportation problems in the area.

88 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary Metromoves – Is a 20-year transit plan (developed by SORTA/Metro) outlining recommendations for improvements and enhancements to its existing regional bus transit operations, including improvements within the Eastern Corridor study area.

MIS Recommended Plan – The multi-modal components of the plan included: transportation system management (TSM) improvements, new and expanded bus transit service, new rail transit service and highway capacity improvements. Therefore the MIS Recommended Plan identified various transportation modes and concepts that were used as the starting point in the Eastern Corridor PE/EIS work program.

MIS Study Area – Original study encompassed 200 square mile portion of greater Cincinnati including the 165-mile portion (35 square miles of study area in northern Campbell County Kentucky) in Hamilton and Clermont Counties (Eastern Corridor PE/EIS work).

Mitigation – Are the steps that are taken to avoid, minimize and/or compensate for negative environmental impacts. Any unavoidable impacts to state and federal regulated features by a preferred alternative developed during Part B studies will require the development (in Part B) of mitigation measures and/or permit preparation based on the most current statutory requirements.

Multi-Modal Components – Include transportation system management (TSM) improvements, new and expanded bus transit service, new rail transit service and highway capacity improvements.

Multi-Modal Convergence Point – A location at which several different multi-modal upgrades/improvements meet. An example from the Eastern Corridor project is when rail transit and bike paths converge or rail transit and bus transit meet.

Multi-Modal Transportation Improvements (or Plan or Strategy) – Focus on four different modes of transportation (transportation system management (TSM) improvements, new and expanded bus transit service, new rail transit service and highway capacity improvements) that are land use driven. The improvements are planned around a desirable and supportable future land use vision, and recognizing the individual transportation projects in different modal categories need to be coordinated and implemented to work in conjunction with and compliment each other.

National Register (NR) – Is the Nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. It was designed to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. The list includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – Passed in 1969, the act requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major federal projects or decisions, to allow public input; to identify and assess reasonable alternatives; and to coordinate efforts with other planning and environmental reviews taking place.

89 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary New Starts Program – A Federal Transit Authority (FTA) program that supports local fixed guideway transit projects. Projects that seeks the funding must emerge from a locally driven multi-modal planning process, and eligible projects include any fixed guideway system which utilizes and occupies a separate right-of-way or rail line for the exclusive use of mass transportation (such as commuter rail, rapid rail, light rail, automated guideway transit, people movers, or exclusive facilities for buses or other high occupancy vehicles).

No Build Alternative – Do Nothing Alternative that is used as the baseline for the assessment of feasible alternatives and preliminary environmental impacts. This consists of continued use of the existing roadway network in the project area, plus committed improvements that are included in the OKI’s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (TIP) and the state long-range plan transportation (STIP). Essentially this plan involves no direct environmental impacts or construction costs.

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetland – Is the division of the US Fish and Wildlife Service that produces and provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the Nation’s wetlands and deepwater habitats and other wildlife habitats. Most of the information is depicted through maps or a GIS data format. A total of 28 NWI features occur within the Eastern Corridor study area boundaries.

Ordinary High Water (mark) (OHW) – A defined line on a bank that is established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as natural line impressed on the bank, exposed roothairs, shelving, changes in character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris.

Other Cultural Resources – Are cultural resources that are not currently listed on the National Register but were also identified in the study area boundaries. Included in this category are previously inventoried historic sties (Ohio Historic Inventory sites), previously inventoried archaeological sites (Ohio Archaeological Inventory sites), and sites exhibiting potential NR characteristics, as identified during Part A cultural resources field studies and presented in Cultural Resources Context Information in Support of the PE/EIS Part A Development and Identification of Feasible Alternatives, Gray and Pape, Incorporated, December 30, 2002.

Park and Ride Facility – Are parking facilities located at transit stations, bus stops and highway onramps. These facilities are located near the perimeter of urban centers and assist in local rideshare.

Public Hearing – A formal meeting that will be held prior to the Part A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) in order to obtain comments for public record (anticipated to be held in the summer of 2004).

Public Meeting – Meetings held throughout the study area to ensure that stakeholders and persons from all affected communities and local jurisdictions were able to have access to project information while having the advantage of directing questions to members of the project team.

90 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary

Public Water Supply – Are facilities registered with OEPA to provide public drinking water from wells, such as local water utility companies, restaurants, churches and stores. East Fork is additionally designated as a Public Water Supply (PWS).

Purpose and Need – A chapter in an Environmental Impact Statement that explains why large amounts of taxpayers’ money is spent and the significant environmental impacts that go along with such projects. In general the purpose and need outlines the needs and defines the goals of the project.

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) – Measures the quality of the habitat that corresponds to the physical features that affect fish and invertebrate communities. It is a procedure that relates stream potential to habitat quality (i.e. how does habitat affect the biological community).

Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM)– Is a computerized travel demand forecasting model. It uses mathematical process to assess the interaction of many travel variables to forecast future travel demand in an area, and how that demand would likely be shared among different transportation modes (such as ride alone, ride sharing and public transit use). The model also takes into account travel time and cost as primary indicators of transportation efficiency.

Regional Baseline (RB) – Developed by OKI in coordination with the regional highway and transit agencies, and is a scenario used in comparative evaluations by the Federal Transit Administration.

Record of Decision (ROD) – Identifies a set of feasible alternatives to be carried through into more detailed study during Tier 2.

Section 4(f) – Passed in 1966, it’s part of the US Department of Transportation Act. Section 4(f) declares “that a special effort be made to preserve the natural beauty of the country side and public park and recreations lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites”. The use of these sites for a Federal transportation project will not be approved unless it is determined that there is no other prudent or feasible alternative.

Section 7 (Wild and Scenic Rivers) – Part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act it directs federal agencies to protect the free-flowing condition and other values of designated rivers and congressionally authorized study rivers. The act was designed to preserve rivers from the dams and developments associated with many of the nation’s waterways.

Sole Source Aquifer – An aquifer that is the main or only supplier (supplies 50 percent or more) of dinking water for a specific area. Designated as such under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (1986).

Tier 1 EIS – Primary goal is to provide enough information including some level of preliminary engineering, inventory of key environmental resources and constraints, first- cut preliminary impact assessment, and preliminary performance and cost analyses – to allow for decision making regarding the alternatives being considered.

91 Tier 1 (Part A) Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio

Appendix U: Eastern Corridor Glossary

Tier 2 NEPA Document – Involves the preparation of separate NEPA documents for the various projects carried through from Tier 1. These documents may be EIS’s, Environmental Assessments (EA’s) or Categorical Exclusions (CE’s), depending on the complexity of the project and level of expected impact. These documents typically involve more detailed alternative alignment development, more detailed environmental field studies and evaluation, detailed environmental impact assessment, and identification of mitigation measures and environmental commitments – to sufficiently address and complete the NEPA process on a specific project-by-project basis.

Transit Hub – MetroMoves identified four hub types in the Eastern Corridor based on size and facilities: the on-street mini-hub, consisting of enhanced shelters developed within the existing road and sidewalk right-of-way, the off-street hub with parking, consisting of off street loading bays, dedicated passenger waiting shelters and parking area, the hybrid hub, consisting of a combination of on-street stops and off-street bays and the on-street storefront.

Transportation Mode – There are four transportation modes identified from the MIS recommended plan as a starting point in the development of alternatives: transportation system management (TSM) improvements, new and expanded bus transit service, new rail transit service and highway capacity improvements.

Transportation System Management (TSM) – Some capacity and physical deficiencies of the existing roads in the Eastern Corridor can be improved by implementation of Transportation System Management measures. TSM projects include: intersection improvements, roadway corridor improvements, more frequent service bus routes, park-and-ride facilities, and interchange improvements.

Urban Revitalization – Transportation improvements in the Eastern Corridor, especially effective multi-modal investments, are expected to result in increased demand for inner- city and older suburb housing, as well as create new demand for housing linked to transportation enhancements, and will, therefore, effectively enhance the Cincinnati urban core and support Governor Taft’s Urban Revitalization Initiative (April 2000).

Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) – Are designated protection zones around public wells that are included in the state Wellhead Protection Program established by OEPA in 1992 per 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. The WHPA includes the area surrounding a drinking water well or well field, which is protected to prevent contamination of the well(s). There are no WHPA’s within the boundaries of the detailed project study area for the Eastern Corridor.

Appendix V: PDF Instructions

Appendix W: Eastern Corridor Property Owner Letter

Appendix X: Eastern Corridor Study Area Map