Final 

Environmental Assessment 

for 

The Ohio State University, Ohio 4-H Center 

with 

Green Building Technologies

DOE/EA 1571 

Franklin County, Ohio 

December 2006

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

GOLDEN FIELD OFFICE 

1617 Cole Boulevard 

Golden, Colorado 80401
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Environmental Assessment 

Ohio 4-H Building with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, Ohio 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. S-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 

1.1. National Environmental Policy Act and Related Procedures...........................1-1 

1.2. Background .....................................................................................................1-1 

1.3. Scoping: Process and Results ........................................................................1-7 

1.3.1 Environmental Issues ..........................................................................1-7 

1.3.2 Alternatives..........................................................................................1-7 

1.4. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action....................................................1-8 

1.5. Organization, Content, and Objectives of this Environmental Assessment.....1-8 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.............................................................2-1 

2.1. Description of the Proposed Action .................................................................2-1 

2.1.1 Project Applicants................................................................................2-1 

2.1.2 Project Location...................................................................................2-1 

2.1.3 Building Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance ...............2-1 

2.1.4 Environmental Management Commitments.........................................2-9 

2.2. Description of the No Action Alternative........................................................2-10 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................3-1 

3.1. Land Use and Transportation..........................................................................3-1 

3.1.1 Project Site and Zoning .......................................................................3-1 

3.1.2 Surrounding Area.................................................................................3-1 

3.1.3 Transportation and Access..................................................................3-2 

3.2. Visual Quality/Aesthetics.................................................................................3-3 

3.2.1 Visual Characteristics of the Project Site.............................................3-3 

3.2.2 Public Vantage Points/Site Visibility ....................................................3-3 

3.3. Public Services and Utilities ............................................................................3-3 

 3.3.1 Storm Water Management...................................................................3-3 

 3.3.2 Sanitary Sewer ....................................................................................3-3 

 3.3.3 Domestic and Fire Water Supply.........................................................3-4 

 3.3.4 Electric Utilities ....................................................................................3-4 

3.4. Noise ...............................................................................................................3-4 

3.4.1 Regulations and Guidelines.................................................................3-4 

3.4.2 Sensitive Receptors.............................................................................3-5 

3.4.3 Existing Noise Levels and Sources .....................................................3-6 

3.5. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...................................................3-6 

3.5.1 Population............................................................................................3-6 

3.5.2 Employment.........................................................................................3-6 

3.5.3 Housing ...............................................................................................3-7 

3.5.4 Ethnicity ...............................................................................................3-7 

3.5.5 Income and Poverty.............................................................................3-7 

Final EA December 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

3.6. Biological Resources.......................................................................................3-7 

3.6.1 Vegetation ...........................................................................................3-8 

3.6.2 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. ..............................................3-8 

3.6.3 Wildlife .................................................................................................3-9 

3.6.4 Species of Concern .............................................................................3-9 

3.7. Cultural Resources..........................................................................................3-9 

3.7.1 Historic Resources.............................................................................3-10 

3.7.2 Archaeological Resources.................................................................3-10 

3.8. Air Quality......................................................................................................3-11 

3.8.1 Definition of Resource .......................................................................3-11 

3.8.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................3-12 

3.9. Water Resources...........................................................................................3-13 

3.9.1 Surface Water....................................................................................3-13 

3.9.2 Ground Water ....................................................................................3-14 

3.9.3 Floodplains ........................................................................................3-14 

3.10. Geology and Soils .........................................................................................3-14 

3.10.1 Geology .............................................................................................3-14 

3.10.2 Soils...................................................................................................3-16 

3.11. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management .............................................3-16 

3.11.1 Hazardous Materials..........................................................................3-16 

3.11.2 Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Wastes ...........................................3-17 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES..................4-1 

4.1. Land Use and Transportation..........................................................................4-1 

4.1.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................4-1 

4.1.2 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................4-2 

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................4-2 

4.2. Visual Quality/Aesthetics.................................................................................4-2 

4.2.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................4-2 

4.2.2 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................4-2 

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................4-2 

4.3. Public Services and Utilities ............................................................................4-3 

4.3.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................4-3 

4.3.2 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................4-4 

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................4-4 

4.4. Noise .............................................................................................................4-4 

4.4.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................4-5 

4.4.2 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................4-6 

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................4-6 

4.5. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...................................................4-6 

4.5.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................4-6 

4.5.2 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................4-7 

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................4-7 

4.6. Biological Resources.......................................................................................4-7 

4.6.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................4-7 

4.6.2 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................4-8 

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................4-8 

4.7. Cultural Resources..........................................................................................4-8 

4.7.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................4-8 

4.7.2 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................4-9 

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................4-9 

Final EA December 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

4.8. Air Quality........................................................................................................4-9 

4.8.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................4-9 

4.8.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................4-11 

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4-11 

4.9. Water Resources...........................................................................................4-11 

4.9.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................4-11 

4.9.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................4-13 

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4-13 

4.10. Geology and Soils .........................................................................................4-14 

4.10.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................4-14 

4.10.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................4-15 

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4-15 

4.11. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management .............................................4-16 

4.11.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................4-16 

4.11.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................4-16 

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4-16 

4.12. Summary of Secondary and Cumulative Impacts .........................................4-16 

4.13. Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .....................................4-23 

4.14. The Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Human 

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term 

Productivity....................................................................................................4-23 

4.15. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................................4-23 

5.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................5-1 

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...............................................................................................6-1 

APPENDIX A – SCOPING MATERIALS AND RESPONSES 

APPENDIX B – OHIO HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE RESOURCE PROTECTION 

 AND REVIEW LETTER 

Final EA December 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

LIST OF TABLES 

3.4-1 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments (A-Weighted 

Sound Levels). ............................................................................................................3-5 

3.5-1 Leading Jobs by Industry for Franklin County, Ohio (2002)........................................3-6 

3.5-2 Race Composition for Franklin County, State of Ohio, and U.S..................................3-7 

3.8-1 National and Ohio Ambient Air Quality Standards. ...................................................3-12 

3.8-2 Air Emissions Inventory Franklin County, Ohio and Ambient Quality Control 

Regions (AQCR 176) Calendar Year 1999Air Quality Standards. ............................3-13 

4.4-1 Reduction of Sound Level Intensity of a 95-dBA (Construction-Related) Source 

and a 75-dBA (Bus Idling) Source as a Function of Receptor Distance......................4-5 

4.8-1 Construction Emissions – Proposed Action. .............................................................4-10 

4.12-1 Cumulative Projects. .................................................................................................4-17 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1-1 Ohio State 4-H Center, Regional Setting ....................................................................1-3 

1-2 Ohio State 4-H Center, Project Site Location..............................................................1-4 

1-3 Ohio State 4-H Center, Site Photographs ...................................................................1-5 

2-1 Ohio State 4-H Center, 3-D Computer Model Images.................................................2-4 

2-2 Ohio State 4-H Center, Photographs of Physical Model .............................................2-5 

2-3 Ohio State 4-H Center, Project Site Plan ....................................................................2-6 

2-4 Ohio State 4-H Center, Geothermal HVAC Site Plan..................................................2-7 

2-5 Ohio State 4-H Center, Tree Transplant and Protection Plan ....................................2-8 

Final EA December 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

S. SUMMARY 

S.1 INTRODUCTION 

In accordance with the Department of Energy (DOE) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

implementing regulations, DOE is required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of 

DOE facilities, operations, and related funding decisions. Based on action by the U.S. 

Congress, DOE has funding available to support the proposed public sector project described in 

this Environmental Assessment (EA). 

The decision to use federal funds in support of the Ohio State University (OSU) 4-H Center with 

Green Building Technologies (the Ohio 4-H Center) project requires that DOE address NEPA 

requirements and related environmental documentation and permitting requirements. In 

compliance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) and DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations (10 

CFR section 1021.330) and procedures, this Environmental Assessment (EA) examines the 

potential environmental impacts of DOE’s decision to support the project in Franklin County, 

Ohio, including construction of the facility, as well as a No Action Alternative as set forth in 

Chapter 2. 

S.1.1 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the Proposed Action, federal funding provided by DOE for part of the 

construction of the proposed Ohio 4-H Center, is to support the construction phase of two 

features within the Ohio 4-H Center designed for energy efficiency: 1) A hybrid 

geothermal/cooling tower heating, ventilating, and cooling (HVAC) system and 2) the use of 

recycled structural steel members. The existing 4-H offices on the OSU campus are in a small 

space within the Agricultural Administration Building that does not provide the visibility needed 

for the integration of 4-H programs into the rapidly expanding university complex and does not 

allow for the implementation of green building technologies. 

The U.S. Congress has acknowledged the merit of this project by providing specific funding 

through DOE. Based on Congressional action, DOE has $990,000 dollars in funding available 

to support OSU’s participation in the proposed project. 

S.1.2 Project Site, Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The OSU intends to construct the Ohio 4-H Center on its Columbus, Ohio campus northwest of 

the intersection of Fred Taylor Drive and West Lane Avenue. The Ohio 4-H Center is planned 

to be the first “green” building on the OSU campus and would utilize a hybrid geothermal/cooling 

tower HVAC system. The hybrid HVAC system would provide heating and cooling through a 

vertical geothermal heat exchanger combined with a closed circuit cooling tower for additional 

heat rejection. The legal description of the project site is City of Columbus tax parcel 

identification number 010062731 (Personal communication with Ralph Recchie, OSU Office of 

Real Estate on August 23 2006). Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 315 

located about 500 feet (0.15 kilometers) west of the site, U.S. Interstate 670 located about 2.0 

miles (3.2 kilometers) south of the site, U.S. Interstate 70 located about 3.5 miles (5.6 

kilometers) south of the site and U.S. Interstate 71 located approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 

kilometers) west of the site. Local access to the project site is via Fred Taylor Drive just north of 

West Lane Avenue. 

Final EA S-1 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

The project site is owned by OSU and includes approximately 5.6 acres (2.26 hectares) (of 

which 1.4 acres or 60,900 square feet are to be developed for the 4-H Center and associated 

facilities) of mostly vacant land situated in a campus area comprised mostly of educational and 

recreational uses. The project site is characterized by open ground with a maintained grass 

cover. Some mature trees are located around the perimeter of the proposed building footprint 

and generally outside the proposed building footprint. Nearby land uses include two abandoned 

poultry barns and State Route 315 to the west, Chadwick North grove of native trees and 

Chadwick Lake to the north, the Value City Arena/Jerome Schottenstein Center (Schottenstein 

Center) east of Fred Taylor Drive, and academic facilities principally for the College of Food, 

Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences south of West Lane Avenue. Landscaping and 

parking areas associated with the Ohio 4-H Center would be located within these boundaries. 

The OSU Facilities Planning and Development office recommended a 200 foot setback along 

West Lane Avenue to retain a site for a future OSU gateway building. The Ohio 4-H Center is 

planned to be located north of the future gateway building. 

The Ohio 4-H Center is planned to include office facilities for 20-25 employees of the Ohio State 

Extension 4-H program. These employees currently occupy the existing 4-H offices on the OSU 

campus. In addition to the full-time employees, the Ohio 4-H Center is expected to have a large 

number of public users participating in in-service training. In addition to serving 4-H youth, 

volunteers, and youth professionals, the Ohio 4-H Center is planned to be a training resource 

for other youth organizations, as well as a location for OSU Extension programming. It is 

expected that 25-50 cars per day would access the site. The project site is planned to include 

approximately 60 parking spaces and overflow parking is available east of Fred Taylor Drive at 

the Schottenstein Center. 

Potable water used for operation of the Ohio 4-H Center and wastewater sanitation would be 

provided by the City of Columbus Division of Public Utilities. However, the building’s “green” 

features, such as geothermal mechanical system and “green housekeeping plan” is planned to 

reduce water and energy consumption for the project. The intended use of DOE funding for this 

project is to support the construction phase of two features of the Ohio 4-H Center designed for 

energy efficiency. These features are: 1) A hybrid geothermal/cooling tower HVAC system and 

2) the incorporation of recycled structural steel members. 

The geothermal heating and cooling system is a hybrid geothermal (water source) closed loop 

heat pump system. Heat is extracted from or rejected to the earth through a vertical geothermal 

heat exchanger that would be buried under the Ohio 4-H Center’s parking lot. The geothermal 

heat exchanger is planned to consist of a series of 72 drilled holes, each measuring five inches 

in diameter by 280 feet deep. Additional heat rejection would be accomplished through a 

closed circuit cooling tower in the Ohio 4-H Center’s 5-story tower at the building’s north end. 

Circulating fluid would not come into contact with soil. 

 

Recycled steel would be the main component in the Ohio 4-H Center structural system. The 

project would require 282 tons of structural steel that would be produced in domestic mills using 

the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) process and would contain at least 90% total recycled content. 

The use of recycled structural steel allows energy that would be used to extract raw material 

from the ground to be conserved and diverts waste from old steel products away from landfills. 

Given the intent of this EA, scoping input, and preliminary impact findings, the only alternative to 

the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA is the No Action Alternative. OSU’s environmental 

management commitments are described in Section 2.4.1. 

Final EA S-2 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

S.1.3 Organization and Content of the Environmental Assessment 

This EA is organized in a manner consistent with NEPA and DOE’s NEPA Implementing 

Regulations. The EA has six Chapters, a summary, and associated appendices. 

• Summary 

• Chapter 1 – Introduction 

• Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives 

• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

• Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

• Chapter 5 – Bibliography and References 

• Chapter 6 – List of Preparers 

• Appendices 

S.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

 

S.2.1 Summary of Consultation Process, Input, and Impact Issues 

A scoping/consultation letter was prepared and distributed to county, state and federal agencies 

and organizations on July 31, 2006. The consultation letter distribution list included agencies 

and organizations that may have information regarding potential environmental issues in the 

vicinity of the project site. Appendix A presents the consultation letter, a complete list of the 

letter recipients, and response letters received during the comment period. 

S.2.2 Environmental Issues 

The scoping letter for the Proposed Action identified the following environmental topics to be 

addressed in the EA: 

• Land Use and Transportation; 

• Visual Quality/Aesthetics; 

• Public Services and Utilities; 

• Noise; 

• Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice; 

• Biological Resources; 

• Cultural Resources; 

• Air Quality; 

• Water Resources; 

• Geology and Soils; 

• Hazardous Materials and Waste Management; 

• Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. 

At this time, the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are the only alternatives 

addressed in the EA. The applicant’s Proposed Action involves construction of the Ohio 4-H 

Center with Green Building Technologies. DOE’s Proposed Action is to provide partial funding 

in support of the Ohio 4-H Center construction. DOE’s No Action Alternative would involve a 

DOE decision not to provide funding for the project. The applicant, OSU, has already 

commenced construction activities for this project, so for NEPA compliance purposes and to 

create a meaningful No Action scenario, potential impacts addressed in this EA are as 

Final EA S-3 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

compared to pre-construction baseline conditions. A privately funded project scenario would be 

identical, or at least similar to, the Proposed Action, however in the absence of DOE or other 

federal funding, OSU is not required to comply with NEPA. 

S.2.3 Description and Comparison of Environmental Consequences

The following discussion summarizes findings of this EA and compares the impacts of the 

Proposed Action with those of the No Action Alternative. 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to the 

environment because the project site and surrounding area generally lack sensitive resources 

(e.g., threatened or endangered species, cultural resources, low-income or minority groups, 

etc.) and because of the limited impacts from the construction of the proposed Ohio 4-H Center. 

Additionally, OSU proposes an extensive set of environmental management commitments 

intended to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts. OSU’s environmental commitments 

are described in Chapter 2 and described, where applicable, in Chapters 3 and 4. 

The direct, indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action are discussed 

throughout Chapter 4. None of these impacts are considered significant; however, the applicant 

has committed to the following measures: 

• Construction areas will be fenced to limit disturbance to adjacent habitat outside of the 

construction zone. Stormwater handling and soil erosion control measures are 

described in the Ohio 4-H Center construction document package. 

• To ensure that trees indicated to remain on site are protected during construction and 

promptly and properly treated and repaired if damaged, a landscape architect and 

arborists from the Chadwick Arboretum and Learning Gardens will be available for 

consultation. 

• To minimize impacts associated with particulates, best management practices (BMPs) 

such as covering of dirt stockpiles and application of water sprays will be implemented. 

• To ensure that impacts to soil or groundwater from the heat exchanger would be minimal 

to non-existent the BMPs for geothermal heat pumps described in Section 4.9.1 would 

be employed. 

S.2.4 Comparison of Proposed Action to No Action Alternative 

The vast majority of impacts created by the Proposed Action would be avoided if the No Action 

Alternative were selected as the preferred alternative. However, none of the impacts of the 

Proposed Action is considered significant, and the No Action Alternative would eliminate the 

beneficial impacts that could be expected from completion of the Ohio 4-H Center with Green 

Building technologies. 

Final EA S-4 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Final EA S-5 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND RELATED PROCEDURES 

In accordance with the Department of Energy (DOE) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

implementing regulations, DOE is required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of 

DOE facilities, operations, and related funding decisions. Based on action by the U.S. 

Congress, DOE has funding available to support the proposed project described in the following 

discussions and Chapter 2 of this Environmental Assessment (EA). 

The Ohio State University (OSU) is a not-for-profit educational institution that would administer 

the federal funds for the proposed Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies (the Ohio 

4-H Center project). The decision to use federal funds in support of OSU’s proposed project 

requires DOE to address NEPA requirements and related environmental documentation and 

permitting requirements. In compliance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR section 1021.330) and procedures, this EA examines the 

potential environmental impacts of DOE’s decision to support the project in Franklin County, 

Ohio, including construction of the Ohio 4-H Center, as well as a No Action Alternative as set 

forth in Chapter 2. 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

The Ohio State 4-H Green Building Project, as designed by the OSU project team, is planned as 

a multi-disciplinary learning center, with classrooms and learning labs as well as state and 

administrative offices for the 4-H program. As the home of Ohio 4-H—and the first facility of its 

kind on a land-grant university campus in the country—the Ohio 4-H Center is planned to 

feature: 

• Flexible multi-purpose space for hands-on program opportunities for youth, volunteers, 

professional leaders and supporters. 

• Educational conference and classroom facilities. 

• State-of-the-art technology linking the Ohio 4-H Center to Ohio’s 88 counties, the nation, 

and the world. 

• “Green” features such as a hybrid geothermal/cooling tower HVAC system; structural 

steel containing at least 90% recycled content; and a “green housekeeping plan” to 

reduce water and energy consumption. 

The Ohio 4-H Center is planned to provide a site for program activities designed to involve and 

engage increased numbers of Ohio youth and volunteer leaders, and for OSU faculty and staff 

to enhance the field of positive youth development through teaching and research. The Ohio 4-

H Center is planned to provide access to OSU research and resources through distance 

learning opportunities, as well as through on-site conferences, workshops, and seminars for 

youth and adults—all of which will serve to strengthen local 4-H programs. 

The proposed use of DOE funding for this project is to support the construction phase of two 

features within the Ohio 4-H Center designed for energy efficiency: 1) A hybrid 

geothermal/cooling tower HVAC system for heating and cooling and 2) the incorporation of 

recycled structural steel members. 

Green buildings are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting occupant health; 

using energy, water, and other resources more efficiently; and reducing overall impacts to the 

Final EA Page 1-1 December 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

environment. The proposed Ohio 4-H Center would incorporate several green building 

principles, including site selection, use of recycled building materials, and energy efficient 

heating and cooling systems. The Ohio 4-H Center is proposed at a site that takes advantage 

of an existing mass transit system and the site development plan strives to protect and retain 

existing landscaping and natural features. The proposed geothermal/cooling tower HVAC 

system would allow the Ohio 4-H Center to achieve improved energy efficiency levels beyond 

those found in typical buildings. The Ohio 4-H Center achieves materials efficiency through the 

selection of recycled structural steel members and low volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emission paints, coatings and adhesives. Such products promote resource conservation and 

efficiency and occupant health. The Ohio 4-H Center achieves water efficiency by using ultra 

low-flush toilets, low-flow shower heads, and other water conserving fixtures and promotes 

occupant health by providing adequate ventilation and a high-efficiency, in-duct filtration system. 

Heating and cooling systems that ensure adequate ventilation and proper filtration can have a 

considerable positive impact on indoor air quality. 

The project site is located northwest of the intersection of Lane Avenue and Fred Taylor Drive in 

Franklin County, Ohio (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The legal description of the project site is City 

of Columbus tax parcel identification number 010062731(Personal communication with Ralph 

Recchie, OSU Office of Real Estate on August 23 2006). Regional access to the site would be 

provided by State Route 315 located about 500 feet (0.15 kilometers) west of the site, U.S. 

Interstate 670 located about 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) south of the site, U.S. Interstate 70 

located about 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) south of the site and U. S. Interstate 71 located 

approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) west of the site. Local access to the project site is via 

Fred Taylor Drive just north of West Lane Avenue. 

The project site is owned by OSU and includes approximately 5.6 acres (2.26 hectares) of 

mostly vacant land (of which 1.4 acres or 60,900 square feet are to be developed for the 4-H 

Center and associated facilities) situated in a campus setting comprised of educational and 

recreational uses (Figure 1-3). Site visits to the project site and its surroundings were 

conducted on July 11, July 19 and August 10, 2006. During site visits observations regarding 

the characteristics of the site and surrounding area were made. The project site is open ground 

with a maintained grass cover. Some mature trees are located around the perimeter of the 

building area, generally outside the proposed building footprint. Nearby land uses include 

Chadwick North grove of native trees and Chadwick Lake to the north, the Value City 

Arena/Jerome Schottenstein Center (Schottenstein Center) east of Fred Taylor Drive, academic 

facilities south of West Lane Avenue and two abandoned poultry barns and State Route 315 to 

the west. OSU archives indicate that the area of land that includes the project site was 

purchased between 1917 and 1925. The first tract was purchased in 1917 from Louisa Hess, 

and had apparently been leased prior to the purchase. The remainder was leased and then 

acquired from Mary Hess in 1925. University archives provide details of the boundaries (based 

on surveys dating as far back as 1859) and Civil Engineering Maps of the lands were completed 

in 1919 (#191-63; 191-73;191-75). These archives indicate such items as fences and stables 

present on the land (R. Goerling, OSU Office of Archives, e-mail received August 23, 2006). 

Figure 1-3 presents a series of photographs that characterize the project site and surrounding 

area. 

Final EA Page 1-2 December 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Draft EA Page 1-3 November 2006

Figure 1-1: Regional Setting for the Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building technologies. 
Ohio State 4-H Center with G

Draft EA Page 1-4 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

 Proposed project site looking north - Chadwick North grove of native trees and shrubs. 

 Proposed project site looking west - Existing poultry barns. 

Figure 1-3 - Site Photographs 

Draft EA Page 1-5 November 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

 Proposed project site looking east - Schottenstein Center. 

 Proposed project site looking south - Lane Avenue setback. 

Figure 1-3 -Site Photographs (Continued) 

Draft EA Page 1-6 November 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

1.3 SCOPING: PROCESS AND RESULTS 

A scoping/consultation letter was prepared and distributed to county, state and federal 

agencies and organizations on July 31, 2006. The consultation letter distribution list 

included agencies and organizations that may have information regarding potential 

environmental issues in the vicinity of the project site. Appendix A presents the 

consultation letter, a complete list of the letter recipients, and response letters received 

during the comment period. 

1.3.1 Environmental Issues 

The scoping/consultation letter for the Proposed Action identified the following 

environmental topics to be addressed in the EA: 

• Land Use and Transportation; 

• Visual Quality/Aesthetics; 

• Public Services and Utilities; 

• Noise; 

• Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice; 

• Biological Resources; 

• Cultural Resources; 

• Air Quality; 

• Water Resources; 

• Geology and Soils; 

• Hazardous Materials and Waste Management; and 

• Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. 

1.3.2 Alternatives 

The following alternatives were defined prior to the scoping period: 

• Proposed Action and 

• No Action Alternative. 

At this time, the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are the only alternatives 

to be addressed in the EA. DOE’s Proposed Action involves the provision of federal 

funds toward construction of the Ohio State 4-H Green Building Technologies project 

with green building technologies. The No Action Alternative would involve a DOE 

decision not to provide funding for the project. The applicant, OSU, has already 

commenced construction activities for this project, so for NEPA compliance purposes 

and to create a meaningful No Action scenario, potential impacts addressed in this EA 

are as compared to pre-construction baseline conditions. A privately funded project 

scenario would be identical, or at least similar to, the Proposed Action. If the applicant 

(OSU) proceeds without DOE or other federal funding, the project would not be subject 

to NEPA review. 

Other alternatives raised prior to the scoping period were considered, but were 

eliminated from further analysis. These alternatives and the rationales for eliminating 

these alternatives are: 

Draft EA Page 1-7 November 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

• Locate the Ohio 4-H Center on property not owned by OSU: Not considered 

feasible because of the added costs associated with the purchase of a suitable 

site, and because an off-campus location would not provide the visibility essential 

to promoting 4-H programs or foster integration of 4-H programs with other OSU 

disciplines such as the Colleges of Humanities, Human Ecology, Biological 

Sciences, Medicine, as well as the University Hospitals, OSU Cares, and the 

YMCA, among others; and 

• Locate the Ohio 4-H Center at some other location within the OSU campus:

This option was evaluated through a weighted-criteria site selection study that 

involved balancing the requirements of the building’s occupants with the 

University Master Plan (OSU Master Planning Advisory Committee, 1995). This 

analysis provided quantifiable analysis of alternative on-campus locations, as 

well as a forum for input from a diverse group of stakeholders who would be 

affected by the location and use of the new facility. The recommendation of the 

siting study was to locate the Ohio 4-H Center on the proposed project site, also 

known as the Dakan Hall site, rather than in other potential locations at OSU. 

The Ohio 4-H Center is planned to provide a permanent location for Ohio 4-H on the 

OSU campus and supply the visibility essential to promoting 4-H programs and to foster 

integration of 4-H’s programs with other university disciplines. 

 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The purpose of the Proposed Action, the decision to provide federal funding for the 

construction of the Ohio 4-H Center, is to support a hybrid geothermal/cooling tower 

HVAC system and the incorporation of recycled structural steel members. The existing 

4-H offices on the OSU campus is a small space in the Agricultural Administration 

Building that does not provide the visibility needed for the integration of 4-H programs 

into the rapidly expanding university complex and does not allow for the implementation 

of green building technologies. The Ohio 4-H Center would serve 4-H youth, volunteers, 

and youth professionals from around the state of Ohio, the nation, and the world. It is 

planned to be a training resource for other youth organizations, as well as a location for 

OSU Extension programming reaching throughout Ohio. 

The U.S. Congress has acknowledged the merit of this project by providing specific 

funding through DOE. Based on Congressional action, DOE has funding available to 

support OSU’s participation in the proposed project. 

1.5 ORGANIZATION, CONTENT, AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This EA is organized in a manner consistent with NEPA and DOE’s NEPA 

implementation guidelines. The EA has seven primary sections. The first section is a 

Summary. The organization, content, and objectives of the EA’s remaining six chapters 

are as follows: 

Chapter 1 – Introduction. Presents the regulatory context and rationale for preparing this 

EA, provides background about the project and proposed project site, summarizes the 

scoping process and results, defines the purpose and need for the project, and clarifies 

the organization, content, and objectives of this EA. 

Draft EA Page 1-8 November 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

 

Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives. Presents a detailed description of the 

project and the characteristics of the construction and operation of the proposed Ohio 4-

H Center, along with a description of the No Action Alternative. 

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment. Describes environmental baseline information about 

the project site and surrounding area. 

Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures. Describes potential 

impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives, compares the impacts, 

presents required and recommended measures to reduce impacts, and makes 

“significance” findings.

Chapter 5 - Bibliography and References. Presents a listing of key documents used in 

the preparation of this EA and consultations that took place as part of the EA process. 

Chapter 6 - List of Preparers. Identifies the individuals who prepared the EA and their 

roles. 

Draft EA Page 1-9 November 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Draft EA Page 1-10 November 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1.1 Project Applicants 

The project applicant, OSU, has assembled a project team to develop a prototype commercialscale project that is planned to utilize green building technologies in Franklin County, Ohio. The 

project team includes Lincoln Street Studio Ltd. (architects), Jezerinac, Geers & Associates 

Incorporated (structural engineers), W. E. Monks & Company (mechanical/electrical engineers), 

Jane Amidon (landscape architect consultant) and Sands Decker, Ltd. (civil engineers). As 

described in Chapter 1, DOE proposes to provide funding in support of this project. Details of 

the Ohio 4-H Center project are described in the Construction Document Package which is 

available for public review in the OSU Office of Facilities, Operations, and Development, which 

includes the Offices of the University Architect and Engineer. 

2.1.2 Project Location 

The project site is located on the OSU campus northwest of the intersection of Lane Avenue 

and Fred Taylor Drive in Franklin County, Ohio (see Figure 1-2). Regional access to the site is 

provided by State Route 315 located about 500 feet (0.15 kilometers) west of the site, U.S. 

Interstate 670 located about 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) south of the site, U.S. Interstate 70 

located about 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) south of the site and Interstate 71 located 

approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) west of the site (Figure 1-1). Local access to the 

project site is via Fred Taylor Drive just north of West Lane Avenue. The proposed project 

location is relatively flat to gently sloping down toward the wooded north of the proposed project 

site. Surface runoff is generally toward Fred Taylor Drive to the east and toward a drainage 

swale on the north site of the building location. Storm water on the project site is directed to 

Chadwick Lake via a 2-foot deep, grass-lined shallow swale that begins in the northwest corner 

of the project site. 

 2.1.3 Building Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance 

Building Design 

The Ohio 4-H Center has been designed by the project team identified above with energy 

efficient technologies including a hybrid geothermal system for heating and cooling and a 

structural system incorporating a recycled steel manufacturing process to produce structural 

steel members. Figure 2-3 shows the project site plan. The footprint of the proposed Ohio 4-H 

Center building plus parking lot and roadways is 1.4 acres (0.6 hectares). The building alone 

would cover 0.6 acres (0.2 hectares). 

If the Ohio 4-H Center is constructed as designed, the north end of the structure would have a 

5-story office tower constructed over a full basement. The central and southern portions of the 

structure would generally be a single-story, slab-on-grade building. A small section of the 

building would have a second story to house mechanical equipment. The proposed project site 

area would encompass 5.6 acres (2.26 hectares). Some of this area is planned to be used for 

vehicle parking, geothermal wells, landscaping and other ancillary learning facilities. ThreeFinal EA Page 2-1 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

dimensional computer model images of the proposed building are provided in Figure 2-1. 

Photographs of the physical model of the proposed construction are shown in Figure 2-2. 

If this facility is constructed as designed by the OSU project team, the Ohio 4-H Center is 

planned to utilize a heat pump system, with the earth serving as both the heat source and as a 

heat sink. The Ohio 4-H Center geothermal system would utilize the earth for heating and 

cooling because the earth remains at a relatively constant temperature of 55 degrees 

Fahrenheit (55 ̊F), particularly at depth. The vertical geothermal heat exchanger is planned to 

consist of a series of 72-80 boreholes, each 5 inches in diameter and approximately 280 feet 

deep. A plastic pipe would be inserted into each borehole with a “U” shaped bend at the bottom 

so that the pipe doubles back on itself (like a paper clip) and comes back to the top. These 

pipes would be collected into groups of eight, so that when a glycol solution is pumped through 

the pipe it actually goes down and up through eight boreholes to form a geothermal heat 

exchanger loop. 

Regardless of what temperature the heat exchanger solution is when it leaves the building and 

enters the geothermal heat exchanger loop, it comes out of the heat exchanger and back to the 

building at 55 ̊F. Each group of eight boreholes would have its own pump, and the circulating 

solution from each group would be connected to a building loop so that the 55 ̊F solution from 

all the pipes would be circulated in loop fashion around the building. At various places in the 

building, heat pumps would exchange the temperature from the heat exchanger solution to air at 

a prescribed temperature. In winter, the system would take heat out (cool down) of the 55 ̊F 

glycol solution to warm the air that would blow into spaces for heating. In the summer, the heat 

pumps would heat up the 55 ̊F glycol solution by taking heat out of the air in spaces to be 

cooled. So, in the summer, the heat exchanger solution would go into the loop hot and the 

earth would absorb the heat, cooling the solution back down to 55 ̊F. In the winter, the heat 

exchanger solution would go into the loop cold and the earth would warm it back up to 55 ̊F 

(Lincoln Street Studios 2003). 

Figure 2-4 shows the layout of the geothermal heat exchanger including borehole locations and 

supply and return headers. The vertical geothermal heat exchanger is planned to be covered 

by a research and display garden and surrounded by the Ohio 4-H Center parking lot. 

Additional heat rejection would be accomplished through a closed circuit cooling tower located 

in the building’s north tower. The heat exchanger fluid contained in the closed loop piping 

would be a solution 20% Dowfrost HD® heat transfer fluid and 80% water, and, under normal 

operation, would not contact the soil or ground water. Dowfrost HD® with propylene glycol was 

selected as the fluid with the least environmental impact in the event of a pipe rupture. The 

heat exchanger fluid would vary in temperature between 90 ̊F and 30 ̊F and individual space 

heat pumps would extract heat from or reject heat to this loop. Space temperature would be 

controlled through heat pumps located in mechanical rooms and air distribution would be 

through a low pressure duct system. 

Outside air supply and exhaust fan speed would operate at a minimum speed when the building 

is not occupied and fan speed would be increased based on a need for additional ventilation as 

established by space carbon dioxide (CO2) sensors. An electric canister-type humidifier with 

distribution manifold mounted in the outside air supply duct would maintain building relative 

humidity above 30%. 

Recycled steel would be the main component in the Ohio 4-H Center structural system. The 

project would require 282 tons of structural steel that would be produced in domestic mills using 

the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) process and would contain at least 90% total recycled content. 

Final EA Page 2-2 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

The use of recycled structural steel allows energy that would be used to extract raw material 

from the ground to be conserved and diverts waste from old steel products away from landfills. 

Construction Requirements 

Site topography is relatively flat to gently sloping toward the wooded area to the north. The 

southern portion of the building footprint would be cut to a finished floor grade of 749 feet 

elevation. The central portion of the building footprint would receive up to 5 feet of fill to reach 

finished subgrade elevation and the northern end of the building would be constructed with a full 

basement that would extend approximately 10 feet below existing surface elevation and have a 

finished floor elevation of approximately 735.5 feet. To ensure that trees indicated to remain on 

site are protected during construction and promptly and properly treated and repaired if 

damaged, a landscape architect and arborists from the Chadwick Arboretum and Learning 

Gardens will be available for consultation. Temporary fence will be erected around the drip line 

of trees and vegetation selected to remain. The temporary fencing will ensure that construction 

materials are not stored within the drip line and that vehicles and foot traffic are not permitted 

within this area. The fence will be removed when construction is complete. Figure 2-5 shows 

the plan for tree removal, transplant, and preservation. The Ohio 4-H Center’s construction 

document package includes provisions for the installation and maintenance of lawn, grasses 

and exterior plants after construction. A qualified landscape installer will be employed to ensure 

the successful establishment of exterior plants. 

During construction, measures would be taken to prevent soil sedimentation into the stormwater 

system as permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

general permit. To minimize impacts associated with particulates, best management practices 

(BMPs) such as covering of dirt stockpiles and application of water sprays would be 

implemented. During construction the site would employ surface stabilization after clearing, silt 

fences and inlet protection. A temporary on-site detention pond would be constructed to store 

all groundwater encountered during borehole drilling. If groundwater is turbid it would be stored 

in the detention pond until suitably clarified for disposal through area storm sewers. The heat 

exchanger boreholes would be installed using two diesel drill rigs equipped with standard steel 

drill rods using sonic drilling techniques (Jackson Geothermal, personal communication on 

October 6, 2006). Each borehole will have an external diameter of 4.5 inches. Potable water 

supplied by the Columbus Division of Water will be used to aid the drilling process. No soil will 

be removed during borehole installation. 

 

Final EA Page 2-3 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Final EA Page 2-4 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Final EA Page 2-5 December 2006 
Ohio State 4-H Center with G

Draft EA Page 2-6 
Ohio State 4-H Center with G

Draft EA Page 2-7 
Ohio State 4-H Center with G

Draft EA Page 2-8 
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Building Description 

The Ohio 4-H Center has been registered with the U.S. Green Buildings Council (USGBC), and 

the design is currently undergoing review for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) certification. The LEED Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consensusbased national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings. LEED was 

created to define "green building" by establishing a common standard of measurement, to 

promote integrated, whole-building design practices, to recognize environmental leadership in 

the building industry and to raise consumer awareness of green building benefits (USGBC 

2006). No findings from the USGBC regarding the Ohio 4-H Center are available at this time. 

 

The OSU Office of Facilities, Operations, and Development, which includes the Offices of the 

University Architect and Engineer, reviewed the Ohio 4-H Center plans for conformity with 

university regulations and standards. No report of deficiencies or lack of conformance with 

standards was made. 

2.1.4 Environmental Management Commitments 

During construction, the Ohio 4-H Center will implement the following environmental 

management commitments: 

• The use of paints, coatings, sealants, adhesives and carpets that have a low VOC 

content to reduce the levels of ozone (O3) that would be generated (VOCs and NOx react 

in the atmosphere to generate O3.). 

• Construction would preferentially use regional materials and products that are extracted 

and manufactured within 500 miles of the site. Reducing the length of material 

transportation reduces the emission of criteria pollutants from motor vehicles. 

• The project is planned to utilize 282 tons of structural steel produced in domestic mills 

containing at least 90% total recycled content. 

 

• Water efficiency would be achieved by using water conserving plumbing fixtures (e.g. 

dual flush toilets, waterless urinals, and faucet sensors). 

• At least 50% of the construction debris would be recycled. 

• Highly reflective roof material and parking surfaces would be used. 

• Monitoring systems would be incorporated into the building design to measure energy 

use and consumption, and carbon monoxide levels and ventilation. 

Based on a preliminary energy analysis performed by W. E. Monks & Company that compared 

a budget building design representing minimum standards in terms of energy efficiency for a 

building built today with the proposed design for the Ohio 4-H Center, it is estimated that the 

proposed energy efficiency design of the Ohio 4-H Center is planned to result in yearly annual 

savings of 30% for heating, ventilating and cooling alone. (W. E. Monks & Co. 2004). 

Draft EA Page 2-9 November 2006
Ohio State 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Permits and Coordination with Agencies 

A NPDES general permit for the Ohio 4-H Center was issued by the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) on September 7, 2006 (Trishman, M., OSU Project Manager, 

personal communication on October 9, 2006). This permit reviews the measures to prevent soil 

sedimentation in the stormwater system during construction. The Ohio Department of 

Commerce, Division of Industrial Compliance issued a Certification of Plan Approval for the 

Ohio 4-H Center Project in February 2005 and granted an extension to this permit in February 

2006 (Personal communication with Jeff Snively, Lincoln Street Studio on September 21, 2006). 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative would involve a DOE decision to not provide funding for the Ohio 4-H 

Center. OSU has already started the construction phase of the 4-H Center project, so for NEPA 

compliance purposes and to create a meaningful No Action scenario, impacts addressed in this 

EA are as compared to pre-construction baseline conditions. DOE funding for this project is 

contingent upon finding that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the 

construction of the proposed facility. Should DOE conclude that there are significant impacts 

associated with the project, no DOE funds will be committed to the construction effort. 

Draft EA Page 2-10 November 2006
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Site visits to the project site were conducted on July 11, July 19, and August 10, 2006. During 

these visits observations were made regarding vegetation and wildlife species and surface 

water drainage. All site visits and inter-agency consultations were complete prior to OSU 

beginning construction on the 4-H Center to establish the pre-construction baseline data. 

3.1 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 

3.1.1 Project Site and Zoning 

The project site is owned by OSU and includes approximately 5.6 acres (2.26 hectares) of 

mostly vacant land with a maintained grass cover surrounded by a campus area comprising 

educational (academic buildings) and recreational uses (sports arena, baseball stadium) (Figure 

1-2). The project site is a portion of tax parcel identification number 010062731 and has been 

assigned a zoning designation “University, College, Research-Park District” by the City of 

Columbus (Personal communication with Ralph Recchie, OSU Office of Real Estate on August 

23 2006). The proposed project is consistent with the current zoning designation. Some 

mature trees are located around the perimeter of the site and nearby buildings. Figure 1-2 

presents a series of photographs that characterize the project site and surrounding area. 

3.1.2 Surrounding Area 

Land uses surrounding the project site include Chadwick North grove of native trees and shrubs 

and Chadwick Lake to the north, the Schottenstein Center east of Fred Taylor Drive, OSU 

academic facilities south of West Lane Avenue and two abandoned poultry barns and State 

Route 315 to the west. Chadwick North, located just north of the project site contains a 

collection of trees, shrubs, vines and woody ground covers native to Ohio. Chadwick North is 

part of Chadwick Arboretum and Learning Gardens, which is an outdoor laboratory whose 

primary role is to provide a landscape setting for teaching and research in a variety of 

disciplines (Chadwick Arboretum & Learning Gardens 2006). The mission of the Chadwick 

Arboretum and Learning Gardens is to provide an educational environment that advances 

knowledge of the relationship between people and their natural environment through 

multidisciplinary research, curriculum support, public education, plant preservation, and 

collections of plants within an aesthetically designed, constructed landscape. Chadwick 

Arboretum manages 60 acres with three main areas: Learning Gardens, Lane Avenue Gardens 

and Arboretum North (Chadwick Arboretum & Learning Gardens 2006). The Schottenstein 

Center is the primary indoor arena for OSU athletics and includes several large parking areas. 

The area south of the proposed building site contains academic facilities, principally for the 

College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. The poultry barns west of the 

project site are currently unoccupied and State Route 315 is a major transportation corridor for 

the City of Columbus. 

OSU is a key component of the larger Columbus community, and the quality of the campus 

affects and is affected by the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. OSU’s influence 

extends into the urban neighborhoods east, south and north of the campus, with many students 

residing in neighborhoods within 1 to 2 miles of the campus borders. A number of faculty and 

staff reside in adjacent neighborhoods, many within walking distance of the campus commercial 

districts that are present along High Street and to a lesser extent, sections of Neil Avenue and 

Lane Avenue. 

Final EA 3-1 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

The project site is located within OSU’s Midwest Campus, which is the area between the 

Olentangy River and John Herrick Drive south of Lane Avenue that houses the instructional and 

support facilities of the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, and the 

College of Veterinary Medicine. The Midwest Campus consists of several buildings of relatively 

low profile and density, interspersed with large areas of landscaped lawns and paved parking 

lots. State Route 315 is the western boundary of Midwest Campus. OSU-owned land west of 

State Route 315 includes businesses, warehouses and agricultural research space. 

Approximately 1.1 million gross square feet of building area are accommodated on the 91-acre 

site Midwest Campus (OSU Master Planning Advisory Committee, 1995). 

The 1995 University Master Plan for OSU (OSU Master Planning Advisory Committee, 1995) is 

an ongoing process that began in 1993 and consists of a long range concept plan for the 

campus as a whole, augmented periodically by a series of more detailed district plans that will 

be prepared to address more immediate and specific area and project needs. According to the 

1995 University Master Plan, the land along the Olentangy River corridor (within which the 

project site is located) is considered as an area for “significant future expansion” of academic 

and research facilities. The goal of this expansion is further integration of the Central and 

Midwest Campuses as a unified academic environment. 

3.1.3 Transportation and Access 

The project site is located near bus lines. Regional access to the site is provided by State 

Route 315 located about 500 feet (0.15 kilometers) west of the site, U.S. Interstate 670 located 

about 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) south of the site, U.S. Interstate 70 located about 3.5 miles (5.6 

kilometers) south of the site and Interstate 71 located approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) 

west of the site (Figure 2-1). Local access to the project site is via Fred Taylor Drive just north 

of West Lane Avenue. 

As the only direct link with the regional network of limited-access freeways, State Route 315 is 

the preferred route for the majority of commuters and visitors approaching the OSU campus 

from beyond the surrounding neighborhoods. The OSU area is served directly by three 

interchanges with State Route 315 (Kinnear Road/Olentangy River Road, Lane Avenue, and 

Ackerman Road). Of the three, Lane Avenue is the primary approach to campus from State 

Route 315. 

Lane Avenue also serves as a primary east-west cross town link and carries heavy traffic 

independent of OSU functions. While several local streets provide access to the campus from 

Lane Avenue, the principal public entry points are Fyffe Road/Fred Taylor Drive. Fyffe Road to 

the south and Fred Taylor Drive to the north provide entry into the Midwest Campus and the 

western end of the OSU loop road system. Fred Taylor Drive also provides access to the 

Schottenstein Arena and athletics facilities north of Lane Avenue. Midwest Campus is 

separated from the Central Campus by the river and open land adjacent to the river, and it is 

bracketed on all sides by arterial roads. Traffic near the project site is typically heavy. 

The existing 4-H offices at OSU include 20-25 employees that commute to the site during the 

work week. 

Final EA 3-2 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

3.2 VISUAL QUALITY / AESTHETICS 

Visual resources are the natural and manufactured features that define a particular 

environment’s aesthetic qualities. In undeveloped areas, landforms, water features, and 

vegetation are the primary components that characterize the landscape. Manufactured 

elements such as buildings, fences, and streets are also considered. 

3.2.1 Visual Characteristics of the Project Site 

The visual character of the project site is predominantly undeveloped, although the Midwest 

Campus is one of the principal new development zones identified by the OSU Master Plan. The 

project site lies along the principal campus entrance corridor from the west and, as such, is 

considered an important visual corridor within the campus. The streets and pedestrian ways that 

cross the river to the Midwest Campus offer generally unobstructed views of the Olentangy 

River and the open spaces on either side. The OSU Master Plan recommends that the visual 

and functional importance of this corridor be emphasized by providing for pedestrian traffic and 

by broad lawns along the edge of the campus. The OSU Facilities Planning and Development 

office recommended that a 200-foot setback along West Lane Avenue be retained as the site for 

a future OSU welcome center. The 200-foot setback along Lane Avenue would be maintained 

by the proposed project. 

The most prominent feature within the project site view shed is the Schottenstein Center directly 

east of the project site. The Schottenstein Center is a 770,000 square foot facility that can 

accommodate 21,000 people. A 100-foot setback along Fred Taylor Drive has been retained to 

match the Schottenstein Center setback and to preserve area aesthetics. 

3.2.2 Public Vantage Points/Site Visibility 

The project site is located adjacent to West Lane Avenue, the principal campus entrance 

corridor from the west, and would be visible to motorists traveling on this street. Additionally, 

the streets and pedestrian ways that cross the river to the Midwest Campus offer generally 

unobstructed views of the project site. 

3.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 

3.3.1 Storm Water Management 

Surface runoff within the project site is generally toward Fred Taylor Drive to the east and 

toward a drainage swale on the north side of the building location. This surface runoff is 

directed to Chadwick Lake via a 2-foot deep, grass-lined shallow swale that begins in the 

northwest corner of the site. 

3.3.2 Sanitary Sewer 

Geothechnical Consultants, Inc (GCI) produced a Subsurface Exploration and Foundation 

Engineering Report for the project site in December 2003 (GCI 2003). This report states that 

existing sanitary sewer lines are present beneath the project site. Most subsurface sewer lines 

shown within the project site appear to have been shut-off and abandoned in place after the 

Final EA 3-3 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

structures previously located on the site were demolished. The exception is an active 8-inch 

sanitary line that extends across the building footprint in a general east-west direction. 

Connections to sanitary sewerage are subject to City of Columbus Construction and Material 

Specifications (Lincoln Street Studio, et al. 2006). 

3.3.3 Domestic and Fire Water Supply 

The City of Columbus water system provides domestic and fire water supplies within the project 

area. A 48-inch city water line on the west side of the Olentangy River near Olentangy River 

Road, which passes in close proximity to one of OSU's two 24-inch connections, is believed to 

be the nearest connection to the project site. 

3.3.4 Electric Utilities 

Electricity on campus is provided by the McCracken Power Plant and by the Columbus and 

Southern Electric Company via three transformers at the Buckeye Substation. Annual loads on 

campus are projected to increase by as much as 3.5 percent due to new construction and 

increased use of electronic equipment such as personal computers. Several initiatives currently 

are underway to extend the life of the existing capacity on-campus, including the use of more 

energy-efficient lights, fans, and other high-efficiency electrical appliances which have 

decreased the lighting load usage by 30 to 40 percent; and the installation of occupancy 

sensors, which have decreased the lighting load by 50 percent. 

3.4 NOISE 

Noise is defined as unwanted or annoying sound that is typically associated with human 

activities and that interferes with, or disrupts normal activities (DOE, 2003). Sound and noise 

are measured as sound pressure levels in units of decibels (dB). Response to noise varies 

according to its type, its perceived importance, its appropriateness in the setting and time of 

day, and the sensitivity of the individual receptor. Human hearing is simulated by 

measurements in the scale of A-weighting (dBA) network, which de-emphasizes lower 

frequency sounds to simulate the response of the human ear. Some typical sound levels from 

common noise sources are presented in Table 3.4-1. 

3.4.1 Regulations and Guidelines 

Environmental noise regulations and guidelines for outdoor, neighborhood and/or community 

noise levels have been promulgated by the EPA, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), 

the State of Ohio, and local governments such as Franklin County. 

The EPA provides guideline noise levels for anticipated noise/human activity disturbance 

impacts in relation to industrial construction and operations. The levels are set to define a point 

at which these levels and lower levels would protect people from activity interference and 

annoyance. Outdoor locations “in which quiet is a basis for use” are assigned a maximum noise 

level of 55 dBA. Indoor locations are assigned a maximum noise level of 45 dBA (DOE, 2003). 

The FHWA has created Noise Abatement Criteria for actions that involve federal roads. A noise 

level of 67 dBA is assigned to lands that include residences, schools, churches, hospitals, picnic 

areas, and recreation areas. A 24-hour average level, weighted to address the increased 

Final EA 3-4 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

significance of nighttime noise, of 67 dBA is a typical threshold for considering mitigation for 

residential sensitive receptor exposure. 

Table 3.4-1. Sound Levels* of Typical Noise Sources and Noise 

 Environments (A-Weighted Sound Levels).

Noise Source 

(at a given distance) 

Scale of Aweighted 

Sound Level 

(dBA) 

Noise Environment 

(equivalent) 

Human Judgment of Noise 

Loudness (relative to a 

reference loudness of 70 

dB*) 

Commercial jet take-off (200 

feet/60.6 meters) 120 -- Threshold of pain *32 times as loud 

Motorcycle (25 feet/7.6 meters) 

Diesel truck, 40 mph (50 

feet/15.2 meters) 

90 Boiler room; 

Printing press plant *4 times as loud 

Garbage disposal (3 feet/1 

meter) 80 Noisy urban daytime *2 times as loud 

Bus idling (50 feet/15.2 meters) 75 -- *1.5 times as loud 

Passenger car, 65 mph (25 

feet/7.6 meters) 

Vacuum cleaner (3 feet/1 

meter) 

70 -- 

Moderately loud 

*70 dB 

(Reference loudness) 

Normal conversation (5 feet/1.5 

meters) 60 

Data processing 

center; 

Department store 

*1/2 as loud 

Light traffic (100 feet/30 meters) 50 Quiet urban daytime *1/4 as loud 

Bird calls (distant) 40 Quiet urban 

nighttime/rural 

Quiet 

*1/8 as loud 

Library 36 Quiet suburban 

nighttime 

Quiet 

*3/32 as loud 

*These values are logarithmic measurements (i.e., every 10-dBA increase is perceived by the human ear as 

approximately twice the previous noise level; therefore, the motorcycle is twice as loud as the garbage disposal). 

Source: FHWA and Salter, 2000. 

The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles stipulates that when operated at a speed of 35 miles per 

hour (mph) or less, the maximum noise limit is 82 decibels based on a distance of not less than 

50 feet from the center of the line of travel. When operated at a speed of more than 35 mph, 

the maximum noise limit is 86 decibels. 

Section 551.021, public nuisance regulations of the Franklin County Zoning Resolution 

stipulates that noise or vibration be controlled such that it will not be at a level above that 

normally perceptible from other development activities in the area or from the usual street traffic 

observed at the street right -of-way line of the lot (Franklin County, 2004). 

3.4.2 Sensitive Receptors

Chadwick North is located approximately 50 feet north of the project site and is considered a 

sensitive receptor due to its role in providing outdoor education in a natural environment. No 

residences, academic facilities, or any other potential sensitive receptors are located within 500 

feet of the project site. 

Final EA 3-5 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

 3.4.3 Existing Noise Levels and Sources 

Although noise measurements were not taken and noise modeling was not performed, site 

observations indicate the acoustic environment within the boundaries of the site can be 

considered similar to that of an urban location. The ambient noise level within the project site 

consists primarily of noise generated by vehicle traffic on adjacent roadways, primarily State 

Route 315. Actual noise levels in and around the site are affected by specific noise events, 

noise barriers such as vegetation or structures, and meteorological conditions, including wind 

speed and direction. Roadway noise levels depend upon vehicle type, speed, traffic volume, 

surface conditions, surface gradient, and distance to receptors. 

3.5 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, enacted by President Clinton in 1993, requires that each federal agency 

make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. 

3.5.1 Population 

The project site is located in the central portion of Franklin County, in the city of Columbus, 

Ohio, on the campus of OSU. The population density of Franklin County is 2,020 per square 

mile. Based on 2005 Census data, Franklin County has a population of 1,090,771. This 

represents an increase of 2 percent over the County’s 2000 population of 1,068,978. The City 

of Columbus is the largest city in the state of Ohio. Based on 2005 Census data, Columbus 

has a population of 730,657. This represents an increase of 2 percent over the city’s 2000 

population of 714,063. (http://www.census.gov/, 2006). 

3.5.2 Employment 

Table 3.5-1 provides data on the distribution of jobs in Franklin County by industry for 2002. 

The top three employment sectors in Franklin County in 2002 comprised health care, 

manufacturing and professional, scientific and technical services, respectively. 

Table 3.5-1. Leading Jobs by Industry for Franklin County, Ohio (2002). 

Industry Jobs (2002) 

Health care and social assistance 72,443 

Manufacturing 45,727 

Professional, scientific and technical services 40,919 

Other services (except public administration) 18,237 

Arts, entertainment and recreation 7,207 

Food manufacturing 5,339 

Plastics and rubber products manufacturing 3,984 

Machinery manufacturing 3,281 

Printing and related support activities 2,963 

Other plastics products manufacturing 2,936 

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006 Economic census.

Final EA 3-6 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

3.5.3 Housing 

Based on 2000 Census data, Franklin County has 471,016 housing units, with a vacancy rate of 

7 percent (32,238 units). The median house value in Franklin County is $116,200, while the 

median rent is $496 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006). 

3.5.4 Ethnicity 

Table 3.5-2 provides a comparison of the ethnic composition of Franklin County, the State of 

Ohio, and the U.S. As shown on this table, the populations of Franklin County and the State of 

Ohio comprise a higher white population than that of the U.S. The Franklin County population 

has a considerably higher percentage of Black population compared to Ohio and the U.S. 

Franklin County and Ohio have a considerably lower proportion of Hispanics and Latinos than 

the U.S. Site visits to the project site and its surroundings were conducted on July 11, July 19 

and August 10, 2006. Based on observations made during windshield tours of the project site 

and vicinity there do not appear to be any concentrations of minorities near the project site. 

Table 3.5-2. Race Composition for Franklin County, State of Ohio, and the United States 

Race Franklin 

County 

State of 

Ohio U.S. 

White 75.5% 85.0% 75.1% 

Black 17.9% 11.5% 12.3% 

American Indian 0.3% 0.2% 0.9% 

Asian 3.1% 1.2% 3.6% 

Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 

Other Race 1.0% 0.8% 5.5% 

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 2.3% 1.9% 12.5% 

Two or More Races 2.2% 1.4% 2.4% 

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Economic Census 2006.

3.5.5 Income and Poverty 

Based on 2000 Census data, residents of Franklin County had a median household income of 

$42,734, as compared to $40,956 for the State of Ohio and $41,994 for the U.S. Additionally, 

8.2 percent of Franklin County’s population in 2000 was considered to be living below poverty 

level, a significantly lower percentage than that of the U.S. (12.4 percent) and 0.4 percent higher 

than that of the State of Ohio (7.8 percent). Based on a site visit conducted on July 18, 2006 

and the Franklin County Profile (Ohio Department of Development 2006) there do not appear to 

be any concentrations of people living in poverty near the project site. 

3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Biological resources include plants and animals within the region and the habitats in which they 

occur. All organisms and habitats occurring in one location comprise the ecosystem. Complex 

plant associations manifest as distinct vegetation communities and are driven by characteristics 

of precipitation, soil, hydrology, aspect, elevation, and climate, as well as competition among 

Final EA 3-7 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

plant species and herbivory. Wildlife associations are driven by plant species composition and 

structure of the vegetation community and abiotic factors such as soil structure, topographic 

relief, water availability, and temperature. 

For purposes of this EA, biological resources are presented in four categories: vegetation, which 

includes noxious weeds; wetlands and other waters of the U.S.; wildlife; and species of concern. 

There are no aquatic resources within the project site because permanent water bodies are 

absent from the site. 

A site visit to the 5.6 acre (2.26-hectare) project site was conducted on July 19, 2006 to identify 

vegetation and wildlife species and determine whether any sensitive species or habitats may be 

present on the site. The site visit entailed a general survey of the project site. A SAIC biologist 

walked throughout the project site and recorded all plant species observed. Wildlife species 

observed on site, including signs of wildlife, were also recorded. Photos were taken of the site 

showing general vegetation types that occurred. Possible occurrences of wildlife species not 

observed on site were determined based on vegetation types (habitat) observed on site. No 

formal surveys for migratory birds or threatened and endangered species were conducted. 

Details of the observations made during the site visit are provided below. 

3.6.1 Vegetation 

The project site occurs at an elevation of 750 feet above mean seal level (MSL) in the ecotone 

between the Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) and Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) 

Ecoregion Provinces (Bailey 1995). The project site is also located on the eastern edge of the 

Till Plains Physiographic Province, which is typified as fertile, and historically modified by 

glaciers (ODNR 2005). Although currently undeveloped, the project site, like most areas on the 

OSU campus, has been altered in the past and does not reflect a natural assemblage of plant 

species. The vast majority of the project site is covered by maintained lawn grass. However, 

mature trees are present on the northern and southern portions of the project site. Chadwick 

North to the north does contain many native tree and shrub species. Mature trees closest to the 

proposed building site include black walnut (Juglans nigra), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), and 

American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). 

3.6.2 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. 

Based on a review of topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory wetlands mapping, and 

the July 19 site visit, it was determined that wetlands and other waters of the U.S. do not occur 

on the project site. The nearest waters of the U.S. occur approximately 0.25 mile (0.4 

kilometers) to the east (Olentangy River) and Chadwick Lake 0.1 mile (0.16 kilometers) to the 

north of the project site. Chadwick Lake is a man-made pond. 

A shallow swale (2 feet deep) begins in the northwest corner of the project site and directs 

precipitation runoff to Chadwick Lake. The swale is grass-lined and does not contain an ordinary 

high water mark. No standing water has been observed in the swale during all visits to the project 

site conducted on July 11, July 19, and August 10, 2006. Several small clumps of willows occur 

along the length of the drainage swale outside the project site boundaries. The majority of the 

vegetation in the area are upland species. In summary, there is insufficient hydrology to support 

wetland communities within the project site boundaries. 

Final EA 3-8 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

3.6.3 Wildlife 

Wildlife in the area is limited due to the surrounding developed areas and altered vegetation at 

the project site. Wildlife species observed during site visits are consistent with common species 

that inhabit urban and suburban environments in the region. Chadwick North provides a seminatural environment and the majority of species were observed along the border between the 

grove and the lawn area. The following birds were observed: American robin (Turdus 

migratorius), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), mourning dove 

(Zenaida macroura), gray catbird (Dumetella caolinensis), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis 

cardinalis). Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipter cooperii) are 

relatively common within the general area, but none were observed at the project site during the 

site visits. The only mammal species observed during the site visit was the eastern gray 

squirrel (Sciurus caroliensis). 

3.6.4 Species of Concern

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

(ODNR) were contacted concerning the presence of rare and/or protected species near the 

project site. According to these agencies, there are no known unique plant communities, 

Federal Wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, state nature preserves, scenic rivers, designated 

Critical Habitat, or threatened/endangered species known to occur on the project site, but the 

site does lie within the range of four federally listed endangered species (FWS 2006): Indiana 

bat (Myotis sodalis), clubshell (Pleurobema clava), northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa 

rangiana), and Scioto madtom (Noturus trautmani). The latter three are aquatic species and no 

aquatic habitat occurs at the project site. USFWS also noted that the project site is within the 

range of the rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), a Federal Candidate mussel species. Although the 

project site is within the range of the Indiana bat, this bat requires cool, humid caves with stable 

temperatures for winter hibernation. During summer, the Indiana bats roosts under loose tree 

bark on dead or dying trees (USFWS 2006b). These habitat requirements are not met at the 

project site. 

ODNR (2006a, b) had no records of any species of concern within 0.5 mile of the project site. 

ODNR did note that the clubshell mussel, northern riffleshell mussel, rayed bean mussle and 

Scioto madtom also are state-listed as endangered species. Additionally, ODNR indicated that 

the project site is within the historical range of the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), a state 

endangered bird species, and the golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), both of 

which are state endangered bird species. 

Based on observations made during the site visits, none of these species is present at the 

project site and they are not expected to be present due to a lack of appropriate habitat. 

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources are defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, or building, structure, or 

object considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, 

religious or any other reason. 

 

Only significant cultural resources warrant consideration with regard to adverse impacts 

resulting from a proposed action. To be considered significant, archaeological or architectural 

resources must meet one or more of the criteria (as defined in 36 CFR 60.4) for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Final EA 3-9 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

National Register-eligible resources are those that: 

a) are associated with events or have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history; 

b) are associated with lives of persons significant in our past; 

c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic 

values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction; or 

d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history. 

OSU archives indicate that the lands that include the project site were purchased between 1917 

and 1925. The first tract was purchased in 1917 from Louisa Hess, and had been leased by 

OSU prior to the purchase. The remainder was leased and then acquired from Mary Hess in 

1925. University archives provide details of the boundaries (based on surveys dating as far 

back as 1859) and Civil Engineering Maps of the lands done in 1919 (#191-63; 191-73;191-75). 

These archives indicate such items as fences and stables present on the land (R. Goerling, 

OSU Office of Archives e-mail received August 23 2006). OSU archives show previous land 

use adjacent to the project site to be poultry science and other animal husbandry. Poultry 

breeding houses formerly located north of the project site were all-wood construction and were 

built as part of a Works Progress Administration (WPA) project conducted in 1938 and 1939. 

Dakan Hall was also part of the WPA project and was located south of the project site but was 

demolished in 2004. 

3.7.1 Historic Resources 

Efforts to identify significant historic resources in the area of potential effect included an 

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) records search and consultation with the Ohio 

Historical Society Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) in Columbus, Ohio. 

Two historic buildings or structures listed on the national register of historic places were 

identified within a 1-mile radius of the project site: Ohio Stadium and the University, Hayes and 

Orton Halls located on the OSU “Oval” (the three “Halls” are considered a single structure). The 

Oval is the central open space of the OSU Columbus campus. Architect Howard Dwight Smith, 

drew the plans for the horseshoe-shaped, double deck stadium known as Ohio Stadium in 

1907. His unique design earned him the gold medal of the American Institute of Architects for 

“excellence in public work” and Ohio Stadium was completed in time for the 1922 football 

season. University Hall was built around 1871 and was the first classroom building completed 

at OSU. Hayes and Orton Halls were completed in 1893. 

3.7.2 Archaeological Resources 

Efforts to identify significant archaeological resources in the project area included a records 

search at the Ohio Historical Preservation Office (OHPO). There are no properties included in 

the Ohio Historic Inventory, or Ohio Archeological Inventory in the immediate vicinity of the 

project site (OHPO, 2006). The Soil Survey of Franklin County, Ohio (USDA, 1980) defines the 

project site soils as “Udothents-Urban land complex, gently rolling” which generally consists of 

pavement, berm, median strip, ditches and interchanges of major highways and is indicative of 

excavated or disturbed soil. Based on the soil complex and close proximity of the project site to 

State Route 315, it is highly likely that the area has already been disturbed so the likelihood of 

Final EA 3-10 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

finding archeological resources is low. Additionally, soil borings advanced at the project site 

show a surface cover of fill material with depths varied from 1 to 9 feet across the building site. 

This is further evidence of disturbed soil. The project site does not appear to be located in an 

archaeologically sensitive area and there is a low probability that undisturbed deposits are 

present (OHPO 2006). 

3.8 AIR QUALITY 

This section discusses air quality considerations and conditions in Franklin County, Ohio. It 

addresses air quality standards and describes current air quality conditions in the region. 

3.8.1 Definition of the Resource 

Federal Air Quality Standards. Air quality is determined by the type and concentration of 

pollutants in the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and local and regional 

meteorological influences. The significance of a pollutant concentration in a region or 

geographical area is determined by comparing it to federal and/or state ambient air quality 

standards. Under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) has established nationwide air quality standards to protect public 

health and welfare, with an adequate margin of safety. These federal standards, known as the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), represent the maximum allowable 

atmospheric concentrations and were developed for six “criteria” pollutants: ozone (O3), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), respirable particulate matter less than or equal 

to 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS are defined in terms of 

concentration (e.g., parts per million [ppm] or micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3

]) determined 

over various periods of time (averaging periods). Short-term standards (1-hour, 8-hour, or 

24-hour periods) were established for pollutants with acute health effects and may not be 

exceeded more than once a year. Long-term standards (annual periods) were established for 

pollutants with chronic health effects and may never be exceeded. 

Based on measured ambient criteria pollutant data, the USEPA designates areas of the United 

States as having air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS (attainment) or worse than the 

NAAQS (nonattainment). Areas are designated as unclassifiable for a pollutant when there is 

insufficient ambient air quality data for the USEPA to form a basis of attainment status. These 

areas are treated similar to areas that are in attainment of the NAAQS. 

State Air Quality Standards. Under the CAA, state and local agencies may establish ambient 

air quality standards (AAQS) and regulations of their own, provided that these are at least as 

stringent as the federal requirements. The State of Ohio's ambient air quality standards are 

virtually identical to the NAAQS. A summary of the NAAQS that apply to the project area is 

presented in Table 3.8-1. 

State Implementation Plan. For non-attainment regions, the states are required to develop a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) designed to eliminate or reduce the severity and number of 

NAAQS violations, with an underlying goal to bring state air quality conditions into (and 

maintain) compliance with the NAAQS by specific deadlines. The SIP is the primary means for 

the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the measures needed to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS in each state. 

Final EA 3-11 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

Table 3.8-1. National and Ohio Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) 

NAAQS and Ohio AAQSs 

Air Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time Primary Secondary 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour 

1-hour 

9 ppm (10 μg/m3

) 

35 ppm (40 μg/m3

) 

--- 

--- 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) AAM 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3 ) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3 ) 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) AAM 

24-hour 

3-hour 

0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3

) 

0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3

) 

--- 

--- 

--- 

0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3

) 

Particulate Matter (PM10) AAM 

24-hr 

50 μg/m3 

150 μg/m3

50 μg/m3 

150 μg/m3

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) (a)AAM 

24-hour 

15 μg/m3 

65 μg/m3

15 μg/m3 

65 μg/m3

Ozone (O3) (b) 8-hour 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 

Lead (Pb) & 

Lead Compounds 

3-month 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

Notes: AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean; AGM = Annual Geometric Mean; ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 

= micrograms per cubic meter. 

Sources: 40 Code of Federal Regulations 50; Ohio Administrative Code 3745. 

Stationary Source Operating Permits. Title V of the CAAA of 1990 also requires states to 

issue Federal Operating Permits for major stationary sources. A major stationary source in an 

attainment or maintenance area is a facility (i.e., plant, base, or activity) that emits more than 

100 tons annually of any one criteria air pollutant, 10 tons per year of a hazardous air pollutant 

or 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. In Ohio, the Division of Air 

Pollution Control of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for enforcing both 

federal and state regulations for controlling air pollution. Ohio regulations are contained in rules 

3745-14 to 3745-102 of the Ohio Administrative Code. The rules were adopted under Section 

3704 of the Ohio Revised Code. 

 

3.8.2 Existing Conditions 

Regional Air Quality. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 81 delineate certain air quality control 

regions (AQCR), which were originally designated based on population and topographic criteria 

closely approximating each air basin. The potential influence of emissions on regional air 

quality would typically be confined to the air basin in which the emissions occur. Therefore, the 

ROI for the proposed action is the Metropolitan Columbus Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR 176), which includes Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Madison, Perry, Pickaway, 

and Union Counties in Ohio (40 CFR 81.200). 

Attainment Status. A review of federally published attainment status for Ohio in 40 CFR 81.320 

indicated that Franklin County is designated as attainment (i.e., meeting national standards) for 

Final EA 3-12 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

the following criteria pollutants: O3 (the 1-hour standard), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and Pb. The 

region was recently designated as basic nonattainment for the new 8-hour O3 standard and 

nonattainment for the new PM2.5 standard. 

Climate. Columbus is located in central Ohio, which experiences a continental climate with hot 

summers and cold winters. Ohio's temperatures and precipitation are influenced by huge 

masses of air. Continental polar air from the Arctic brings colder temperatures and snow in 

winter. Maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico brings hot and humid conditions. 

Overall, January is the coldest and snowiest month in Columbus, with average temperatures 

ranging from 20-36oF and an average of 9 inches of snow. July is the hottest month, with an 

average temperature range of 75-85oF. Average annual precipitation in Columbus is about 40 

inches per year, rainfall equivalent, with average snowfall of 25-30 inches per year. Columbus 

skies are sunny 60 percent of the time during summer months, and 30-40 percent during winter. 

Prevailing winds average 5-10 miles per hour from the south during spring, summer, and 

autumn months and from the west during winter. Wind speeds are generally higher (9-10 miles 

per hour) during the fall and winter. 

Current Emissions. Aside from occasional exhaust emissions from grounds maintenance 

equipment for mowing the grass, trimming trees, etc., there are currently no air pollution 

emissions at the project site. 

Regional Air Emissions. Table 3.8-2 lists county-wide emissions for Franklin County, Ohio, 

and for AQCR 176 (which includes Franklin County), as compiled by the USEPA in its National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI), which was last updated in 1999 (USEPA, 2003). The 1999 NEI 

contains estimates of annual emissions for stationary and mobile sources of air pollutants in 

each country, on an annual basis. 

Table 3.8-2. Air Emissions Inventory Franklin County, Ohio, and Ambient Quality Control 

Regions (AQCR 176) Calendar Year 1999 

Pollutants (In Tons per Year) 

CO SO2 NOx PM10 VOC 

Franklin County, OH 

Stationary Sources 19,075 4,297 7,221 24,136 22,122 

Mobile Sources 366,681 1,872 35,071 1,441 27,794 

AQCR 176 

Stationary Sources 30,958 16,348 14,251 69,732 34,866 

Mobile Sources 532,325 3,058 58,179 2,506 40,517 

Source: USEPA (2003). 

3.9 WATER RESOURCES 

3.9.1 Surface Water 

Surface water resources comprise lakes, rivers, and streams. Surface water quantity and 

quality can influence the economy, ecology, recreation, and human health of an area. 

Final EA 3-13 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

There are no perennial creeks, streams, ponds, or floodplains on the project site. A shallow 

swale originates in the northwest corner of the project site and directs precipitation runoff to 

Chadwick Lake. Intermittent storms and other seasonal precipitation events may cause water to 

temporarily collect in topographic lows and drainages. This surface water, when present, is not 

utilized for any purpose. 

3.9.2 Ground Water 

Groundwater comprises the subsurface hydrological resources of the physical environment and 

is an essential resource. According to maps provided by the ODNR, the project site lies over an 

unconsolidated aquifer consisting of glacial deposits of sand and gravel over limestone-dolomite 

bedrock. Bedrock information obtained from ODNR groundwater maps of Franklin County 

indicate limestone and shale bedrock within the vicinity of the project site encountered at depths 

of 75 to 100 feet below natural ground surface. 

In December, 2003 Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (GCI) drilled 10 standard penetration borings 

to characterize subsurface conditions within the building footprint and across the project site and 

to investigate subsurface conditions for building engineering (GCI 2003). GCI noted water 

seepage in five of the ten borings during drilling operations. The observed water seepage in 

boring B-3 at approximately 12.5 feet below grade represents perched groundwater from thin, 

saturated sand and gravel layers encountered within the less pervious glacial till soils. Water 

seepage noted in borings B-7 through B-10 at depths of 17 to 22 feet below grade represents 

groundwater encountered within the less pervious sand and gravel deposits encountered below 

the upper level glacial till soils. The remaining borings (B-1, B-2, and B-4 through B-6) were dry 

during drilling and upon completion. The average water level between borings B-7 through B-10 

was calculated at an elevation of 724.2 feet, which is slightly above the estimated water level of 

720.0 feet within the nearby section of the Olentangy River, located approximately 0.25 mile 

east of the site. The regional groundwater flow direction of the aquifer in the vicinity of the 

project site appears to be east towards the Olentangy River. 

According to data provided by Mid-Ohio Regional Planning (MORPC), there are no wellhead 

protection zones within 5 to 10 miles of the project site. 

 

3.9.3 Floodplains 

According to data provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the 

project site does not lie within a mapped floodplain (EDR 2006). The nearest 100-year 

floodplain lies approximately 0.25 mile to the east of the site and is associated with the 

Olentangy River. 

 3.10 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

3.10.1 Geology 

The project site is located entirely within Franklin County, which is within the glaciated till plain 

of Central Ohio and has been glaciated during at least two distinct glacial periods. Evidence of 

both Illinoisan and Wisconsin age glacial till has been identified. The first glacial advance 

occurred about 50,000 years ago and left a layer of till as evidence when it melted. The second 

and last glacial advance occurred about 16,000 years ago and left another layer of till over the 

first (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Final EA 3-14 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

[NRCS] 1980). The ODNR, Division of Geological Survey reviewed maps and data concerning 

the geology beneath the Ohio 4-H Center project site and reported that the geology consists of 

Pleistocene glacial deposits over Devonian and Silurian limestone and dolomite (ODNR 2006b). 

The glacial deposits are approximately are 60 feet thick and dominantly clayey to silty till with 

interbeds of unconsolidated sand and gravel. The surficial deposits can be water bearing, 

particularly the sand and gravel deposits present at depth (See Appendix A). 

The ODNR reports that a well drilled to 280 feet below surface at this site will penetrate the 

entire thickness of glacially derived surficial material and continue through an estimated 220 feet 

of bedrock to total depth. Maps on file at the Division of Geological Survey indicate that the 

Devonian-age Delaware Limestone will be the first unit encountered and only an estimated 

thickness of 10 feet of the unit will be present (total thickness of the Delaware Limestone is 

estimated at 30 feet). The Devonian-age Columbus Limestone will be the second bedrock unit 

encountered and will have a thickness of approximately 90 feet. Beneath the Columbus 

Limestone is the finely crystalline dolomite of the Silurian-age Salina Group. The Salina will not 

be entirely penetrated by the wells because it has a thickness of over 250 feet (ODNR 2006b). 

The Columbus Limestone is water bearing. The Delaware Limestone and the Salina Group 

dolomite may also contain water particularly along fractures in the rock. A test well drilled 6,000 

feet southwest of the project site encountered paleokarst (caverns and solution-widened 

fractures) during drilling and had to be abandoned because of loss circulation problems caused 

by the cavern (ODNR 2006b). A prior bore hole had been successfully drilled very close to the 

failed hole, demonstrating the erratic distribution of paleokarst features in the carbonate 

bedrock. Similar geologic settings may be found at the 4-H green building project site and some 

of the 72 holes to be drilled may encounter some paleokarst (ODNR 2006b). 

Ohio cannot be classified as an area with unusually high amounts of seismic activity (Pawlowicz 

1974). The seismic history of Ohio cataloged for the period 1900-1964 indicate distinct 

episodes of seismic activity near Anna, Ohio (Approximately 85 miles from the project site) but 

no similar pattern for the remainder of the state (Pawlowicz 1974). The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) identifies Franklin County, Ohio as having a moderate potential for 

average indoor radon levels between 2 and 4 pCi/L (EPA 2006). 

The sedimentary bedrock underlying these glacial deposits in Franklin County is exposed in 

some places as a result of erosion and/or construction activities. The bedrock ranges in age 

from the lower Devonian in the west to the lower Mississippian in the east. Lithologies consist of 

dolomitic limestone, shale, and sandstone. The Rasin River Formation is a dolomitic limestone 

that is exposed in places in the Big and Little Darby Creek valleys on the west side of the 

County. The Devonian formations in the eastern part of the County are younger and are situated 

above the Rasin River. These include the Columbus and Delaware Limestones and the Ohio 

and Olentangy Shales. The limestone is found along the Scioto River Valley and the shale is 

found along the northern Olentangy River Valley. The Mississippian System is exposed in the 

valleys of Big Walnut and Rocky Fork Creeks, and is composed of alternating beds of shale and 

sandstone (USDA NRCS 1980). 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. was retained to investigate subsurface conditions for building 

engineering. Their report was made available to Lincoln Street Studio, Jezerinac Geers 

structural engineers and OSU. Their borings revealed a brown clay-silt under the natural topsoil 

with trace amounts of gravel. Fill material was found at several boring locations across the 

building site at depths of 1 to 9 feet below ground surface. This fill was likely the result of area 

regrading during the construction of State Route 315 west of the proposed project site. No 

Final EA 3-15 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

bedrock was encountered at the investigatory depth of 50 feet below ground surface. 

Groundwater seepage was noted from 12.5 to 22 feet below grade in some of the test borings. 

In addition to GCI’s Subsurface Exploration and Foundation Engineering Report (2003) Ewbank 

and Associates performed thermal conductivity tests at the project site on December 14, 2003. 

(Jackson Geothermal 2003). In situ thermal testing included the completion of a 305-foot deep 

test borehole. The purpose of this test was to determine the average thermal conductivity for 

the borehole. This value represents the rate at which the borehole and soil will transfer heat. It 

is an important variable in determining the amount of ground heat exchanger required for a 

specific system (Jackson Geothermal 2003). A well log for this boring is included with the 

thermal conductivity test results (Jackson Geothermal 2003). 

3.10.2 Soils 

The term “soils” refers to unconsolidated materials formed from the underlying bedrock or other 

parent material. Soils play a critical role in both the natural and human environment. Soil 

drainage, texture, strength, and erodibility all determine the suitability of ground to support 

structures and facilities. 

Based on the Soil Survey of Franklin County (USDA 1980), soil at the project site is categorized 

regionally as “Udorthents-Urban land complex, gently rolling (Ut)”. This soil complex consists of 

the pavement, berm, median strip and ditches, and usually occurs in long narrow strips located 

near the interchanges of major highway systems. This is consistent with the proximity of the 

project site to State Route 315 to the west and the Olentangy River transportation corridor to the 

east and is indicative of extensive excavations and fillings in the area. 

The site-specific geology at the project site was investigated through the installation of 10 

standard penetration soil borings in December 2003 (Lincoln Street Studios, et al 2006). The 

soil profile includes a surface cover of fill with depths varying from 1 to 9 feet across the building 

site. Fill consists of brown clay-silt soils with topsoil, cinders and varying amounts of sand and 

gravel. Below the fill and the natural topsoil cover are brown clay-silt and glacial till deposits. 

Below the brown glacial till and at depths of 9.5 to 16 feet below existing surface grades, brown 

to gray, fine to coarse sand and gravel were encountered. The amount of silt generally 

decreased with depth. Drillers noted occasional cobbles and/or boulders near the top of the 

sand and gravel deposit. Soil borings generally terminated within the sand and gravel deposit 

material at depths of 25 to 50 feet below existing ground surface. 

3.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Hazardous materials are substances that pose a potential hazard to human health and/or the 

environment, if improperly managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous materials that are no 

longer needed or usable and are defined as hazardous by the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). 

3.11.1 Hazardous Materials 

The proposed 5.6 acre (2.27-hectare) project site consists of vacant land. No hazardous 

materials are currently stored or used at the project site. Surrounding areas comprise primarily 

educational and recreational uses. 

Final EA 3-16 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

3.11.2 Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Wastes 

Research for hazardous materials and wastes potentially associated with the project site 

included a review of university archives regarding land use at the project site. OSU archives 

indicate that the lands that include the project site land were purchased between 1917 and 

1925. Past uses of the predominantly undeveloped project site included small-scale agriculture 

(poultry). University archives give no indications of past release or current storage of hazardous 

materials or wastes at the site. There are no records of industrial land use at the project site. 

In addition to university archives a search of available environmental records was conducted by 

EDR. EDR reports are designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of 

EPA’s Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the American 

Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 

1527-05) or requirements for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of 

real estate. No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available government records 

either on the property site or within a quarter mile radius around the property (EDR 2006b). 

The project site has been owned by or been under the control of OSU since the early to mid1900s. Based on best professional judgment and a critical review of available records there is 

no indication of hazardous or non-hazardous waste handling or pre-existing contamination at 

the project site. 

Final EA 3-17 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

 Franklin County, OH 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Final EA 3-18 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES 

4.1 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 

This section discusses impacts on land use and transportation as a result of the Proposed 

Action and subsequent site operations. The purpose of this analysis is to provide an 

assessment of potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action. 

4.1.1 Proposed Action 

Land Use

No significant land use impacts would occur under the Proposed Action. With regard to zoning, 

the proposed project would be consistent with the project site’s “University, College, ResearchPark District” zoning designation assigned by the City of Columbus. This zoning designation 

affords large educational complexes like OSU a great deal of flexibility with respect to future 

development. The Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Industrial Compliance issued a 

Certification of Plan Approval for the Ohio 4-H Center Project in February 2005 and granted an 

extension to this permit in February 2006 (Personal communication with Jeff Snively, Lincoln 

Street Studio on September 21, 2006). 

The Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to on-site or nearby, off-site land 

uses. The nearest sensitive land use is Chadwick North, the grove of native trees and 

Chadwick Lake to the north. Short-term and temporary impacts to this land use would result 

from construction noise. See Section 4.4 for a detailed description of project-related noise 

impacts. Long-term impacts would generally be limited to an increase in the intensity of land 

uses adjacent to the arboretum and lake; however, this would have minimal effects on those 

land uses. 

Transportation

The Ohio 4-H Center is planned to include offices for 20-25 employees of the Ohio State 

Extension 4-H program. On a typical day, it is expected that 25-50 cars per day would access 

the site, however, since the Ohio 4-H Center employees would be relocated from their current 

offices just south of West Lane Avenue, these workers do not represent new commuters to the 

area. In addition to the full-time employees, the Ohio 4-H Center is expected to host a large 

number of public users participating in workshops and in-service training. For employees and 

public users accessing the Ohio 4-H Center, the project site would include approximately 60 

parking spaces. Overflow parking is available east of Fred Taylor Drive at the Schottenstein 

Center. 

Traffic levels in the area would increase in the short-term due to construction (construction 

workers, equipment, and delivery of materials); however daily operation of the Ohio 4-H Center 

is not expected to have a noticeable impact on area traffic. Although existing traffic volumes on 

the roadways surrounding the project site are high, because the commuters accessing the 

project site do not represent additional commuters to the area and because construction traffic 

would be short term, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would result in less than 

significant impacts to traffic and roadway safety. 

Final EA Page 4-1 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

4.1.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, land use and transportation conditions would remain 

unchanged and no impacts would occur. 

 4.1.3 Mitigation Measures 

No significant impacts associated with land use and traffic would occur; therefore, no mitigation 

measures are required or recommended. 

4.2 VISUAL QUALITY/AESTHETICS 

This section discusses visual impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and subsequent site 

operations. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a qualitative assessment of impacts to 

visual quality and aesthetics that the Proposed Action may have on the project site and 

surrounding area. 

4.2.1 Proposed Action 

The Ohio 4-H Center exterior is planned to be constructed of metal, glass and brick (see Figure 

2-1). The design of the building is intended to be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with 

surrounding development associated with a campus in an urban setting. The 200-foot setback 

along Lane Avenue would allow for the construction of a welcome center for visitors to the 

campus. A 100-foot setback along Fred Taylor Drive would be retained to match the 

Schottenstein Center setback and to preserve area aesthetics. In addition, as stated in Chapter 

2, measures would be taken to preserve in place and/or relocate existing mature vegetation in 

order to maintain the natural features of the project site, to the extent possible. 

The proposed construction is planned to have minor impacts on local view sheds. Although the 

Ohio 4-H Center would be visible from the Chadwick North Arboretum, the Ohio 4-H Center 

would not obstruct the view of the arboretum from the road and would not significantly alter the 

overall visual setting of the area given the existing intensity of development and the consistency 

of the Proposed Action with this development (i.e. campus setting). Proposed development 

plans include an outdoor education area and demonstration gardens that would be consistent 

with arboretum development. The most prominent feature within the project site view shed is 

the Schottenstein Center. Given the high visibility of the Schottenstein Center and other 

surrounding development, the overall visual impacts of the Ohio 4-H Center on the visual setting 

would be less than significant. 

4.2.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and existing visual conditions 

would remain unchanged. 

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures 

No significant impacts associated with visual resources would occur; therefore, no mitigation 

measures are required or recommended. 

Final EA Page 4-2 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

4.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 

This section discusses impacts resulting from increased demands for public services and 

utilities as a result of the Proposed Action and subsequent site operations. The purpose of this 

analysis is to provide a qualitative assessment of construction and operational impacts to public 

services and utilities resulting from the Proposed Action. 

4.3.1 Proposed Action 

Storm Water Management 

Construction plans for the Ohio 4-H Center include measures to minimize erosion and 

subsequent sedimentation caused by construction activities. Construction guidelines include 

minimizing the area and time of excavation, saving existing vegetation, especially trees, and 

installation of temporary or permanent measures (e.g. storm sewers) to control runoff. These 

storm water retention features have been designed and incorporated into the development plan. 

The NPDES general permit was issued by Ohio EPA on September 7, 2006 (Trishman, M., 

OSU Project Manager, personal communication on October 9, 2006). A temporary on-site 

detention pond would be constructed to store all groundwater encountered during borehole 

drilling. If groundwater is turbid, it would be stored in the detention pond until suitably clarified 

for disposal through area storm sewers. 

It has been estimated that the building would cover 0.6 acres, while the building plus parking lot 

would cover 1.4 acres with impervious surfaces. Detailed plans for final site grading and storm 

sewers are included in the Ohio 4-H Center Construction Document Package. These plans 

comply with the City of Columbus Construction and Material Specifications (2002). 

Sanitary Sewer 

According to the Subsurface Exploration and Foundation Engineering Report for the project site 

the existing sanitary sewer lines located in the vicinity of the project site are considered 

adequate to serve the Ohio 4-H Center. Schematics of the offsite water plan and storm sewer 

profile were submitted to the City of Columbus Department of Public Utilities, Division of Sewers 

and Drainage and were approved on September 9, 2004 (Lincoln Street Studio et al. 2004). 

The Construction Document Package for the Ohio 4-H Center is available for public viewing at 

the OSU Construction and Development Office. 

Domestic and Fire Water Supply 

Potable water used for operation of the Ohio 4-H Center would be provided by the City of 

Columbus Division of Public Utilities through a master meter agreement. The City of Columbus 

Division of Fire would provide fire protection to the project site. 

Schematics of the Ohio 4-H Center storm sewers were submitted to the City of Columbus 

Department of Public Utilities, Division of Sewers and Drainage and were approved on 

September 9, 2004 (Lincoln Street Studio et al.2004). These connections are adequate to meet 

the Ohio 4-H Center's needs. The interior fire protection system would conform with Ohio 

Building Code, National Fire Protection Association Standards and Underwriter Laboratories, 

Incorporated specifications. Final approval of the fire protection system would be granted by the 

Final EA Page 4-3 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Ohio Division of Industrial Compliance and the State Fire Marshall’s Office (Lincoln Street 

Studio, et al. 2006). 

The Ohio 4-H Center is planned to reduce potable water needs and achieve water efficiency by 

using water conserving plumbing fixtures (e.g. dual flush toilets, waterless urinals, and faucet 

sensors). 

Heating and Cooling Utilities 

A preliminary energy analysis of the Ohio 4-H Center was performed by W. E. Monks & 

Company. This analysis compared a budget building design representing minimum standards 

in terms of energy efficiency for a building built today with the proposed design for the Ohio 4-H 

Center. This analysis estimates that the proposed energy efficiency design of the Ohio 4-H 

Center is planned to result in yearly annual savings of 30% for heating, ventilating and cooling 

alone (W. E. Monks & Company 2004). The geothermal/cooling tower HVAC system works with 

only the electrical energy needed to power the pumps. There would be no need for coal, natural 

gas or petroleum based fuel sources. 

Electrical 

Existing electrical power supplies in the vicinity of the project site are adequate, and the project 

is planned to implement electricity efficient features to the extent possible. The Ohio 4-H Center 

design includes monitoring systems to measure energy use and consumption. 

4.3.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, additional public service and utilities needs under the Proposed 

Action would not be required. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures 

No significant impacts associated with public services and utilities would occur; therefore, no 

mitigation measures are required or recommended. 

4.4 NOISE 

Impacts resulting from increased noise levels are indicated by changes in the ambient noise 

levels as a result of specified actions. This section discusses impacts to the sensitive receptors 

from site preparation and construction at the project site resulting from the Proposed Action and 

subsequent site operations. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a qualitative assessment 

of construction and operational impacts to ambient noise levels resulting from the Proposed 

Action rather than to define precise noise levels and corresponding mitigation measures. 

Consequently, modeling was not performed to estimate future noise levels. 

Final EA Page 4-4 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

4.4.1 Proposed Action 

Construction Noise

Construction noise under the Proposed Action would be intermittent and would occur during 

normal working hours beginning in Fall 2006. Construction would cause temporary increases to 

the ambient noise level near the project site. The Proposed Action would result in construction 

noise from heavy equipment operation, building of foundations and structures, earthwork, 

trenching and utility installation and drilling of the geothermal boreholes. Noise levels 

associated with increased vehicle traffic resulting from construction activities would be 

temporary and limited to the times when construction actually takes place. 

Construction operations could generate temporary noise levels up to 95 dBA measured at a 

reference level of 50 feet (15.5 meters) from the source (Salter, 2000). Table 4.4-1 displays the 

reduction in noise intensity associated with a 95-dB construction-related source over increasing 

distances. Table 4.4-1 does not consider additional factors that contribute to the reduction of 

noise intensity, such as topography, weather conditions, and noise sources external to the 

project site. 

Table 4.4-1. Reduction of Sound Level Intensity of a 95-dBA (Construction-Related) 

Source and 75-dBA (Bus Idling) Source as a Function of Receptor Distance. 

Distance in feet 

(meters) 

Construction-Related 

dBA 

Bus Idling 

dBA 

50 (15.5) 95 75 

100 (30.3) 89 69 

200 (60.6) 83 63 

250 (75.7) 81.5 61.5 

300 (90.9) 80 60 

400 (121.2) 77 -- 

500 (151.5) 75.5 -- 

800 (242.4) 71 -- 

The project site is located in an urban environment bordered by State Route 315 to the west 

and Schottenstein Center to the east. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site 

include people at the Chadwick Arboretum Grove 50 feet north of the project site. Based on the 

distance of the project site to the arboretum, it is anticipated that noise levels at the arboretum 

would be approximately 95 dBa during construction. However, this estimate can be considered 

conservative since it does not account for factors such as tree cover located between the 

arboretum and the construction site, which would serve to reduce noise levels. No residences, 

academic facilities, or any other potential sensitive receptors are located within 500 feet of the 

project site. Construction of the Ohio 4-H Center would be temporary and would not result in 

significant noise impacts. Continuous noise generated by State Route 315 and intermittent 

noise generated by activities at the Schottenstein Center could surpass noise generated at the 

project site. 

Operational Noise

Noise from operation of the Ohio 4-H Center would come from air handling equipment 

associated with the HVAC system and vehicle traffic associated with workers and public users 

Final EA Page 4-5 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

of the facility. There will be no rooftop equipment at the Ohio 4-H Center. All HVAC pumps and 

air handling equipment would be located within the building and operational noise from this 

equipment would not be audible outside the building (Personal communication with Jeff Snively, 

Lincoln Street Studio on September 21, 2006). The 4-H Center will have the impact of 

operational noise generation at the project site is expected to be incidental and insignificant both 

within the Ohio 4-H Center and to off-site receptors. Most noise generating equipment would be 

confined to the interiors of buildings. Traffic generated by the Proposed Action would likely be 

dispersed throughout the day, and low vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the project site would 

reduce traffic-related noise levels. Given the distance to any sensitive receptors, it is not 

anticipated that operational noise would exceed any established thresholds and would not affect 

sensitive receptors, including the arboretum. 

4.4.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, noise characteristics of the project site would remain as 

described in Section 3.4 and no impacts would occur. 

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures 

There are no significant impacts associated with noise; therefore, no mitigation is necessary or 

recommended. 

4.5 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

This section discusses socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts resulting from the 

Proposed Action and subsequent site operations. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a 

qualitative assessment of impacts to regional socioeconomics and environmental justice 

resulting from the Proposed Action. 

4.5.1 Proposed Action 

Socioeconomics

The Proposed Action would not result in significant local population or economic impacts. 

During construction of the Ohio 4-H Center there would be short-term construction jobs 

available. It is likely that these construction jobs would be filled by local construction workers. 

Because the 20-25 workers associated with the Ohio 4-H Center already work in the same area 

at OSU, the Proposed Action would not result in the creation of any new, long-term jobs. 

Environmental Justice

Due to several factors, the Proposed Action would not result in negative impacts associated with 

environmental justice. First, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Action would result in any 

significant environmental or socioeconomic impacts. Second, the lack of development 

surrounding the project site would minimize or preclude the potential for any impacts on local 

residents or businesses. Although Franklin County features a high proportion of black residents 

relative to other geographic areas, the lack of any concentrated residential development in the 

vicinity of the project site, reduces the likelihood that any disproportionate environmental or 

human health impacts would occur to any minority community. 

Final EA Page 4-6 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

4.5.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, socioeconomic conditions would remain unchanged and no 

impacts would occur. 

 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures 

There are no significant impacts associated with economics or environmental justice; therefore, 

no mitigation measures are necessary or recommended. 

4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section discusses biological resource impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and 

subsequent Ohio 4-H Center operations. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a qualitative 

assessment of potential impacts to biological resources from the Proposed Action. 

 4.6.1 Proposed Action 

Vegetation

The process of developing the project site would result in the direct loss of urban habitat. A total 

of approximately 4 acres of undeveloped vegetative land could be disturbed by the Proposed 

Action. However, mature trees within the 4 acres, selected to remain on site would be fenced at 

the drip line (See Figure 2-3). To protect the selected trees these areas would not be disturbed 

during construction activities. The project site has been altered in the past and does not reflect 

a natural assemblage of plant species. The vast majority of the project site is currently covered 

by maintained lawn grass. The Proposed Action calls for the use of native species plant 

material that may actually enhance the existing habitat. Land clearing activities, excavation and 

construction staging areas associated with the Proposed Action would disturb site vegetation, 

increasing the susceptibility of these areas to noxious weed invasion. This would be addressed 

by the establishment of native planting following building completion. The Ohio 4-H Center’s 

construction document package includes provisions for the installation and maintenance of 

lawn, grasses and exterior plants. A qualified landscape installer will be employed to ensure the 

successful establishment of exterior plants. To ensure that trees indicated to remain on site are 

protected during construction and promptly and properly treated and repaired if damaged, a 

landscape architect and arborists from the Chadwick Arboretum and Learning Gardens will be 

available for consultation. Since the project site currently has a managed grass cover no change 

in site habitat or vegetative resources is anticipated. Overall impacts to vegetation would be 

less than significant. 

Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.

Based on a review of topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory wetlands mapping, and 

the site visits, it was determined that wetlands and other waters of the U.S. do not occur on the 

project site. Therefore, there would be no impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. 

under the Proposed Action. 

Wildlife

Wildlife in the area is limited due to the surrounding development and altered vegetation at the 

Final EA Page 4-7 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

project site. Wildlife species observed during site visits are consistent with common species 

that inhabit urban and suburban environments. See Section 3.6.3 for a more detailed 

discussion of wildlife observed at the project site. The vast majority of the project site is 

currently covered by maintained lawn grass. Impacts to wildlife from development under the 

Proposed Action would be considered less than significant because current conditions are not 

conducive to biological diversity or the presence of wildlife on the project site. 

Species of Concern

The USFWS has concluded that the Proposed Action should not impact any rare and/or 

protected species or their habitat (USFWSa 2006). ODNR (2006a) had no records of any a 

species of concern within one-half mile of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to species of 

concern are anticipated. 

4.6.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, and species of concern 

conditions would remain the same and no additional impacts to biological resources would be 

expected to occur. 

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures 

No significant impacts to biological resources have been identified; however, OSU has 

committed to implementing the following measures to reduce any less-than-significant, direct 

impacts to species and habitats on the project site: 

• If construction is to occur during the nesting season, migratory bird surveys and nest 

searches should be conducted in the 30 days prior to starting construction. If nests are 

discovered, consultation with USFWS should be initiated to determine if disturbance to the 

species present must be avoided. 

• Construction areas will be fenced to limit disturbance to the adjacent arboretum property 

outside of the construction zone. 

4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

4.7.1 Proposed Action 

Historic Resources

No historic resources were identified within the project site. Therefore, the Proposed Action 

would not result in significant impacts with regard to historic resources. Correspondence from 

the Ohio Historical Society (see Appendix B) indicates that they concur with these findings. 

Archaeological Resources

No archaeological resources were identified within the project site. Large construction projects, 

including the adjacent Schottenstein Center and State Route 315, have drastically altered the 

setting of this area over the past several decades. As a result, the area retains little historic 

integrity. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts with regard to 

archaeological resources. However, if during construction buried archaeological resources are 

Final EA Page 4-8 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

encountered, all construction should stop and a qualified archaeologist should be called in to 

assess the resource. 

4.7.2 No Action Alternative 

There are no known historic resources or archaeological resources within the project site. 

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

 4.7.3 Mitigation Measures 

No significant impacts to cultural resources would occur; therefore, no mitigation measures are 

required or recommended. 

 4.8 AIR QUALITY 

Air emissions resulting from the Proposed Action were evaluated in accordance with federal, 

state, and local air pollution standards and regulations. Air quality impacts from a proposed 

activity or action would be significant if they: 

• increase ambient air pollution concentrations above any NAAQS; 

• contribute to an existing violation of any NAAQS; 

• interfere with or delay timely attainment of NAAQS; or 

• impair visibility within any federally mandated federal Class I area. 

The approach to completing the air quality analysis was to estimate the increase in emission 

levels due to the Proposed Action. 

According to USEPA’s General Conformity Rule in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, any proposed 

federal action that has the potential to cause violations in a NAAQS non-attainment or 

maintenance area must undergo a conformity analysis. A conformity analysis is not required if 

the Proposed Action or Alternative Action occurs within an attainment area. Since Franklin 

County is non-attainment for O3 and PM2.5, a conformity determination must be performed if 

project emissions exceed the de minimis thresholds of 100 tons per year for these pollutants or 

their precursors. 

 4.8.1 Environmental Consequences 

The Proposed Action would involve construction and paving activities, plus commuting of worker 

personnel and transport of materials to and from the site during the construction period. Longterm emissions associated with the Ohio 4-H Center would include commuting of personnel to 

and from the building, and emissions from building operations. 

Construction Emissions: Emissions during the construction period were quantified to 

determine the potential impacts on regional air quality. Calculations of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, and 

PM10 emissions from construction, grading, and paving activities were performed using USEPA 

emission factors compiled in the California Environmental Quality Air Quality Handbook (South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 1993), Calculations Methods for Criteria Air Pollution 

Emission Inventories (Jagelski and O’Brien, 1994), and Air Emissions Inventory Guidance 

Document for Mobile Sources at Air Force Installations (O’Brien and Wade, 2002). The emission 

factors for building construction include contributions from engine exhaust emissions (i.e., 

Final EA Page 4-9 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

construction equipment, material handling, and workers’ travel) and fugitive dust emissions 

(e.g., from grading activities). Trenching and grading emissions include fugitive dust from 

ground disturbance, plus combustive emissions from heavy equipment from trench work during 

the entire construction period. Paving emissions include combustive emissions from bulldozers, 

rollers, and paving equipment, plus emissions from a dump truck hauling pavement materials to 

the site. Estimated emissions that would occur from construction, grading, and paving activities 

under the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4.8-1. The emissions shown would occur 

over the duration of the construction period. The heat exchanger boreholes will be installed 

using two drill rigs equipped with standard steel drill rods using sonic drilling techniques. 

Although this source was not specifically included in the emission calculations, this source 

would be the equivalent of two diesel engines running for 72 days assuming 2-days drilling per 

well with a standard 8-hour workday. 

Emissions generated by construction projects are temporary in nature and would end when 

construction is complete. The emissions from fugitive dust (PM10) would be considerably less 

than those presented in Table 4.8-1 due to the implementation of control measures in 

accordance with standard construction practices. For instance, frequent spraying of water on 

exposed soil during construction, proper soil stockpiling methods, and prompt replacement of 

ground cover or pavement are standard landscaping procedures that could be used to minimize 

the amount of dust generated during construction. Using efficient practices and avoiding long 

periods where engines are running at idle may reduce combustion emissions from construction 

equipment. 

Table 4.8-1. Construction Emissions – Proposed Action 

Emissions (In Tons) Source 

CO VOC NOx SOx PM10

Construction 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.1 

Grading/Trenching 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 

New Pavement 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 

TOTAL 0.9 0.2 2.5 0.1 0.3 

PM2.5 emissions are expected to be less than or equal to PM10 emissions. 

In general, combustive and fugitive dust emissions would produce localized, short-term elevated 

air pollutant concentrations, which would not result in any long-term impacts on the air quality in 

Franklin County or AQCR 176. The temporary construction-related emissions of PM10 and SOx

under the Proposed Action are not expected to adversely impact the air quality or visibility in the 

project area. The projected emissions for the entire Proposed Action are below the de minimis

annual thresholds for conformity and less than 10 percent of the regional emissions shown in 

Table 3.8-3. A conformity determination, therefore, is not required for this action. 

Operational Emissions: Air emissions at the Ohio 4-H Center after the Proposed Action is 

completed are expected to be minimal. The heating equipment in the new building is 

anticipated to be more efficient and have lower air pollutant emissions than typical boilers and 

heaters. Because the Ohio 4-H Center is a relatively small building, less than 5,000 square 

feet, it is expected that operational emissions would be insignificant. 

Final EA Page 4-10 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Commuting: The Ohio 4-H Center would include office facilities for 20-25 employees of the 

Ohio State Extension 4-H program who would be relocated from their current offices just south 

of West Lane Avenue. These workers do not represent new commuters. It is expected that 25-

50 cars per day would access the site, including vehicles that may be at the site during special 

events at the Ohio 4-H Center. Due to the relatively small number of cars accessing the site 

daily, emissions from commuting are expected to be insignificant. 

4.8.2 No Action Alternative 

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not adversely impact the air quality or 

visibility in the vicinity of the project area. The projected emissions for the No Action Alternative 

are virtually identical from current emissions. A conformity determination, therefore, is not 

required for this action. 

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures 

OSU has committed to implementing the following measure to reduce any less-than-significant 

impacts associated with particulate emissions during construction: 

• To minimize impacts associated with particulates, best management practices (BMPs), 

such as covering of dirt stockpiles and application of water sprays, would be 

implemented. 

Additional detail on excavation support and earthwork are provided in the Construction 

Document Package (Lincoln Street Studio, et al 2006) 

4.9 WATER RESOURCES 

4.9.1 Proposed Action 

The footprint of the Ohio 4-H Center alone is estimated to be 0.6 acres, the Ohio 4-H Center 

plus parking areas would cover approximately 1.4 acres. Given the small area affected, the loss 

of groundwater recharge due to the creation of impervious surfaces would be less than 

significant. During construction, the site would employ surface stabilization after clearing, as 

well as silt fences and inlet protection. An on-site detention pond is planned to be constructed 

to store all groundwater encountered during borehole drilling. Groundwater would be stored 

until suitably clarified for on disposal through storm water sewers. 

As described in Section 2.1.3, the vertical geothermal heat exchanger is planned to consist of a 

series of 72-80 boreholes, 4.5 inches in diameter and approximately 280 feet deep. The vertical 

geothermal heat exchanger is planned to be covered by a research and display garden 

surrounded by the Ohio 4-H Center parking lot. The heat exchanger fluid contained in the 

closed loop piping would be a 20% inhibited propylene glycol solution and, under normal 

operation, would not contact the soil or ground water. Since the heat exchanger pipes would be 

configured as a closed loop, little to no impact to existing ground water resources is expected. 

A potential negative effect of all closed loop geothermal heat pumps is the release of antifreeze 

solutions to the environment. Antifreeze solutions are required in colder climates to prevent the 

circulating solution from freezing (ISGS 2004). The potential environmental impact resulting 

from a leak in the geothermal heat exchanger is dependent on the toxicity and volume of 

antifreeze released to the environment. The Ohio 4-H Center heat exchanger would contain 

Final EA Page 4-11 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

approximately 1,800 gallons of diluted Dowfrost HD® in the vertical heat exchanger pipes, the 

same volume in horizontal pipes and 7,000 gallons in piping inside the building (Miller, Todd at 

W.E. Monks & Company, personal communication on Oct 3rd, 2006). 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be employed to ensure that impacts to soil or 

groundwater would be minimal to non-existent. These BMPs include: 

• The use of high-density polyethylene piping installed and hydrostatically tested by a loop 

contractor certified by the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association. 

• Installer would supply notarized documentation confirming compliance with industry 

standards and a written warranty of fifty years or greater, specifying material 

replacement and labor allowance (Lincoln Street Studio et. al 2006). 

• Following installation, the boreholes would be backfilled with thermally enhanced 

bentonite grout to protect the pipes and ensure good heat transfer. The use of thermally 

enhanced grout reduces the likelihood of surface water infiltration, inter-aquifer flow and 

antifreeze leakage by maintaining low hydraulic conductivity within the vertical boreholes 

(ISGS, 2004). 

 

• The heat exchanger would utilize a solution 20% Dowfrost HD® heat transfer fluid and 

80% water. 

• A fluid make-up package consisting of a 100-gallon pressure tank and pump to maintain 

system fill pressure at 12 pounds per square in gauge (Lincoln Street Studio, et al 2006) 

would be used to maintain system pressure. The pressure tank would have a low level 

cutoff so if the level of heat exchanger solution were to drop below some preset level, a 

remote alarm would sound at the Building Automation System. If even a small amount 

of fluid leaked from the system the system would shut down. 

• To minimize the loss of heat exchanger solution in the event of a pipeline rupture eight 

heat exchanger boreholes would be arraigned in parallel sequence along nine lateral 

supply and return headers (See Figure 2-4). A rupture in any one borehole would, at 

most, affect one ninth of the heat exchanger containing 400 gallons of diluted Dowfrost 

HD® heat transfer fluid. 

Dowfrost HD® consists of 94% propylene glycol, less than 5% dipotassium phosphate added as 

a corrosion inhibitor, less than 5% deionized water and a bright yellow to aid in leak detection. 

Direct contact with Dowfrost HD® may cause slight transient eye irritation. Dowfrost HD® mist 

may cause irritation of the nose and throat but the single dose oral toxicity is considered to be 

extremely low and prolonged contact with the skin is essentially nonirritating (Dow 2004). 

Based on data for its major components Dowfrost HD® is practically non-toxic to aquatic 

organisms on an acute basis (Dow 2004). The potential for bioconcentration is low as 

polypropylene glycol and dipotassium phosphate are readily biodegradable and pass the (Dow 

2004). Atmospheric degradation of polypropylene glycol is expected within minutes to hours 

(Dow 2004). The potential for movement of polypropylene glycol in soil is high (Dow 2004), 

however, the Ohio 4-H Center heat exchanger would contain a solution of 20% Dowfrost HD® 

and 80% water so movement and partitioning would be similar to that of water. 

Final EA Page 4-12 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Common antifreeze compounds used in geothermal heat exchangers include calcium chloride, 

potassium acetate, potassium carbonate, sodium chloride, ethanol, methanol, ethylene glycol 

and propylene glycol. All of these compounds work but have varying degrees of toxicity, 

flammability or corrosivity. Dowfrost HD® with propylene glycol was selected as the fluid with 

the least environmental impact in the event of a pipe rupture. Propylene glycol is used 

commercially as antifreeze solution, as an anti-oxidant in soft drink syrups, as a coolant in 

refrigeration systems and as a deicer for airport runways (Verschueren 1983). Heinonen et al. 

(1996) recommended propylene glycol for geothermal heat pumps based on its low health, fire 

and environmental risks. 

 In A Short Primer and Environmental Guidance for Geothermal Heat Pumps EPA (1997) 

geothermal heat pumps were identified as one of the most energy efficient heat and cooling 

technology available and concluded that increased reliance geothermal heat pumps would 

reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2)) and nitrogen oxides (NOx),

precursors to acid rain, and achieve these benefits with very little risk to the environment. 

Based on current drainage patterns the nearest surface water that could potentially be impacted 

by the Ohio 4-H Center would be the Olentangy River located approximately 1750 feet east of 

project site. It is unlikely that an antifreeze leak of the size needed to reach the Olentangy River 

would occur at the Ohio 4-H Center. Since there is no surface water of note present on or 

adjacent to the project site, no negative impacts to surface or groundwater are anticipated. 

4.9.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and no impacts to water resources 

would occur. Conditions would remain as described in Section 3.9. 

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures 

No significant impacts to water resources are likely to occur; however OSU has committed to 

implement the following measures to reduce any less-than-significant impacts associated with 

impacts to water resources during construction and operation of the Ohio 4-H Center: 

• During construction the site will employ surface stabilization after clearing, silt fences 

and inlet protection. 

• An on-site detention pond will be constructed to store all groundwater encountered 

during borehole drilling. Groundwater would be stored until suitably clarified for on site 

disposal. 

• Heat exchanger piping will be closed-loop piping that will be hydrostatically tested. The 

boreholes will be backfilled with thermally enhanced grout to protect the pipes and 

ensure good heat transfer. 

• The heat exchanger installer will supply a notarized document confirming compliance 

with industry standards and supply a written warranty of fifty years or greater. 

• The heat exchanger will be equipped with a fluid make-up package that would include a 

pressure tank with a low level cutoff and a remote alarm that would sound at the Building 

Automation System if a leak were to occur. 

Final EA Page 4-13 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

• The heat exchanger would utilize a solution 20% Dowfrost HD® heat transfer fluid and 

80% water. 

Additional detail on the construction and operation of the geothermal heat exchanger storm 

water protection measures are provided in the Construction Document Package (Lincoln Street 

Studio, et al 2006). 

4.10 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

4.10.1 Proposed Action 

Geology 

Under the Proposed Action, the physiography, underlying geology, and topography of the area 

would not change. A limited amount of grading would likely be required for building foundations, 

but given the project site’s limited topographic variation, the change is planned to be minimal. 

No geologic risks are known or anticipated. 

ODNR indicated that paleokarst had been encountered during the installation of a test well 

installed near the project site (ODNR 2006b). ODNR also noted that a prior bore hole drilled 

very close to the failed hole was successfully completed, demonstrating the erratic distribution 

of paleokarst features in the carbonate bedrock (ODNR 2006b). During the installation of a test 

borehole drilled at the project site on December 2003 a fracture filled with easily shifting 

materials was encountered from 119 feet to 125 feet below ground surface (Lincoln Street 

Studio et. al, 2006). When the drill casing was withdrawn to insert the heat exchanger piping, 

the walls of the hole collapsed. To eliminate this problem the Ohio 4-H Center geothermal 

boreholes would be installed using standard steel drill rods advanced by sonic drilling 

techniques. The sonic drill rig vibrates the casing into place and no drill cuttings are removed. 

Material removed from the drill core would be incorporated into the site grading. The casing 

would be left in place while the piping is inserted. Once the heat exchanger piping is in place, 

the hole would be grouted with bentonite grout. The casing would be pulled out of the hole 

during the grouting process, so the surrounding materials collapse on the grout (Jackson 

Geothermal, personal communication on November 5, 2006). 

A large void in the subsurface materials could result in poor heat transfer if the pipe did not have 

sufficient contact with the earth. The Ohio 4-H Center geothermal heat exchanger was 

designed to allow for the possibility for some voids in each hole. Small air pockets would be 

pumped full of grout and would not significantly impact efficiency of the geothermal heat 

exchanger. Only a very large underground cavern would impact the performance of the vertical 

boreholes, and no such caverns have been encountered in this area before. Although the 

geothermal heat exchanger would consist of 72 boreholes, a range of 72-80 boreholes has 

been included in the EA to account for the possibility of large void spaces or a broken drill stem. 

If a large underground cavern is detected at the project site, the placement of the heat 

exchanger boreholes may need to be adjusted (Jackson Geothermal, personal communication 

on November 5, 2006). 

A building’s performance during a seismic event depends not only on the severity of sub-surface 

rock motion, but also on the type of soil upon which a structure is founded (Ghosh 2000). A 

building’s Seismic Design Criteria is assigned on the basis of location relative to historic seismic 

Final EA Page 4-14 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

activity, building occupancy, and soil type. These characteristics were considered for the Ohio 

4-H Center project site and the building was designed for compliance with Seismic Design 

Category “B” (Miller, Todd, W.E. Monks & Company, personal communication on October 10, 

2006). 

Although the north end of the Ohio 4-H Center would be constructed over a full basement, 

increasing the risk for indoor radon, the basement would be used to house mechanical systems 

and would not include assignable office space. To further reduce risks due to radon the 

basement would be constructed with a perimeter floor drained tied to an interior sump pump 

system and would include a vapor barrier below the slab in areas where moisture could cause 

problems (Lincoln Street Studios et al. 2006). Occupational exposures to radon at the Ohio 4-H 

Center are expected to be well below the EPA action level of 4 pCi/L for indoor air in residential 

structures. 

Soils

The footprint of the Ohio 4-H Center plus parking areas and roadways is estimated to cover 1.4 

acres, however under the Proposed Action, it is conservatively estimated that a total of 

approximately 4 acres of land could be disturbed by the Proposed Action. Mature trees within 

the 4 acres, selected to remain on site would be fenced at the drip line (See Figure 2-3). To 

protect the selected trees these areas would not be disturbed during construction activities. This 

area includes the area needed for the vertical geothermal heat exchanger. Soils would be 

disturbed during installation of the heat exchanger boreholes, but when complete the top of the 

boreholes would be 5 feet below grade and are planned to be covered by a research and 

display garden surrounded by the Ohio 4-H Center parking lot. Based on the Soil Survey of 

Franklin County (USDA 1980) and soil borings advanced at the project site, area site soils 

appear to have undergone extensive excavations and fillings. Area soils were most probably 

disturbed during the construction of State Route 315 to the west and the Olentangy River 

transportation corridor east of the project site. 

Given the relatively small areas potentially disturbed under the Proposed Action, if BMPs are 

employed during construction to minimize potential wind erosion, impacts to soil resources are 

expected to be minimal. 

4.10.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur, leaving conditions as described in 

Section 3.10. No impacts to geological resources would occur. 

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures 

OSU has committed to implement the following measure to reduce any less-than-significant 

impacts associated with wind erosion: 

• To minimize impacts associated with particulates, BMPs such as covering of dirt 

stockpiles and application of water sprays would be implemented. 

Final EA Page 4-15 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

4.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

4.11.1 Proposed Action 

Construction Impacts

The construction phase of the Ohio 4-H Center would require the use of some hazardous 

materials such as paints coatings, sealant and adhesives. However, as part of the measures 

provided in the Construction Document Package only materials with a low VOC content would 

be employed (Lincoln Street Studios et al. 2006). The geothermal heat exchanger piping would 

be constructed on site. The propylene glycol solution used in the geothermal heat exchanger 

was selected as the fluid with the least environmental impact in the event of a pipe rupture. 

Standard procedures for the handling of hazardous materials, such as the use of secondary 

containment, would be used during construction phase. Additionally, during excavation the 

potential exists to encounter unknown, buried materials that could be considered hazardous. If 

this were to occur, measures would be taken to properly remove and dispose of these materials. 

The OSU Office of Environmental Affairs Chemical Management Guidebook is available on the 

OSU website to help hazardous waste generators comply with the various environmental 

regulations relating to infectious waste, defining a hazardous waste, spill cleanup procedures, 

waste minimization and chemical redistribution, collecting, packaging and manifesting waste, 

and dealing with waste requiring special handling or disposal procedures (OSU 2006) No 

impacts are anticipated during the construction phase. 

Operational Impacts

Operations at the Ohio 4-H Center are likely to require only small, insignificant quantities of 

hazardous materials. The Ohio 4-H Center is planned to be constructed using low VOC content 

adhesives, coatings, and carpet, and 50% of all construction debris would be recycled. To 

minimize the need for pesticides the Ohio 4-H Center landscape plan specifies the use of native 

plant materials. Demonstration gardens would be located near the center to promote innovative 

and organic gardening techniques. The housekeeping plan for the Ohio 4-H Center calls for the 

use of soy-based cleaning products when possible. When hazardous materials are needed, 

they would be properly stored, handled, and disposed. 

4.11.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, conditions related to hazardous materials and wastes would 

remain as described in Section 3.11 and no impacts would occur. 

 4.11.3 Mitigation Measures 

There are no significant impacts; therefore, no mitigation measures are required or proposed. 

4.12 SUMMARY OF SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Secondary impacts are those that are caused by a Proposed Action, but may occur later in time 

or farther removed in distance, relative to the primary impacts of the Proposed Action. 

“Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions" (40 CFR Section 1508.7). 

Final EA Page 4-16 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

This EA considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable short-term and long-term future 

actions on the project site. In addition, it considers off-site factors and reasonably foreseeable 

off-site projects. 

As discussed in Section 3.1, the project site is located within the campus of OSU. Past uses of 

the predominantly undeveloped project site included small-scale agriculture (poultry). The site 

has been owned by and been under the control of OSU since the early to mid-1900s. Zoning 

for the site and the surrounding lands owned by OSU is, zoning designated as “University, 

College, Research-Park District” as assigned by the City of Columbus. This zoning designation 

allows OSU flexibility with respect to future development. Development at OSU is generally not 

subject to NEPA review because it is state owned property and development is typically funded 

by state and private funding. However, to assess potential cumulative impacts in a more 

regional context, an inventory of recently completed projects and projects scheduled to be 

completed within approximately the next 5 to 6 years on the OSU campus were inventoried 

(Table 4.12-1). 

Table 4.12-1. Cumulative Projects 

Building Name 

Cons

Renovation 

Y

Gro

Squ

F

Description 

Recent Past Projects 

Blank 0 58,108 Offices and meeting rooms 

Davis

Research Institute 

2000 133 Rese

Parker Food Science & 

Technology Building 

2000 78,2 Labs,

Poultry Brooding House 

2 

2000 5,661 Agric

Stil 2000 67,287 Offices and classrooms 

Younkin Success 

Cente

2000 68,705 Computer labs, classrooms, 

office

Hay Storage Building 2001 6,000 Hay storage 

Jesse Owens Memorial 

Stadi

2001 27,987 Track, field, and soccer stadium 

Meet Management 

Buildi

2001 1,568 Offices, meeting and training 

room

truction/ 

ear (FY) 

ss 

are 

eet 

enship Hall 200

 Heart and Lung ,856 arch labs and offices 

85 offices, and classrooms 

ulture (off campus) 

lman Hall 

r s 

um 

ng s 

Final EA Page 4-17 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Table 4.12-1. Cumulative Projects (Continued)

Ohio Stadium 2001 812,422 Renovation, code upgrades, 

expansion of box seating and 

press area 

Waterman Laboratory 

Headquarters 

2001 8,448 Offices 

Blackwell Inn 2002 128,031 Hotel and conference center 

Retractable Shade 

Structure 

2002 6,566 Greenhouse 

Veterinary Medicine 

Academic Building 

2002 113,602 Classrooms, offices and library 

Aronoff Laboratory 2003 107,593 Labs, offices and classrooms 

Heffner Wetland 

Research and 

Education Building 

2003 9,157 Offices and meeting rooms, 

wetland monitoring equipment 

Learning Gardens 

Storage Shed 

2003 210 Landscaping maintenance 

storage 

Neil Building 2003 129,889 Student housing 

North and South 

Cannon Drive Parking 

Garages Renovation 

2003 445,943 Parking garage renovation for an 

additional 1,200 cars 

Scholars House East 2003 19,377 Student housing 

Scholars House West 2003 19,377 Student housing 

Worthington Building 2003 50,023 Student housing 

Adventure Recreation 

Center 

2004 84,883 Recreation center 

Buckeye Village 

Community Center 

2004 27,086 Childcare and community meeting 

space 

Hagerty Hall 

Renovation 

2004 142,512 Offices, classrooms, computer 

labs, auditorium addition 

Final EA Page 4-18 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Table

Know 2004 173,3 Office

libr

Page Hall 2004 64,578 Classroom computer 

labs, rooms 

Ho

Garag

2004 366,956 New parking garage for 1,000 

cars 

Neil Avenue Parking 

Garag

2004 318,475 New parking garage for 1,000 

cars 

Ro 2004 227,123 Hospital 

Bee 2005 2,7 Agriculture (not on campus) 

Biocontainment 

Laboratory 

2005 2,8 Laboratory 

Ga 2005 130,000 Mix

Gat 2005 111,0 Mix

Gatew 2005 200 Mixed housing 

Gatew 2005 74,00 Mixed

Ga g E 2005 390,000 Parking for 100 cars 

Gateway Building F 

North 

2005 18,500 Housing 

Gateway Building F 

South

2005 18,500 Housing 

Golf Course Pesticide 

Buildi

2005 1,5 Pesticide storage building (not on 

camp

Mc

Pavili

2005 128,894 Competition swimming facility, 

locke

Phy

Building 

2005 238,108 Lab

 4.12-1. Cumulative Projects (Continued)

lton Hall 70 s, classrooms, studios, 

ary, etc. 

s, offices, 

meeting 

spital Parking 

e 

e 

ss Heart Hospital 

f Barn Shop 50 

62 

teway Building A ed use office, retail, housing 

eway Building B 00 ed use office, retail, housing 

ay Building C ,000 use office, retail, 

ay Building D 

teway Buildin

0 use office, retail, housing 

ng 

Corkle Aquatic 

18 

us) 

on 

sics Research 

r rooms, etc. 

s and offices 

Final EA Page 4-19 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Psych 2005 132,7 Labs,

Recreation and Physical 

Activities Center 

2005 283,806 Recreation center, gym, 

swimming pool, meeting space, 

offices, etc. 

Smith Electrical 

Substation 

2005 23,889 Electrical substation 

Scott Laboratory 2006 262,805 Labs, offices, and classrooms 

Table 4.12-1. Foreseeable Future Projects 

Main Library 

Renovation/Expansion 

2007-2010 N/A Renovation and expansion of 

Main Library 

Brown Hall Renovation 2007-2012 N/A Renovation 

Hughes Hall Renovation 2007-2012 N/A Renovation 

Murray Hall Renovation 2007-2010 N/A Renovation 

Graves/Meiling Halls 

Renovation 

2007-2010 N/A Renovation 

Human Ecology 2007-2008 N/A Construct early childhood 

development center at Weinland 

Park 

MBA Housing 2009-2010 N/A Housing 

Advanced Laser 2007-2008 N/A Research and development 

Koffolt Infill 2007-2008 N/A 

Electro Science 2007-2008 N/A Research and development 

Nanoscale Science 2007-2008 N/A Research facility 

Airport Improvements 2009-2010 N/A Airport facilities 

Ross Heart Hospital 

Expansion (Medical 

Center) 

2007-2010 N/A Expansion of medical center 

ology Building 12 offices, and classroom

Final EA Page 4-20 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Table 4.12-1. Foreseeable Future Projects (continued)

North

(Med

facilities 

Tower & Diagnostic 

Core (Medical Center) 

2007-2008 N/A Medical 

Parking Garage 

Repla

Ce

2007-2008 N/A Replace m

garag

Ambulatory Expansion 

(Med

2007-2008 N/A Medical center

Cancer Tower, 

Diagn nd 

Infr (Medical 

Center) 

2007-2012 N/A Medical center

Reme

Rhodes/Doan (Medical 

Center) 

2007- N/A Medic

Oth 2007- N/A Medic

Lark 2007- N/A 

Ohi

Replacement 

2007- N/A Adm

Wilc

Center Renovation 

2007- N/A Ren

Arc

Residence Hall 

Reno

2007- N/A Ren

Faw

Renovation 

2007- N/A Reno

Lin

Residence Hall 

Reno

2011- N/A Reno

Stu

Renovation and 

Rene

2007- N/A Reno

Foo

Plan Renovation 

2007-2012 N/A Ren

Phy 2007-2012 N/A Ele

campus circulation, and storm 

water rovements

 Doan Building 2007-2008 N/A Medical 

ical Center) 

center 

cement (Medical 

nter) 

edical center parking 

e 

ical Center) 

ostic Core, a

astructure

diation on 2012 al center

er (Medical Center) 2010 al center 

ins Replacement 2008 

o Union 2010 inistrative building 

e Student Health 2010 ovation of health center 

her House 

vation 

cett Center 

2008 ovation of housing 

2008 vation 

coln Tower 

vation 

dent Affairs 

2012 vation 

wal 

d Service Master 

2012 vation 

ovation 

sical Facilities ctrical, heating/cooling, 

 management imp

Final EA Page 4-21 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Table 4.12-1. Foreseeable Future Projects (continued)

Woody Hayes Athletic 

Cente

N/A N/A Renovation and expansion 

Ne

Ho

N/A N/A New

Var enter N/A N/A Athletic facility 

Softball Field Upgrade N/A N/A Improve existing softball field 

French Field Resurfacing and renovation 

Ice N/A N/A Exp

Nickla N/A N/A Cons m 

Pas development gated together have altered the native conditions of the 

project site and surrounding area. Various impacts such as degradation of habitat and habitat 

fragmentation, creation of impervious surface emiss affic have occurred 

inc the project s the surrounding area over time. These developments and 

their impacts are the subject of in views and approvals over time. Other processes 

are s and p dopted by govern as those associated 

with ns, wet sitive species and their habitat. These issues are 

discu ections o ter 4 of thi ument. 

Potential impacts are discusse ections 4.1 through 4.12, as appropriate. As stated in other 

locations within Chapter 4, the Proposed Action’s incremental contribution to these impacts 

would be insignificant and the No Action Alternative would not contribute to these impacts. 

The most important examples of secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the 

Proposed Action are as follows: 

• increased traffic (from construction) on area roads in the vicinity of the 

; 

• Temporary regional an air pollutant emissions; 

• struction) noise impacts; 

• ic d 

• Loss of urban habitat fro n removal. 

Based on surrounding past, t, and future land uses in the project area, the additive 

impact of this project would not be significant. 

r Phase I 

w Crew Team Boat 

use 

facility 

sity Tennis C

 House N/A N/A 

 Rink ansion and renovation 

us Museum truct new museu

t uses and aggre

s, air ions, and tr

rementally on ite and

dividual re

olicies a

lands, and sen

embodied in plan

 zoning designatio

 local ments such 

ssed in previous s f Chap

d in S

s doc

Temporary 

project site

d local

Short-term (con

Development intensif ation; an

m vegetatio

presen

Final EA Page 4-22 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

4.13 IRREVERSIBLE/ RIEVABL MMITM RCES 

An irreversible commitment of resources is defined as the loss of future options. The term 

applie the effects o of nonren e resou ltural 

res facto h as soil productivity that are renewable only over long 

per apply to the loss of an experience as an indirect effect of a "permanent" 

chang e commitment of resources is 

defined as e amount of 

produ e is irretrieva t the actio not irre e changes, it is 

pos duction

The Proposed Action would not rreversible cts bec ons for using this 

site ossible. process co the site for 

alte ing from natural open space to industrial development. The location for 

the OSU 4-H Center is consisten ounding development and is plan

significantly affect surrounding o loss of f option

The primary irretrievable impacts of the Proposed Action would involve the use of energy, labor, 

mater s, and the co n of some lands from an undeveloped condition through 

the ings ies. Irre

con , facility operation, and maintenance activities. Direct losses of biological 

productivity m s 

disc .6. 

ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

 ENVIRONMENT AND TH INTEN ANCEMENT OF 

G-TERM P CTIVITY 

This se s the com ssociate posed Action 

rela g-term ivity associated with these commitments. 

The Proposed Action would commit resources in the form of energy, labor, materials, and funds 

for the foreseeable future. The justification for t commitments at this time is described in 

Sec se and Nee e Proposed Action. Long-term productivity associated with 

the site relates to demonstrating the efficiency of geotherm and the 

ben n housekee n” in an ed ional environment

4-H Center is planned to serve 4-H youth, volunteers, and youth professionals from around the 

state ation, and orld. It would be a outh 

org ell as a loc r OSU Extension programming reaching throughout Ohio. 

The Proposed Action would create m risks to public healt

OIDABL ERSE IMPACTS 

There nificant un ble adver pacts o ents of the Proposed 

Act adverse imp ight be expected, OSU has committed to implementing 

measures identified to reduce or eliminate these impacts. These impacts and corresponding 

applic measures scribed th out oth f Chapter 4 and are 

liste ry of this E

IRRET E CO ENT OF RESOU

s primarily to

ources, or to those 

iods. It could also

f use 

rs suc

ewabl rces such as minerals or cu

e in the nature or character of the land. An irretrievabl

the loss of production, atural reso

ction foregon

sible to resume pro

 harvest, or use of n

ble, bu

. 

urces. Th

n is versible. If the us

 have i

 A future decommissioning 

 impa ause future opti

 would remain p uld restore 

rnative uses, rang

t with surr

 uses. N

ned to not

uture s would occur. 

ials and fund

 construction of build

struction

nversio

and facilit trievable impacts would occur as a result of 

and the use of natural resources fro

ussed in Section 4

4.14 THE R

 these impacts would be inconsequential, a

HUMAN

LON

E MA ANCE AND ENH

RODU

ction addresse

tive to the loss of lon

mitment of resources a

 product

d with the Pro

hese 

tion 1.4, Purpo d for th

al mechanical systems

efits of a “gree ping pla ucat . Additionally, the Ohio

of Ohio, the n

anizations, as w

 the w

ation fo

training resource for other y

no long-ter

E ADV

h and safety. 

4.15 UNAV

 would be no sig

ion. Where 

avoida

acts m

se im f the compon

ant committed 

d in the Summa

are de

A. 

rough er sections o

Final EA Page 4-23 December 2006 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

5.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED 

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed. Rev. and 

expanded (1st ed. 1980). Miscellaneous Pub, 1391 (rev.). USDA Forest Service. 108 p. with 

separate map at 1:7,5000,000. 

“Chadwick Arboretum and Learning Gardens” 2006. Downloaded from world wide web on 

September 6, 2006. http://chadwickarboretum.osu.edu. 

City-Data.com 2005. “Columbus, Ohio Detailed Profile.” Downloaded from the world wide web 

on August 29, 2006, http://www.city-data.com/city/Columbus-Ohio.html

City of Columbus Construction and Material Specifications 2002. Available at 

http://pubserv.ci.columbus.oh.us/transportation/2002SpecBook/index.htm 

Dow 2004. Material Safety Data Sheet. Dowfrost HD Heat transfer Fluid. MSD 002239. 

Effective data August 2004. 

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) 2006a. The EDR NEPACheck, Ohio 4-H Center, 

West Lane Avenue/Fred Taylor Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43210. Inquiry Number 1740389.1s. 

August 22, 2006. 

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) 2006b. The EDR Radius Map Report, Ohio 4-H 

Center, West Lane Avenue/Fred Taylor Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43210. Inquiry Number 

1744848.1s. August 29, 2006. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA Map of Radon Zones. Downloaded from the 

world wide web on November 1, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (GCI) 2003. Subsurface Exploration and Foundation Engineering 

Report, Proposed Ohio 4-H Center, Fred Taylor Drive and Lane Avenue. The Ohio State 

University – Columbus, Ohio GCI Project #03-G-11294. December 30, 2003. 

Goerling, Raimond 2006. OSU Office of Archives e-mail received August 23 2006 

Ghosh, S. K. 2000. Seismic Design Considerations in Model Codes. S. K. Ghosh, S. K. Goshen 

Associates Incorporated. http://www.cement.org/masonry/seismic.org 

Graphic Maps, 2004. “Ohio Maps and Information Page.” Website copyrighted 1996-2004, 

downloaded from the Internet on 4/29/2005, 

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/oh.htm 

Heinonen, E.W., R.E. Tapscott, M.W. Wilden, and A.N. Beall, 1996. Assessment of anti-freeze 

solutions for ground-source heat pump systems. New Maxico Engineering Research Institute 

(NMERI) 96/15/32580. p 156. 

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) 2004. The Environmental Effects of Ground-Source Heat 

Pumps-A Preliminary Overview. Illinois State Geological Survey Open-File Series Report 2004-

2. 

Final EA Page 5-1 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Jackson Geothermal 2003. Thermal Conductivity Test Results, Ohio State University, 

Columbus, Ohio. December 15, 2003 

Jagelski and O’Brien, 1994. California Environmental Quality Air Quality Handbook (South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 1993), Calculations Methods for Criteria Air Pollution Emission 

Inventories 

Jackson Geothermal 2006a. Personal communication on October 6, 2006. 

Jackson Geothermal 2006b. Personal communication on November 5, 2006. 

Lincoln Street Studio, et al. 2006. Lincoln Street Studio Ltd. (architects), Jezerinac, Geers & 

Associates Incorporated (structural engineers), W. E. Monks & Company (mechanical/electrical 

engineers), Jane Amidon (landscape architect consultant) and Sands Decker, Ltd. (civil 

engineers) 2006. Project Manual Ohio 4-H Center, Construction Document Package. Project 

Number 315-2000-911, April 21, 2006 

Miller, Todd at W.E. Monks & Company, personal communication on Aug, 1st 2006 

Miller, Todd at W.E. Monks & Company, personal communication on Oct 3rd, 2006 

NOAA (1998) “Climatic Wind Data for the United States.” National Climatic Data Center, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC, November 1998. 

O’Brien and Wade, 2002. Air Emissions Inventory Guidance Document for Mobile Sources at Air 

Force Installations. 

Ohio Department of Development 2006. Franklin County Profile. Downloaded from world wide 

web September 1, 2006. http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/files/s0.htm 

 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) 2006a. Letter from Butch Grieszmer, Data 

Specialist ODNR, dated August 9, 2006 to Hallie Serazin, SAIC. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) 2006b. ODNR comments to Steve Blazek, 

NEPA Compliance Officer, Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 1617 Cole Boulevard, 

Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 Sent by e-mail dated August 22, 2006 to Hallie Serazin, SAIC. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) 2005. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves 

Ohio’s Five Physiographic Provinces. Available on the World Wide Web at: 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/dnap/physiographic.htm#preserves. Site Accessed on August 21, 

2006. Updated November 2005. 

Ohio Historic Preservation Office 2006 Letter from Justin M. Cook Re:Ohio State 4-H Green 

Building Project, West Lane Avenue and Fred Taylor Drive, Columbus, Ohio. Dated August 30, 

2006. 

Ohio State University (OSU) 1995. Columbus Campus Master Plan, OSU Board of Trustees, 

October 6, 1995. Available at: 

http://www.fpd.ohio-state.edu/assets/Master_Planning/columbus/menu

Final EA Page 5-2 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

OSU 2006. Chemical Management Guidebook. OSU office of Environmental Affairs. Available 

at: http://www.ehs.ohio-state.edu/index.asp?PAGE=envaff.training 

Otterbein College (2005) “More About Otterbein College and Central Ohio: Climate.” 

Downloaded from the Internet on 4/29/2005, 

http://www.otterbein.edu/admission/international/intr_admission/more.asp

Recchie, Ralph, OSU Office of Real Estate, personal communication on August 23 2006. 

Pawlowicz, E. F. 1974. Earthquake statistics for Ohio. Seismological Observatory, Department 

of Geology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403. 

RssWeather.com (2000) “Climate of Columbus, Ohio.” Average temperatures, precipitation, 

and sunshine data from 1971-2000. Downloaded from the Internet on 4/29/2005, 

http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Ohio/Columbus/

Salter, Charles M. 2000. Acoustics: Architecture, Engineering, the Environment. William Stout 

Publishers, San Francisco, CA. pp 340. 

Snively, Jeff at Lincoln Street Studio. Personal communication on September 21, 2006. 

Trishman, M., OSU Project Manager, personal communication on October 9, 2006. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census 2006. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2006. 

Geographic Area: Franklin County, Ohio. Downloaded from website http://www.census.gov, 

August 2006) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2003. “1999 National Emission 

Inventory.” Database downloaded from USEPA website on November 2003. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1999inventory.html. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1997. A short primer and 

environmental guidance for geothermal heat pumps, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA 430-K-97-007, p. 9 

United States Green Building Council (USGBC) 2006. Information on Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design program download from website http://www.usgbc.org/. August 2006. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2006a. Letter from Mary Knapp, PhD, 

Supervisor USFWS, to Hallie Serazin, SAIC 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2006b. Endangered Species Fact Sheet: 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) download from website 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/ind_bat.html/ October 12, 2006. 

W. E. Monks & Company, 2004. Ohio 4-H Center, Preliminary Energy Analysis. March 29, 

2004. 

United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Natural Resources Conservation Service 

[NRCS] 1980. Soil Survey of Franklin County, Ohio February 1980. 

Final EA Page 5-3 December 2006 
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

Verschueren, Karl 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. Second 

edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Final EA Page 5-4 December 2006 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

The following persons were primarily responsible for preparing this EA: 

Steve Blazek, DOE NEPA Compliance Officer. 

Kristin Kerwin, DOE NEPA Documents Manager. 

SAIC CONTRIBUTORS 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities 

Carlos Jallo B.A. Environment, Economics, 

Politics 

10 years of related experience 

Secondary and Cumulative 

Impacts, Irreversible / 

Irretrievable Commitment of 

Resources, Unavoidable 

Adverse Impacts 

David Lingner, Air 

Quality Specialist 

Ph.D., Chemistry, 1985 

B.S., Chemistry and 

Mathematics, 1978 

Years of Experience: 21 

Air Quality 

Hallie Serazin M.S. Environmental Biology 

22 years of related experience 

Land Use and Transportation; 

Socioeconomics and 

Environmental Justice;; Noise; 

Public Services and Utilities 

Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Management 

Paul Carter B.S. Wildlife Biology, 

 15 years of related experience 

Biological Resources 

Final EA Page 6-1 December 2006
Ohio 4-H Center with Green Building Technologies 

Franklin County, OH 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final EA Page 6-2 December 2006