Subject: Public Comment — Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Application No. 262513D

Dear Ohio EPA:

I am submitting this comment regarding NEORSD’s application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed Horseshoe Park construction project.

Before issuing certification, I ask Ohio EPA to make sure its decision is based on a complete, current, and internally consistent technical record.

The physical condition of the Horseshoe Lake basin has changed substantially over time. The lake was dewatered, the dam was breached, vegetation and wetland conditions have changed, and additional site disturbance has occurred while the proposed project continued to evolve.

For that reason, I ask Ohio EPA to identify:

• which technical studies describe current site conditions;
• which studies rely on conditions that existed before the breach or dewatering;
• whether older wetland, hydrologic, habitat, or water-quality information remains reliable;
• whether any material assumptions have changed as the project design changed;
• and whether Ohio EPA has independently verified important applicant conclusions rather than simply carrying them forward from earlier project documents.

If a certification decision depends on outdated conditions, predicted future conditions, or technical assumptions that have not been independently verified, the agency should require additional information before acting.

Section 401 review should be based on the project and landscape that exist now, not simply on the record as it existed at an earlier stage of project development.

Thank you for considering this comment.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional personal observation]

Subject: Public Comment — Alternatives and Avoidance of Water-Resource Impacts

Dear Ohio EPA:

I am submitting this comment regarding NEORSD’s pending Section 401 Water Quality Certification application.

I ask Ohio EPA to carefully examine whether impacts to streams, wetlands, aquatic resources, and other waters have been avoided and minimized to the maximum appropriate extent before mitigation or predicted future benefits are relied upon.

NEORSD has selected a preferred construction project involving permanent dam removal, substantial grading, creation of an engineered stream-and-floodplain landscape, vegetation removal, and other major physical changes.

The fact that NEORSD prefers this design should not end the inquiry.

Please evaluate whether reasonable alternatives could reduce water-quality and aquatic-resource impacts, including alternatives that preserve more existing landscape features, mature canopy, wetlands, or hydrologic functions.

In particular, I ask Ohio EPA to determine:

• what alternatives were actually compared for Section 401 purposes;
• whether those alternatives were evaluated using comparable assumptions;
• whether avoidance of existing impacts was considered before reliance on mitigation;
• whether less destructive design modifications remain practicable;
• and whether the current application adequately explains why more protective alternatives were rejected.

Where the law requires avoidance and minimization, that analysis should meaningfully inform the agency’s decision rather than merely document the applicant’s already-selected preference.

Please do not certify the project until Ohio EPA is satisfied that avoidable impacts have actually been avoided and remaining impacts have been minimized.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional personal observation]

Subject: Public Comment — Wetlands and ORAM Review

Dear Ohio EPA:

I am submitting this comment because wetlands are an important part of Ohio EPA’s Section 401 review of the proposed Horseshoe Park construction project.

The public materials appear to include both existing wetlands and areas described as places where wetland conditions are expected to develop after construction. Those are not the same thing.

One project map, for example, identifies an “Expected Passive Wetland Restoration Area.” The word “expected” describes a predicted future condition. It should not be treated as interchangeable with verified wetland acreage that exists today.

Before certification, I ask Ohio EPA to clearly identify:

• the acreage and location of wetlands that presently exist;
• when each wetland was delineated;
• the physical condition of the site when the delineation occurred;
• which existing wetlands would be preserved, disturbed, filled, or otherwise affected;
• which wetland areas would be created or are predicted to develop later;
• the ORAM score and category assigned to each existing wetland;
• when the ORAM assessments were performed;
• and whether Ohio EPA independently verified the applicant’s wetland delineations and ORAM conclusions.

If the physical landscape changed materially after a wetland or ORAM assessment was completed, Ohio EPA should determine whether the assessment remains representative of present conditions.

Predicted future wetlands may have value, but predictions should not substitute without explanation for existing wetland functions being affected today.

Please require a clear accounting of what exists, what will be lost or disturbed, what is proposed to replace it, and how certain those replacement functions actually are before certification is issued.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional information about wetlands or site conditions you have observed]

Subject: Public Comment — Canopy Removal and Water-Quality Effects

Dear Ohio EPA:

I ask Ohio EPA to carefully evaluate the water-quality consequences of removing substantial existing mature tree canopy as part of NEORSD’s proposed construction project.

Mature trees are not simply landscaping. Existing canopy shades waterways, intercepts rainfall, stabilizes soils, slows runoff, provides habitat, and helps regulate temperature.

Removal of riparian and nearby mature canopy can increase direct solar exposure to streams and wetlands. Increased water temperature can reduce dissolved oxygen and alter habitat conditions for aquatic organisms.

Canopy loss and construction disturbance can also contribute to:

• erosion;
• sedimentation;
• increased stormwater runoff;
• soil compaction;
• invasive-species establishment;
• habitat fragmentation;
• and loss of stabilizing root networks.

NEORSD proposes extensive replacement planting, but newly planted trees cannot immediately provide the ecological and water-quality functions of mature canopy.

I ask Ohio EPA to determine:

• how much existing mature canopy will be removed;
• how canopy loss was incorporated into water-temperature and water-quality analysis;
• whether dissolved-oxygen effects were evaluated;
• whether sediment and erosion consequences were modeled;
• how long replacement vegetation is expected to take before providing comparable shading and stabilization functions;
• and whether permit conditions are necessary to protect water quality during that transition.

Claims of improved future stream conditions should account for the consequences of removing the mature vegetation that performs important ecological functions today.

Please evaluate those tradeoffs before certification.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional personal observation about existing canopy, stream conditions, or wildlife]

Subject: Public Comment — Construction-Phase Water-Quality Impacts

Dear Ohio EPA:

The proposed Horseshoe Park construction project would involve substantial grading, excavation, vegetation removal, earth movement, and disturbance within a sensitive stream and parkland setting.

I ask Ohio EPA to give close attention not only to the applicant’s predicted end-state conditions, but also to the water-quality effects of construction itself.

Large-scale soil disturbance can increase erosion, sediment transport, turbidity, nutrient movement, and other impacts to downstream waters and aquatic habitat.

Please determine:

• the total acreage and volume of land disturbance;
• how disturbed soils will be stabilized;
• what erosion and sediment-control measures will be required;
• how those measures will perform during large storm events;
• what monitoring will occur during construction;
• how failures or exceedances will be detected and corrected;
• what downstream effects were evaluated;
• and whether the proposed controls are sufficient for the duration and scale of construction.

I also ask Ohio EPA to consider whether existing mature vegetation currently provides erosion-control and water-quality functions that would be lost during construction.

Future ecological benefits should not cause short- and medium-term water-quality harms to disappear from the analysis.

Please require enforceable protections adequate to prevent avoidable degradation during construction.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional personal observation about flooding, erosion, sediment, or downstream conditions]

Subject: Public Comment — Mitigation and Predicted Future Conditions

Dear Ohio EPA:

I ask Ohio EPA to distinguish carefully between existing environmental conditions and the ecological benefits NEORSD predicts will occur after construction.

Project materials describe future wetlands, plantings, floodplain functions, and other anticipated ecological outcomes.

Those predictions may ultimately prove accurate. But predicted future benefits are not the same thing as existing ecological functions, and they should not be treated as certain without adequate support.

Please evaluate:

• what existing resources and functions would be lost or disturbed;
• which proposed benefits are certain and which depend on successful establishment over time;
• what performance standards will apply;
• how long monitoring will continue;
• what constitutes successful mitigation;
• what happens if wetlands, vegetation, habitat, or other predicted functions fail to develop as expected;
• who is responsible for corrective action;
• and whether enforceable contingencies exist if the proposed mitigation underperforms.

Replacement ecology takes time.

A wetland expected to develop later is not automatically equivalent to a functioning wetland today. A newly planted tree is not equivalent to mature canopy. A constructed channel does not necessarily provide its predicted ecological functions immediately.

Please require Ohio EPA’s decision to distinguish clearly between present conditions, project impacts, mitigation commitments, and hoped-for future outcomes.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional personal observation]

Subject: Public Comment — Please Verify That Technical Studies Remain Current

Dear Ohio EPA:

I ask Ohio EPA to verify that the studies supporting NEORSD’s Section 401 application accurately describe the site as it exists today.

The Horseshoe Lake basin has undergone substantial physical change since the lake was dewatered and the dam was breached. Vegetation, soils, hydrology, wetland conditions, habitat, drainage patterns, and other site characteristics may have changed during that period.

Some project analyses appear to originate from earlier phases of project planning.

Please identify:

• which studies predate major site changes;
• whether those studies were updated or field-verified;
• whether present wetland conditions match earlier delineations;
• whether hydrologic or hydraulic assumptions remain valid;
• whether vegetation and canopy conditions are current;
• whether water-quality baselines remain representative;
• and whether subsequent physical disturbance affected any earlier conclusions.

Older studies are not necessarily unusable.

But Ohio EPA should explain why information developed under materially different physical conditions remains reliable for a certification decision being made today.

A current permit decision deserves a current factual baseline.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional personal observation about changes you have seen at the site]

Subject: Public Comment — Connected and Cumulative Water-Resource Effects

Dear Ohio EPA:

I ask Ohio EPA to consider the proposed Horseshoe Park construction project within the larger connected water-resource system of the Shaker Lakes Parklands and Doan Brook.

Horseshoe Lake, Lower Lake, Doan Brook, wetlands, wooded riparian areas, drainage features, and downstream waters are physically connected even when different projects or regulatory actions are reviewed separately.

Separate permits or project phases may be legally appropriate. But they should not prevent Ohio EPA from understanding how individual impacts combine across the larger watershed and landscape.

Please consider:

• downstream effects of changes at Horseshoe;
• effects of vegetation removal on water temperature and runoff;
• sediment movement during construction;
• wetland gains and losses;
• changes in hydrology;
• interaction with Lower Lake and downstream waters;
• cumulative habitat effects;
• and whether multiple related actions could produce consequences greater than those apparent when each is considered alone.

The public experiences the Shaker Lakes as one connected landscape.

Water moves through it that way too.

Administrative boundaries should not cause connected water-quality effects to disappear from view.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional personal observation about Doan Brook, Horseshoe Lake, Lower Lake, or downstream conditions]

Subject: Public Comment — Certification Should Not Issue Until Outstanding Questions Are Resolved

Dear Ohio EPA:

I am asking Ohio EPA not to issue an unconditional Section 401 Water Quality Certification for NEORSD’s proposed Horseshoe Park construction project unless and until the agency is satisfied that the record demonstrates compliance with applicable water-quality requirements.

Important issues remain concerning:

• current wetland conditions;
• ORAM and wetland assessments;
• avoidance and minimization;
• alternatives;
• mature canopy loss;
• stream temperature;
• erosion and sedimentation;
• construction disturbance;
• mitigation;
• predicted future ecological conditions;
• and the currency and completeness of technical information.

Ohio EPA has authority to require additional information and, where appropriate, impose conditions necessary to protect water quality.

If the existing record does not allow the agency to make the required findings with confidence, the appropriate response is not to assume the unanswered questions away.

It is to require the applicant to answer them.

I therefore ask Ohio EPA to:

1. resolve material factual and technical uncertainties before certification;
2. require additional analysis where existing information is incomplete or outdated;
3. impose enforceable conditions necessary to protect water quality and aquatic resources;
4. ensure that avoidance and minimization occur before reliance on mitigation;
5. and withhold certification if the applicable water-quality requirements have not been demonstrated.

The public is being asked to accept permanent changes to a historic and ecological landscape.

Those changes should not be authorized on the strength of assumptions that have not yet been tested.

Thank you for considering my comment.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City][Optional personal observation]

Subject: Public Comment — Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Application No. 262513D

Dear Ohio EPA:

I am writing regarding NEORSD’s proposed Horseshoe Park construction project and its pending Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

I ask Ohio EPA to conduct a careful and independent review before deciding whether to certify the project.

In particular, I am concerned about the effects of large-scale construction, mature-tree removal, wetland disturbance, changes to streams and aquatic habitat, erosion and sedimentation, and reliance on predicted future ecological benefits.

I also ask the agency to make sure that the technical information supporting its decision reflects current site conditions and that reasonable alternatives and opportunities to avoid or minimize impacts have been fully considered.

[Add 2–4 sentences here about the issue that concerns you most, your experience with the Shaker Lakes Parklands, or something you have personally observed.]

This is a permanent change to an important public landscape. Please require a complete and reliable record before deciding whether the applicable water-quality requirements have been met.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Name][Address / City]