ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Urban outmigration or "sprawl" is the highest ranked environmental problem for the NOACA region. This conclusion was recently reached by the Regional Environmental Priorities Project (REPP). The REPP Committee, comprised of 65 civic, professional, academic and business leaders, conducted a two-year comparative risk assessment to identify and rank the greatest threats to the health of the environment of Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina Counties. The REPP is an official part of the State of Ohio's statewide comparative risk project, supported and endorsed by the Governor and the OhioEPA. The REPP concluded that because of the effects of sprawl on the northeastern Ohio environment, this issue should receive priority attention by the decision-makers of the region. The environmental effects which the REPP identified include: Degradation and the loss of natural areas and vital or renewable habitats; Air pollution and energy waste from increased commuting by car; Excess sedimentation of streams and rivers; Inefficiencies leading to costly infrastructure improvements necessary to protect people and the ecology (e.g. sewage system extensions); and Encroachment on river and stream banks with accelerated run-off and sedimentation affecting aquatic habitat and altered stream morphology. The REPP report further noted that the quality of outdoor air is greatly affected by the number of vehicle miles traveled in the region. The report states: "It is important to bear in mind that the emissions from vehicles are a major source of most of the serious pollutants such as benzene (ozone), PMIQ (small particulate matter), dioxin, sulfur dioxides, vitrous oxides. Benzene, a confirmed human carcinogen, and toluene, both components of fuels/exhaust, are known to be ubiquitous in the region and the State of Ohio. Major transportation corridors may present high risks to certain populations. In 1992, more than 100 million pounds of VOC's were emitted from fuels and exhausts of passenger vehicles in the region and more than 15 million pounds from certain major manufacturers." Environmental Value Table 4-15 provides an approximation of the environmental value lost/gained by converting land from its current use to another use. Changing farmland to pavement results in an environmental loss to the community, while converting farmland to a wetland results in an environmental benefit. Table 4-15 External Environmental Costs of Road Development Land Use Categories Wetlands Pristine Wildland/ Urban Greenspace Second Growth Forest Pasture/ Farmland Settlement/ Buffer Pavement Wetlands 0 -36,000 -72,000 -108,000 -144,000 -180,000 Pristine Wildland/ Urban Greenspace 36,000 0 -36,000 -72,000 -108,000 -144,000 Second Growth Forest 72,000 36,000 0 -36,000 -72,000 -108,000 Pasture/Farmland 108,000 72,000 36,000 0 -36,000 -72,000 Settlement/Buffer 144,000 108,000 72,000 36,000 0 -36,000 Pavement 180,000 144,000 108,000 72,000 36,000 0 HOW TO USE THIS TABLE: For each acre of land converted from its current use (left column) to another use, the dollar amount in the intersection cell indicates the change in external environmental benefits. Indirect road impacts (traffic noise, pollution,, introduced specises) impose half the cost of conversion to Settlement/Buffer. Table converted from Canadian $/hectare to U.S. $/acre. SOURCE: Litman,, Todd. "Land Use Impact Costs of Transportation." Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Victoria,, BC. 1995. For example, if Area L in Liverpool Township were to develop its undeveloped areas, 147 acres would be converted to pavement for the road network, driveways and sidewalks. The one-time loss to Liverpool Township would be approximately $10,584,000. External Environmental Benefits of Land Use Categories Greenspace (wetlands, farms, forests, woodlands, and parks) provides external environmental benefits to society such as providing wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and enhanced air and water quality. Some of these environmental benefits result in increases to the value of a market good such as a clean stream environment contributing toward fishery production, or the economic benefits of recreation and tourism activities, the existence of which often accompanies greenspace.1 Table 4-16 depicts one possible way of estimating the environmental benefits provided by several land-use categories. While the land use benefits of wetlands are high for all types of environmental uses, there are no environmental benefits resulting from pavement. Examining farmland as a land use option, the environmental benefits are medium for air quality and low for ecological benefits such as habitat preservation. Table 4-16 External Environmental Benefits of Selected Land Use Categories   Air Quality Water Quality Ecolo- gical Flood Control Recrea- tion Aesthetic Cultural Economic Wetlands High High High High High High High High Pristine Wildlands High High High Varies High High High Varies Urban Greenspace High High Medium Medium High High High Varies 2nd Growth Forest High High Medium High High Varies Medium Medium Farmland Medium Medium Low Medium Low Varies Medium Varies Pasture/Range Low Medium Low Low Low Varies Medium Low Mixed Urban Low Low Low Low Varies Varies Varies High Highway Buffer Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low Pavement None None None None None None None None NOTES: Ecological benefits include habitat,, special preservation and support for ecological systems. Recreation includes hunting, fishing,, wildlife viewing, hiking, horse riding, bicycling, etc. Cultural benefits include preservation of culturally significant sites, harvesting traditional resources, and support for traditional activities. External economic environmnetal benefits are economic benefits to people who do not own the land. This includes economic benefits from tourism, harvesting wild plants, fish and animals, and agricultural. The economic value of wetlands, forests and uban greenspace is reflected in tourism and recreational expenditures, increased adjacent property values, water resources quality and availability, and fisheries. Highways provide economic benefits, but not environmental benefits. SOURCE: Litman,, Todd. "Land Use Impact Costs of Transportation." Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Victoria,, BC. 1995. Water Quality WATERSHEDS As stated in A Watershed Approach to Urban Runoff: Handbook for Decisionmakers "the long-term viability and quality of our environment depends on the dynamic and complex interactions among air, water, land, plants, animals, and culture." With 70% of the environment made up of water, its quality is of paramount importance to the health and economy of the region.2 As water moves through the environment, through a process described as the hydrologic cycle, it forms a system within distinct areas of the landscape. These distinct areas are known as watersheds, which is "an area above and below the landscape that drains to an associated water resource such as a wetland, river, lake, aquifer or estuary."3 Map 4-3 depicts the major watersheds in the Northeast Ohio region. Map 4-3 Northeast Ohio Watersheds As development occurs in watersheds, it increases the amount of runoff, the by-product of the land's interaction with rainfall. This runoff affects the hydrology of the watershed by increasing runoff volume and rate, and decreasing the capacity of receiving streams to handle floods. A watershed's soil type and impervious services have the greatest impact on watershed water quality. The greater the amount of impervious surfaces that are built, the greater the impact on the watershed. Table 4-17 shows what the impervious surface thresholds are and their impacts. Table 4-17 Impact of Impervious Surface Thresholds % of Imperviousness Impact 2% No detrimental effect, riparian 7 - 8% Buffer remains sound 10% Stream begins to erode 18% Aquatic diversity declines 40% Active stream widening 60% Massive erosion, natural channel cannot be maintained SOURCE: Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol, No 3, Fall 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness The greater the permeability of the soil, the easier for rainfall to infiltrate the ground. Soils are generally classified "A", high permeability, through "D", low permeability. A hydrologic soil study of the Northeast Ohio area has determined that a majority of the soil in this region is type "D" soil. Rainfall will travel 10 times faster over impervious surfaces such as roofs, parking lots, and roadways than it would travel over a vegetative surface. Hence, urban development in the Northeast Ohio region has a greater impact on rivers and watersheds. Urban runoff carries with it a wide variety of pollutants from a wide variety of sources. In urban runoff, pollutants consist of solids from wastewater or septic systems, salt and chemicals deposited on roadways, soil and other particulates. The amount of pollutants delivered to a waterbody is called a "loading". The general order of production of pollutants from an urban area are: (1) Industrial and commercial; (2) freeway; (3) higher density residential; (4) lower density residential; and (5) open land. While the total impact of increased development in the southeastern portion of Cuyahoga County and in Medina County on the region's watersheds and rivers cannot be precisely quantified, a review of their current condition can be used as a barometer to gauge what increased development may do. U.S. EPA Watershed Assessment The Index of Watershed Indicators published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provides a condition rating and vulnerability index for each of the 2,111 watersheds in the United States. The primary objectives of this Index were to: Characterize the condition and vulnerability to pollution of the watersheds of the U.S.; Provide the basis for dialogue between water quality managers; Empower citizens to learn more about their watersheds and work to protect them; and Measure progress toward's the EPA's goal that all watersheds will be healthy and productive places. Fifteen data sets were collected and divided into two categories: "condition" and "vulnerability". These indicators were scored on scales of "0" to "3" and an overall score, between "1" and "6" was calculated by combining the 15 indicators. The higher the score, the more serious the water quality problems. The overall score for the Black River-Rocky River Watershed was "5" - indicating that the Black-Rocky watershed has serious water quality problems and low vulnerability to stressors such as pollutant loadings. The scores for condition and vulnerability were as indicated in Table 4-18: Table 4-18 Black-Rocky Watershed Condition and Vulnerability Indicators Condition Indicator Status Survey rivers and streams meeting all designated standards 20-49% of rivers and streams meeting all uses Fish and wildlife consumption advisories (2) One or more advisories (1995) recommending no fish consumption Source water condition for drinking water (2) Significant source of water impairment identified Contaminated sediments (2) High degree of concern Ambient water quality - toxics (0) 0-11% in exceedance of national criteria for toxics: copper, chromium, nickel and zinc in 1990-1995 Ambient water quality - conventional (1) 11-25% in exceedance of national criteria for conventional pollutants: ammonia, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, and pH Overall wetland loss index (2) High level of wetland loss   Vulnerability Indicator Status Aquatic/wetlands species at risk (0) One species known to be at risk Toxic loads over permit limits 75 known dischargers. Insufficient data for assessment Conventional loads over permit limits Insufficient data for assessment Urban runoff index (2) More than 4% of land area above 25% imperviousness Agricultural runoff index (2) High levels of potential impact for pesticide and nitrogen from farm fields. High potential for delivery of sediments to rivers and streams from cropland and pasture land Population change from 1980-1990 (1) 0-7% increase Hydrologic modifications caused by dams (1) Moderate volumes of impounded water, for conventional pollutants: ammonia, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus and pH SOURCE: USEPA, The Index of Watershed Indicators, Washington D.C. Black-Rocky USGA Cataloguing Unit 04110001. The overall score for the Tuscarawas River Watershed was "6" - indicating that this watershed has serious water quality problems and low vulnerability to stressors. The scores for condition and vulnerability are as indicated in Table 4-19. Table 4-19 Tuscarawas Watershed Condition and Vulnerability Indicators Condition Indicator Status Survey rivers and streams meeting all designated standards Less than 20% of rivers and streams meeting all uses Fish and wildlife consumption advisories (2) Eighteen active advisories (1995) recommending no fish consumption Source water condition for drinking water (2) Significant source of water impairment identified Contaminated sediments (1) Moderate degree of concern Ambient water quality - toxics (0) 0-11% in exceedance of national criteria for toxics: copper, chromium, nickel and zinc in 1990-1995 Ambient water quality - conventional (2) More than 25% in exceedance of national criteria for conventional pollutants: ammonia, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, and pH Overall wetland loss index (2) High level of wetland loss   Vulnerability Indicator Status Aquatic/wetlands species at risk (1) 2-5 species known to be at risk Toxic loads over permit limits (0) 125 known dischargers. Conventional loads over permit limits (0) No loans in excess of total permit limits Urban runoff index (1) 1-4% of land area above 25% imperviousness Agricultural runoff index (2) High levels of potential impact for pesticide and nitrogen from farm fields. High potential for delivery of sediments to rivers and streams from cropland and pasture land Population change from 1980-1990 (0) Declined or no change Hydrologic modifications caused by dams (2) High volumes of impounded water, for conventional pollutants: ammonia, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus and pH SOURCE: USEPA, The Index of Watershed Indicators, Washington D.C. Black-Rocky USGA Cataloguing Unit 04110001. Ohio EPA Biological and Water Quality Studies The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has completed an assessment of the major rivers and tributaries that flow through Medina and Cuyahoga Counties. The presence of aquatic life, the most accurate and comprehensive evaluation factor for water quality, determines whether a river or stream is meeting Ohio's water quality standards, or use attainment. Aquatic life can be impacted by pollutants (pathogens and toxics), sedimentation and a variety of other impairments. The degrees of use are: Full attainment: meets all water quality standards. Fully attaining but threatened: land use activities in the watershed pose an immediate threat to maintaining water quality at its best. Partially attaining: one of two or two of three indices do not meet the criteria and are not in the poor or very poor category. Non-attaining: none of the indices meet criteria or one organism group indicates a severe toxic impact (poor or very poor category) even if the other organism group indicates attainment. The Rocky River assessment is summarized below. Table 4-20 Rocky River - Use Attainment Summary Percentage of Assessed Stream Miles Attaining: Percentage of Assessed Stream Miles Not Attaining or Partially Attaining: Percentage of Total Stream Miles Assessed: 53.2% 48.6% 42.9% Aquatic Life Use Designation Use Attainment Total Stream Miles Designated Miles Assessed Fully Attaining Threat- ened Partially Attaining Not Attaining Exeptional Warmwater Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warmwater Habitat 195.5 93.9 50 0.9 17.1 25.9 Modified Warmwater Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limited Resource Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coldwater Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 All 235.8 101.3 53 0.9 17.1 30.3 Not Designated 40.3 7.4 3 0 0 4.4 SOURCE: 1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305b) Report. Over 50 miles of the 236 mile river and its tributaries are contaminated with nutrient enrichment, which causes excessive algae and plant growth and chokes open waters and consumes oxygen. These conditions will adversely affect fish and aquatic organisms, fishing and boating, and the taste and odor of finished drinking water. Causes: erosion and runoff from fertilized fields, urban runoff, wastewater treatment plants, industrial discharges, septic systems, animal production operations and cropland or pasture where manure is spread. Between 1-15 miles of the river are contaminated with pathogens, ammonia, chlorine and metals. These pathogens and chemicals can be transmitted to humans through drinking or contact with water. The principal concern in both surface and ground waters is the potential degradation of public water supply sources. Causes: human and animal excreta, animal operations, cropland or pasture where manure is spread, wastewater treatment plants, septic systems, and industrial discharges. The Black River assessment indicates a much more deterioated situation than in the Rocky River. Table 4-21 Black River - Use Attainment Summary Percentage of Assessed Stream Miles Attaining: Percentage of Assessed Stream Miles Not Attaining or Partially Attaining: Percentage of Total Stream Miles Assessed: 21.2% 78.8% 48.5% Aquatic Life Use Designation Use Attainment Total Stream Miles Designated Miles Assessed Fully Attaining Threat- ened Partially Attaining Not Attaining Exeptional Warmwater Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warmwater Habitat 232.6 135.9 13.5 11 35.3 76.2 Modified Warmwater Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limited Resource Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coldwater Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 All 392.7 151.5 21.1 11 38.3 81.2 Not Designated 80.1 15.6 7.6 0 3 5 SOURCE: 1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305b) Report. The amount and causes of the Black River non-attainment areas are: One hundred (100) miles of the river and its tributaries are impaired by siltation which can destroy fish habitat, reduce fishery habitat, add mechanical wear to water supply pumps and distribution systems and adds to treatment costs for water supplies. Causes: cropland and forestry activities, pasture, stream banks, construction, roads, mining operations, gullies, and other land-disturbing activities. Over 90 miles of the 313-mile river and its tributaries are contaminated by nutrient enrichment. See #1 under Rocky River. Between 1-15 miles of the river are contaminated with pathogens, ammonia, chlorine and metals. See #2 under Rocky River. Table 4-22 Tusscarawas River - Use Attainment Summary Percentage of Assessed Stream Miles Attaining: Percentage of Assessed Stream Miles Not Attaining or Partially Attaining: Percentage of Total Stream Miles Assessed: 9.9% 90.1% 44.0% Aquatic Life Use Designation Use Attainment Total Stream Miles Designated Miles Assessed Fully Attaining Threat- ened Partially Attaining Not Attaining Exeptional Warmwater Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warmwater Habitat 236.6 119.1 3.9 1.7 15.8 97.9 Modified Warmwater Habitat 44.2 20.30 0 0 0.1 20.2 Limited Resource Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coldwater Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 All 342.2 150.7 13.2 1.7 15.7 120.1 Not Designated 61.4 11.3 9.3 0 0 2.0 SOURCE: 1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305b) Report. The amount and causes of the Tuscarawas River non-attainment are: More than sixty (60) miles are contaminated by nutrient enrichments. See #1 under Rocky River. Forty-five (45) miles are affected by habitat alterations which alter the physical structure of the ecosystem. Some examples include: removal of stream side vegetation which stabilizes the stream bank and development that alters the natural drainage patterns by increasing magnitude and energy of runoff waters. Close to forty (40) miles are contaminated with metals. See #2 under Rocky River. Rocky River (WWTP) Decommissionings The construction of the Southwest Interceptor by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District has allowed for the decommissioning of a number of wastewater treatment plants in the Rocky River watershed. These wastewater treatment plants, Berea, Brookpark, Middleburg Heights and Strongsville "A", had been contributors to the degradation of the Rocky River. After an approximately $75 million investment in the Southwest Interceptor, aquatic life disruptions have been reduced. Continued development upstream on the Rocky River will reduce the positive effects that the Southwest Interceptor has produced in the Rocky River. Lake Erie Ecosytem Every two years, the governments of Canada and the United States convene an international conference and issue a report on the State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC). The 1996 SOLEC meeting addressed land use and development as a special stressor on the Great Lakes ecosystem, particularly in the Lake Erie Basin. The background papers for SOLEC 96 included detailed examination of land use issues. The findings included: Land use developement has been destructive to the nearshore ecosystem. "Rapid population growth, intensive industrial and agricultural activity, and sprawling urban development have resulted in significant stress to the nearshore ecosystem. Nearshore waters continue to be polluted, and in some cases, have become severely contaminated from sanitary sewage, industrial toxic substances, and urban and agricultural runoff." Virtually uncontrolled sprawl. "The most significant development issue in the Great Lakes basin and surrounding region is the continued growth of major metropolitan areas and the virtually uncontrolled sprawl of low density residential areas and other development. The detrimental consequences of these trends are well-known. Population-related generation of pollution, higher transportation and residential energy use, increasing encroachment on agricultural lands and natural areas, and burdensome physical infrastructure requirements portend an unsustainable future." Farmland Preservation Farmland, as stated in the recent Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force Report, is one of Ohio's most important assets, making up more than 50% of the state's land area. The agricultural industry contributes $56.2 billion annually to the state's economy and accounts for 1 in every 6 jobs. From a fiscal savings perspective, preventing the conversion of farmland maintains governmental financial stability. As illustrated earlier in the Cost of Community Services section, farmland and open space contribute more in revenues than they require in services.4 Recent studies have shown that the destruction of farmland in favor of urban development is continuing. The American Farmland Trust's recent study, "Farming on the Edge", found that: U.S. is squandering its best quality and irreplaceable farmland; Nationwide, almost 50 acres of prime and unique farmland are being destroyed every hour of every day; Ohio is ranked third in the nation in the amount of farmland lost to urban development; Patterns of suburban sprawl are scattered and fragmented, increasing the already strong pressures on surrounding farmland; To date, the U.S.'s vast resources have masked the most negative effects of farmland destruction; and By urbanizing some of its best farmland, the U.S. is limiting future options to deal with social, economic, food security and environmental problems. The American Farmland Trust (AFT) ranked the nation's top 20 "Most Threatened Farming Regions" based on agricultural production, quality of soil, and amount of high quality land lost to development. The AFT found that the 5,000 square mile Ohio Eastern Till Plain was the 7th most threatened agricultural region in the entire U.S. (Map 4-4). Map 4-4 Eastern Ohio Till Plain, Amount of Farmland Available in Acres The main development threat to 50% of the Eastern Till Plan are the rapidly developing urban areas of Cleveland-Akron, Youngstown-Warren and Canton-Massillon, which are colliding with prime farmland. Based on information provided by the Ohio Department of Development's Office of Strategic Research: 25% of the farmland in the Cleveland/Akron area and nearly 12% in the Youngstown-Warren area were irretreivably lost between 1990-94; Counties with the most rapidly expanding populations lie along I-71 between Cleveland and Columbus. Further findings of the Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force are: From1974 to 1992, 1.4 million acres (19%) of farmland were lost; this translates into 9 acres every hour of every day; From 1982 to 1994, of the 472,000 acres of land developed into urban land, 59% of these were prime or unique farmland acres; Ohio is 1 of 4 states that has more than 50% of its land classified as farmland; Ohio is among the top 6 states in the nation in land area consumption per citizen; Urban land expanded almost 5 times faster than the population growth rate; and The NOACA 5-county region is expected to lose 3% of its population, but have a 30% increase in residential land. Table 4-23 table shows that Medina County lost the largest amount of farmland of the five NOACA counties between 1970-1995. Table 4-23 Amount of Farmland, 1970-1995 County 1970 1995 # Acres Lost % Acres Lost Cuyahoga 10,000 6,000 (4,000) (41.1%) Geauga 69,000 71,000 2,000 2.9% Lake 21,000 20,000 1,000 (4.7%) Lorain 161,000 141,000 (20,000) (12.4%) Medina 145,000 114,000 (31,000) (21.3%) SOURCE: Adapted by the Plain Dealer from the Associated Press, November 1997. Aesthetics Highways are utilitarian, inhospitable mainstays of urban daily life. Although efforts were made during the early years of highway construction to build visually appealing but safe and fast "highways in the park", these efforts were abandoned as inflation drove up the costs of construction. The right-of-way is the "public realm" and should be maintained in a manner which integrates highway function and landscaping to create a positive, natural and visually pleasing right-of-way for Northeast Ohio motorists. However, urban motorists have come to accept the degradation of the highway right-of-way as a fact of life. Visual affronts such as billboards, telecommunication towers, noise barriers, minimally landscaped, and littered areas are commonplace along the urban highway system. Billboards According to Scenic America, Ohio has 16,435 billboards, the second highest amount in the United States, along its interstates. For every ten miles of highway, there are approximately 21 billboards and close to 4,000 of these violate some standard of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Telecommunications Towers On July 1, 1997, ODOT began leasing space along the highway right-of-way to wireless communcations providers to construct telecommunications towers. ODOT estimates that over the next 5 to 10 years, that up to 1,000 towers will be sited along ODOT rights-of-way, generating more than $20 million for unspecified transportation investments. Because the sites are located in the right-of-way, an adjoining community has no control over the placement of the tower, even if it conflicts with the community's zoning code or municipal ordinances. Noise Barriers The construction of noise barriers to mitigate highway traffic noise is in response to several federal laws: Noise Control Act of 1970, NEPA and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970. Generally, there are three strategies for minimizing highway traffic noise: controlling land use near highways, reducing noise from the vehicles themselves and mitigating the noise on individual projects. Type I noise barriers are mandated to be built as part of a new highway project or one that adds lanes to an existing highway. Type II noise barriers are not mandatory and were constructed for a short period of time adjacent to residential locations which existed prior to the original construction of the highway. For the I-71 widening project, the need for noise barriers has been identified for locations in Middleburg Heights, Strongsville, Brunswick, Medina Township and Montville Township. Landscaping In the northeast Ohio region, landscaping of highway rights-of-way tends to be minimal and sparse. The concept of planned and managed roadside design is being used in some states to improve the appearance of the highway landscape, using an ecological, low-maintenance approach. Planned roadside management uses landscape and turf design that is based on a pre-planned approach to the right-of-way. By using turf mixtures that can withstand salt, infrequent mowing and general lack of care, and native plants, grasses and wildflowers, roadside maintenance is significantly reduced and an aesthetically pleasing landscape is the result. As far as can be determined, the plans for improving I-71 capacity do not include any consideration of applying these approaches. Environmental Justice On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 which requires "each Federal agency, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, to achieve environmental justice as part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of its program, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States." Adverse effects means the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including: Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; Air, noise and water pollution and soil contamination; Destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources; Destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; Destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; Vibration; Adverse employment effects; Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; Increased traffic congestion; Isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and Denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of DOT programs, policies or activities. On February 3, 1997, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) established procedures for all DOT agencies to use in complying with Executive Order 12898. DOT agencies must consider the following environmental justice principles throughout the NEPA and ISTEA planning and decisionmaking process and the development of programs, policies and activities: Planning and programming activities that have the potential to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on human health or the environment shall include explicit consideration of the effects on minority populations and low-income populations. This consideration should be started as early as the scoping stage. Procedures shall be established, or expanded, to allow for public involvement by minority and low-income populations during the planning and development of programs, policies and activities. This involvement would include identifying the potential effects, alternatives and mitigation measures. The documentation should specifically indicate how comments from the public were received, considered and addressed in the planning and decision making process. If this input has affected the modification or selection of an alternative, it should be explained. Steps shall be taken to provide the public, including members of minority and low-income populations, with information regarding the health and safety impacts of the proposed action. Disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations are: Predominantly borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population. A minority population means any readily identifiable group of minority persons: African-Americans; Hispanics; Asian-Americans; or American Indian or Alaskan Native who live in geographic proximity to and will be affected by a proposed DOT program, policy or activity. A low-income population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons (a person whose median household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines) who live in geographic proximity to and who will be affected by a proposed DOT program, policy or activity. The basis for examining Environmental Justice is to look at the magnitude of the impacts and identify, address, avoid and mitigate the impacts if disproportionate negative effects are a result. The following maps show the presence of each of the minority populations in Cuyahoga County and Medina County by U.S. Census Tract. The proposed increase in transportation capacity in the I-71 Corridor, by changing regional travel time and costs and real estate markets, would perpetuate the well-documented out-migration of population and jobs, the isolation of areas of the urban core, as well as other effects. Maps of Minority Populations 1 Litman, Todd. Land Use Impact Costs of Transportation, Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, (Victoria, BC), February 1997, p. 14. 2 Terrine Institute. A Watershed Approach to Urban Runoff: Handbook for Decisionmakers, Alexandria, VA, 1996, p. 1-5. 3 A Watershed Approach to Urban Runoff, p.5. 4 American Farmland. Cows Don't Go to School. Spring/Summer 1997, p. 4-5   Page 1: General Patterns of Growth Page 2: Land Use Impacts Page 3: Cost of Community Services Page 4: Environmental Effects Page 5: Social Impacts Page 6: Social Impacts on Areas Experiencing Decline

© 1998 Cuyahoga County Planning Commission 323 Lakeside Ave West, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113-1009

cpc@planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us Tel: (216) 443-3700 Fax: (216) 443-3737