American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Legal Department Columbus, OH 43215-2373 AEP.com

November 22, 2016

Chairman Asim Z. Haque Ohio Power Siting Board 180 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215

RE: Case No. 16-1731-EL-BNR Request for Expedited Treatment: Hector Garcia In the matter of the Construction Notice for AEP Ohio Transmission Senior Counsel – Regulatory Services Company, Inc.’s Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension Project (614) 716-3410 (P) (614) 716-2014 (F) Dear Chairman Haque: [email protected]

Attached please find a copy of the Construction Notice for the above-referenced project by AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. (AEP Ohio Transco). This filing and notice is in accordance with O.A.C. 4906-06-05.

A copy of this filing will also be submitted to the Executive Director or the Executive Director’s designee. A copy is also being provided to the OPSB Staff electronically. The Company will also submit a check in the amount of $2,000 to the Treasurer, State of Ohio, for Fund 5610 for the expedited fees.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Hector Garcia

Hector Garcia Counsel for AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc.

cc: Counsel OPSB Staff Jon Pawley, OPSB Staff

Construction Notice for Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project

PUCO Case No. 16-1731-EL-BNR

Submitted to: The Ohio Power Siting Board Pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code Section 4906-6-05

Submitted by: AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc.

November 22, 2016 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

November 22, 2016

Construction Notice

Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project

4906-6-05

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. (“AEP Ohio Transco”) is providing the following information to the Ohio Power Siting Board (“OPSB”) in accordance with the accelerated request of Ohio Administrative Code Section 4906-6-05.

4906-6-5(B) General Information

B(1) Project Description

The name of the project and applicant's reference number, names and reference number(s) of resulting circuits, a brief description of the project, and why the project meets the requirements for a Construction Notice.

AEP Ohio Transco is proposing the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project (the “Project”), located north-northwest of the intersection of Palmer Road NE and Ohio Route 13 in Pike Township, Perry County, Ohio. The Project consists of constructing two (2) parallel electric transmission line extensions within a new right-0f-way (the “ROW”). The eastern extension is approximately 0.08 miles and the western extension is approximately 0.10 miles. The new electric transmission lines will extend the existing 138 kV transmission line to energize the proposed Clouse distribution substation. The ROW is located on property having Parcel Nos. 030001900000 and 240002420000 (the “Property”). Figure 1.1 in Appendix A shows the location of the Project. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 in Appendix A show the existing AEP Ohio Transco 138 kV transmission line location, and the ROW.

The Project meets the requirements for a Construction Notice (“CN”) because it is within the types of projects defined by Item (1)(a) of 4906-1-01 Appendix A Application Requirement Matrix For Electric Power Transmission Lines. This item states:

(1) New construction, extension, or relocation of single or multiple circuit electric power transmission line(s), or upgrading existing transmission or distribution line(s) for operation at a higher transmission voltage, as follows:

(a) Line(s) not greater than 0.2 miles in length.

B(2) Statement of Need

If the proposed project is an electric power transmission line or gas or natural gas transmission line, a statement explaining the need for the proposed facility.

AEP Ohio Transco is proposing to construct the Project to energize the proposed Clouse distribution substation from the existing 138 kV transmission line running southeast of the Project.

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR 1 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

November 22, 2016

B(3) Project Location

The applicant shall provide the location of the project in relation to existing or proposed lines and substations shown on an area system map of sufficient scale and size to show existing and proposed transmission facilities in the project area.

Figures 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in Appendix A show the location of the Project in relation to other existing AEP Ohio Transco transmission lines. There is the existing 138 kV transmission line located southeast of the Project and an existing 69 kV transmission line located northeast of the Project.

B(4) Alternatives Considered

The applicant shall describe the alternatives considered and reasons why the proposed location or route is best suited for the proposed facility. The discussion shall include, but not be limited to, impacts associated with socioeconomic, ecological, construction, or engineering aspects of the project.

The location of the Project requires the use of property owned by one (1) adjacent landowner, only. Due to the proximity of the existing 138 kV transmission line and right-of-way to the location of the new Clouse distribution substation, the location of the Project impacts the lowest number of adjacent landowners. No significant alternatives were studied as part of the Project.

B(5) Public Information Program

The applicant shall describe its public information program to inform affected property owners and tenants of the nature of the project and the proposed timeframe for project construction and restoration activities.

The Project will be located fully on the Property. AEP Ohio Transco has not developed a public information program but has worked closely with the owners over of the Property during the development of the Project and the right-of-way acquisition process. Within seven (7) days of filing this CN, AEP Ohio Transco will issue a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. The notice will comply with all requirements under OAC Section 4906-6-08(A)(1-6). If required by applicable Ohio Administrative Code, a copy of the CN will be sent to applicable public officials concurrently with submittal to OPSB.

B(6) Construction Schedule

The applicant shall provide an anticipated construction schedule and proposed in-service date of the project.

Construction is planned to begin in January 1, 2017, with an anticipated completion date of October 2017.

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR 2 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

November 22, 2016

B(7) Area Map

The applicant shall provide a map of at least 1:24,000 scale clearly depicting the facility with clearly marked streets, roads, and highways, and an aerial image.

Figure 1.1 in Appendix A identifies the location of the Project on the USGS quadrangle map with coverage of the Project area. Figure 1.2 in Appendix A is an aerial map of the Project. To visit the Project from Columbus, take I-70 East to I-70 East South/Jacksontown Road. Take exit 132 and follow OH-13 South. The Project is located along OH-13 South just before Palmer Road Northeast.

B(8) Property Agreements

The applicant shall provide a list of properties for which the applicant has obtained easements, options, and/or land use agreements necessary to construct and operate the facility and a list of the additional properties for which such agreements have not been obtained.

AEP Ohio Transco will obtain the ROW from the owner of the Property. No other property easements, options, or land use agreements are necessary to construct the Project or operate the transmission lines.

B(9) Technical Features

The applicant shall describe the following information regarding the technical features of the Project:

B(9)(a) Operating characteristics, estimated number and types of structures required, and right-of-way and/or land requirements.

The Project will involve installing two (2) 138 kV single circuit, heavy angle dead-end steel structures standing at approximately 85 to 100 feet in height. The Project will utilize 1033, 500 kcmil 54/7 ACSR (Curlew) conductors, along with a 7#8 alumoweld shield wires and 0.646 diameter OPGW. All dead-ends will utilize pier foundations with anchor cages.

B(9)(b) Electric and Magnetic Fields

For electric power transmission lines that are within one hundred feet of an occupied residence or institution, the production of electric and magnetic fields during the operation of the proposed electric power transmission line. The discussion shall include:

B(9)(b)(i) Calculated Electric and Magnetic Field Strength Levels

No occupied residences or institutions are located within 100 feet of the Project.

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR 3 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

November 22, 2016

B(9)(b)(ii) Design Alternatives A discussion of the applicant's consideration of design alternatives with respect to electric and magnetic fields and their strength levels, including alternate conductor configuration and phasing, tower height, corridor location, and right-of-way width.

No occupied residences or institutions are located within 100 feet of the Project.

B(9)(c) Project Costs The estimated capital cost of the project.

The 2016 capital cost estimate for the Project is $720,000.

B(10) Social and Economic Impacts The applicant shall describe the social and ecological impacts of the project.

B(10)(a) Provide a brief, general description of land use within the vicinity of the proposed project, including a list of municipalities, townships, and counties affected.

The Project is located within Pike Township, Perry County, Ohio. Figure 1.3 in Appendix A shows USDA land use categories for the Project area. Terrestrial habitat mapping in Attachment D (Figure 3) shows that the Project area consists mostly of second growth riparian forest, with agricultural row crop field and new field habitat present to a lesser degree. Additionally, palustrine emergent wetlands (PEW) and palustrine forested wetlands (PFW) are present in the Project area.

There are currently nine (9) residences within 1,000 feet of the centerline of the Project. There are no parks, schools, churches, cemeteries, wildlife management areas, or nature preserve lands within 1,000 feet of the centerline of the Project.

Additionally, the New Lexington Reservoir is located approximately 0.34 miles northeast of the Project and the Perry County Airport is approximately 3 miles south of the Project (see Figure 1.1, Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 in Appendix A).

B(10)(b) Agricultural Land Information

Provide the acreage and a general description of all agricultural land, and separately all agricultural district land, existing at least sixty days prior to submission of the application within the potential disturbance area of the project.

Based on field surveys, agricultural lands in the Project area are comprised of row crop fields (approximately 0.08 percent of the Project area) (see Appendix C). The Project is not located within registered agricultural district lands based on coordination with the Perry County Auditor’s Office.

B(10)(c) Archaeological and Cultural Resources

Provide a description of the applicant's investigation concerning the presence or absence of significant archeological or cultural resources that may be located within the potential

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR 4 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

November 22, 2016

disturbance area of the project, a statement of the findings of the investigation, and a copy of any document produced as a result of the investigation.

In January of 2016, AEP Ohio Transco’s consultant completed a Phase I archaeological investigation for the Project (see attached Appendix B). The field investigations were conducted in the footprint of the planned construction activity. No buildings or structures older than 50 years are being taken or directly impacted.

The Project area is located to the north of New Lexington and is in the Northeast Quarter of Section 5 (Pike Township) and the Southwest Quarter of Section 32 (Clayton Township). It is located within an unnamed stream valley that drains to Rush Creek, which is part of the Hocking River watershed. There are two existing electric lines that cross at this location. The Project is located in a sparsely populated area south of State Route 13. The Project area is located in deciduous forest and cleared electric line right-of- way. Disturbances associated with previous construction activity prevail in the northeastern part of the Project and significant portions of the Project area consist of saturated soils and standing water.

The literature review that was conducted for the Project identified sites and surveys that are in the study area, but there is nothing recorded within or adjacent to the Project area. There are nine (9) archaeological sites recorded in the study area and several of these have been interpreted as chert workshops and/or quarry sites. There are no buildings or structures recorded within or near the Project area. However, PER0000908 is recorded in the study area and this resource was determined to be historically significant. There have been five (5) surveys conducted in the study area, but none are directly involved with the current area of investigation.

The field investigations involved subsurface testing and visual inspection. There were no cultural resources identified within the Project area during systematic Phase I investigations. No further work is recommended for sites as they are not considered to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. There are no buildings older than 50 years involved in the Project area. No further work is considered to be necessary for the Project.

B(10)(d) Local, State, and Federal Agency Correspondence

Provide a list of the local, state, and federal governmental agencies known to have requirements that must be met in connection with the construction of the project, and a list of documents that have been or are being filed with those agencies in connection with siting and constructing the project.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) will be filed with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency for authorization of construction storm water discharges under General Permit OHCD00004. AEP Ohio Transco will also coordinate storm water permitting needs with local government agencies, including Perry County, as necessary. AEP Ohio Transco will implement and maintain best management practices as outlined in the Project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to minimize erosion and control sediment to protect surface water quality during storm events.

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR 5 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

November 22, 2016

No structures or proposed access roads are located in a 100-year floodplain area. Therefore, no floodplain permitting is expected to be required for the Project.

There are no other known local, state or federal requirements that must be met prior to commencement of the Project.

B(10)(e) Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species

Provide a description of the applicant's investigation concerning the presence or absence of federal and state designated species (including endangered species, threatened species, rare species, species proposed for listing, species under review for listing, and species of special interest) that may be located within the potential disturbance area of the project, a statement of the findings of the investigation, and a copy of any document produced as a result of the investigation.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) Federally Listed Species by Ohio Counties October 2015 (available at www.fws.gov/midwest/ohio/pdf/OhioTEListByCountyOct2015.pdf) was reviewed to determine the threatened and endangered species currently known to occur in Perry County. This USFWS publication lists Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis; federally listed endangered), northern long- eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; federally listed threatened), and American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus, federally listed endangered) as the threatened or endangered species currently known to occur in Perry County. As part of the ecological study completed for the Project, a coordination letter was submitted to the USFWS Ohio Ecological Services Field Office seeking an environmental review of the Project for potential impacts to threatened or endangered species. The February 24, 2016 response letter from USFWS (see Appendix C) indicated that the Project is within the range of the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat in Ohio and recommends saving trees ≥3 inches diameter at breast height whenever possible, and seasonal tree cutting between October 1 and March 31 to avoid adverse impacts to this species. If suitable bat roost trees must be cut during the summer months, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) and USFWS recommended a bat mist net survey be conducted between June 1 and August 15, prior to any tree cutting. As summarized in Appendix C, ecological field surveys conducted by AEP Ohio Transco’s consultant identified suitable roost trees for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat within the Project area and its associated limits of tree clearing (see Figure 3 in Appendix C). Several of these potential bat roost trees are expected to be impacted by the Project. However, AEP Ohio Transco intends to clear the trees during the USFWS/ODNR recommended tree clearing window. Therefore, the Project is not likely to adversely affect those species. No suitable habitat for the American burying beetle was observed within the Project area and the USFWS has indicated that due to the project type, size, and location, no adverse effects to this species are anticipated.

As part of the ecological study completed for the Project, coordination letters were submitted to the ODNR Division of Wildlife (“DOW”), Ohio Natural Heritage Program (“ONHP”) and ODNR-Office of Real Estate. Correspondence received from ODNR-ONHP (see Appendix C) indicated that Project area does not contain any known occurrences of state-listed species, federally-listed species, or rare species. No impacts to state-listed species are anticipated.

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR 6 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

November 22, 2016

The response letter received from the ODNR-Office of Real Estate (see Appendix C) indicated that the Project is within the range of the Indiana bat (state-listed endangered), American burying beetle (state- listed endangered, and black bear (Ursus americanus, state-listed endangered). The ODNR indicated that, if suitable Indiana bat habitat is present within the Project area, they recommend that trees be conserved and any tree clearing that is unavoidable should occur only from October 1 through March 31. Due to the location, the habitat within the Project area and its vicinity, and type of work proposed, the ODNR stated that the Project is not likely to impact the American burying beetle. Due to the mobility of the black bear, the ODNR stated that the Project is not likely to impact this species.

The DOW recommended no in-water work in perennial streams occur from April 15 to June 30, in order to reduce impacts to indigenous aquatic species and their habitat. If no in-water work is proposed in a perennial stream, the ODNR stated that the Project is not likely to impact aquatic species. Project-related construction activities will not take place in perennial streams.

B(10)(f) Areas of Ecological Concern

Provide a description of the applicant's investigation concerning the presence or absence of areas of ecological concern (including national and state forests and parks, floodplains, wetlands, designated or proposed wilderness areas, national and state wild and scenic rivers, wildlife areas, wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas, and wildlife sanctuaries) that may be located within the potential disturbance area of the project, a statement of the findings of the investigation, and a copy of any document produced as a result of the investigation.

Correspondence received from USFWS (see Appendix C) indicated that there are no federal wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, or designated critical habitat in the vicinity of the Project. Correspondence from ODNR-ONHP (see Appendix C) indicated that they are unaware of any unique ecological sites, geologic features, animal assemblages, scenic rivers, state wildlife areas, nature preserves, parks, national wildlife refuges, or other protected natural areas within a one mile radius of the Project area. Perry State Forest was identified by the ODNR-ONHP as being within a one mile radius of the Project area, but will not be affected by the Project.

There are no National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) features mapped in the Project area (see Appendix C). A wetland and stream delineation survey was completed by AEP Ohio Transco’s consultant within the Project area on January 15, February 5, March 13 and May 12, 2016. During the field surveys, two (2) PFW and one (1) PEW, totaling approximately 0.52 acres in the aggregate, were identified in the Project area. Additionally, two (2) streams totaling approximately 550 linear feet were identified within the Project area. Stream 1 is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) as an impaired waterway (Waterbody ID: OH050302040102; USEPA 2016). Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix C have more information regarding the wetlands and streams identified within the Project area.

At this time, it is anticipated that none of the streams will be impacted by activities associated with construction of the Project. Project construction activities are not expected to require the placement of any permanent fills within streams or wetlands. However, clearing of trees within approximately 0.47 acres of forested wetlands will be required (see Appendix C), but the trees will be hand cleared with

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR 7 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

November 22, 2016

stumps remaining. Additionally, timber mats will likely be placed over the wetlands temporarily for construction equipment crossings. Locations of these wetland features can be found on Figure 2 in Appendix C. Therefore, the Project is interpreted as being eligible for authorization under Nationwide Permit 12 with the requirement for a Pre-Construction Notification to be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”). AEP Ohio Transco will be fulfilling this requirement and will not proceed with construction prior to receiving the authorization letter from the USACE for the Project. Because trees will need to be cleared in forested wetlands, AEP will submit a Pre-Construction Notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

B(10)(g) Unusual Conditions Provide any known additional information that will describe any unusual conditions resulting in significant environmental, social, health, or safety impacts.

To the best of AEP Ohio Transco’s knowledge, there are no known unusual conditions that are would result in significant environmental, social, health, or safety impacts.

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR 8 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

Appendix A Project Maps November 22, 2016

Project Maps

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR Figure No. 1.1 Title Project Location Map

Client/Project American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project

Project Location 193704188 PikeTownship, Prepared by HDB on 2016-07-15 Perry County, Ohio Technical Review by JDP on 2016-07-20 Independent Review by DG on 2016-07-21

0 500 1,000 Feet $$ 1:12,000 (At original document size of 11x17) (¯

Legend

Proposed 138 kV Transmission Line Project Area

Clayton Township Pike Township

£22 ¤ Muskingum UV60 UV13

Fairfield UV37 Perry Morgan

UV13 ¤£33 Hocking

Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Ohio South FIPS 3402 Feet 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, AEP 3. Background: USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangles

Page 01 of 01

V:\1937\Active\193704188\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\ClouseStationLON_Figure1_1_Topo.mxd Revised:2016-08-05 By:hbellone Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. Figure No. 1.2 Title Project Layout Map

Client/Project 1189 American Electric Power )" Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project

Project Location 193704188 PikeTownship, Prepared by HDB on 2016-07-18 Perry County, Ohio Technical Review by JDP on 2016-07-20 Independent Review by DG on 2016-07-21 Clark Rd NE

0 100 200 Feet $$ 1:2,400 (At original document size of 11x17) (¯

Holden Dr NE Legend Proposed 138 kV Transmission Line Existing Transmission Line Project Area Township Boundary

69 kV Proposed Clouse Substation Clayton Township Pike Township

OH-13

UV13 138 kV

TS345 TS13

Perry TS37

CR-19

TS668 TS93

Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Ohio South FIPS 3402 Feet 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, AEP 3. Orthophotography: ESRI World Imagery, 2015.

Page 01 of 01

V:\1937\Active\193704188\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\ClouseStationLON_Figure1_2_Layout.mxd Revised: 2016-08-05By: hbellone Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. Figure No. 1.3 " " Title " Land Use Map

" Client/Project American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project " )"19 OH-13 Project Location 193704188 PikeTownship, Prepared by HDB on 2016-07-18 " Perry County, Ohio Technical Review by JDP on 2016-07-20 Independent Review by DG on 2016-07-21 "

" "

" 0 250 500 Feet " $$ " " 1:6,000 (At original document size of 11x17) ¯ " ( New Lexington Legend " " Reservoir Proposed 138 kV Existing " Holden Dr NE " Transmission Line Transmission Line " " " Clark Rd NE Project Area Street " 69 kV " " " " " Residence Park* 1189)" " " E Cemetery* Township Boundary " Land Use Proposed " Clayton Township Barren Land Clouse Open Water Pike Township " Developed, (Rock/Sand/Clay) Substation " Palmer Rd NE Open Space Deciduous Forest " Developed, " Evergreen Forest Low Intensity Old Somerset Rd Grassland/ " Developed, 13 Herbaceous UV " Medium Intensity Developed, Pasture/Hay " High Intensity Cultivated Crops

CR-19

138 kV

"

" *No features within map extent

" TS757 13 " UV " S669 " " T Township Hwy 127 NE " ¤£22 " Old Somerset Rd " TS668 TS345 TS13 " " " " " TS37 Perry "

"

TS93 " " " " TS312

Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Ohio South FIPS 3402 Feet. 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, AEP, USGS NLCD, and Mid-Ohio " Regional Planning Commission Regional Street Centerline. " 3. Additional sources reviewed for parks, wildlife management ares, and " nature preserves (none found with the Study Area or its vicinity): " " ODNR, USFS, USFWS, The Nature Conservancy. 4. Orthophotography: ESRI World Imagery, 2015. " "

Page 01 of 01

V:\1937\Active\193704188\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\ClouseStationLON_Figure1_3_Landuse.mxd Revised: 2016-08-05 By:hbellone Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. Figure 1.4 Concept Map

To Somerset

)"19 OH-13

New Lexington Reservoir

HoldenDr NE

69 kV Clark Rd NE

Proposed 1189)" Clouse Substation CLAYTON TOWNSHIP PIKE TOWNSHIP Palmer Rd NE

VU13

CR-19 Clouse Station 138 kV 138 kV Line Extension Project

VU13

Old Somerset Rd

To New Lexington

Legend

Proposed Transmission Line Extension

Existing Transmission Line

Township Boundary

Project Area PERRY COUNTY CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

Appendix B Phase I Archaeological Investigations November 22, 2016

Phase I Archaeological Investigations

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR

Phase I archaeological investigations for the proposed 5.61 ha (13.86 ac) Clouse Station Tap Line Project in Pike and Clayton Townships, Perry County, Ohio

Joshua Engle

May 24, 2016

1395 West Fifth Ave. Columbus, OH 43212 Phone: 614.485.9435 Fax: 614.485.9439 Website: www.wellercrm.com Phase I archaeological investigations for the proposed 5.61 ha (13.86 ac) Clouse Station Tap Line Project in Pike and Clayton Townships, Perry County, Ohio

By

Joshua Engle

Submitted By:

Ryan Weller, P.I. Weller & Associates, Inc. 1395 West Fifth Ave. Columbus, OH 43212 Phone: 614.485.9435 Fax: 614.485.9439 Website: www.wellercrm.com

Prepared for:

American Electric Power 700 Morrison Road Gahanna, OH 43230

Lead Agency:

Ohio Power Siting Board

Ryan Weller, P.I.

May 24, 2016

Copyright © 2016 by Weller & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.

W-1873

Abstract

In January of 2016, Weller & Associates, Inc. completed a Phase I archaeological investigations for the proposed 5.61 ha (13.86 ac) Clouse Station Tap Line Project in Pike and Clayton Townships, Perry County, Ohio. The lead agency for the project is the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB). The field investigations were considered the footprint of the planned construction activity. No buildings or structures older than 50 years are being taken or directly impacted. No archaeological sites identified during these investigations.

The project area is located to the north of New Lexington and is in the Northeast Quarter of Section 5 (Pike Township) and the Southwest Quarter of Section 32 (Clayton Township). It is located within an unnamed stream valley that drains to Rush Creek, which is part of the Hocking River watershed. There are two existing electric lines that cross at this location. The project is located in a sparsely populated area south of State Route (SR) 13. The project area is located in deciduous forestation and cleared electric line right-of-way. Disturbances associated with previous construction activity prevail in the northeastern part of the project and significant portions of the project area consist of saturated soils and standing water.

The literature review that was conducted for this project identified sites and surveys that are in the study area, but there is nothing recorded within or adjacent to the project area. There are nine archaeological sites recorded in the study area and several of these have been interpreted as chert workshops and/or quarry sites. There are no buildings or structures recorded within or near the project area; however, PER0000908 is recorded in the study area and this resource was determined to be historically significant. There have been five surveys conducted in the study area, but none are directly involved with the current area of investigation.

The field investigations involved subsurface testing and visual inspection. There were no cultural resources identified within the Project Area during systematic Phase I investigations. No further work is recommended for sites as they are not considered to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There are no buildings older than 50 years involved in this project. No further work is considered to be necessary for this project.

i Table of Contents

i. Abstract i ii. List of Figures iii

Introduction 1

Environmental Setting 1

Cultural Setting 4

Research Design 11

Literature Review 12

Archaeological Survey Results 15

APE Definition and NRHP Determination 16

Recommendations 15

References Cited 17

Figures 23

ii List of Tables

List of Tables

1. Soil in the Project. 2. Ohio Archaeological Inventory sites identified in the study area.

List of Figures

List of Figures

1. Political map of Ohio showing the approximate location of the project. 2. Portion of the USGS 1992 New Lexington, Ohio 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) map indicating the location of the project and previously recorded resources in the study area. 3. Aerial map indicating the location of the project and previously recorded resources in the study area. 4. Project plan map. 5. Portion of the Atlas of Perry County, Ohio (Lake 1875) indicating the approximate location of the Project Area. 6. Portion of the USGS 1910 New Lexington, Ohio Quadrangle 15 Minute Series map indicating the approximate location of the project. 7. Aerial fieldwork map of the project indicating the results of testing and photo orientations. 8. View of Project Area showing vegetation and stream, looking east. 9. View of existing corridor within Project Area, looking northeast. 10. View of the disturbed conditions within the eastern portion of the project, looking northeast. 11. View of standing water within the project, looking east. 12. A typical shovel test unit excavated within the project.

iii Introduction

In January and May of 2016, Weller & Associates, Inc. completed Phase I archaeological investigations for the proposed 5.61 ha (13.86 ac) Clouse Station Tap Line Project (Project) in Pike and Clayton Townships, Perry County, Ohio (Figures 1-4). Weller completed the work for American Electric Power (AEP) and for submittal to the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB). These investigations were conducted to identify any sites or properties and to evaluate them in a manner that is reflective of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 [36 CFR 800]). This report summarizes the results of the archaeological fieldwork and an intensive literature review. The report format and design is similar to that established in Archaeology Guidelines (Ohio Historic Preservation Office [OHPO] 1994). The work includes archaeological literature review, field investigations, and visual inspection/documentation of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) as it pertains to OPSB projects of this type.

Joshua conducted the literature review on May 18, 2016. Ryan Weller served as the Principal Investigator and Senior Project manager. The report preparation was by Joshua Engle.

Project Description

The project involves the construction of a 138kV tap transmission line extending connecting an existing transmission line in the southern portion of the Project to a proposed 69kV station, subject to a separate report (Weller 2016), north of and adjacent to the Project. The planned work will take place on property that is owned by AEP. The work will include the tap and five support structures.

Environmental Setting

Climate

Perry County, not unlike all of Ohio, has a continental climate, with hot and humid summers and cold winters. About 102 cm (40 in.) of precipitation fall annually on the county with the average monthly precipitation about 8 cm (3.3 in.). October is the driest month, while July is the wettest month for Perry County (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service [USDA, SCS] 1988).

Physiography, Relief and Drainage

Perry County is located within the Glaciated and Unglaciated Allegheny Plateaus physiographic regions of Ohio (Brockman 1998). According to Brockman (1998), the project area is located on the Muskingum-Pittsburgh Plateau. The region is characterized by a “dissected plateau having broad major valleys that contain outwash terraces; elevations ranging from 650 ft to 1400 ft” [Brockman 1998]. The terrain within Perry County can be separated into three distinct areas. The northwestern part of the county is gently to strongly sloping due to the Wisconsinan glaciers. The section just south and east of this was affected by the Illinoisan glaciers and contains broad ridgetops with strongly sloping to moderately steep side slopes. The remainder of the county is 1 unglaciated and has narrow ridgetops that are strongly sloping and moderately steep that have moderately steep to very steep side slopes (USDA, SCS 1988).

Several watersheds drain Perry County: Jonathan Creek, Rush Creek, Moxahala Creek, Sunday Creek, and Monday Creek. These watersheds either flow into the Muskingum River or the Hocking River. The project area is drained by an unnamed tributary of Rush Creek, which is part of the Hocking River watershed.

Geology

The project area is underlain by sedimentary rock that was formed during the Pennsylvanian period. The geology of the project consists of shales, siltstones, coals, chert, and sandstones (Brockman 1998). Chert outcrops have been identified in the uplands around Somerset, Bristol, and New Lexington (Stout and Schoenlaub 1945). The chert outcrop indicated by Stout and Schoenlaub (1945) is to the northwest of the City of New Lexington and in the general vicinity of the current project area; however, it was noted on the north/east side of the drainage.

Soils

The project area is indicated as being within the Westmoreland-Guernsey- Bethesda Association (USDA, SCS 1989). These are soils that are indicative of upland, unglaciated situations consisting of narrow ridge tops and entrenched valleys. There are three soil series types present within the project area and these are consistent with valley floor or side slope settings (Table 1).

Table 1. Soils in the Project Area. Soil Symbol Soil Name % Slope Location New1AF Newark silt loam 0-3 Valley floors Pg Peoga silt loam level Valley floors WmE Westmoreland silt loam 25-35 Side slope

Typically, slope gradients of 15 percent or greater precludes investigations in most situations in Ohio. There does not appear to be any such situations within the current project area. There is the possibility of identifying chert outcrops in this area.

Flora

There is or at least was great floral diversity in Ohio. This diversity is relative to the soils and the terrain that generally includes the till plain, lake plain, terminal glacial margins, and unglaciated plateau (Forsyth 1970). Three major glacial advances, including the Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsinan, have affected the landscape of Ohio. The effects of the Wisconsin glaciation are most pronounced and have affected more than half of the state (Pavey et al. 1999).

The least diverse part of Ohio extends in a belt from the northeast below the lake- affected areas through most of western Ohio (Gordon 1966). These areas are part of the late Wisconsin ground moraine and lateral end moraines. It is positioned between the 2 lake plains region and the terminal glacial moraines. This area included broad forested areas of beech maple forests interspersed with mixed oak forests in elevated terrain or where relief is greater (Forsyth 1970; Gordon 1966). Prairie environments such as those in Wyandot and Marion County areas would contain islands of forests, but were mostly expansive open terrain dominated by grasses.

The northwestern Ohio terrain is nearly flat because of ancient glacial lakes and glaciation, which affected the flora. However, the vegetation was more diverse than the till plain to the south and east because of the variety of factors that contributed to its terrain. Forests within the Black Swamp were generally comprised of elm/ash stands; however, dissected areas along drainages and drier, elevated areas from beach deposits would contain mixed forests of oak and hickory (Gordon 1966; 1969). There was little upland floral diversity in the lake plains (Black Swamp region) except for the occasional patches of oak and hickory. Floral variety was most evident in narrow sleeves along larger stream valleys where there is relief.

The most biological diversity in Ohio is contained within the Allegheny Plateau, which encompasses the southeastern two-thirds of the state (Sheaffer and Rose 1998). Because this area is higher and has drier conditions, it is dominated by mixed oak forests. Some locations within the central part of this area contain beech and mixed mesophytic forests. There are large patches of oak and sugar maple forests to the south of the terminal moraine from Richland to Mahoning County (Gordon 1966).

Southwestern Ohio from about Cincinnati to Bellefontaine east to the Scioto River historically contained a very diverse floral landscape. This is an area where moraines from three glacial episodes are prevalent (Pavey et al. 1999). Forests in this area include elm-ash swamp, beech, oak-sugar maple, mixed mesophytic, prairie grasslands, mixed oak, and bottomland hardwoods (Core 1966; Gordon 1966; 1969). These forests types are intermingled with prairies being limited to the northern limits of this area mostly in Clark and Madison Counties.

Generally, beech forests are the most common variety through Ohio and could be found in all regions. Oak and hickory forests dominated the southeastern Ohio terrain and were found with patchy frequency across most of northern Ohio. Areas that were formerly open prairies and grasslands are in glacial areas, but are still patchy. These are in the west central part of the state. Oak and sugar maple forests occur predominantly along the glacial terminal moraine. Elm-ash swamp forests are prevalent in glaciated areas including the northern and western parts of Ohio (Gordon 1966; Pavey et al. 1999).

The project area is located in central Perry County. The majority of the county, including the project area, is mixed oak forestation with riparian strips of mixed beech forests (Gordon 1966).

Fauna

The upland forest zone offered a diversity of mammals to the prehistoric diet. This food source consisted of white-tailed deer, black bear, Eastern cottontail rabbit, opossum, a variety of squirrels, as well as other less economically important mammals. 3 Several avian species were a part of the upland prehistoric diet as well (i.e. wild turkey, quail, ruffed grouse, passenger pigeon, etc.). The lowland zone offered significant species as well. Raccoon, beaver, and muskrat were a few of the mammals, while wood duck and wild goose were the economically important birds. Fishes and shellfish were also an integral part of the prehistoric diet. Ohio muskellunge, yellow perch, white crappie, long nose gar, channel catfish, pike, and sturgeon were several of the fish, whereas, the Ohio naiad mollusc, butterfly’s shell, long solid, common bullhead, knob rockshell, and cod shell were the major varieties of shellfish. Reptiles and amphibians, such as several varieties of snakes, frogs, and turtles, were also part of the prehistoric diet (Trautman 1981; Lafferty 1979; Mahr 1949).

Cultural Setting

The first inhabitants of Ohio were probably unable to enter this land until the ice sheets of the Wisconsin glacier melted around 14,000 B.C. Paleoindian sites are considered rare due to the age of the sites and the effects of land altering activities such as erosion. Such sites were mostly used temporarily and thus lack the accumulation of human occupational deposits that would have been created by frequent visitation. Paleoindian artifact assemblages are characteristic of transient hunter-gatherer foraging activity and subsistence patterns. In Ohio, major Paleoindian sites have been documented along large river systems and near flint outcrops in the Unglaciated Plateau (Cunningham 1973). Otherwise, Paleoindian sites in the glaciated portions of Ohio are encountered infrequently and are usually represented by isolated finds or open air scatters.

The Paleoindian period is characterized by tool kits and gear utilized in hunting Late Pleistocene megafauna and other herding animals including but not limited to short- faced bear, barren ground caribou, flat-headed peccary, bison, mastodon, giant beaver (Bamforth 1988; Brose 1994; McDonald 1994). Groups have been depicted as being mobile and nomadic (Tankersley 1989); artifacts include projectile points, multi-purpose unifacial tools, burins, gravers, and spokeshaves (Tankersley 1994). The most diagnostic artifacts associated with this period are fluted points that exhibit a groove or channel positioned at the base to facilitate hafting. The projectiles dating from the late Paleoindian period generally lack this trait; however, the lance form of the blade is retained and is often distinctive from the following Early Archaic period (Justice 1987).

The Archaic period has been broken down into three sub-categories, including the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic. During the Early Archaic period (ca. 10,000-8000 B.P.), the environment was becoming increasingly arid as indicated by the canopy (Shane 1987). This period of dryness allowed for the exploitation of areas that were previously inaccessible or undesirable. The Early Archaic period does not diverge greatly from the Paleoindian regarding the type of settlement. Societies still appear to be largely mobile with reliance on herding animals (Fitting 1963). For these reasons, Early Archaic artifacts can be encountered in nearly all settings throughout Ohio. Tool diversity increased at this time including hafted knives that are often re-sharpened by the process of beveling the utilized blade edge and intense basal grinding (Justice 1987). There is a basic transition from lance-shaped points to those with blades that are triangular. Notching becomes a common hafting trait. Another characteristic trait occurring almost exclusively in the Early and Middle Archaic periods is basal bifurcation and large blade 4 serrations. Tool forms begin to vary more and may be a reflection of differential resource exploitation. Finished tools from this period can include bifacial knives, points, drills/perforators, utilized flakes, and scrapers.

The Middle Archaic period (8000-6000 B.P.) is poorly known or understood in archaeological contexts within Ohio. Some (e.g., Justice 1987) regard small bifurcate points as being indicative of this period. Ground stone artifacts become more prevalent at this time. Other hafted bifaces exhibit large side notches with squared bases, but this same trait can extend back to the Paleoindian period. The climate at this time is much like that of the modern era. Middle Archaic period subsistence tended to be associated with small patch foraging that involved a consistent need for mobility with a shift towards stream valleys (Stafford 1994). Sites encountered from this time period throughout most of Ohio tend to be lithic scatters or isolated finds. The initial appearance of regional traits may be apparent at this time.

The Late Archaic period in Ohio (ca 6000-3000 B.P.) diverges from the previous periods in many ways. Preferred locations within a regional setting appear to have been repeatedly occupied. The more intensive and repeated occupations often resulted in the creation of greater social and material culture complexity. The environment at this time is warmer and drier. Most elevated landforms in northeastern Ohio have yielded Archaic artifacts (Prufer and Long 1986: 7), and the same can be stated for the remainder of Ohio.

Various artifacts are diagnostic of the Late Archaic period. Often, burial goods provide evidence that there was some long-distance movement of materials, while lithic materials used in utilitarian assemblages are often from a local chert outcrop. There is increased variation in projectile point styles that may reflect regionalism. Slate was often used in the production of ornamental artifacts. Ground and polished stone artifacts reached a high level of development. This is evident in such artifacts as grooved axes, celts, bannerstones, and other slate artifacts.

It is during the Terminal Archaic period (ca 3500-2500 B.P.) that extensive and deep burials are encountered. Cultural regionalism within Ohio is evident in the presence of Crab Orchard (southwest), Glacial Kame (northern), and Meadowood (central to Northeastern). Along the Ohio River, intensive occupations have been placed within the Riverton phase. Pottery makes its first appearance during the Terminal Late Archaic.

The Early Woodland period (ca 3000-2100 B.P.) in Ohio is often associated with the Adena culture and the early mound builders (Dragoo 1976). Early and comparably simple geometric earthworks first appear with mounds more spread across the landscape. Pottery at this time is thick and tempered with grit, grog, or limestone; however, it becomes noticeably thinner towards the end of the period. There is increased emphasis on gathered plant resources, including maygrass, chenopodium, sunflower, and squash. Habitation sites have been documented that include structural evidence. Houses that were constructed during this period were circular, having a diameter of up to 18.3 m (Webb and Baby 1963) and often with paired posts (Cramer 1989). Artifacts dating from this period include leaf-shaped blades with parallel to lobate hafting elements, drilled slate pieces, ground stone, thick pottery, and increased use of copper. Early Woodland artifacts can be recovered from every region of Ohio. 5

The Middle Woodland period (ca 2200-1600 B.P.) is often considered to be equivalent with the Hopewell culture. The largest earthworks in Ohio date from this period. There is dramatic increase in the appearance of exotic materials that appear most often in association with earthworks and burials. Artifacts representative of this period include thinner, grit-tempered pottery, dart-sized projectile points (Lowe Flared, Steuben, Snyders, and Chesser) [Justice 1987], exotic materials (mica, obsidian, and marine shell, etc.). The points are often thin, bifacially beveled, and have flat cross sections. There seems to have been a marked increase in the population as well as increased levels of social organization. Middle Woodland sites seem to reflect a seasonal exploitation of the environment. There is a notable increase in the amount of Eastern Agricultural Complex plant cultigens, including chenopodium, knotweed, sumpweed, and little barley. This seasonal exploitation may have followed a scheduled resource extraction year in which the populations moved camp several times per year, stopping at known resource extraction loci. Middle Woodland land use appears to center on the regions surrounding earthworks (Dancey 1992; Pacheco 1996); however, there is evidence of repeated occupation away from earthworks (Weller 2005a). Household structures at this time vary with many of them being squares with rounded corners (Weller 2005a). Exotic goods are often attributed to funerary activities associated with mounds and earthworks. Utilitarian items are more frequently encountered outside of funerary/ritual contexts. The artifact most diagnostic of this period is the bladelet, a prismatic and thin razor-like tool, and bladelet cores. Middle Woodland remains are more commonly recovered from central Ohio south and lacking from most areas in the northern and southeastern part of the state.

The Late Woodland period (ca A.D. 400-900) is distinct from the previous period in several ways. There appears to be a population increase and a more noticeable aggregation of groups into formative villages. The villages are often positioned along large streams, on terraces, and were likely seasonally occupied (Cowan 1987). This increased sedentism was due in part to a greater reliance on horticultural garden plots, much more so than in the preceding Middle Woodland period. The early Late Woodland groups were growing a wide variety of crop plants that are collectively referred to as the Eastern Agricultural Complex. These crops included maygrass, sunflower, and domesticated forms of goosefoot and sumpweed. This starch and protein diet was supplemented with wild plants and animals. Circa A.D. 800 to 1000, populations adopted maize agriculture, and around this same time, shell-tempered ceramics appear. Other technological innovations and changes during this period included the bow and arrow and changes in ceramic vessel forms.

The Late Prehistoric period (ca A.D. 1000-1550) is distinctive from former periods. The Cole complex (ca A.D. 1000-1300) has been identified in central and south central Ohio. Sites that have been used to define the Cole complex include the W.S. Cole (33DL11), Ufferman (33DL12), and Decco (33DL28) sites along the Olentangy; the Zencor Village site, located along the Scioto River in southern Franklin County; and the Voss Mound site (33FR52), located along the Big Darby Creek in southwestern Franklin County. It has been suggested that this cultural manifestation developed out of the local Middle Woodland cultures and may have lasted to be contemporaneous with the Late Prehistoric period (Barkes 1982; Baby and Potter 1965; Potter 1966). Cole is a poorly defined cultural complex as its attributes are a piecemeal collection gathered from various 6 sites. Some have suggested that it may be associated with the Fort Ancient period (Pratt and Bush 1981). Artifacts recovered from sites considered as Cole include plain and cordmarked pottery, triangular points, Raccoon Notched points, chipped slate discs, rectangular gorgets, and chipped stone celts. The vessels often have a globular form with highly variable attributes and rim treatment. There have been few structures encountered from this period, but those that have are typically rounded or circular (Pratt and Bush 1981; Weller 2005b).

Monongahela phase sites date to the Late Prehistoric to Contact period in eastern Ohio. Monongahela sites are typically located on high bottomlands near major streams, on saddles between hills, and on hilltops, sometimes a considerable distance from water sources. Most of these sites possessed an oval palisade, which surrounded circular house patterns. Burials of adults are usually flexed and burial goods are typically ornamental. A large variety of stone and bone tools are found associated with Monongahela sites. Monongahela pottery typically is plain or cordmarked with a rounded base and a gradually in-sloping shoulder area. Few Euro-American trade items have been found at Monongahela sites (Drooker 1997).

Protohistoric to Settlement

By the mid-1600s, French explorers traveled through the Ohio country as trappers, traders, and missionaries. They kept journals about their encounters and details of their travels. These journals are often the only resource historians have regarding the early occupants of seventeenth century Ohio. The earliest village encountered by the explorers in 1652 was a Tionontati village located along the banks of Lake Erie and the Maumee River. Around 1670, it is known that three Shawnee villages were located along the confluence of the Ohio River and. the Little Miami River. Because of the Iroquois Wars, which continued from 1641-1701, explorers did not spend much time in the Ohio region, and little else is known about the natives of Ohio during the 1600s. Although the Native American tribes of Ohio may have been affected by the outcome of the Iroquois Wars, no battles occurred in Ohio (Tanner 1987).

French explorers traveled extensively through the Ohio region from 1720-1761. During these expeditions, the locations of many Native American villages were documented. In 1751, a Delaware village known as Maguck existed near present-day Chillicothe. In 1758, a Shawnee town known as ‘Lower Shawnee 2’ existed at the same location. The French also documented the locations of trading posts and forts, which were typically established along the banks of Lake Erie or the Ohio River (Tanner 1987).

While the French were establishing a claim to the Ohio country, many Native Americans were also entering new claims to the region. The Shawnee were being forced out of Pennsylvania because of English settlement along the eastern coast. The Shawnee created a new headquarters at Shawnee Town, which was located at the mouth of the Scioto River. This headquarters served as a way to pull together many of the tribes which had been dispersed because of the Iroquois Wars (Tanner 1987).

Warfare was bound to break out as the British also began to stake claims in the Ohio region by the mid-1700s. The French and Indian War (1754-1760) affected many 7 Ohio Native Americans; however, no battles were recorded in Ohio (Tanner 1987). Although the French and Indian War ended in 1760, the Native Americans continued to fight against the British explorers. In 1764, Colonel Henry Bouquet led a British troop from Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania to near Zanesville, Ohio.

In 1763, the Seven Years' War fought between France and Britain, also known as the French and Indian War ended with The Treaty of Paris. In this Peace of Paris, the French ceded their claims in the entire Ohio region to the British. When the American Revolution ended with the Second Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Americans gained the entire Ohio region from the British; however, they designated Ohio as Indian Territory. Native Americans were not to move south of the Ohio River but Americans were encouraged to head west into the newly acquired land to occupy and govern it (Tanner 1987).

By 1783, Native Americans had established fairly distinct boundaries throughout Ohio. The Shawnee tribes generally occupied southwest Ohio, while the Delaware tribes stayed in the eastern half of the state. Wyandot tribes were located in north-central Ohio, and Ottawa tribes were restricted to northeast Ohio. There was also a small band of Mingo tribes in eastern Ohio along the Ohio River, and there was a band of Mississauga tribes in northeastern Ohio along Lake Erie. The Shawnee people had several villages within Ross County along the Scioto River (Tanner 1987). Although warfare between tribes continued, it was not as intense as it had been in previous years. Conflicts were contained because boundaries and provisions had been created by earlier treaties.

In 1795, the Treaty of Greenville was signed as a result of the American forces defeat of the Native American forces at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. This allocated the northern portion of Ohio to the Native Americans, while the southern portion was opened for Euro-American settlement. Although most of the battles which led up to this treaty did not occur in Ohio, the outcome resulted in dramatic fluctuations in the Ohio region. The Greenville Treaty line was established, confining all Ohio Native Americans to northern Ohio, west of the Tuscarawas River (Tanner 1987).

Ohio Native Americans were again involved with the Americans and the British in the War of 1812. Unlike the previous wars, many battles were fought in the Ohio country during the War of 1812. By 1815, peace treaties began to be established between the Americans, British, and Native Americans. The Native Americans lost more and more of their territory in Ohio. By 1830, the Shawnee, Ottawa, Wyandot, and Seneca were the only tribes remaining in Ohio. These tribes were contained on reservations in northwest Ohio. By the middle 1800s, the last of the Ohio Native Americans signed treaties and were removed from the Ohio region.

Perry County History

Because of the nature of the Northwest Territory’s settlement and Ohio’s many re-drawings from that time to well after statehood, the land presently known as Perry County has been part of many border changes and land swaps. Clement Martzolff explains the transformations in his history of the county. Gov. St. Clair originally established today’s Perry, along with the rest of the eastern part of the state, as a small 8 part of Washington County in 1788 as part of the platting of the Northwest Territory. Just prior to statehood, much of Perry’s lands went to form part of the new Fairfield County in December of 1800. Muskingum took a small part of what would become Perry at its creation in 1804. Perry finally recognized its own bounds December 26, 1817 claiming the lands we now know from the three previous custodians with the only change to its borders coming in 1837 with the annexation of lands south of Buckeye Lake from Licking County (Graham 1883; Martzolff 1902).

The first Caucasian settler in the county, Christian Binckley, settled in the New Reading area in 1801. The first settlers were mainly Pennsylvania Germans who made their living in agriculture. Between 1820 and 1869, Irish, Scots-Irish, and Welsh immigrants settled in the county working as coal miners or in iron furnaces. Small towns such as New Reading, which sprung up in 1805, Thornville in 1811, and the county seat of New Lexington in 1817, quickly established themselves with these new comers. Perry, named for Oliver Hazard Perry, gained its place as an Ohio county formed on December 26, 1817. New Lexington became the official county seat forty years later. Agriculture, the first industry of economic importance, began to be replaced by mining in the 1850’s and was overtaken by the end of World War II (Graham 1883; Martzolff 1902).

The first industries in the county were mills, which appeared during the early 1800s and became widespread within the next decade throughout the county along its several creeks and streams. Other resources include coal, clay, salt, limestone, and iron ore, which early residents mined and used in subsistence. During the 1830s, commercial coal mining began on a small scale, growing to a strong industry with the advent of railroads in the 1850’s. The Cincinnati, Wilmington, and Zanesville Railroad was the first railroad built in the county in 1854 and was followed by several additional lines in the 1870s and 1880s, such as the Old Scioto and Hocking Valley Railroad (completed in 1871). Besides increasing coal production, the rail lines stimulated the development of businesses in nearby towns. In 1871 and 1872, the towns of Shawnee and New Straitsville were laid out as a result of mining activities. During the late 1800s, seven iron blast furnaces built in the county, became economically important to the county’s iron industry. Baird's Furnace, the Fannie XX Furnace, New York Furnace, Bessie Furnace, and the Moxahala Furnace are some of the more notable of these furnaces. Iron furnaces slowly became obsolete during the late 1880s and abandoned entirely in the early twentieth century (Graham 1883; Martzolff 1902). Traditional coal mining has given way to strip mining during the later twentieth century (Perry County Historical Society [PCHS] 1980).

Other significant industries, such as ceramics, limestone quarrying and lime production, and oil wells had their start in the 1800s. Limestone quarries provided for roadbed construction and for the production and exportation of lime from the 1830s to 1885. The pottery and ceramic tile industry had its start in the 1840s. Pottery was made at most of the major towns during the 1800s, but by the 1880s pottery manufacture mostly occurred in eastern Perry County (Graham 1883; Martzolff 1902). Oil wells started within the county in 1892, but have declined in production during the twentieth century. Today, the most significant businesses are ceramic tile and clay companies, coal mining, and machinery manufacturing (PCHS 1980). 9

Pike Township History

Pike Township is located in the central part of Perry County and includes the county seat, New Lexington. The township’s namesake is General Pike, an officer of the Revolutionary War (Martzolff 1902). Some of the earliest settlers in the area include John Fowler and James Thrall arriving around 1810. There were many other families that arrived and settled about the area prior to 1820. The terrain in the township ranges from rolling to rugged as it is within the unglaciated plateau region. The watershed between the Muskingum and Hocking River drainages bisects the township. Rush Creek extends to Tunnel Hill and accounts for the Hocking River aspect of this watershed. The underlying bedrock of the township contains two seams of coal, which is highly desirable for its low sulfur content. The presence and accessibility of this coal was a focus of the late nineteenth century economy extending into the modern era. Large surface mining operations have been opened at the headwaters of the Rush Creek Valley to acquire this resource (Graham 1883; Perry County Historical Society [PCHS] 1980).

Early industry in nearly every Ohio locality includes agriculture and associated enterprises. The first mill of Pike Township was built by Nathaniel Rush on Fowler’s Run, which would have dated from the early part of the nineteenth century. G. Granger built a mill nearby at a later date. Other mills began to spring up along Rush Creek, which were owned by the Comly’s. This is the commercial foundation for New Lexington. Flouring mills and sawmills sprang up in the middle part of the nineteenth century (Graham 1883). The blacksmith, tannery, and liquor establishments were usually contained within New Lexington. Industry and commerce in the latter part of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century was stimulated by the Cincinnati and Muskingum Valley Railroad and the Ohio Central Railroad.

Early religious institutions in the township include: Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, and Methodists. The Saint Aloysius Academy is associated with the Catholics and was organized in the 1870s. It was operated by the Sisters of the Franciscan Order and functioned as a school. It was located outside of New Lexington about .75 miles (Graham 1883).

The oldest town in the township is Bristol, which was laid out in 1816. New Lexington, the county seat, is the focus of commerce, settlement, and industry in the township. It was named after a Revolutionary War hero. The first school was built in present day New Lexington around 1815. Around 1830, school districts were formed that increased the amount of schools in the county/township (Graham 1883; PCHS 1980).

Today, the township’s focus remains on coal and mineral exploitation and agriculture. The population is basically stable, but there is not much in the way of industry to retain the upcoming generations.

Clayton Township History

Clayton Township was first organized in 1810 as part of Muskingum County although later in 1817 it became part of Perry County. The terrain of the township varies 10 from rugged uplands to gently rolling nearer the drainages, especially those of the Rush Creek Valley. The first settler was probably Robert Pherson in 1806. Most of these early settlers of the township arrived from Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland (Graham 1883; Martzolff 1902).

Agriculture was the most significant economy of the township during the early 1800s. Wheat, fruit growing, sheep and tobacco were important products. Lumbering was also considerable, and as a result both sawmills and grist mills were built in the 1810s. The town of Rehobeth was laid out in 1815 and grew in importance because of the tobacco trade. The town had several stores and businesses but growth slowed after 1842 with the decline of tobacco sales. Redfield became a prominent village in the late 1800s with the rise of coal mining and because the Columbus and Eastern Railroad passed through it. Coal mining became increasingly important in the late 1800s. One of the earliest coal mines in the county was operated by a Frenchman, Dr. Ponjade, near Rehobeth (Graham 1883; Martzolff 1902).

Presently, Clayton Township remains a rural township. Strip mining and agriculture are the dominant economical pursuits. The Rehobeth and Gosline communities are reflective of former coal activities. The Oxford Mining Company, Inc. has been involved with large-scale mining operations in the vicinity of Rehobeth and near Tunnel Ridge Road.

Research Design

The purpose of a Phase I survey is to locate and identify cultural resources that will be affected within the proposed construction limits of this project. This includes archaeological deposits as well as architectural properties that are older than 50 years. Once these resources are identified and sampled, they are evaluated for their eligibility or potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These investigations are directed to answer or address the following questions:

1) Did the literature review reveal anything that suggests the project corridors had been previously surveyed and what is the relationship of previously recorded properties to the project area? 2) Are cultural resources likely to be identified in the project area?

These questions are addressed in a section following the literature review.

Archaeological Field Methods

The survey conducted within the project area used three methods of sampling and testing to identify and evaluate cultural resources. These included shovel test unit excavation, shovel probes, and visual inspection.

Shovel test unit excavation. Shovel test units were excavated throughout the project area. These units were spaced at about 15 m intervals (50 ft). Units are manually excavated until they extend 5 cm into the subsoil. Individual shovel test

11 units were documented regarding their depth, content, and color (Munsell). Wherever sites were identified, Munsell color readings were taken per shovel test unit. All of the undisturbed soil matrices from shovel test units were screened through .6 cm hardware mesh. Additional or radial shovel test units will be excavated in areas where cultural remains are identified. These will be placed at 7.5 m intervals and within the project area.

Shovel Probe. This method was used to delineate areas of disturbance. A shovel test probe measured 30 cm square and was excavated in areas where surface visibility is lacking, but disturbance is not evident on the surface. If natural soils are identified, the probe is expanded and sampled like a shovel test unit.

Visual Inspection. Severely disturbed locations such as mined landscape and those that were steeply sloped were inspected for cultural remains, rock shelters, utilized chert outcrops, mine adits, etc.

The application of the resulting field survey methods was documented in field notes, field maps, and permit maps.

Curation

There were no cultural materials identified during these investigations. Notes and maps affiliated with this Project will be maintained in Weller & Associates, Inc. files.

Literature Review

The literature review study area is considered to be a 1-mile area from the project. In conducting the literature review, the following resources were consulted at OHPO and the State Library of Ohio:

1) An Archeological Atlas of Ohio (Mills 1914); 2) OHPO United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ series topographic maps; 3) Ohio Archaeological Inventory (OAI) files; 4) Ohio Historic Inventory (OHI) files; 5) National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) files; 6) OHPO CRM/contract archaeology files; and 7) OHPO consensus determination of eligibility files; and 8) Perry County atlases, histories, historic USGS 15’series topographic map(s), and current USGS 7.5’ series topographic map(s); 9) Ohio Genealogical and cemetery map resources.

12 Mills Atlas

A review of An Archeological Atlas of Ohio (Mills 1914) was conducted. There are no related sites located in the vicinity of this project.

The Ohio Archaeological Inventory (OAI) files

The OHPO topographic maps and in-house records were inspected and reviewed to determine if there were any previously recorded sites within or near the project area. There are 11 previously identified archaeological sites identified within the study area (Table 2). These sites are somewhat telling about the nature of the prehistoric period activity in the area. There are two sites that were interpreted as being quarries (33PE142 and 33PE894) and two sites that are regarded as prehistoric lithic workshops (33PE591 and 33PE898). There is one site that has a historic period component, but appears to be unassigned to a specific temporal period. Recorded prehistoric period temporal components include Middle Woodland (1), Early Woodland (1), Late Archaic (2), Early Archaic (2), and Paleoindian (1). Numerous sites are known from this area relative to locations that have been investigated; this is especially true of the coal mine fields that are east of the community of Rehobeth.

Table 2. Ohio Archaeological Inventory sites identified in the study area. Site # Site Name General Temporal Period Site Type Site Affiliation Size Yarger Unassigned Quarry Prehistoric PE0142 Workshop PE0219 Prehistoric Early Archaic Artifact Scatter Early and Middle Artifact Scatter Prehistoric PE0291 Woodland PE0501 Prehistoric Unassigned Artifact Scatter 225 Perry Early and Late Archaic Prehistoric workshop Prehistoric PE0591 Campus 900 PE0681 Prehistoric Unassigned Artifact Scatter 68 PE0682 Prehistoric Unassigned Artifact Scatter 1575 New Paleoindian Quarry Lexington Prehistoric Flint PE0894 Quarries Prehistoric & Late Archaic & Historic Prehistoric workshop

PE0898 Historic 8129

Ohio Historic Inventory (OHI)

The OHI files did not indicate any previously recorded OHIs within the project area. There is one resource located within the study area including the Perry County Infirmary (PER0000908); this resource is further listed on the NRHP. This is not located in the vicinity of the project area.

National Register of Historic Places/Determination of Eligibility Files

A review of the NRHP files and determinations of eligibility (DOE) files did not indicate any resources within the project area. There was one architectural site,

13 PER0000908 (Serial #997221), identified within the study area that is not near the project.

OHPO CRM/contract archaeology files

There were five Phase I surveys completed within the study area (Murphy 1992, 1996; Keener 2004; Derick 2011; Chidester 2012). There have been two Phase II archaeological assessments completed for sites that were identified in the area. Soldo (2004) completed investigations for 33PE682; this site was not considered to be significant. Brown (2011) completed assessment investigations at 33PE898, a Late Archaic ‘workshop’. None of these previous surveys involve the current project area.

OGS Cemeteries

A review of the online OHC resources was conducted to determine if there were any cemeteries located near the project. One Cemetery, the Van Sickle Cemetery, is located within the study area but outside the project.

Atlas & Cartographic Maps

The historic atlases were reviewed in order to see if past buildings/structures were located in or immediately adjacent to the project area and who might have owned these parcels (Figure 5). The northern part of the project area that is in Clayton Township was owned by Curtis Rugg (Lake 1875). The western portion, and majority, of the project area was owned by J. Kessler (Lake 1875). There is a residence on the Kessler property that appears to be close to the project area. The remaining portion of the Project, to the east, was owned by Marry Higgins; the Higgins residence is depicted well south of the Project. A review of the USGS 1910 New Lexington 15-Minute Series (Topographic) map does not indicate any residences, or other structures, in the vicinity of the Project (Figure 6). The modern USGS 7.5 New Lexington 7.5-Minute Series (topographic map) does not indicate any buildings within the project area (Figure 2).

Evaluation of Research Questions 1 and 2

Based on the results of the literature review, the research questions can be addressed.

1) Did the literature review reveal anything that suggests the project corridors had been previously surveyed and what is the relationship of previously recorded properties to the project area? 2) Are cultural resources likely to be identified in the project area?

The project area is located in an unnamed tributary valley within the Rush Creek drainage. This valley appears to have been affected by glacial activity, as lacustrine deposition from a plugged valley. The valley is wider than typical of unglaciated situations. The soils in the area are mostly associated with low-lying types that are at 14 least occasionally inundated by flooding. The Glenford series soils are indicative of terrace formation and is indicative of a landform that is more likely to harbor prehistoric period materials. This region is known for the presence of chert outcrops, particularly Upper Mercer (Stout and Schoenlaub 1945). Numerous prehistoric period sites have been identified in the coal fields that are east of Rehobeth (east of the project area).

Archaeological Survey Results

The field investigations for this project were conducted on January 15 and May 18, 2016 (Figures 7-11). Generally, the weather was warmer than usual during the winter with temperatures extending into the mid-40s F. The ground was not frozen, though there were patches of snow present in the open field areas. Conditions during the latter time of survey was partly sunny with temperatures in the mid-60s Fahrenheit. These investigations were conducted under good and suitable weather conditions. These investigations involved shovel testing and visual inspection. However, subsurface means of sampling were applicable throughout the undisturbed aspect of the project area. Visual inspection was conducted in parts of the project area that exhibited slopes greater than 15 percent or soils in standing water. The Project is located within deciduous forest which is bisected by an existing electric line corridor in the south (Figures 8 and 9). The unnamed perennial stream that extends through this valley bisects the central portion of the Project. No archaeological sites or aboveground resources were identified during these investigations.

The datum for these investigations was established in the northwest corner of the project area where the deciduous forest meets with an agricultural field (Figure 7). The testing extended to the south of this datum and to the west. Shovel testing was the primary method used in conducting the field investigations where the area was not in standing water or definitively disturbed.

There were conditions experienced within the project area that were not suitable for testing. Severe disturbance was identified in the northeast part of the project where dozed piles of topsoil were recorded (Figure 10). This part of the project was visually inspected. Standing water and designated wetland conditions prevented archaeological testing in the northcentral and southwest portions of the project area (Figure 11). Severely sloping conditions were recorded in the southwest portion of the project area as well.

The testing in the project area encountered plow zone-depth topsoils ranging from 22-28 cm below ground surface (Figure 12). Deeper and rock-free topsoils were present in the southern part of the project and nearer the stream channel. The topsoil in the majority of the examined areas was brown (10YR4/3) silt loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) silt loam as subsoil. The interface between plow zone and sub plow horizons was gradual. There were 110 shovel test units and 5 shovel probes excavated during these investigations. No cultural material was identified during the shovel testing or visual inspections.

15

APE Definition and NRHP Determination

The APE is a term that must be applied on an individual project basis. The nature of the project or undertaking is considered in determining the APE. This may include areas that are off the property or outside of the actual project’s boundaries to account for possible visual impacts. The APE includes the footprint of the project and a limited area surrounding it. The project will involve the construction of a 138kV tap transmission line at this location. This will be constructed within a 5.61 ha (13.86 ac) area. It is located in a rural, upland landscape and is situated within a narrow valley. These investigations did not identify any archaeological sites or aboveground resources. There are no significant cultural resources located within view of this project; including both archaeological and architectural.

In consideration of the footprint of the planned construction activities, no further work is considered to be necessary for this project.

Recommendations

In January and May of 2016, Weller & Associates, Inc. completed a Phase I archaeological investigations for the proposed 5.61 ha (13.86 ac) Clouse Station Tap Line Project in Pike and Clayton Townships, Perry County, Ohio. The field investigations for this project involved subsurface testing and visual inspection. No archaeological sites were identified as a result of these investigations. These are not regarded as being significant archaeological deposits. There are no buildings older than 50 years involved in this project, either directly or from a view shed perspective. The planned construction will not involve any significant cultural resources. No further cultural resource management work is considered to be necessary.

16 References Cited

Baby, R. S., and M. A. Potter 1965 “The Cole Complex: A Preliminary Analysis of the Late Woodland Ceramics in Ohio and Their Relationship to the Ohio Hopewell Phase.” In: Papers in Archaeology of the Ohio Historical Society, February 1965, No. 2. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

Bamforth, D. 1988 Ecology and Human Organization on the Great Plains. Plenum, New York.

Barkes, B. M. 1982 Analysis of Late Woodland Ceramics from the Decco (33DL28), Ufferman (33DL12), and W. S. Cole (33DL11) Sites: The Cole Complex Reconsidered. Copy available at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus.

Brockman, C. 1998 Physiographic Regions of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus.

Brose, D. S. 1994 “Archaeological Investigations at the Paleo Crossing Site, a Paleoindian Occupation in Medina County, Ohio.” In: The First Discovery of America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Ohio Area, edited by W. S. Dancey, pp. 61-76. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Brown, J. 2011 Phase II Evaluative Testing for Site 33-PE-898 Located in the Village of New Lexington (formerly Pike Township), Perry County, Ohio. EMH&T, Inc. Copy available for review from Ohio History Central.

Chidester, R. C. 2012 (Short Format Report) Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of a Proposed Point-of-Presence Equipment Hut in the Village of New Lexington, Pike Township, Perry County, Ohio. Mannik & Smith Group, Inc. Copy available for review from Ohio History Central.

Converse, R. 1994 Ohio Flint Types. The Archaeological Society of Ohio, Columbus.

Core, E. 1966 Vegetation of West Virginia. McClain, Parsons, West Virginia.

Cowan, W. C. 1987 First Farmers of the Middle Ohio Valley: Fort Ancient Societies, A.D. 1000-1670. The Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati.

17 Cramer, A. 1989 The Dominion Land Company Site: An Early Adena Mortuary Manifestation in Franklin County, Ohio. M.A. Thesis, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.

Cunningham, R. M. 1973 “Paleo Hunters along the Ohio River.” In: Archaeology of Eastern North America 1(1): 116-118. Eastern States Archeological Federation, Bethlehem, Connecticut.

Dancey, W. S. 1992 “Village Origins in Central Ohio: The Results and Implications of Recent Middle and Late Woodland Research.” In: Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by M. F. Seeman, pp. 24-29. Special Papers 7, Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

DeRegnaucourt, T. and J. Georgiady 1998 Prehistoric Chert Types of the Midwest. Hothem House, Lancaster.

Derick, S. 2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Approximately 1.8 ha (4.5 ac) Family Healthcare of Perry County, Inc. Facility Located Within a 23 ha (57 acre) Parcel in the Village of New Lexington, Perry County, Ohio. EMH&T, Inc. Copy available for review from Ohio History Central.

Dragoo, D. 1976 “Some Aspects of Eastern North American Prehistory: A Review 1975.” In: American Antiquity 41(1):3-27. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

Drooker, P. B. 1997 “The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns.” In: Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 31. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Fitting, J. 1963 “The Hi-Lo Site: A Paleo-Indian Site in Western Michigan.” In: Wisconsin Archaeologist 44:87-96. Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin.

Flenniken, J. and E. Garrison 1975 Thermally Altered Novaculite and Stone Tool Manufacturing Techniques. Journal of Field Archaeology. 2: 125-131.

Flint, N. K. 1951 Geology of Perry County. Fourth Series, Bulletin 48 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus.

18 Forsyth, J. L. 1970 “A Geologist Looks at the Natural Vegetation Map of Ohio.” In: The Ohio Journal of Science 70(s):180-191. The Ohio Academy of Science, Columbus.

Gordon, R. B. 1969 “The Natural Vegetation of Ohio in Pioneer Days.” In: Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, New Series 3(2). Ohio State University, Columbus.

1966 Natural Vegetation of Ohio at the Time of the Earliest Land Surveys. Ohio Biological Survey and the Natural Resources Institute of the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Graham, A. A. 1883 History of Fairfield and Perry counties, Ohio. W. H. Beers, Chicago.

Justice, N. 1987 Stone Age Spears and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Keener, C. S. 2004 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Survey of a Proposed Cell Tower (New Lexington Site) in Pike Township, Perry County, Ohio. Professional Archaeological Services Team. Copy available for review from Ohio History Central.

Lafferty, M. B. 1979 Ohio’s Natural Heritage. Ohio Academy of Science, Columbus.

Lake, D. 1875 Atlas of Perry County, Ohio. Titus, Simmons & Titus, Philadelphia.

Little, B. E., M. Seibert, J. Townsend, J. H. Sprinkle, Jr., and J. Knoerl 2000 National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Mahr, A. C. 1949 “A Chapter of Early Ohio Natural History.” In: Ohio Journal of Science 49(1). The Ohio Academy of Science, Columbus.

Martzolff, C. L. 1902 History of Perry County, Ohio. Ward & Weiland, New Lexington, Ohio.

McDonald, H. 1994 “The Late Pleistocene Vertebrate Fauna in Ohio: Coinhabitants with Ohio’s Paleoindians.” In: The First Discovery of America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Ohio Area, edited by W. S. Dancey, pp. 23-41. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

19 Mills, W. C. 1914 An Archeological Atlas of Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus.

Murphy, J. L. 1992 A PHASE I AND PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PROPOSED COAL MINING AREA, CLAYTON TOWNSHIP, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO, PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 1192. Copy available for review from Ohio History Central.

1996 A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PORTION OF THE HOCKING COLLEGE PERRY CAMPUS, NEW LEXINGTON, PIKE TOWNSHIP, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO. Copy available for review from Ohio History Central.

Ohio Historic Preservation Office 1994 Archaeology Guidelines. Ohio Historic Preservation Office with the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

Pacheco, P. 1996 “Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Patterns.” In: A View From The Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by P. Pacheco, pp. 16-35. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Pavey, R.R., R.P. Goldthwait, C.S. Brockman, D.N. Huyll, E. MacSwinford, and R.G. Van Horn 1999 Quaternary Geology of Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey Map No. 2. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus.

Perry County Historical Society 1980 History of Perry County, Ohio. Perry County Historical Society, New Lexington, OH; Taylor Publishing, Paoli, PA.

Potter, M. A. 1966 “Cole Ceramics: A Study of Late Woodland Pottery.” Unpublished M.A. thesis on file at the Ohio Historical Society, Department of Archaeology, Columbus.

Pratt, G. M., and D. R. Bush 1981 Archaeological Resource Management in Ohio: A State Plan for Archaeology (Draft). Copy available for review at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus.

Prufer, O. H., and D. A. Long 1986 “The Archaic of Northeastern Ohio.” In: Kent Research Papers in Archaeology, No. 6, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

20 Shane, L. 1987 “Late-glacial Vegetational and Climatic History of the Allegheny Plateau and the Till Plains of Ohio and Indiana, U.S.A.” In: Boreas 16:1-20. The Boreas Collegium, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Edinburgh.

Sheaffer, C., and M. A. Rose 1998 The Native Plants of Ohio, Bulletin 865. The Ohio State University Extension (College of Food, Agricultural & Environmental Sciences) Department of Horticulture. Electronic document, http://ohioline.osu.edu/b865/b865_01.html, accessed November 28, 2005.

Soldo, D. 2004 A Phase II Archaeological Survey of Site 33PE682, Pike Township, Perry County, Ohio. American Archaeological Services LTD. Copy available for review from Ohio History Central.

Stafford, R. 1994 “Structural Changes in Archaic Landscape Use in the Dissected Uplands of Southwestern Indiana.” In: American Antiquity, 59:219-237. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

Stout, W. and R. A. Schoenlaub 1945 The Occurrence of Flint in Ohio. Fourth Series, Bulletin 46. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.

Tankersley, K. 1994 “Was Clovis a Colonizing Population in Eastern North America?” In: The First Discovery of America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Ohio Area, edited by W. S. Dancey, pp. 95-116. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

1989 “Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation and Human Settlement Patterns in the Midwestern United States.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Tanner, H. 1987 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Trautman, M. B. 1981 The Fishes of Ohio. The Ohio State University Press, Columbus.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1988 Survey of Perry County, Ohio. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soils, and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Columbus.

21 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1997 National Register Bulletin; How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Webb, W. S., and R. S. Baby 1963 The Adena People No. 2. The Ohio Historical Society, The Ohio State University Press, Columbus.

Weller, R. J. 2005a Data Recovery at the Haven Site (33DL1448) Located in Liberty Township, Delaware County, Ohio. Weller & Associates. Submitted to the Delaware County Sanitary Engineer’s Office. Copy available for review at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

2005b Data Recovery at the Knowlton Site (33DL1450) Located in Liberty Township, Delaware County, Ohio. Weller & Associates. Submitted to the Delaware County Sanitary Engineer’s Office. Copy available for review at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

2016 Phase I Archaeological Investigations for the Proposed 2.25 ha (5.55 ac) Clouse Station Project in Pike and Clayton Townships, Perry County, Ohio. Weller & Associates. Submitted to American Electric Power. Copy available for review at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

Weller Von Molsdorff, R. J. 2003 Data Recovery at Site 33PE642, the Rehobeth Site, within the D-1986-5 Application Area in Clayton Township, Perry County, Ohio. Applied Archaeological Services, Inc. Copy available for review from the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus.

22

Figures

23

Project

Figure 1. Political map of Ohio showing the approximate location of the project.

Figure 2. Portion of the USGS 1992 New Lexington, Ohio 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) map indicating the location of the project and previously recorded resources in the study area.

Figure 3. Aerial map indicating the location of the project and previously recorded resources in the study area.

Figure 4. Project plan map.

Project

Figure 5. Portion of the Atlas of Perry County, Ohio (Lake 1875) indicating the approximate location of the Project Area.

Project

Figure 6. Portion of the USGS 1910 New Lexington, Ohio Quadrangle 15 Minute Series map indicating the approximate location of the project.

Figure 7. Aerial fieldwork map of the project indicating the results of testing and photo orientations

Figure 8. View of Project Area showing vegetation and stream, looking east.

Figure 9. View of existing corridor within Project Area, looking northeast.

Figure 10. View of the disturbed conditions within the eastern portion of the project, looking northeast.

Figure 11. View of standing water within the project, looking east.

Schematic of a Test Unit Profile

Newark silt loam (New1AF)

Ap 10YR4/3 Brown silt loam

B 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown silty clay

Scale Provenience: 105S, 15E Depth to Subsoil: 26 cm 0cm 40cm 10cm 20cm 30cm 50cm Excavator: RW

Figure 12. A typical shovel test unit excavated within the project.

CONSTRUCTION NOTICE FOR CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT

Appendix C Ecological Features Inventory Report November 22, 2016

Ecological Features Inventory Report

AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension November 22, 2016 16-1731-EL-BNR Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project, Perry County, Ohio

Ecological Features Inventory Report

Prepared for: American Electric Power 700 Morrison Road Gahanna, OH 43230

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 11687 Lebanon Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45241

July 25, 2016

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 METHODS ...... 1 2.1 WETLAND DELINEATION ...... 1 2.2 STREAM DELINEATION ...... 1 2.3 RARE SPECIES ...... 1

3.0 RESULTS ...... 2 3.1 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT ...... 2 3.2 WETLANDS ...... 4 3.3 STREAMS ...... 5 3.4 RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT ...... 6

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 8

5.0 REFERENCES ...... 9

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Found within the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio ...... 2 Table 2. Summary of Wetland Resources Found within the Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio ...... 4 Table 3. Summary of Stream Resources Found within the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio ...... 5 Table 4. Summary of Potential Ohio State-Listed Species within the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio...... 6 Table 5. Summary of Potential Federally Listed Species within the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio...... 7

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FIGURES ...... A.1 A.1 FIgure 1 – Project Location Map ...... A.1 A.2 Figure 2 – Wetland & Waterbody Delineation Map ...... A.2 A.3 Figure 3 – Habitat Assessment Map ...... A.3

APPENDIX B AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ...... B.1

APPENDIX C REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS ...... C.1

APPENDIX D DATA FORMS ...... D.1 D.1 Wetland Determination Data Forms ...... D.1 D.2 ORAM Data Forms ...... D.2 D.3 HHEI and QHEI Data Forms ...... D.3

i CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

1.0 INTRODUCTION

American Electric Power (AEP) is proposing to extend an existing 138kV transmission line to the proposed Clouse Station facility in Perry County, Ohio (Figure 1, Appendix A). The proposed Project area is located just north of New Lexington, Ohio, between State Route 13 and Old Somerset Road. The Project will include a construction workspace and associated easements. The Project area (Figure 1, Appendix A) was surveyed for wetlands, waterbodies, and potential threatened, endangered, and rare species habitat by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) biologists on January 15, February 5, March 13, and May 13, 2016.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 WETLAND DELINEATION

Prior to conducting field surveys, a desktop review of the Project area was conducted using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys, and aerial imagery mapping. Stantec completed a wetland delineation study in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2012). Wetland categories were classified using the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method (ORAM) for Wetlands Version 5.0 (Mack 2001). The boundary of each wetland was identified and surveyed using a handheld sub-meter accuracy GPS unit and mapped with GIS software.

2.2 STREAM DELINEATION

Streams that demonstrated a defined channel (bed and bank), ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and the disturbance of terrestrial vegetation were delineated within the Project area (USACE 2005). Delineated streams were classified as ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial per definitions in the Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 10 (USACE 2002). Functional assessment of streams within the Project area was based on completion of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s (OEPA) Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI) (OEPA 2012) and/or Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) (OEPA 2006). The centerline of each waterway was identified and surveyed using a handheld sub-meter accuracy GPS unit and mapped with GIS software.

2.3 RARE SPECIES

Prior to conducting the field surveys, Stantec contacted the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for information regarding rare, threatened, or endangered species and their habitats of concern within the vicinity of the Project area (Appendix B – Agency Correspondence). To assess potential impacts to rare,

1

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

threatened, or endangered species, Stantec scientists conducted a pedestrian reconnaissance of the proposed Project area, collected information on existing habitat within the Project area and assessed the potential for these habitats to be used by these species.

3.0 RESULTS

Stantec completed field surveys on January 15, February 5, March 13, and May 12, 2016, for wetlands, waterbodies, and threatened and endangered species or their habitat. Figure 2 (Appendix A) shows the delineated wetland and waterbodies identified within the Project area and Figure 3 (Appendix A) shows the habitats identified within the Project area during rare, threatened, and endangered species habitat assessment surveys. Representative photographs of the wetlands, streams, and other habitats identified within the Project area are included in Appendix C of this report (photograph locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3, Appendix A). Completed wetland determination, ORAM, QHEI, and HHEI data forms are included in Appendix D. 3.1 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT

Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Found within the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio

Unique, Rare, Acres Within Vegetative Communities and Land Degree of Human-Related Ecological or High Project Study Cover Types within the Study Area: Disturbance Quality? Area Intermediate Disturbance (dominated by plants that typify a stable phase of a Second Growth Riparian Forest No 2.09 native community that persists under some disturbance) Area is seeded with a mix of native and non-native herbaceous species such as fescues, bromes, and orchard grass New Field No 0.61 area within existing right-of-way is intermittently mowed/sprayed to prevent growth of woody species.

Highly disturbed and seasonally plowed Agricultural Row Crop Field for row crop use (barren ground when No 0.28 outside of growing season).

Intermediate Disturbance (dominated by plants that typify a stable phase of a Palustrine Forested Wetland (PFO) No 0.47 native community that persists under some disturbance). Early successional stage wetlands forming from fallow crop land or pasture; made up of sedges, rushes, Palustrine Emergent Wetland (PEM) No 0.05 and goldenrods (Solidago spp.); susceptible to invasive plant species such as reed canarygrass (Phalaris

2

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

arundinaceus) and cattails (Typha spp.).

Total 3.50

3

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

3.2 WETLANDS

Table 2. Summary of Wetland Resources Found within the Clouse Station 138kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio

Delineated Wetland Photo Wetland ORAM ORAM Area (acres) Isolated? Name Numbers1 Classification2 Score5 Category within Project Area

12, 13 No PFO3 0.33 2 Wetland 1 44 (Modified) 14, 15 No PEM4 0

Wetland 2 18 No PFO3 47 2 0.14

21 No PFO3 0 Wetland 3 47 2 22 No PEM4 0.05

Wetland 4 24 No PEM4 28 1 0

1 Appendix C – Representative Photographs 2 Wetland classification is based on Cowardin et al. (1979). 3 PFO = Palustrine Forested Wetland 4 PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland 5 ORAM Score and Category are based on the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 5.0 (Mack 2001).

4

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

3.3 STREAMS

Table 3. Summary of Stream Resources Found within the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio

Delineated Stream Stream OHWM Stream Photo Receiving Stream Flow Length (feet) Evaluation Evaluation Width Name Numbers1 Waters Regime within Project Method Score (feet)2 Area

Stream 1 1,2,4,5 Rush Creek Perennial QHEI 59/65.5 8.0/15.1 483 Stream 2 6,7 Rush Creek Intermittent HHEI 37 2.4/1.0 0 Stream 3 8,9 Rush Creek Intermittent HHEI 16 1.5 67 Stream 4 10,11 Rush Creek Intermittent HHEI 33 1.8 0 1Appendix C – Representative Photographs 2 OHWM = Ordinary High Water Mark

5

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

3.4 RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT

Table 4. Summary of Potential Ohio State-Listed Species within the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio

Known Habitat Known to Within One State1 Observed ODNR Common Name Scientific Name Perry Mile of Habitat Preference Impact Assessment Listing in Project Comments/Recommendations County? Project Area? Area?2 American burying beetles have been documented in several vegetation types, including native grassland, grazed pasture, riparian zones, coniferous forest, mature forest, and oak-hickory forest, as well as on a variety of This species is not known to soil types (USFWS 1991). Ecosystems supporting occur within the Project vicinity populations of this species are diverse and include and habitats within the Project Due to the habitat requirements forest, scrub-shrub, forest edge, grassland, prairie, area are not similar to others in American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus E Yes No Yes of this species, the project is not riparian areas, mountain slopes, and maritime scrub Ohio currently known to likely to impact this species. communities (USFWS 1991; USFWS 2014). The American support this species. Therefore, burying beetle is a habitat generalist and readily moves no impacts to this species are between different habitats. However, they are believed anticipated. to have more selective breeding habitat (suitable soils and vegetation layer) compared to their feeding habitat (USFWS 2014). This bat is likely distributed throughout Ohio, though not uniformly. It generally forages in openings and edge habitats within upland and floodplain forest, but they also forage over old fields and pastures (Brack et al. ODNR recommends clearing 2010). Natural roost structures include trees (live or trees between October 1 and dead) with exfoliating bark, and exposure to solar AEP proposes to remove trees March 31 to avoid potential radiation. Other important factors for roost trees include between October 1 and adverse effects to this species; if relative location to other trees, a permanent water Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E Yes No Yes March 31. Therefore, no trees must be cut in the summer source and foraging areas. Dead trees are preferred as impacts to this species are months, ODNR recommends a maternity roosts; however, live trees are often used as anticipated. mist net survey between June 1 secondary roosts depending on microclimate conditions and August 15 – prior to tree (USFWS 2007, USFWS 2016a). Roosts have occasionally cutting. been cracks and hollows in trees, utility poles, buildings, and bat boxes. Primarily use caves for hibernacula, although are also known to hibernate in abandoned underground mines (Brack et al. 2010). Wide variety of heavily wooded habitats, ranging from No occurrences of this species swamps and wetlands to dry upland hardwood and are known from the project Due to the mobility of this Black bear Ursus americanus E Yes No coniferous forests. Although they will utilize open areas, Yes vicinity. Due to the mobility of species, the project is not likely bears prefer wooded cover with a dense understory this species, no impacts are to impact the black bear. (NatureServe 2016). anticipated. 1 E= Endangered; T= Threatened 2 According to correspondence from ODNR Natural Heritage Database (Appendix B).

6 CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

Table 5. Summary of Potential Federally Listed Species within the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Area, Perry County, Ohio

Known to Federal Habitat Observed in Common Name Scientific Name Perry Habitat Preference Impact Assessment Potential for Occurrence Listing Project Area? County?

This species is not American burying beetles have been documented in several vegetation known to occur types, including native grassland, grazed pasture, riparian zones, coniferous within the Project forest, mature forest, and oak-hickory forest, as well as on a variety of soil vicinity and habitats types (USFWS 1991). Ecosystems supporting populations of this species are within the Project Due to the type, size and diverse and include forest, scrub-shrub, forest edge, grassland prairie, riparian area are not similar location of the project, areas, mountain slopes, and maritime scrub communities (USFWS 1991; USFWS American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus E Yes Yes to others in Ohio USFWS does not 2014). The American burying beetle is a habitat generalist and readily moves currently known to anticipate adverse between different habitats. However, they are believed to have more support this species. effects. selective breeding habitat (suitable soils and vegetation layer) compared to Therefore, no their feeding habitat (USFWS 2014). impacts to this species are anticipated.

AEP proposes to Due to the type, size and The northern long-eared bat is found throughout Ohio. This species generally remove trees location of the project, forages in forested habitat and openings in forested habitat and utilizes between October 1 and the proposed cracks, cavities, and loose bark within live and dead trees, as well as buildings and March 31; removal of trees between Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis T Yes as roosting habitat (Brack et al. 2010; USFWS 2016b). The species utilizes caves Yes Therefore, no October 1 and March 31, and abandoned mines as winter hibernacula. Various sized caves are used impacts to this USFWS does not providing they have a constant temperature, high humidity, and little to no air species are anticipate adverse current (Brack et al. 2010). anticipated. effects.

This bat is likely distributed throughout Ohio, though not uniformly. It generally forages in openings and edge habitats within upland and floodplain forest, but they also forage over old fields and pastures (Brack et al. 2010). Natural AEP proposes to Due to the type, size and roost structures include trees (live or dead) with exfoliating bark, and exposure remove trees location of the project, to solar radiation. Other important factors for roost trees include relative between October 1 and the proposed location to other trees, a permanent water source and foraging areas. Dead and March 31; removal of trees between Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E Yes Yes trees are preferred as maternity roosts; however, live trees are often used as Therefore, no October 1 and March 31, secondary roosts depending on microclimate conditions (USFWS 2007, USFWS impacts to this USFWS does not 2016a). Roosts have occasionally been cracks and hollows in trees, utility species are anticipate adverse poles, buildings, and bat boxes. Primarily use caves for hibernacula, although anticipated. effects. are also known to hibernate in abandoned underground mines (Brack et al. 2010). 1 E= Endangered; T= Threatened

7 CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Stantec conducted a wetland and waterbodies delineation and a preliminary habitat assessment for threatened and endangered species or their habitats within the Project area on January 15, February 5, March 13, and May 12, 2016, 2016. During the field surveys, two palustrine forested wetlands and one palustrine emergent wetland, altogether totaling approximately 0.52 acres, were identified in the Project area. Additionally, two streams totaling approximately 550 linear feet in length were identified within the Project area. Stream 1 is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as an impaired waterway (Waterbody ID: OH050302040102; USEPA 2016). Tables 2 and 3 have more information regarding the wetlands and streams identified within the Project area.

The information provided by Stantec regarding wetland and stream boundaries is based on an analysis of the wetland and upland conditions present within the Project area at the time of the fieldwork. The delineations were performed by experienced and qualified professionals using regulatory agency-accepted practices and sound professional judgment.

The Project area includes potential habitat for American burying beetle, Northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, and the black bear. However, no occurrences of any of these are known from the Project area or a one-mile radius of it, according to correspondence received from the ODNR (Appendix B). Additionally, due to the mobility of the black bear, this Project is not likely to impact these species. No occurrences or sign of these species were encountered during the field surveys.

The Project area includes potential roosting and foraging habitat for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat. However, the ODNR (Appendix B) has no records of these species within the Project area or a one-mile radius of it. Due to the presence of potential habitat for these species, the USFWS and ODNR recommends clearing trees between October 1 and March 31 to avoid potential adverse effects to these species. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months, the ODNR and USFWS recommended a bat mist net survey be conducted between June 1 and August 15, prior to any tree cutting (Appendix B). At this time, AEP anticipates clearing trees between October 1 and March 31.

The ODNR (Appendix B) is also unaware of any unique ecological sites, geological features, animal assemblages, scenic rivers, state wildlife areas, nature preserves, parks or forests, national wildlife refuges, or other protected natural areas within the Project area or a one-mile radius of it.

The ODNR recommended that impacts to wetlands and other water resources be avoided or minimized to the fullest extent possible, and that best management practices be utilized to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

8

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

5.0 REFERENCES

Brack, Virgil Jr., Dale W. Sparks, John O. Whitaker Jr., Brianne L. Walters, and Angela Boyer. 2010. Bats of Ohio. Indiana State University Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31.Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49:1- 241.

Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42.

Mack, J.J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands, Manual for Using Version 5.0. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin Wetland/2001-1-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401 Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, Ohio.

NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. U.S.A. Available at http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed June 2, 2016.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2006. Methods for Assessing Habitat in Flowing Waters: Using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water, Groveport, Ohio. 26 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2012. Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio’s Primary Headwater Habitat Streams, Version 3.0. Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio. 117 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. (TR Y-87-1). Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. Issuance of Nationwide Permits; Notice, 67 Fed. Reg. 10. January 15, 2002. Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the United States. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-01-15/pdf/02-539.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0), ed.

9

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

J.F. Berkowitz, J.S. Wakely R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Water Quality Assessment Report, 2010 Waterbody Report for Headwaters Rush Creek. Available at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_id=OH050302040102 &p_cycle=2010. Accessed January 20, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) recovery plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 80 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) draft recovery plan: First revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. American Burying Beetle Impact Assessment for Project Reviews. USFWS Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. 2016 Range-wide Indiana Bat Summer Survey Guidelines. Available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/surveys/pdf/2016IndianaBat SummerSurveyGuidelines11April2016.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016b. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS): Species Profile for Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Available online at https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A000. Accessed January 20, 2016.

10

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

Appendix A Figures

A.1 FIGURE 1 – PROJECT LOCATION MAP

A.1

Figure No. 1 Title Project Location Map

Client/Project American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project

Project Location 193704188 T16N, R15W, S32 Prepared by SF on 2016-07-19 T15N, R15W, S5 Technical Review by MP on 2016-07-19 Perry Co., OH Independent Review by DG on 2016-07-21

0 1,000 2,000 Feet $$ 1:24,000 (At original document size of 11x17) (¯ Legend

Project Area

State Route 345 Ne ST13 ST345

ST37

ST757 Muskingum

ST664 ST669 ¤£22

ST345 Morgan

Carroll St Fairfield Perry ST37

ST555

Tunnel Hill Rd ST668 Wilbren Rd ST312 ST93 Tile Plant Rd Se ST13 N State St Hocking

Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N W Water St 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, AEP 3. Background: USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangles

E Brown St S State St ST93

Page 01 of 01

R:\gis\other_PCs\193704188_ClouseStation\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\Eco_Report_Clouse_Station_Line_Extension_Project\Clouse_Station_Line_Extension_Figure1.mxdRevised: By: 2016-07-21 safoster Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

A.2 FIGURE 2 – WETLAND & WATERBODY DELINEATION MAP

A.2

Figure No. 2 Title Wetland & Waterbody E 31 · ! < . Delineation Map Client/Project

Stream 4 American Electric Power

. · Intermittent E Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project 11 .·10 E Project Location 193704188 T16N, R15W, S32 Prepared by SF on 2016-07-19

T15N, R15W, S5 Technical Review by MP on 2016-07-19

Perry Co., OH Independent Review by DG on 2016-07-21

. ·

· E 28 .

29 0 50 100

Feet $$ . · E 1:1,200 (At original document size of 11x17) ¯

30 .·

E (

· 17 Wetland 1, E 16 . E ST13 Legend PEM, Cat. !( 2 mod SP 3 Project Area

! < Tree Clearing Limits ! < E Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines

.·15 Existing 138 kV Transmission Line . · SP 2 14 !( Existing 69 kV Transmission Line

E !( Wetland Determination Sample Point ! <

! < Existing Culvert E Field Delineated Waterway 32·. Field Delineated Emergent Wetland Wetland 2, PFO, Stream 2 Intermittent Field Delineated Forested Wetland

Cat. 2 ! <

! <

SP 5 National Wetlands Inventory Feature*

E SP 4 !(

!( 100 Year Flood Zones* . · E

19 E Wetland 1, .·18 Wetland 4, PEM, PFO, Cat. 2 mod Photo Location

Cat. 1 .· .

SP 1 ·

.

E ·

· !( 13 . 12

E E 24 E SP 10 E !(

*No features within data frame .· E

33 E

.· .·7 27 SP 11 · . ·

. . SP 6 · 26 !(

E ST757 Muskingum

!( 20 E 8 6

.

Stream 3 ·.· . · · E . ST664 Intermittent 25 ST669 34 E 9 E Stream 1 E ¤£22 Perennial Stream 2 ST345 Stream 1 Intermittent Morgan . · E

Fairfield Perry

4 E Perennial ·

. 5 37 . E ST E · 2 ST555

1· . E . · ST668 ST312 ST93 35 E .· SP 9 3 ST13

Wetland 3, PFO, !( E Hocking Cat. 2 .· . · 23

SP 7 21 E !( Wetland 3, PFO, Notes SP 8 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Ohio South FIPS 3402 Feet Cat. 2 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, AEP, NADS, FEMA, USFWS .

· !( 3. Orthophotography: 2015 NAIP 22 E

Wetland 3,

PEM, Cat. 2

. 36 · E

Page 01 of 01

R:\gis\other_PCs\193704188_ClouseStation\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\Eco_Report_Clouse_Station_Line_Extension_Project\Clouse_Station_Line_Extension_Figure2_WetlandWaterbody.mxdRevised: 2016-07-21 safoster By: Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

A.3 FIGURE 3 – HABITAT ASSESSMENT MAP

A.3

Figure No. 3 Title Habitat Assessment Map

Client/Project American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project

Project Location 193704188 T16N, R15W, S32 Prepared by SF on 2016-07-20 T15N, R15W, S5 Technical Review by MP on 2016-07-20 Perry Co., OH Independent Review by DG on 2016-07-21

0 50 100 Feet $$ 1:1,200 (At original document size of 11x17) (¯ ST13 Legend !( Potential Bat Roost Tree

Project Area

Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines

Existing 138 kV Transmission Line

Existing 69 kV Transmission Line

Field Delineated Wetland

Field Delineated Waterway Habitat Type Agricultural Row Crop Field

Second Growth Riparian Forest !(

Wetland 2 !( !( PEM Wetland

PFO, Cat. 2 !( E PFO Wetland . · .·18 19 E !( New Field !( !( !( !( Wetland 1

!( PFO, Cat. 2 mod E *No parks, wildlife management areas or nature preserves

were identified within the Project Area or its vicinity. 33.· E (Sources: ODNR, USFS, USFWS, The Nature Conservancy, PADUS) !(

ST757 Muskingum

.8 ·· Stream 3 . !( ST664 Intermittent 9 ST669 ¤£22 Stream 1 E !( ST345 Perennial Morgan

Fairfield Perry

.· E 37 E ST 2 ST555 Stream 1

1.· E Perennial ST668 ST93

.· ST312

3 ST13 E Hocking .· 23 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Ohio North FIPS 3401 Feet 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, AEP, NADS 3. Orthophotography: 2015 NAIP Wetland 3 PEM, Cat. 2

Page 01 of 01

R:\gis\other_PCs\193704188_ClouseStation\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\Eco_Report_Clouse_Station_Line_Extension_Project\Clouse_Station_Line_Extension_Figure3_HabitatAssessment.mxd 2016-07-21 Revised: safoster By: Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

Appendix B Agency Correspondence

B.1

Ohio Division of Wildlife Raymond W. Petering, Chief 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg. G Columbus, OH 43229-6693 Phone: (614) 265-6300

January 27, 2016

Jesse Binau Stantec Consulting, Inc. 11687 Lebanon Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45241

Dear Mr. Binau,

I have reviewed the Natural Heritage Database for the Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension project area, including a one mile radius, in Pike Township, Perry County, Ohio. The numbers/letters on the list below correspond to the areas marked on the accompanying map.

A. Perry State Forest – ODNR Division of Forestry 1. Mixed Mesophytic Forest Plant Community

We are unaware of any geologic features, animal assemblages, scenic rivers, state wildlife areas, nature preserves or parks or national wildlife refuges, parks or forests within a one mile radius of the project area.

Our inventory program has not completely surveyed Ohio and relies on information supplied by many individuals and organizations. Therefore, a lack of records for any particular area is not a statement that rare species or unique features are absent from that area. This letter only represents a review of rare species and natural features data within the Ohio Natural Heritage Database. It does not fulfill coordination under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S. C. 661 et seq.) and does not supersede or replace the regulatory authority of any local, state or federal agency nor relieve the applicant of the obligation to comply with any local, state or federal laws or regulations.

Please contact me at 614-265-6818 if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Debbie Woischke Ohio Natural Heritage Program Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project

A

1

Office of Real Estate Paul R. Baldridge, Chief 2045 Morse Road – Bldg. E-2 Columbus, OH 43229 Phone: (614) 265-6649 Fax: (614) 267-4764

February 29, 2016

Jesse Binau Stantec 11687 Lebanon Road Cincinnati OH 45241-2012

Re: 16-060; AEP 138kV Line Extension Project

Project: The proposed project involves the extension of an existing electric transmission line.

Location: The proposed project is located in Pike Township, Perry County, Ohio.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has completed a review of the above referenced project. These comments were generated by an inter-disciplinary review within the Department. These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, Ohio Revised Code and other applicable laws and regulations. These comments are also based on ODNR’s experience as the state natural resource management agency and do not supersede or replace the regulatory authority of any local, state or federal agency nor relieve the applicant of the obligation to comply with any local, state or federal laws or regulations.

Natural Heritage Database: The Natural Heritage Database has the following data at or within a one mile radius of the project area:

Perry State Forest – ODNR Division of Forestry Mixed Mesophytic Forest Plant Community

A review of the Ohio Natural Heritage Database indicates there are no records of state endangered or threatened plants or animals within the project area. There are also no state potentially threatened plants or special interest or species of concern animals, or any federally listed species. We are unaware of any geologic features, animal assemblages, scenic rivers, state wildlife areas, state nature preserves, state or national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, or other protected natural areas within the project area.

The review was performed on the project area you specified in your request as well as an additional one mile radius. Records searched date from 1980. This information is provided to inform you of features present within your project area and vicinity.

Please note that Ohio has not been completely surveyed and we rely on receiving information from many sources. Therefore, a lack of records for any particular area is not a statement that rare species or unique features are absent from that area. Although all types of plant communities have been surveyed, we only maintain records on the highest quality areas.

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

The DOW recommends that impacts to streams, wetlands and other water resources be avoided and minimized to the fullest extent possible, and that best management practices be utilized to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

The project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a state endangered and federally endangered species. The following species of trees have relatively high value as potential Indiana bat roost trees to include: shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), black ash (Fraxinus nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), white ash (Fraxinus americana), shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), American elm (Ulmus americana), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), post oak (Quercus stellata), and white oak (Quercus alba). Indiana bat roost trees consists of trees that include dead and dying trees with exfoliating bark, crevices, or cavities in upland areas or riparian corridors and living trees with exfoliating bark, cavities, or hollow areas formed from broken branches or tops. However, Indiana bats are also dependent on the forest structure surrounding roost trees. If suitable habitat occurs within the project area, the DOW recommends trees be conserved. If suitable habitat occurs within the project area and trees must be cut, the DOW recommends cutting occur between October 1 and March 31. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months, the DOW recommends a net survey be conducted between June 1 and August 15, prior to any cutting. Net surveys should incorporate either nine net nights per square 0.5 kilometer of project area, or four net nights per kilometer for linear projects. If no tree removal is proposed, this project is not likely to impact this species.

The DOW recommends no in-water work in perennial streams from April 15 to June 30 to reduce impacts to indigenous aquatic species and their habitat. If no in-water work is proposed in a perennial stream, this project is not likely to impact aquatic species.

The project is within the range of the black bear (Ursus americanus), a state endangered species. Due to the mobility of this species, this project is not likely to impact this species.

The project is within the range of the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) a state and federal endangered beetle. Due to the habitat requirements of this species, the project is not likely to impact this species.

Due to the potential of impacts to federally listed species, as well as to state listed species, we recommend that this project be coordinated with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

ODNR appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments .Please contact John Kessler at (614) 265-6621 if you have questions about these comments or need additional information.

John Kessler ODNR Office of Real Estate 2045 Morse Road, Building E-2 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693 [email protected]

CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

Appendix C Representative Photographs

C.1 American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 1. View of Stream 1. Photograph taken facing upstream/west within existing powerline right-of-way.

Photograph 2. View of Stream 1. Photograph taken facing downstream/east within existing powerline right-of-way. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 3. View of Stream 1 and new field habitat within existing right-of-way. Photo taken facing northeast.

Photograph 4. View of Stream 1 within second growth riparian forest habitat. Photograph taken facing upstream/west. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 5. View of Stream 1 within second growth riparian forest habitat. Photograph taken facing downstream/east.

Photograph 6. View of Stream 2. Photograph taken facing downstream/south. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 7. View of Stream 2. Photograph taken facing upstream/north.

Photograph 8. View of Stream 3. Photograph taken facing upstream/north. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 9. View of Stream 3. Photograph taken facing downstream/south.

Photograph 10. View of Stream 4. Photograph taken facing upstream/north. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 11. View of Stream 4. Photograph taken facing downstream/south.

Photograph 12. View of Wetland 1 and wetland determination sample point SP 1. Photograph taken facing southeast. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 13. View of Wetland 1 and wetland determination sample point SP 1. Photograph taken facing northwest.

Photograph 14. View of Wetland 1 and wetland determination sample point SP 2. Photograph taken facing south. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 15. View of Wetland 1 and wetland determination sample point SP 2. Photograph taken facing north.

Photograph 16. View of upland at wetland determination sample point SP 3. Photograph taken facing west. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 17. View of upland at wetland determination sample point SP 3. Photograph taken facing east.

Photograph 18. View of Wetland 2 and wetland determination sample point SP 4. Photograph taken facing north. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 19. View of upland at wetland determination sample point SP 5. Photograph taken facing east.

Photograph 20. View of upland at wetland determination sample point SP 6. Photograph taken facing east. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 21. View of Wetland 3 and wetland determination sample point SP 7. Photograph taken facing east.

Photograph 22. View of Wetland 3 and wetland determination sample point SP 8. Photograph taken facing east. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 23. View of upland at wetland determination sample point SP 9. Photograph taken facing northeast.

Photograph 24. View of Wetland 4 and wetland determination sample point SP 10. Photograph taken facing northeast. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 25. View of upland at wetland determination sample point SP 11. Photograph taken facing northeast.

Photograph 26. View of new field habitat within existing powerline right-of-way. Photograph taken facing southwest. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 27. View of existing powerline right-of-way. Photograph taken facing northeast.

Photograph 28. View of emergent wetland habitat within Wetland 1. Photograph taken facing west. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 29. View of residential lawn habitat and junkyard. Photograph taken facing southeast.

Photograph 30. View of fallow corn field. Photograph taken facing south. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 31. View of graveled area and fallow corn field. Photograph taken facing west.

Photograph 32. View of fallow corn field. Photograph taken facing northwest. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 33. View of second growth riparian forest habitat. Photograph taken facing north.

Photograph 34. View of second growth riparian forest habitat. Photograph taken facing east. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 35. View of maintained right-of-way. Photograph taken facing east.

Photograph 36. View of second growth riparian forest habitat. Photograph taken facing south. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 37. View of potential bat roost tree (red maple). Tree located within maintained second growth forest habitat.

Photograph 38. View of potential bat roost tree (red maple). Tree located within second growth forest habitat. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 39. View of potential bat roost tree (red maple). Tree located within second growth forest habitat.

Photograph 40. View of potential bat roost tree (red maple). Tree located within second growth forest habitat. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 41. View of potential bat roost tree (red maple). Tree located within second growth forest habitat.

Photograph 42. View of potential bat roost tree (red maple). Tree located within second growth forest habitat. American Electric Power Clouse Station 138 kV Line Extension Project Perry County, Ohio

Photograph 43. View of potential bat roost tree (American elm). Tree located within second growth forest habitat. CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

Appendix D Data Forms

D.1 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS

D.1 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 1 Landform: Terrace Local Relief: Concave Sample Point: SP 1 Slope (%): 0.5 Latitude: 39.73415 Longitude: 82.22377 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: <1 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Poorly drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 4 -- 5Y 4/2 100 ------silt loam 4 10 -- 5Y 5/1 80 10YR 5/6 20 C M silty clay 10 20 -- 5Y 5/2 90 10YR 4/4 10 C M silty clay ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 1 Sample Point SP 1

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 40 Y FACW 2. Quercus palustris 15 Y FACW Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A) 3. Quercus rubra 15 Y FACU 4. Acer negundo 10 N FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 11 (B) 5. Acer rubrum 10 N FAC 6. Ulmus americana 10 N FACW Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 72.7% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 35 x 1 = 35 Total Cover = 100 FACW spp. 110 x 2 = 220 FAC spp. 40 x 3 = 120 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 40 x 4 = 160 1. Ulmus americana 5 Y FACW UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. Rosa multiflora 10 Y FACU 3. Acer negundo 5 Y FAC Total 225 (A) 535 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.378 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 20 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Glyceria striata 30 Y OBL * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Lysimachia nummularia 20 Y FACW present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Sanicula marilandica 10 N FACU 4. Impatiens capensis 20 Y FACW Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Toxicodendron radicans 10 N FAC 6 Galium tinctorium 5 N OBL Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at 7. ------breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 95

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. Toxicodendron radicans 5 Y FAC 2. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 Y FACU 3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 10 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 1 Landform: Footslope Local Relief: -- Sample Point: SP 2 Slope (%): 0.1 Latitude: 39.73415 Longitude: 82.22377 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: <1 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 4 -- 5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/3 5 C M silt loam 4 20 -- 5Y 5/2 95 10YR 8/6 5 C M silty clay loam ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 1 Sample Point SP 2

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. ------2. ------Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. ------4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 5 x 1 = 5 Total Cover = 0 FACW spp. 90 x 2 = 180 FAC spp. 0 x 3 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 5 x 4 = 20 1. ------UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. ------3. ------Total 100 (A) 205 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.050 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 0 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Onoclea sensibilis 30 Y FACW * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Phalaris arundinacea 35 Y FACW present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Senecio hieraciifolius 5 N FACU 4. Boehmeria cylindrica 5 N FACW Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Juncus effusus 20 Y FACW 6 Cardamine bulbosa 5 N OBL Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. ------height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 100

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. ------2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 0 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 1 Landform: Toeslope Local Relief: Convex Sample Point: SP 3 Slope (%): 1.0 Latitude: 39.73503 Longitude: 82.22299 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: UPL Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 6 -- 10YR 4/3 100 ------silty clay 6 20 -- 2.5YR 4/8 100 ------silty clay ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 1 Sample Point SP 3

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. ------2. ------Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 3. ------4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 0 x 1 = 0 Total Cover = 0 FACW spp. 0 x 2 = 0 FAC spp. 0 x 3 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 60 x 4 = 240 1. ------UPL spp. 40 x 5 = 200 2. ------3. ------Total 100 (A) 440 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.400 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 0 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Poa pratensis 40 Y FACU * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Setaria faberi 30 Y UPL present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Trifolium repens 20 Y FACU 4. Plantago lanceolata 10 N UPL Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. ------6 ------Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at 7. ------breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 100

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. ------2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 0 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: New1AF, Newark silt loam, 0-3% slopes, frequently NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 2 Landform: Floodplain Local Relief: Concave Sample Point: SP 4 Slope (%): 0.5 Latitude: 39.73437 Longitude: -82.225027 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: <1 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Photo facing north Remarks: Area with poor soil drainage. Recieves runnoff from adjacent agriculture field.

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 3 -- 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 3/4 5 C M silt loam 3 16 -- 5Y 5/1 70 10YR 4/6 30 C M silty clay ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 2 Sample Point SP 4

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Acer rubrum 25 -- FAC 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 30 -- FACW Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Ulmus americana 10 -- FACW 4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 33 x 1 = 33 Total Cover = 65 FACW spp. 115 x 2 = 230 FAC spp. 37 x 3 = 111 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 10 x 4 = 40 1. Ulmus americana 20 -- FACW UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. Rosa multiflora 10 -- FACU 3. ------Total 195 (A) 414 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.123 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 30 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Glyceria striata 30 Y OBL * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Carex squarrosa 10 N FACW present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Cyperus strigosus 5 N FACW 4. Lysimachia nummularia 20 Y FACW Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Toxicodendron radicans 5 N FAC 6 Impatiens capensis 20 Y FACW Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. Carex blanda 2 N FAC height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. Galium tinctorium 3 N OBL 9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 95

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. Toxicodendron radicans 5 -- FAC 2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 5 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: New1AF, Newark silt loam, 0-3% slopes, frequently NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 2 Landform: Rise Local Relief: Convex Sample Point: SP 5 Slope (%): 0.5 Latitude: 39.73436 Longitude: -82.224866 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: UPL Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Photo facing east Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: New1AF, Newark silt loam, 0-3% slopes, frequently flooded Series Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 12 -- 10YR 4/3 70 ------silt loam ------10YR 5/4 30 ------silt loam 10 16 -- 10YR 5/3 60 ------silt loam ------10YR 5/6 40 ------silt loam ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Liine Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 2 Sample Point SP 5

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Acer rubrum 30 Y FAC 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Y FACW Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Prunus serotina 10 Y FACU 4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 42.9% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 0 x 1 = 0 Total Cover = 50 FACW spp. 10 x 2 = 20 FAC spp. 40 x 3 = 120 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 55 x 4 = 220 1. Carpinus caroliniana 3 N FAC UPL spp. 10 x 5 = 50 2. Rosa multiflora 30 Y FACU 3. ------Total 115 (A) 410 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.565 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 33 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Sanicula canadensis 10 Y UPL * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Symphyotrichum ericoides 5 N FACU present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Rosa multiflora 10 Y FACU 4. Acer rubrum 2 N FAC Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. ------6 ------Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. ------height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 27

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. Toxicodendron radicans 5 Y FAC 2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 5 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: New1AF, Newark silt loam, 0-3% slopes, frequently NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: None Landform: Terrace Local Relief: Linear Sample Point: SP 6 Slope (%): 0.5 Latitude: 39.73398 Longitude: -82.225584 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: UPL Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Photo facing southeast Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: New1AF, Newark silt loam, 0-3% slopes, frequently flooded Series Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 16 -- 10YR 4/4 100 ------sandy loam ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Area is located on a terrace to Stream 1 that is occaisionally flooded. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: None Sample Point SP 6

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. ------2. ------Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3. ------4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33.3% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 10 x 1 = 10 Total Cover = 0 FACW spp. 50 x 2 = 100 FAC spp. 5 x 3 = 15 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 20 x 4 = 80 1. Rosa multiflora 5 Y FACU UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. ------3. ------Total 85 (A) 205 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.412 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 5 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Phalaris arundinacea 45 Y FACW * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Rosa multiflora 15 Y FACU present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Toxicodendron radicans 5 N FAC 4. Packera aurea 5 N FACW Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Glyceria striata 10 N OBL 6 ------Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. ------height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 80

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. ------2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 0 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: Area is located on a terrace to Stream 1 that is occaisionally flooded. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 3 Landform: Floodplain Local Relief: Concave Sample Point: SP 7 Slope (%): 1.0 Latitude: 39.73349 Longitude: 82.224932 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: <1 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 2 -- 10YR 4/4 100 ------loamy sand 2 10 -- 5Y 5/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 C M silty clay 10 16 -- 5Y 5/2 80 10YR 3/6 20 C M silty clay ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 3 Sample Point SP 7

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Ulmus americana 10 N FACW 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Y FACW Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) 3. Acer rubrum 30 Y FAC 4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 30 x 1 = 30 Total Cover = 60 FACW spp. 90 x 2 = 180 FAC spp. 53 x 3 = 159 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 2 x 4 = 8 1. ------UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. ------3. ------Total 175 (A) 377 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.154 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 0 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Glyceria striata 30 Y OBL * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Lysimachia nummularia 25 Y FACW present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Rosa multiflora 2 N FACU 4. Carex cristatella 20 N FACW Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Toxicodendron radicans 10 N FAC 6 Viola sororia 3 N FAC Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. Onoclea sensibilis 5 N FACW height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. Carex squarrosa 10 N FACW 9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 105

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. Toxicodendron radicans 10 Y FAC 2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 10 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: Photo 13 facing east WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 3 Landform: Terrace Local Relief: Concave Sample Point: SP 8 Slope (%): 1.0 Latitude: 39.73345 Longitude: -82.224486 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Vegetation is mowed, maintained within powerline ROW

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: 2 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 2 -- 10YR 4/2 100 ------silt loam 2 10 -- 2.5Y 5/2 90 10YR 3/6 10 C M silty clay ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 3 Sample Point SP 8

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. ------2. ------Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3. ------4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 30 x 1 = 30 Total Cover = 0 FACW spp. 35 x 2 = 70 FAC spp. 10 x 3 = 30 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 35 x 4 = 140 1. ------UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. ------3. ------Total 110 (A) 270 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.455 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 0 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Glyceria striata 30 Y OBL * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Poa pratensis 30 Y FACU present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Lysimachia nummularia 15 N FACW 4. Schedonorus arundinaceus 5 N FACU Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Phalaris arundinacea 10 N FACW 6 Carex cristatella 10 N FACW Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. ------height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 100

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. Toxicodendron radicans 10 Y FAC 2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 10 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: Photo 14 facing east WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 3 Landform: Terrace Local Relief: Concave Sample Point: SP 9 Slope (%): 1.0 Latitude: 39.73361 Longitude: 82.224069 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: Upland Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks: mowed, maintained powerline right-of-way

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Poorly drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 8 -- 10YR 4/3 100 ------silty clay loam 8 16 -- 10YR 5/4 100 ------silty clay loam ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 3 Sample Point SP 9

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. ------2. ------Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 3. ------4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 0 x 1 = 0 Total Cover = 0 FACW spp. 2 x 2 = 4 FAC spp. 2 x 3 = 6 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 95 x 4 = 380 1. ------UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. ------3. ------Total 99 (A) 390 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.939 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 0 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Poa pratensis 80 Y FACU * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Glechoma hederacea 5 N FACU present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Phalaris arundinacea 2 N FACW 4. Viola sororia 2 N FAC Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Allium schoenoprasum 5 N FACU 6 Potentilla simplex 5 N FACU Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. ------height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 99

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. ------2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 0 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: Photo 15 is facing east WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 4 Landform: Dip Local Relief: Concave Sample Point: SP 10 Slope (%): 0.5 Latitude: 39.74313 Longitude: -82.222507 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks: fenced pasture within a ROW

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: 1 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: 0 (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Poorly drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 3 -- 10YR 3/2 100 ------silt loam 3 10 -- 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 3/6 5 C M silty clay 10 16 -- 2.5YR 5/2 95 10YR 3/4 5 C M silty clay ------2.5YR ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 4 Sample Point SP 10

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. ------2. ------Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3. ------4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 0 x 1 = 0 Total Cover = 0 FACW spp. 30 x 2 = 60 FAC spp. 15 x 3 = 45 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 50 x 4 = 200 1. ------UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. ------3. ------Total 95 (A) 305 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.211 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 0 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Festuca rubra 40 Y FACU * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Juncus effusus 20 Y FACW present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Lysimachia nummularia 10 N FACW 4. Trifolium pratense 10 N FACU Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Juncus tenuis 15 N FAC 6 ------Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. ------height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 95

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. ------2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 0 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: Photo 16 is facing east WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 1 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Stantec Project #: 193704188 Date: 03/13/16 Applicant: American Electric Power County: Perry Investigator #1: Nate Noland Investigator #2: Michael De Villiers State: Ohio Soil Unit: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded NWI/WWI Classification: N/A Wetland ID: Wetland 4 Landform: Dip Local Relief: Concave Sample Point: SP 11 Slope (%): 0.5 Latitude: 39.74313 Longitude: -82.222507 Datum: NAD 83 Community ID: Upland Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in remarks) Yes No Section: 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are normal circumstances present? Township: 15N Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Yes No Range: 15W Dir: -- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes No Remarks: fenced pasture within a ROW

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Check here if indicators are not present ): Secondary: Primary: B6 - Surface Soil Cracks A1 - Surface Water B9 - Water-Stained Leaves B8 - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface A2 - High Water Table B13 - Aquatic Fauna B10 - Drainage Patterns A3 - Saturation B14 - True Aquatic Plants B16 - Moss Trim Lines B1 - Water Marks C1 - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor C2 - Dry Season Water Table B2 - Sediment Deposits C3 - Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots C8 - Crayfish Burrows B3 - Drift Deposits C4 - Presence of Reduced Iron C9 - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery B4 - Algal Mat or Crust C6 - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils D1 - Stunted or Stressed Plants B5 - Iron Deposits C7 - Thin Muck Surface D2 - Geomorphic Position B7 - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Other (Explain in Remarks) D3 - Shallow Aquitard D4 - Microtopographic Relief D5 - FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth: -- (in.) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth: -- (in.) Saturation Present? Yes No Depth: -- (in.) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:

SOILS Map Unit Name: Pg - Peoga silt loam, rarely flooded Series Drainage Class: Poorly drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered/Coated Sand Grains; Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix) Top Bottom Matrix Mottles Texture Depth Depth Horizon Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Location (e.g. clay, sand, loam) 0 6 -- 10YR 4/3 100 ------silt loam 6 16 -- 10YR 4/3 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M sandy clay loam ------NRCS Hydric Soil Field Indicators (check here if indicators are not present ): Indicators for Problematic Soils 1 A1- Histosol S5 - Sandy Redox F12 - Iron-Manganese Masses (LRR N, MLRA 136) A10 - 2cm Muck (MLRA 147) A2 - Histic Epipedon S6 - Stripped Matrix F13 - Umbric Surface (MLRA 122, 136) A16 - Coast Prairie Redox (MLRA 147, 148) A3 - Black Histic S7 - Dark Surface F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 148) F19 - Piedmont Floodplain Soils (MLRA 136, 147) A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide S8 - Polyvalue Below Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) TF12 - Very Shallow Dark Surface A5 - Stratified Layers S9 - Thin Dark Surface (MLRA 147, 148) F21 - Red Parent Material (MLRA 127, 147) Other (Explain in Remarks) A10 - 2 cm Muck (LRR N) F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F3 - Depleted Matirx A12 - Thick Dark Surface F6 - Redox Dark Surface S1 - Sandy Muck Mineral (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix F8 - Redox Depressions 1 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer Type: N/A Depth: N/A (If Observed) Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Page 2 of 2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region

Project/Site: Clouse Station Line Extension Project Wetland ID: Wetland 4 Sample Point SP 11

VEGETATION (Species identified in all uppercase are non-native species.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) Species Name % Cover Dominant Ind.Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. ------2. ------Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 3. ------4. ------Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. ------6. ------Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B) 7. ------8. ------Prevalence Index Worksheet 9. ------Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 10. ------OBL spp. 0 x 1 = 0 Total Cover = 0 FACW spp. 0 x 2 = 0 FAC spp. 10 x 3 = 30 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius) FACU spp. 90 x 4 = 360 1. ------UPL spp. 0 x 5 = 0 2. ------3. ------Total 100 (A) 390 (B) 4. ------5. ------Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.900 6. ------7. ------8. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 9. ------Yes No Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10. ------Yes No Dominance Test is > 50% Total Cover = 0 Yes No Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 * Yes No Morphological Adaptations (Explain) * Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius) Yes No Problem Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) * 1. Festuca rubra 55 Y FACU * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 2. Rosa multiflora 20 Y FACU present, unless disturbed or problematic. 3. Trifolium pratense 15 N FACU 4. Vernonia gigantea 5 N FAC Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 5. Juncus tenuis 5 N FAC 6 ------Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6cm) or more in diameter at breast 7. ------height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. ------9. ------Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft. tall. 10. ------11. ------12. ------Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall. 13. ------14. ------15. ------Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft. in height. Total Cover = 100

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius) 1. ------2. ------3. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No 4. ------5. ------Total Cover = 0 Remarks:

Additional Remarks: Photo 17 is facing east CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

D.2 ORAM DATA FORMS

D.2

2.16 ac

Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 3 Wetland 3

47 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 3 Wetland 3 Wetland 3

Wetland 3 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Wetland 4 Wetland 4

28 1 Wetland 4 Wetland 4 Wetland 4 Wetland 4

Wetland 4 Wetland 4 CLOUSE STATION 138 KV LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, PERRY COUNTY, OHIO

D.3 HHEI AND QHEI DATA FORMS

D.3

a b