Wetland Regulation and Mitigation

210 Pages·2009·13.41 MB·English

Wetland Regulation and Mitigation: A Case Study from Twinsburg, Ohio

A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Arts

Eliza C. Clarke Thrush
November 2009
© 2009 Eliza C. Clarke Thrush. All Rights Reserved.
2

This thesis titled
Wetland Regulation and Mitigation: A Case Study from Twinsburg, Ohio

by
ELIZA C. CLARKE THRUSH

has been approved for
the Department of Geography
and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Harold A. Perkins
Assistant Professor of Geography

Benjamin M. Ogles

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
3

ABSTRACT
CLARKE THRUSH, ELIZA C., M.A., November 2009, Geography
Wetland Regulation and Mitigation: A Case Study from Twinsburg, Ohio (210 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Harold A. Perkins
This thesis examines wetland regulation and wetland mitigation banking as it
relates to the future home of a Cleveland Clinic facility in Twinsburg, Ohio. The factors
that contribute to how the case study site will be shaped are examined. The results show
that the Cleveland Clinic Foundation has the money, power, resources, and reputation
that presented challenges to Ohio Environmental Protection Agency during their Section
401 Water Quality Certification process. The results also show that the Cleveland Clinic
was dedicated enough to the use of this particular site to risk a project completion date
delay, and to increase the cost of the project. It seems that the placement of this facility
helps promote the Cleveland Clinic brand due to its visibility from the two major routes it
faces, and due to its adjacent placement to the competing University Hospital branch.
Cleveland Clinic’s persistence evidences the difference in power between previous
developers and their attempts, compared the success of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
Alternately, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency was able to require
Cleveland Clinic to revise their development plans multiple times, while preventing
development for the 363 days the Section 401 application was reviewed. Ohio EPA also
disallowed any impacts to category 3 wetlands on the case study site, whereas Cleveland
Clinic initially planed to impact 3.14 acres of category 3 wetlands. Additionally, Ohio
EPA did not find the Clinic’s preservation-only mitigation plan suitable, and required the
4

addition of an offsite mitigation project. By not allowing the preservation-only mitigation
plan to suffice in this case, Ohio EPA has set precedence for future developers who
propose a similar preservation-only plan. Mitigation banking became a key to
compromise between Cleveland Clinic, their environmental consultants, and Ohio EPA.
Without the addition of this provision to the mitigation plans, its doubtful Ohio EPA and
Cleveland Clinic could have come to a compromise.
The public also played a role in this case study. Citizens involved in this research
did not feel that the opportunities for public involvement occurred early enough in the
planning process, or that there were enough opportunities to give public opinion.

Approved: _____________________________________________________________
Harold A. Perkins
Assistant Professor of Geography
5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank OEPA for the opportunity to intern during the summer of
2008, when I became interested in wetland regulation. Additionally I want to express my
gratitude to everyone who agreed to participate in interviews for my research. I am
inspired by your dedication to your careers and by your willingness to donate time to a
student. This project would not have been possible without your help.
I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Harold Perkins, for investing your time
and energy in my research. I am deeply grateful for all of your help and patience
throughout my graduate study. Thank you for pushing me and encouraging me.
To my committee — Dr. Jokisch and Dr. Buckley — thank you both for working
with me on this project, and encouraging me along the way.
6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5 
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 7 
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 8 
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 9 
Chapter 2: Site Description and Time Line ...................................................................... 20 
Chapter 3: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 27 
Chapter 4: Methodology ................................................................................................... 55 
Chapter 5: Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 68 
Chapter 6: Conclusions ................................................................................................... 122 
References ....................................................................................................................... 128 
Appendix A: Section 401 of Clean Water Act ................................................................ 136 
Appendix B: Section 404 of Clean Water Act ................................................................ 142 
Appendix C: Questionaire ............................................................................................... 157 
Appendix D: Time line of events .................................................................................... 159 
Appendix E: Section 401 application ............................................................................. 164 
Appendix F: Final Design ............................................................................................... 189 
Appendix G: Email from citizen ..................................................................................... 204 
Appendix H: Letter from OEPA director ........................................................................ 205
7

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table 1: Changes from the initial proposed impacts ......................................................14
Table 2: Comparison of regulatory roles ........................................................................40
Table 3: Compensatory wetland mitigation ratios ..........................................................50
Table 4: Research questions and methodologies ............................................................57
Table 5: Table of research participants ...........................................................................65
Table 6: Original development plans as submitted in May 2008 ...................................69
Table 7: Changes from the initial proposed impacts ......................................................69
Table 8: Plan proposed initially compared to the final mitigation plan ..........................70
8

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure 1: Parcels included in case study site ..................................................................13
Figure 2: Overall site layout and wetlands location map ................................................15
Figure 3: Twinsburg, OH and its proximity to Ohio’s large cities .................................20
Figure 4: Twinsburg detailed location and proximity to highways ................................21
Figure 5: Map of wetlands ..............................................................................................71
Figure 6: Originally proposed preferred alternative .......................................................72
Figure 7: Approved “final design” ..................................................................................73
Figure 8: Scan of letter from citizen................................................................................80
Figure 9: Continuation of scan of letter from citizen.......................................................81
Figure 10: Image of “future home of Cleveland Clinic” sign..........................................89
Figure 11: Image of Wetland ‘D’.....................................................................................97
Figure 12: Image of Wetland ‘C’.....................................................................................98
9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Wetlands are landscapes whose soils are either permanently or seasonally
inundated with water. In the past, wetlands were widely viewed as disease harboring
puddles—a nuisance. The U.S. government encouraged the fill and draining of wetlands
for agricultural purposes, and many wetlands were lost due to urban development,
mining, and logging. As much as 90 percent of Ohio’s wetlands were lost because of
these practices during the last two centuries (USGS 1997).
This immense loss of wetlands has diminished water quality and increased the
cost of water treatment. In addition to protecting water quality, wetlands are home to
many species of plants, animals, amphibians, and insects, many of which are threatened
or endangered. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, as society became more concerned with
environmental issues and the preservation of natural habitats, wetlands became
recognized as important.
In 1956, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a comprehensive survey of
wetland resources. The survey showed that wetlands carry out significant ecosystem
functions. In addition to hosting a diverse population of fauna and flora, wetlands assist
in storing floodwater, preventing shoreline erosion, filtering out sediments from the water
supply, and storing carbon (EPA 2009).
The Clean Water Act (1972) “is the cornerstone of surface water quality
protection in the United States” (USEPA, 2008). The Clean Water Act as it pertains to
wetlands consists of Sections 401 and 404. Section 401 allows states to issue permits for
the filling of isolated wetlands and the preservation of water quality. Ohio Environmental
10

Protection Agency’s Division of Surface Water (OEPA DSW) is responsible for
assessing the significance and quality of wetlands, and determining appropriate
mitigations for the loss or degradation of existing wetlands (all while allowing economic
development to occur). Section 404 gives power to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
regulate the filling and dredging of jurisdictional wetlands. Typically, jurisdictional
wetlands are connected to other surface waters— rivers, lakes, and oceans—otherwise
known as navigable waters of the U.S.
In Ohio, the mechanism for regulating non-jurisdictional “isolated” wetlands is
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Isolated wetlands do not have a connection to
surface waters, but still play an important role in maintaining water quality. In Ohio, a
Section 401 water quality certification is required when isolated wetlands will be
impacted by construction. When there are also jurisdictional waters on site (streams and
wetlands with surface water connections), a Section 404 permit is also needed from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. With the layering of levels of regulation—state and
federal permissions are often required for development projects impacting wetlands—
filling wetlands has become a lengthy and expensive process.
This is especially the case for the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) in
Twinsburg, Ohio. Twinsburg, which is exurban to Cleveland, is primarily a residential
area. Healthcare facilities are following the population out of the center city and into
these exurban areas—hence the plan for Cleveland Clinic to build a new $71.5 million
family health and surgical center in Twinsburg. The facility is slated for an 86 acre site
that contains 23.5 acres of wetlands—or about 27 percent of the entire site. Of the total