APPENDIX G LAKE METROPARKS COORDINATION

Transcription

1 APPENDIX G LAKE METROPARKS COORDINATION

2 Location Central Lake County, Ohio Leroy and Perry Townships Vrooman Road over Grand River between SR-84 and IR-90 SR-44 to west and SR-528 to east

3 Location

4 Issues Flooding Structure Condition Roadway Geometrics

5 Issues Excessive Maintenance Costs Accident History Post 9/11 Homeland Security

6 Roadway Geometrics

7 Flooding

8 Flooding

9 Project History Bridge constructed in 1951 Replacement study initiated and completed in early 1960 s Complete replacement plans finalized in mid 1990 s, but delayed because of environmental issues New planning study commissioned in 2004

10 Study Area (Northern Portion)

11 Study Area (Southern Portion)

12 Conceptual Alternatives Ten Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives were originally identified in the February, 2004 Stakeholder Committee Meeting Five Conceptual Alternatives were recommended for further consideration through the June, 2004 Stakeholder Committee Meetings

13 Remaining Alternatives Three alternatives advanced for further study as a result of the July, 2004 Public Meeting: Alternative A (Madison Avenue) Alternative B (Lane Road) No-Build Alternative

14 Alternative A (Madison Ave.) High-Level valley crossing to Madison Avenue / SR 84 intersection Improved intersection geometry Improved horizontal and vertical geometry Two lanes plus shoulders

15 Alternative A (Madison Ave.) Park land involvement Wetland involvement Cultural Resources involvement Right Of Way impacts at SR-84 May require acquisition of condominiums at Madison Avenue intersection

16 Alternative B (Lane Rd.) High-Level valley crossing to Lane Road / SR 84 intersection Improved intersection geometry Improved horizontal and vertical geometry Two lanes plus shoulders

17 Alternative B (Lane Rd.) Park land involvement Wetland involvement Cultural Resources involvement Minimal negative ROW impacts at SR-84 ROW required for River Road relocation

18 No-Build Alternative

19 Traffic Classified as an Urban Collector per ODOT Present Day ADT Approximately 5200 VPD Opening Year (2012) ADT approximately 5,200 VPD per ODOT OTS, 5,700 VPD per Planning Study model Design Year (2032) ADT approximately 5,900 VPD per ODOT OTS, 6,600 VPD per Planning Study model

20 What s Next Complete next stage of Environmental Analysis Complete Preliminary Engineering studies and report Select the Preferred Alternative

21 Thank You! Thank you for your time and attention

22 Questions?

23 Please Contact Us Lake County Engineer s Office James R. Gills, P.E., P.S. County Engineer (440) james.gills@lakecountyohio.gov Alan L. Exley, P.E., P.S. Project Manager (440) alan.exley@lakecountyohio.gov Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Lawrence P. Ciborek, P.E. Project Manager (216) lciborek@mbakercorp.com Christopher B. Owen, MSHP NEPA Lead (216) cowen@mbakercorp.com

24 FINAL MEETING MINUTES Individual Stakeholder Meeting Lake Metroparks Tuesday, February 19, 2008 LAK-VROOMAN ROAD Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project PID 5669 Part 1- Step 3 LOCATION: Lake Metroparks Offices Spear Road Concord Township, Ohio ATTENDEES: David Noble (DN) Executive Director Steve Madewell (SM) Deputy Director Vince Urbanski (VU) Environmental Planner Charles Kenzig, RLA (CK) Chief Landscape Architect Robert B. Parker, P.E. (RBP) Michael Baker Jr. Lawrence P. Ciborek, P.E. (LPC) Michael Baker Jr. Debra E. White, CHMM (DEW) Michael Baker Jr. AGENDA ITEMS: Each of the Agenda items was addressed in the informational presentation given by Lawrence P. Ciborek, Baker s PM. The presentation was followed by an open question and answer session. Copies of the Agenda, Meeting Sign in Sheet and Presentation Handouts are attached to this document for reference. Details of specific issues are presented below. OPEN DISCUSSION ITEMS: The following input (comments, questions, concerns, etc.) was provided by the Stakeholder: SM - What happened to Transystems? They had been involved and had received input a while ago. LPC/RBP Transystems phase of the work effort has expired. VU What are the structural conditions of the bridge that warrant replacement? Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 1

25 LPC Bridge is too narrow, approach geometrics don t meet current design standards. The existing south abutment has been undermined and repaired. The bridge is currently load rated for no trucks (emergency vehicles only). SM Is the no build truly no build LPC - The no build alternative in this particular instance will mean no future improvements to or maintenance on the structure by the LCOE. SM How did the low level replacement alternative get eliminated? LPC This replacement alternative was eliminated from consideration during earlier Stakeholder Committee meetings since it did not satisfy all elements of Purpose and Need. SM Impacts on the floodplains was minimal compared to the environmental impacts associated with the high level bridges. Comments from Grand River Partners, SWCD did not think that the impacts from the low level bridge were great. Baker Comment Noted VU ODNR Scenic Rivers preferred Alternative C the low level alternative in Baker Comment Noted SM What happened to Alternative C? LPC This replacement alternative was eliminated from consideration during earlier Stakeholder Committee meetings since it did not satisfy all elements of Purpose and Need. SM In building a high level bridge, aren t we making a larger homeland security issue by creating a new target? Baker Comment Noted DN What funding is available? LPC $22.5 M identified on NOACA s tip. CK Is this bridge a priority with D-12? LPC We do not know at this time. DN Where is the local match coming from? Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 2

26 RPP A 20% local match has been pledged by the County Commissioners. CK Environmental impacts to the valley have already been addressed in previous meetings. Baker Comment Noted SM Number of concerns and assessments: Interchange concerns Road Stabilization Bridge itself High level bridge will have impacts on the valley. Noise Wild and Scenic River designation roadway noise will be heard within 1-mile of the bridge. Popular support existed for mid-level bridge. It was not effectively communicated to the community how this alternative was eliminated. Lake Metroparks will work to identify and develop acceptable and appropriate mitigation measures if necessary. Baker Comment Noted CK Recreation factors for Mason s Landing relocate, pedestrian bridge Baker Comment Noted SM Relocating to the south side of river, maintain pedestrian facility on bridge. Baker Comment Noted VU ODOT mitigation options what will they accept for mitigation? Have dealt with them on several projects in the past. Biggest impacts are: Noise, Impacts to Mason s Landing. Potential mitigation - purchase property on the north side of the river (Sidley Property) Baker Comment Noted CK this purchase would resolve issues. Would not have to provide access for Sidley property. Baker Comment Noted Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 3

27 VU Aesthetic impacts of the bridge would clear a large swath through the park. There is currently a bald eagle nest located west of the project area. The land purchased at Lane and SR 84 was purchased with Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grant from ODNR. Baker Comment Noted SM What will happen with the house on S. side of river? It does carry some early American history even though it has been modified; the original structure is still intact. LPC This issue is being investigated as part of this project. Historic architecture evaluations are ongoing. SM Will the Lane Road alternative take advantage of the CEI clearing for the power lines? LPC the bridge will pass under the lines, however it will not parallel them. SM What are the plans if there are no funds for it? RBP the only problem will be if the federal government doesn t reauthorize the transportation bill. DN County commissioners won t pledge the $3M for the local match. Is a hot issue for both the commissioners and congressional races. RPP A 20% local match has been pledged by the County Commissioners. SM Pedestrian accessibility is a key concern. Replace parklands. RBP - Anticipates a joint document for 4(f), possibly a de minimus impact. CK Construction methods used on the SR-86 bridge replacement project did not meet with Lake Metroparks approval. Baker Comment Noted SM Would like to see a design feature for bike/ped lane on a high level bridge. Would also like to see options for impacts from noise. Compare impacts to high level vs. mid level bridges again. LPC/RBP The bike/ped issue is being considered, however no decision has been made. Additional noise impact studies of the remaining alternatives will be made as part of this project. VU Stability issues with SR 84 are still a concern. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 4

28 LPC This issue is being evaluated as part of this project. Geotechnical investigations are ongoing. DISTRIBUTED ITEMS: Baker provided the following items at the meeting for stakeholder use: Meeting Agenda Presentation Handout including copies of the slide show, provisions for note taking and a contact list The above meeting minutes have been prepared by Baker and represent our recollection and interpretation of the meeting. No further changes, revisions or additions to the minutes were requested by the Stakeholder as of March 19, Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 5

29

30 AGENDA Individual Stakeholder Meeting Lake Metroparks February 19, 2008 LAK-VROOMAN ROAD Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project PID 5669 Part 1- Step 3 I Introductions II Project Background III Project Status Where we were Where we are Where we re going IV Questions? / Comments? V Please Contact Us

31 LAK-Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement PID 5669 Vrooman Road over the Grand River Bridge Replacement Lake Metroparks February 19, 2008

32 Location Central Lake County, Ohio Leroy and Perry Townships Vrooman Road over Grand River between SR-84 and IR-90 SR-44 to west and SR-528 to east

33 Location

34 Issues Flooding Structure Condition Roadway Geometrics

35 Issues Excessive Maintenance Costs Accident History Post 9/11 Homeland Security

36 Roadway Geometrics

37 Flooding

38 Flooding

39 Project History Bridge constructed in 1951 Replacement study initiated and completed in early 1960 s Complete replacement plans finalized in mid 1990 s, but delayed because of environmental issues New planning study commissioned in 2004

40 Study Area (Northern Portion)

41 Study Area (Southern Portion)

42 Conceptual Alternatives Ten Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives were originally identified Five Conceptual Alternatives were recommended for further consideration through the Public Involvement Process

43 Remaining Alternatives Three alternatives advanced for further study: Alternative A (Madison Avenue) Alternative B (Lane Road) No-Build Alternative

44 Alternative A (Madison Ave.) High-Level valley crossing to Madison Avenue / SR 84 intersection Improved intersection geometry Improved horizontal and vertical geometry Two lanes plus shoulders

45 Alternative A (Madison Ave.) Park land involvement Wetland involvement Cultural Resources involvement Right Of Way impacts at SR-84 May require acquisition of condominiums at Madison Avenue intersection

46 Alternative B (Lane Rd.) High-Level valley crossing to Lane Road / SR 84 intersection Improved intersection geometry Improved horizontal and vertical geometry Two lanes plus shoulders

47 Alternative B (Lane Rd.) Park land involvement Wetland involvement Cultural Resources involvement Minimal negative ROW impacts at SR-84 ROW required for River Road relocation

48 No-Build Alternative

49 Traffic Classified as an Urban Collector per ODOT Present Day ADT Approximately 5200 VPD Opening Year (2012) ADT approximately 5,200 VPD per ODOT OTS, 5,700 VPD per Planning Study model Design Year (2032) ADT approximately 5,900 VPD per ODOT OTS, 6,600 VPD per Planning Study model

50 What s Next Complete next stage of Environmental Analysis Complete Preliminary Engineering studies and report Select the Preferred Alternative

51 Thank You! Thank you for your time and attention

52 Questions?

53 Please Contact Us Lake County Engineer s Office James R. Gills, P.E., P.S. County Engineer (440) james.gills@lakecountyohio.gov Alan L. Exley, P.E., P.S. Project Manager (440) alan.exley@lakecountyohio.gov Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Lawrence P. Ciborek, P.E. Project Manager (216) lciborek@mbakercorp.com Christopher B. Owen, MSHP NEPA Lead (216) cowen@mbakercorp.com

54

55 AGENDA Individual Stakeholder Meeting Lake Metroparks February 19, 2008 LAK-VROOMAN ROAD Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project PID 5669 Part 1- Step 3 I Introductions II Project Background III Project Status Where we were Where we are Where we re going IV Questions? / Comments? V Please Contact Us

56 FINAL MEETING MINUTES Section 4(f) Coordination Meeting Lake Metroparks and ODNR Scenic Rivers ODOT District 12 Offices Thursday, September 25, 2008 LAK-VROOMAN ROAD Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project PID 5669 Part 1- Step 3 LOCATION: ODOT District 12 Offices 5500 Transportation Boulevard Garfield Heights, Ohio ATTENDEES: Steve Madewell (SM) Deputy Director, LMP Vince Urbanski (VU) Environmental Planner, LMP Steve Roloson (SR) ODNR Scenic Rivers Jim R. Gills (JRG) Lake County Engineer s Office Alan Exley (AE) Lake County Engineer s Office Tom Sorge (TS) ODOT District 12 Mark Carpenter (MC) ODOT District 12 Gary Benesh (GB) ODOT District 12 George Soos (GS) ODOT District 12 Mark Locker (ML) ODOT Office of Environmental Services Jim Gates (JG) ODOT Office of Environmental Services Lawrence P. Ciborek, P.E. (LC) Michael Baker Jr. Christopher Owen (CO) Michael Baker Jr. AGENDA ITEMS: ODOT District 12 prepared the Agenda for this meeting. Each of the Agenda items was addressed in an open discussion style format. Copies of the Agenda and Meeting Sign in Sheet are attached to this document for reference. Details of specific issues discussed are presented below. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 1

57 OPEN DISCUSSION ITEMS: Tom Sorge (TS) opened the meeting by asking if ODNR received the information that they requested in our last meeting including the Planning Study and current mapping showing each of the remaining study alternatives. SR Baker did send us disks with the planning study, ODOT s approving the 2008 Planning Study, and recent project mapping. There were no substantial comments from ODOT indicating why Alternative C (Alt. C) was eliminated and no supplemental ODOT studies. Paraphrasing, I still don t necessarily agree with the results of the alternatives analysis and why Alternative C was dropped. The Grand River Advisory Council (GRAC) did not receive more or enough information on Alternative C to change its opinion and reconsider its prior recommendation. The bottom line concerns of ODNR-Scenic Rivers are the impact of construction on the river and the aquatic resources of the valley s eco system from run-off and silts. There is a concern about the future impact on river users; need to maintain high quality experience of using the river and the parks. More information on why Alternative C was eliminated is needed. From the Public Involvement section of the Planning Study, the public seems to like existing structure on Alt. C. TS According to the Planning Study, Alternative C was eliminated from consideration as it did not meet the Purpose and Need of the project. TS - Summarized the Purpose and Need (P&N) as stated in the Planning Study LPC/CBO - Discussed P&N issues with Alternative C. What specific items of concern were and were not in the Planning Study and the level of detail they were studied at. SR Paraphrasing, I need to further review available information in the Planning Study. I am concerned with right-of-way (R/W) impacts from the project. I am also concerned with working with Lake Metroparks (LMP), and what their preferred alternative is. SM LMP has not offered an opinion or preference for an alternative. LMP would like to see why Alt. C was dropped. Was it winter maintenance issues, structural issues, geometric issues, involvement with SR 84 intersection, flooding issues? If Alternative C clearly does not work or function, please explain why? There should be a summary sheet or table and a narrative. LMP has been in discussions with the LCEO for years and has not offered a preference at any time. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 2

58 TS It seems apparent that we are not ready to talk about Section 4 (f). There is a need to review the three alternatives - A, B, and C. The information in the Planning Study needs to be clarified and expanded upon to address the concerns of ODNR. The Summary Table on page 62 of the Planning Study needs to be further clarified to reflect Alternative C and the new Alternatives, A and B. AE What can LCEO give to ODNR and the GRAC to make a new or revised recommendation? SR There is concern about the access to the north side of the river during construction. During construction, both Alternatives A and B have construction and access issues for equipment and construction staging. There is concern about the long term impacts to river users from construction. Alternative B goes over the waterfall and the tributary. How will these areas be impacted? SM ODNR needs to take their and GRAC concerns and put them to paper so that LCEO can address them. ODNR needs to specifically spell out their concerns in a letter addressed to LCEO. Baker can then take this letter and systematically address each of these concerns in a formal response. There have been issues raised about siltation, public user impacts at the river and Mason s Landing; R/W impacts; fill impacts; impacts to wetlands and tributaries and waterfalls; impacts to park facilities and usability; vehicle access to Mason s Landing park, strategies to offset or minimize; and open space. We could be endlessly meeting by bringing these issues up one at a time. Let s get the ODNR and GRAC concerns down so that Baker can address them and clarify the reasoning behind elimination of alternatives. TS Is flipping the park to the south side of the river a viable option should the alternatives prevent access to it? SM LMP is ok with this option to a certain extent. LMP would really like access to both sides of the river. If it means moving certain parts of Mason s Landing Park to the south side of the river, like parking and canoe access, while maintaining pedestrian access to the trails and playground that would be acceptable. Acquisition of additional riverfront property could be a fitting mitigation measure to offset construction impacts and permanent R/W for new bridge. CO If LMP wants a pedestrian crossing over the Grand River would ODNR Scenic Rivers be able to accept this? LMP and LCEO both do not want to maintain the existing bridge and have that liability. Maybe a Steadfast Bridge on the old substructure (if structurally possible); or on a new substructure that replicates the stone abutments that exist today would provide acceptable pedestrian access to Mason s Landing Park, while moving those amenities, such as parking and the canoe livery to the south bank/side of the river. SR ODNR Scenic Rivers needs to determine their requirements. CO What are these requirements? ODNR has stated in the past that their limits are two Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 3

59 crossing within 5 miles. Yet, there are three crossings within approximately 1.5 miles of each other if you account for the existing Vrooman Road Bridge and the two high-tension electrical line crossings. How is the 2 crossing per 5 miles figured out? Is it an average over the total length of the designated section of the river? Is it calculated for each consecutive 5 mile segment? Is it a moving 5 mile segment along the river? There seems to be some confusion on what these requirements are, especially when ODNR- Scenic Rivers has stated that the high tension line to the east of the existing bridge is there to meet these requirements. SR The high tension lines are not counted as a river crossing. The high tension line to the east of the existing bridge was placed there because ODNR wanted it as near to an existing crossing as possible to minimize its obtrusion to the view along the river. The requirements are not written in any ODNR guidance material or handbook. TS Maybe the next step for us to take is to meet with the Scenic Rivers and the GRAC to present to them a summary of the three alternatives, a comprehensive disposition of Alt. C identifying impacts and mitigation, and directly answer any questions that they may have. SR The next scheduled meeting for the GRAC in November 10, 2008, but this can be adjusted as needed. TS Maybe we should extend an invitation to other conservation entities and the conservation community. CO ODNR was asked if Yetty Alley from ODNR s Office of Coastal Management Office needs to be present. A portion of the Indian Point Park was purchase from Anzelc in 2005 using Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grant funds (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funds, which she administers. SM LMP will take care of contacting and coordinating with Yetty Alley. VU There is also wetland easements along the river as part of the USDA Wetland Easement program. LMP will send the easement information to Baker for the project records. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 4

60 ACTION ITEMS: ODNR to send letter to LCEO outlining specific concerns related to a new river crossing. Baker to provide project base mapping to LMP Baker to submit Mod Request to LCEO for additional work LMP to provide Baker a summary of project development history for the Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement project DISTRIBUTED ITEMS: Meeting Agenda The above meeting minutes have been prepared by Baker and represent our recollection and interpretation of the meeting. No further changes, revisions or additions to the minutes were requested by the Attendees as of October 10, October 13, 2008 Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 5

61

62 LAK-Vrooman Road Project (PID 5669) Section 4(f) Meeting Thursday, September 25, :30 A.M. ODOT District 12 Agenda Address the elimination of Alternative C ODNR s Concerns Lake Metroparks Concerns Impacts on Lake Metroparks Property Alternative A o Facilities Existing Bridge Canoe Access Playground Trails Parking Lot Restroom o Wetland o River / Floodplain o Noise Alternative B o Facilities Existing Bridge Canoe Access Playground Trails Parking Lot Restroom o Wetland o River / Floodplain o Noise Mitigation Options

63

64 LAK-Vrooman Road Project (PID 5669) Section 4(f) Meeting Thursday, September 25, :30 A.M. ODOT District 12 Agenda Address the elimination of Alternative C ODNR s Concerns Lake Metroparks Concerns Impacts on Lake Metroparks Property Alternative A o Facilities Existing Bridge Canoe Access Playground Trails Parking Lot Restroom o Wetland o River / Floodplain o Noise Alternative B o Facilities Existing Bridge Canoe Access Playground Trails Parking Lot Restroom o Wetland o River / Floodplain o Noise Mitigation Options

65 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES Individual Stakeholder Meeting Lake Metroparks Monday, April 27, 2009 LAK-VROOMAN ROAD Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project PID 5669 Part 1- Step 3 LOCATION: Lake Metroparks Offices Spear Road Concord Township, Ohio ATTENDEES: Steve Madewell (SM) Acting Deputy Director, Lake Metro Parks (LMP) Vince Urbanski (VU) Environmental Planner (LMP) Eric Stechschulte (ES) LMP James R. Gills, P.E., P.S. (JRG) Lake County Engineer (LCEO) Alan L. Exley, P.E., P.S. (ALE) LCEO Lawrence P. Ciborek, P.E. (LPC) Michael Baker Jr. (Baker) Christopher B. Owen, MSHP (CBO) Baker AGENDA ITEMS: No formal agenda was prepared and no formal presentation was given at this meeting per LMP request. Informational documents were provided to each of the attendees. An open discussion was held to address issues relevant to the 4(f) coordination. Copies of the Meeting Sign in Sheet and informational documents are attached to this document for reference. Details of specific issues are presented below. MEETING GOALS: This meeting was held to update LMP personnel on the current status of the ongoing project development effort; discuss remaining prudent and feasible replacement alternatives; to answer LMP questions regarding project development to date; and to solicit LMP input on what they perceive to be key issues related to the proposed improvement. A desired outcome of this meeting is an identification of acceptable mitigation measures for the remaining prudent and feasible alternatives. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 1

66 OPEN DISCUSSION ITEMS: The following input (comments, questions, concerns, etc.) was provided by the Stakeholder during the course of the discussion. Comments and questions are noted in black, followed by italicized Baker and / or LCEO responses in blue, as noted: LPC - The overriding element limiting truck traffic on the existing Vrooman Road facility is the physical inability of these vehicles to pass through the existing bridge. Historical evidence indicates that posted load and traffic restrictions; grades and curves have not deterred trucks from attempting to cross this bridge. Any proposed alternative providing a sufficiently wide structure would likely invite truck traffic regardless of proposed geometrics, i.e., constructing Planning Study Alternative C would not effectively reduce the number of trucks using the facility. The scope and magnitude of impacts related to Planning Study Alternative C were not fully identified and expressed during the 2004 Planning Study Effort. LPC -Planning Study Alternative C does not satisfy primary elements of the Project Purpose and Need. Specifically, horizontal alignment does not satisfy design criteria; and the proposed grades, satisfy design criteria but do not satisfy the clearly stated and documented Stakeholder goal of eliminating the steep grades in and out of the valley. LPC -The preliminary geometrics (alignments and profiles) and structure arrangement of Planning Study Alternatives A and B were refined to address specific concerns identified by ODNR in previous meetings. Specifically, alignments were modified to minimize impacts on the Grand River and Borden Ditch; no piers were located within the river or creek; piers were located as far as practical from the river; and structure limits were adjusted to minimize cut and fill within the valley. LPC -Photographs of the recently reconstructed SR-11 bridges over the Ashtabula River in Ashtabula County were shown. The construction access roads for this facility also pass through park land. Details of their construction and subsequent removal and restoration were tailored to minimize impact and to restore the effected park land to original condition, including reforestation. The access roads were actually converted to multi-purpose trails by the park system. This is an effective mitigation strategy which could be employed on this project, regardless of the chosen replacement alternative. LPC -Photographs of the recently reconstructed State Road Bridge over the Ashtabula River in Ashtabula County were also shown. These photographs demonstrated the potential for negative impacts related to extensive embankment construction similar to that proposed by Planning Study Alternative C. JRG LCEO would like to relocate Mason s Landing Park (MLP) to south side of river and provide some form of access to the north side trails. Access could possibly be the existing bridge or if necessary, a new bridge. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 2

67 SM LMP does not view relocation of MLP as a problem, so long as new facilities match existing and that pedestrian access to north side of river is maintained. SM Understands that construction will require the use of LMP property for temporary access, construction staging and permanent facilities. This is acceptable as long as taken property is replaced in kind. JRG LCEO has discussed obtaining the Sidley Property, located on the north side of the river between Alternatives A and B for just this purpose. SM LMP views the Sidley property as an acceptable match. SM Discussed possibility of providing or maintaining pedestrian access from north following construction. Extensive discussion ensued regarding ways to provide this access. The removal or abandonment of the existing retaining wall and its remaining useful life were also discussed. KEY MITIGATION ISSUES: 1. Mason s Landing Park (MLP) may be relocated from the north side to the south side of the river. Details will be finalized following identification of the Preferred Alternative. 2. Existing MLP facilities must be replicated in the relocated facility, including parking; playground; canoe launch; shelter and amenities. Details will be finalized following identification of the Preferred Alternative. 3. Pedestrian access must be maintained from the south side to the north side of the river. Details will be finalized following identification of the Preferred Alternative. 4. Any bridge/roadway facility incorporated in the final mitigation plan must have a 25 year useful life. 5. Any permanent use of park property must be accompanied by replacement with a similar area of property. The Sidley Property would be acceptable for this purpose. 6. Pedestrian access from the north side of the river is desirable, but not necessary. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 3

68 DISTRIBUTED ITEMS: Baker provided the following items at the meeting for stakeholder use: Final Meeting Minutes from the March 30, 2009 ODNR / GRAC meeting Handout of the power point presentation given at the March 30, 2009 ODNR / GRAC meeting Small scale combined profile view of Alternatives A, B and C showing pier placement in relation to the Grand River and mainline (Vrooman Road) cut and fill in the Grand River Valley Summary of Alternatives and Costs The above meeting minutes have been prepared by Baker, and represent our recollection and interpretation of the meeting. Changes, corrections, revisions or additions to the minutes may be submitted to lciborek@mbakercorp.com for incorporation in the final meeting minutes before the close of business on Monday, May 11, May 4, 2009 Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 4

69

70 FINAL MEETING MINUTES Section 4(f) Coordination Meeting Lake Metroparks Tuesday, June 29, 2010 LAK-VROOMAN ROAD Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project PID 5669 LOCATION: Lake Metroparks Offices Spear Road Concord Township, Ohio ATTENDEES: Steve Madewell (SM) Director, Lake Metro Parks (LMP) Vince Urbanski (VU) Environmental Planner (LMP) James R. Gills, P.E., P.S. (JRG) Lake County Engineer (LCEO) Alan L. Exley, P.E., P.S. (ALE) LCEO Tom Sorge (TS) Ohio Dept. of Transportation (ODOT) Lawrence P. Ciborek, P.E. (LPC) Michael Baker Jr. (Baker) Christopher B. Owen, MSHP (CBO) Baker AGENDA ITEMS: An agenda was prepared and an open discussion was held to address the agenda items and issues relevant to the 4(f) coordination. Copies of the Meeting Sign in Sheet and Agenda are attached to this document for reference. Details of specific issues are presented below. MEETING GOALS: This meeting was held to update LMP personnel on the current status of the ongoing project development effort; to answer LMP questions regarding project development to date; and to solicit LMP input on the proposed Section 4(f) mitigation measures, the Section 4(f) concurrence letter, and the Section 4(f) Programmatic Net Benefit document. The desired outcome of this meeting was an identification of acceptable mitigation measures and concepts for the identified Preferred Alternative. SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS: The following summary (comments, questions, concerns, etc.) was provided by the meeting participants during the course of the discussion. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 1

71 Project Background and Project Status: The Lake Metroparks (LMP) recognizes that the Lake County Engineer s Office (LCEO) has a myriad of issues associated with the Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project. The LMP understands the need to complete the Section 4(f) evaluation, document, and mitigation for impacts to LMP Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park, and appreciates the project s approach in this regard. The LMP understands that construction will require the use of LMP property for temporary access, construction staging and permanent facilities. This is acceptable as long as taken property is replaced in kind and measures to minimize impacts are implemented. The LMP will work in concert with the LCEO during the final engineering design and ecological and waterway permit process to design and Section 4(f)/ecological mitigation measures. Many of the Section 4(f) mitigation concepts were discussed during the April 27, 2009 Section 4(f) coordination meeting and in articulated in an April 30, 2009 letter from LMP to LCEO. Following the last Section 4(f) coordination meeting on April 27, 2009, the project has moved forward with regards to the completion of further environmental investigations, the submission of the Preliminary Engineering Study to ODOT, and the holding of a Stakeholder s Committee Meeting on November 12, At November 2009 Stakeholder s meeting, Alternative B Lane Road was identified as the Preferred Alternative for the project. Since the November 2008 Stakeholder meeting, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) and not a Categorical Exclusion (CE) was the appropriate environmental document based on the level of public controversy. In October 2009, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Office of Environmental Services (OES) reviewed the proposed De Minimis Impact Findings for Section 4(f) Use of a Public Park and determined, based on current level of public controversy and the proposed mitigation measures, that a Net Benefits Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation is the appropriate Section 4(f) document for the project. The Net Benefits Programmatic can be used as the proposed project, with mitigation, would actually result in an overall net benefit to the two LMP parks (Indian Point and Mason s Landing) which are considered Section 4(f) properties. Section 4(f) Impacts and Proposed Mitigation: The project will have direct and indirect use of park property as a result of the proposed bridge s pier placement; partial relocation of Vrooman Road on the southern rim of the valley to tie in to the bridge; minor right-of-way (R/W) strip takes along the east side of Vrooman Road in the Southern Reach; temporary impacts from construction activities; and the vacation of the existing Vrooman Road R/W between Seeley Road and SR 84. Proposed Mitigation Measures Discussion: Mason s Landing Park (MLP) Relocation From the north side to the south side of the Grand River. Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 2

72 Existing MLP facilities will be replaced in-kind, including parking; playground; canoe launch; shelter and amenities (picnic tables, grills, portable toilets). Maintaining access from the south side to the north side of the river with a bridge, suitable for pedestrian and light park service vehicles, at the same location of the existing Vrooman Road Bridge. Utilization of the existing bridge or existing abutments with a smaller bridge is acceptable to LMP as long as the bridge facility incorporated in the final mitigation plan has a 25 year useful life. The LMP does not have a preference on which option to use, whatever the LCEO/ODOT feel is the most cost effective and beneficial solution to the overall project. Any permanent use of park property will be replaced in-kind with a similar amount of area of property, including permanent ownership by the LMP and the necessary and appropriate conservation easements (USDA Wetland Preservation Program Easement and Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grant Conservation Easement, Indiana Bat Conservation Easement). The Sidley Property along the north side of the Grand River, adjacent to the east side of Vrooman Road would be an acceptable replacement property and would greatly exceed the amount of land impacted by the property. It is the intention of the LCEO to vacate the Vrooman Road Bridge and portions of the existing Vrooman Road R/W between Seeley Road and SR 84. Vacated portions of the current Vrooman Road R/W will be transferred to the LMP or ODOT. LMP would assume ownership of the existing Vrooman Road Bridge with the condition that the existing bridge or replacement structure (as noted above) has a 25 year useful life. The LMP does not want to assume ownership of the existing retaining wall. Pedestrian access from the north side of the river is desirable, but not necessary. LMP would like the ownership of the portion of Vrooman Road R/W that contains the existing retaining wall to be transferred to ODOT with a LMP recreational easement or use permit. The asphalt roadway bed could be removed and the remaining portion could be converted to access trail from SR 84 to the LMP property on the north side of the Grand River. Should it be necessary to remove the pedestrian access to assure the stability of the hillside and SR 84, the LMP would cease recreational use of the previous roadway R/W. Mitigation for ecological and wetland impacts within the project area and the river valley is desirable. The LCEO would look to use the Sidley property for ecological and wetland impacts as appropriate. If the Sidley property is not suitable for ecological and wetland impacts, the LCEO would like to utilize LMP s Mason s Landing Park or Indian Point Park property for mitigation of project s ecological and wetland impacts. LMP is agreeable to this and would work with LCEO towards appropriate ecological and wetland impact mitigation on LMP property. Other Items of Discussion: If there is an opportunity during final design to reduce noise from vehicles on the bridge s deck and joints through design, the LMP feels it would be beneficial to the project and the park below. Sound as a result of vibration and reverberation on the Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 3

73 new bridge is a concern to LMP and would like to see a cost effective bridge design that would reduce the noise as much as possible The LMP would like to work with the LCEO/ODOT on the disposition of excess property on this project. The LMP understands that the project may require the acquisition of property, including a full property take in addition to minor strip takes and temporary easements. Should it be necessary to take the entire Anzelc property, the LMP would work with the LCEO/ODOT to acquire the excess portion of the property for park use. The project will not involve the relocation of Seeley Road away from its current location adjacent to the Grand River to an area closer to the base of the southern ridge. Section 4(f) Concurrence Letter: A Section 4(f) Concurrence Letter will be prepared by LCEO for review and concurrence by LMP. The letter will include the necessary Section 4(f) language to meet ODOT/FHWA requirements and present an assessment of impacts, discuss measures and concepts to minimize harm, and outline planned mitigation measures, and discuss the net benefits to the LMP s Mason s Landing and Indian Point Parks. The LMP Director s concurrence will establish that LMP Director agrees with ODOT s findings regarding the assessment of impacts, measures to minimize harm, planned mitigation and agrees that project will result in a net benefit to the Section 4(f) resources. Programmatic Section 4(f) Net Benefits Document: A Programmatic Section 4(f) Net Benefits Document will be prepared and a draft copy will be included in the Environmental Assessment (EA). It is anticipated, pending approval of the EA by FHWA, a final Programmatic Section 4(f) Net Benefits Document will be included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). DISTRIBUTED ITEMS: None The above meeting minutes have been prepared by Baker, and represent our recollection and interpretation of the meeting. Changes, corrections, revisions or additions to the minutes may be submitted to lciborek@mbakercorp.com for incorporation in the final meeting minutes before the close of business on Monday, July 6, July 13, 2010 Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Minor PDP Step 3 4

74 AGENDA Section 4(f) Coordination Meeting Lake Metroparks June 29, 2010 LAK VROOMAN ROAD Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project PID 5669 I II Introductions Project Background III Project Status NEPA Document Environmental Assessment IV Section 4(f) Impacts Key Issues and Proposed Mitigation Mason s Landing Park (MLP) Relocation North side to the south side of the Grand River Existing MLP facilities must be replaced in kind, including parking; playground; canoe launch; shelter and amenities Maintain pedestrian access from the south side to the north side of the river Bridge/roadway facility incorporated in the final mitigation plan must have a 25 year useful life Any permanent use of park property must be accompanied by replacement with a similar area of property. Sidley Property Conservation Easement Vacate portions of current Vrooman Road R/W Pedestrian access from the north side of the river is desirable, but not necessary Commitments/Coordination Section 4(f) Concurrence Letter Lake Metropark (LMP) Director agrees with ODOT s findings regarding the assessment of impacts, measures to minimize harm, planned mitigation Agrees that project will result in a net benefit to the Section 4(f) resources Programmatic Section 4(f) Net Benefits

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87 SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT HAVE A NET BENEFIT TO A SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY VROOMAN ROAD BRIDGE AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PID 5669 / PID 85131) PERRY AND LEROY TOWNSHIPS, LAKE COUNTY, OHIO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL BAKER JR., INC EUCLID AVENUE SUITE 1050 CLEVELAND, OHIO (216) FOR: LAKE COUNTY ENGINEER 550 Blackbrook Road Painesville, Ohio Phone: (440) NOVEMBER 2012

88 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 2 Setting... 2 Proposed Action... 2 PURPOSE AND NEED... 3 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY... 4 Impacts to Section 4(F) Properties... 5 Mason s Landing Park... 5 Indian Point Park... 5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED... 6 Do Nothing Alternative... 6 Improve the Transportation Facility in a Manner That Addresses the Project's Purpose and Need without a Use of the Section 4(f) Property... 7 Build the Transportation Facility at a Location That Does Not Require Use of the Section 4(F) Property... 8 MITIGATION AND MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM Measures to Minimize Harm Mitigation Measures Benefits COORDINATION with Official with Jurisdiction PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CONCLUSIONS FIGURES in Appendix A Figure 1 Project Location County Highway Map Figure 2 Project Location Aerial Map Figure 3 Project Location Planimetric Map Figure 4 Project Study Area Map from USGS 1960 (photo revised 1985) Painesville, Ohio quadrangle Figure 5 Location of Lake Metropark s parks in relation to the project s Study Area in Lake County, Ohio (Lake Metroparks Park Guide 2009 Map- TABLES Anticipated Right-of-Way Acquisition... 5 Appendices Appendix A Mapping Appendix B Photographs Appendix C Preferred Alternative Appendix D Official with Jurisdiction Concurrence Letter Appendix E Preliminary Engineering Plans Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 1 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

89 INTRODUCTION The Lake County Engineer, in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, proposes to replace the structurally deficient and functionally obsolete two-span steel Warren Polygonal Pony Truss Bridge (SFN: ; c. 1952) that carries Vrooman Road over the Grand River and improve a section of Vrooman Road in LeRoy and Perry Townships, Lake County, Ohio. The proposed action includes the replacement of the existing Vrooman Road Bridge with a high-level bridge, and improvements to the existing Vrooman Road roadway and intersections. The proposed action constitutes a use and meets the applicability criteria as set forth in the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Transportation Projects That Have a Net Benefit to a Section 4 (F) Property (FHWA, 2005). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Setting Vrooman Road (County Road 227) is located in Leroy and Perry Townships, Lake County, Ohio Figures 1-3). Vrooman Road provides access to and from Perry and Leroy Townships, and southeastern Painesville to Interstate Route 90 (I-90). The Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement Project Study Area is roughly centered along Vrooman Road and is approximately 1.46 miles long, beginning at the IR-90 interchange to the south; and ending at the intersection with SR-84 to the north. The southern section of the Project Area is characterized by mostly post-war era residential structures fronting Vrooman Road on the west, with the Grand River Valley immediately behind. A single private suburban styled residence and the undeveloped Lake Metroparks property with the Grand River Valley and a former farmstead consisting of a house and an outbuilding is immediately on the east side of Vrooman Road. The northern section of the project area is characterized by the Grand River and is the most prominent physical feature transecting the project area. The Grand River flows through a deep, steep-sided valley, and is crossed by Vrooman Road between the Lake Metroparks Indian Point and Mason s Landing Parks located just south of SR-84. A portion of the northern Project Area along SR-84 and River Road is comprised of mixed residential and agricultural (nursery industry and crop) land. Proposed Action The proposed project involves the replacement of the existing bridge and improving and correcting existing roadway geometric deficiencies along Vrooman Road between Interstate 90 and State Route 84. The project length is approximately 1.44 miles. The proposed project includes improvement of the existing two-lane Vrooman Road roadway to a two-lane facility that meets current design standards, realigning Vrooman Road both horizontally and vertically and connecting Vrooman Road to SR-84 at the existing intersection with Lane Road at SR-84. This action proposes a new two-lane, high-level bridge that meets current design standards over the Grand River and improvements to the intersection at State Route 84 and Lane Road. It also includes the reconfiguring of River Road access to SR-84 by turning River Road into a culde-sac and developing a new side road for access to SR-84. Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 2 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

90 Improvements to Vrooman Road have been designed to stay within the existing right-of-way, to the greatest extent possible. The proposed bridge will require permanent right-of-way for the foundations supporting the replacement bridge. This is due to structural design criteria, construction cost, and an attempt to minimize impacts to Grand River. The existing bridge right-of-way is within the Vrooman Road right-of-way and has a center pier in the Grand River. In conformance with commitments to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), the existing bridge structure and center pier will be removed and replaced with a single span, pedestrian bridge on the existing abutments. No new construction work is currently proposed within the Grand River Channel, in accordance with the currently understood environmental commitments. No new substructure units (piers) will be located within the Grand River Channel or Borden s Ditch. Piers adjacent to the Grand River will be located as far from the river banks as practical in conformance with commitments to the ODNR and the Grand River Advisory Council (GRAC). Realignment of Borden s Ditch is also prohibited. These commitments were the primary factor in establishing the proposed river span lengths. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this project is to provide a safe and adequate transportation facility that addresses the deficient condition and design of the existing Vrooman Road Bridge (SFN ); eliminates flooding of the existing bridge and approach roadway; addresses deficient design elements of existing Vrooman Road and its intersections; improves the safety of the Study Area; and maintains connectivity. The project has four identified needs outlined below: Deficient Bridge Extensive deterioration, narrow bridge roadway and shoulders, and other design deficiencies have been identified in the existing Vrooman Road Bridge The bridge s existing two-lane roadway is /- wide with no shoulders; ODOT L&D Manual Volume 1, as supplemented by Lake County Design Standards, require a roadway opening of 32-0 (two 12-0 lanes and two 4-0 shoulders). The Vrooman Road Bridge has been identified as a structurally deficient; the 2002 ODOT BR86 Bridge Inspection Form rated the Vrooman Road Bridge with a General Appraisal of 4 (out of 10) and the 2006 ODOT BR86 Bridge Inspection Form rated the Vrooman Road Bridge with a General Appraisal of 3. The Vrooman Road Bridge (roadway elevation and approach elevations 631.0/632.0) is below the 25-year flood elevation of and the 100-year flood elevation of Deficient Roadway Vrooman Road including its intersections and bridge approaches is deficient and has inadequate geometrics, steep grades, substandard curves and poor sight distance as compared to current applicable roadway standards. Applicable design criteria/standards are defined in ODOT s L&D Manual Volume 1, as supplemented by the Lake County Standards. Presently, Vrooman Road has a 12% grade on the south side of the Grand River Valley and a 15% grade on the north side; the minimum acceptable maximum grade is 7%. The existing roadway lane width for Vrooman Road is 10-6 ; the Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 3 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

91 minimum acceptable is 12 Seven of the nine existing Vrooman Road curves within the Study Area are below the minimum acceptable radius (i.e., they are too sharp ), with a radius ranging from 70 feet to 660 feet; the minimum acceptable radius is 800 feet. At the intersection of Vrooman Road/SR 84 the existing sight distance to the left is 130 and 50 to the right; the minimum acceptable sight distance is 500 to the left and 430 to the right. Safety Safety issues are associated with the crash patterns along Vrooman Road within the project area, including roadway and intersections. Crashes along Vrooman Road and SR-84 within the Study Area are located at four major points, three of them are intersections and one is the Vrooman Road Bridge over the Grand River. The historic crash rates for three of the intersections (0.785, 0.992, and 1.158) within the Study Area are higher than the state wide average for similar intersections (0.619, 0.199, respectively), indicating a traffic safety problem. The crash rate for Vrooman Road within the Study Area (1.37) is also higher than for other similar roadways in the state (1.19). Connectivity Vrooman Road provides connectivity between I-90 and eastern Painesville. The closest interchanges are 7.5 miles to the east (I-90/SR 528) and 4.5 miles to the west (I-90/SR 44). Detour routes are approximately miles and approximately miles, respectively. A copy of the FHWA approved Purpose and Need for the Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / 85131) June 27, 2011 and the July 1, 2011 FHWA approval letter can be found on the ODOT project website: VroomanRoadPurposeandNeedFHWAApproved.pdf DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY The project area contains two Lake Metroparks parks that will be impacted by the proposed undertaking, Mason s Landing and Indian Point. The Grand River, a state designated Wild River, bisects the project area. The Grand River does not have a management plan and ODNR does not consider it significant for recreation. Therefore, it is not a Section 4(f) protected resource and no further Section 4(f) coordination is required for the Grand River. There is one historic resource located within the project area, Archaeological site 33LA158. This resource is addressed in a separate Section 4(f) de minimis. Mason s Landing Park The 133-acre park is located along the north bank of the Grand River and features a 20- car paved parking lot, hiking trail, canoe access, picnic area with grills, fishing, playground and portable restrooms. Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 4 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

92 Indian Point Park The 408-acre park is located along the south bank of the Grand River and features a 1.6 mile hiking trail, a picnic area with grills, restrooms, drinking water, and fishing. The park also contains the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed Indian Point Fort, which is one of the earliest architectural works in Northeast Ohio associated with the Whittlesey Culture. The fort is located outside the proposed project area on a 100- foot ridge between Paine Creek and the Grand River. Impacts to Section 4(F) Properties The proposed action would require permanent acquisition of approximately 3.50 acres and approximately 5.39 acres of temporary right-of-way from Lake Metroparks. The proposed project will not directly impact recreational lands currently used as Lake Metroparks facilities. Anticipated Right-of-Way Acquisition Type of Right-of-Way Mason s Landing Park (Acres) Indian Point Park (Acres) Permanent Right-of-Way Acquisitions Temporary Right-of-Way Acquisitions The impacts to the two Section 4(f) resources are as follows: Mason s Landing Park The proposed project will not require permanent or temporary right-of-way from Mason s Landing Park. The project will require the closure of Vrooman Road from SR 84 to Seeley Road and the Vrooman Road Bridge (SFN ) to vehicular traffic eliminating vehicular access to the park. The current entrance to the park off of Vrooman Road (north of the Grand River) will be closed Indian Point Park The proposed project would require 3.5 acres of permanent right-of-way to be acquired from the Lake Metroparks, while publicly owned, is not developed for recreational activities. The property is adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway. The project will also require a temporary work agreement on approximately 5.39 acres of Lake Metroparks owned property. These areas can be characterized as re-growth forest, open area, and re-grade roadside berm. The permanent right-of-way required from Indian Point Park is necessary for the placement of the bridge piers and abutments, and the widening and realignment of Vrooman Road. Widening of Vrooman Road along the eastern side of the roadway will be required between I- 90 and the southern escarpment of the Grand River Valley. Within the project area, the west side of Vrooman Road is occupied by private residential structures. Located along the eastern side of Vrooman Road within the project area is a private residential structure and Indian Point Park, which contains a former farmstead (5343 Vrooman Road) consisting of a house and an outbuilding. Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 5 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

93 The Lake Metroparks farmstead (5343 Vrooman Road) is present on the south ridge of the Grand River Valley in Indian Point Park. Vrooman Road will be relocated to the eastern side of the house and an outbuilding. Access to this structure will be maintained during all phases of the project. During construction of the project, it may be necessary to provide a temporary driveway to maintain access to the property from Vrooman Road. This access is expected to be temporary and will be of short duration and less than the total time needed for construction of the project. Permanent access to this structure will be restored as part of this project. A bridge abutment will be located on the south ridge of the Grand River Valley and bridge piers on the valley floor in Indian Point Park, for the new bridge. In conformance with commitments to the ODNR and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the existing bridge structure and center pier will be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant single span, pedestrian bridge on the existing abutments. No permanent structures or fill will be placed in the Grand River. Construction work is currently proposed within the Grand River Channel, in accordance with the environmental commitments with ODNR and USFWS. No new substructure units (piers) will be located within the Grand River Channel or Borden s Ditch. Piers adjacent to the Grand River will be located as far from the river banks as practical in conformance with commitments to the ODNR and the Grand River Advisory Council (GRAC). Realignment of Borden s Ditch is also prohibited. These commitments were the primary factor in establishing the proposed river span lengths. A portion of existing Seeley Road is used by vehicular traffic to connect visitors to Indian Point Park from Vrooman Road. This route will be used for construction access and will be reconstructed to a condition at least as good as or better than that which existed prior to the project. Should it be necessary to use portions of Seeley Road for construction staging activities, visible detours will be established to route all park visitors and vehicular traffic to access Indian Point Park from alternative roadways. A portion of Indian Point Park will be used for construction activities and haul roads. It is anticipated that construction vehicles and activities may cause harm to current Metropark property during the construction period. This property will be repaired, replaced or restored at the conclusion of construction activity. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED As part of the Net Benefit process for the Vrooman Road Bridge Replacement and Roadway Improvement project, three alternatives were identified and considered to avoid the use of Lake Metroparks Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park. Do Nothing Alternative The Do-Nothing Alternative is not feasible and prudent because it would neither address nor correct the transportation needs cited in the project s Purpose and Need Statement. The Do- Nothing Alternative would not provide a safe and adequate transportation facility that Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 6 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

94 addresses the deficient condition and design of the existing Vrooman Road Bridge (SFN ); eliminate flooding of the existing bridge and approach roadway; address the deficient design elements of existing Vrooman Road and its intersections; address the deficient retaining wall; improve the safety of the Study Area; or maintain connectivity. Normal maintenance is not considered adequate to cope with these deficiencies. These deficiencies could eventually lead to the need permanently close Vrooman Road between SR 84 and Mason s Landing Park. Lake Metroparks is reliant on this bridge for access to Mason s Landing and Indian Point Park. The closure of the bridge or Vrooman Road would lead to lengthy detours on less improved roads to reach the parks. This could lead to a decline in the use of both Mason s Landing and Indian Point Park. This alternative does not require the use of Section 4(f) properties; however, it does not meet the Purpose and Need. Improve the Transportation Facility in a Manner That Addresses the Project's Purpose and Need without a Use of the Section 4(f) Property Using engineering design or transportation system management techniques, such as minor location shifts, changes in engineering design standards, use of retaining walls and/or other structures and traffic diversions or other traffic management measures as implementing such measures does not result in the avoidance of the Section 4(f) property. This alternative would require replacing the existing bridge at the existing location and elevation and maintain the current connection at Madison Avenue with no improvements to Vrooman Road and its intersections. It would replace the existing superstructure of the Vrooman Road Bridge, the single river pier and stone abutments would either be reinforced and strengthened, or replaced requiring construction within the Grand River. The two span structure would be 180 foot long with two 12-foot wide vehicle lanes and two 2-foot shoulders. The bridge would not have bike lanes or sidewalks. This alternative would require use of the existing alignment of the bridge and approaches. The skew and width of the approaches and associated Vrooman Road roadway do not meet current design standards and would still be susceptible to flooding. Lake Metroparks Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park are linear parks that follow the Grand River Valley, and existing Vrooman Road bridge and the approach roadways transect these parks. Improving the approaches to meet current design standards would require relocating the approaches into both parks and necessitate the need for a new access driveway to Mason s Landing Park and a new Vrooman Road and Seeley Road intersection. Improving this alternative to meet design standards and avoid flooding will have impacts to both parks due to the location of the structure and approach roadways within the parks. In the southern section of the project, Indian Point Park is located along the eastern side of Vrooman Road and the Grand River Valley and Mason s Landing is located immediately behind the residential properties on the western side of Vrooman Road. Improving Vrooman Road to meet current design standards, without requiring right-of-way from Indian Point Park, would Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 7 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

95 require a shift of Vrooman Road to the west, impacting the residential properties along the west side of Vrooman Road. In the northern section of the project, improving Vrooman Road to meet current design standards would require right-of-way from both Indian Point Park and Mason s Landing Park. This alternative would not modify the SR-84, Madison Avenue, Vrooman Road intersection. Vrooman Road would not be improved to meet current design standards, including lane widths, grade and curve radii. Improving the Vrooman Road Bridge and Vrooman Road in a manner that addresses the Purpose and Need, without impacting the Lake Metroparks is not prudent and feasible because it: Partially addresses only one of the four components of the project s purpose and need. Specifically, it would replace the current deficient bridge; however, the bridge elevation would still be below minimum standards for flood elevation. It would not address the other three components: the roadway deficiencies (i.e., unacceptable grades and curves, roadway still susceptible to flooding and associated roadway closing) of Vrooman Road the current crash rates and safety issues the connectivity to IR 90 This Alternative is not feasible and prudent as it would impact adjacent homes; and would not meet all of the components of the Purpose and Need. Build the Transportation Facility at a Location That Does Not Require Use of the Section 4(F) Property Alternatives were considered that would go west of the Lake Metroparks property. As shown on Figure 10, much of the area surrounding the existing Vrooman Road Bridge and Vrooman Road is occupied by Metroparks property. Available acreage that is not publicly owned by the Metroparks is located to the west. This available acreage is bisected by the Grand River Valley, with single-family residential subdivisions on the western-northwestern side and a commercial/industrial development (natural gas wells and equipment buildings) on the easternsoutheastern side. The proposed alignment would begin at a new intersection north of the existing Vrooman Road and I-90 interchange. Existing Vrooman Road which leads to occupied homes, Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park would still need to be maintained. The new intersection would include a turning lane on existing north bound Vrooman Road and stopping movements on the new eastbound road and existing southbound Vrooman Road. The new roadway would travel northwest over three commercial/industrial parcels on new alignment to the Grand River Valley. The new roadway would cross the Grand River Valley on a high-level bridge to the western ridge. The new bridge would require maximum pier spacing to avoid placement of bridge piers within the Grand River channel. The western side of the Grand River Valley is Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 8 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

96 occupied by single-family residential developments. The new roadway would travel west/northwest to Orion Road. This section of new roadway would require the relocations of approximately 12 residential properties and new intersections with four-way stops at Woodhill Street Extension and at Woodhill Street. The new roadway would travel north along Orion Road to SR 84. Existing Orion Road would be improved to an adequate width to meet state standards for the design year ADT and would require the reconstruction of the roadway, existing driveway access to residences, and account for roadway drainage. Orion Road would be reclassified from a local designation to an urban/rural principal arterial. A new signalized intersection with turning lanes on Orion Road and SR 84 would be constructed to meet state standards for the design year ADT. These improvements to Orion Road and SR 84 would impact approximately 42 residential parcels and require the relocation of approximately two residences. Beginning at the existing Vrooman Road and new roadway intersection, travelling along the new alignment to SR 84, and following SR 84 to Lane Road, would add approximately 0.83 miles of additional distances to the motorist route. Building a transportation facility on a new location to avoid Section 4(f) property is feasible but not considered prudent. The new location would not address or correct the problems cited in the Purpose and Need, which necessitated the proposed project. The deficient bridge would not be replaced and would still be subject to yearly flooding and associated maintenance. The closure of the existing bridge would prevent direct southern access to Mason s Landing Park and access from Indian Point Park. Should the structural stability of the existing retaining wall (between the river and SR 84) require closure of Vrooman Road, Mason s Landing Park would not be accessible. Vrooman Road would still have inadequate geometrics, sub-standard curves, steep grades, and poor sight distances that do not to meet current design criteria and standards. Safety issues associated with the crash patterns at existing Vrooman Road intersections and the existing bridge would still be present. Vrooman Road would need to be maintained to provide access to the Metroparks properties and Vrooman Road residences. This continued maintenance would result in the compounded costs of maintaining the existing section of Vrooman Road and the new roadway. The new location would result in increased impacts to residential properties and commercial/industrial properties. While a Relocation Assistance Program Survey was not completed for this alternative, a review of the Lake County GIS mapping and Lake County Auditor s Office 2012 website records indicate that this alternative would require approximately 13 residential property takes and 2 vacant parcel takes, with a 2012 property value of approximately $1.95 million. Additional right of way would be required from 42 residential properties, 1 vacant parcel and 2 commercial/industrial properties. The right-of way from one of the commercial/industrial parcels would essentially split the parcel in half, which may result in a full take, valued at approximately $0.64 million. The estimated right-of-way costs for the preferred alternative are $350,000 versus approximately $2.7 million for this alternative. Additional impacts would likely occur as a result of reclassification of the local road to principal arterial. No traffic analysis was prepared for this alternative; however, it is reasonable to assume that traffic volumes would be similar to those for Alternatives A and B (i.e. 6,110 VPD opening year ADT and 6,850 VPD design year ADT). This new location would increase costs for right-of-way and construction. When compared Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 9 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

97 with the proposed use of the Section 4(f) property after taking into account proposed measures to minimize harm, mitigation for adverse use, and the enhancement of the Section 4(f) property's functions and value, impacts, costs and difficulties would be of a greater magnitude. Therefore, while this alternative west of the Lake Metroparks properties is a feasible alternative, it is not prudent. MITIGATION AND MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM Planning was undertaken, in consultation with the Lake Metroparks, to minimize harm to the parks, including alternative design modifications that lessen impacts to park property and mitigation measures that compensate for impacts. Measures to Minimize Harm The following measures will be taken to minimize harm to the recreational properties, function and values: a.) Access to Mason s Landing Park will be maintained during construction of the bridge and Vrooman Road roadway improvements. Vrooman Road, from SR 84 to the entrance to Mason s Landing Park, will be used to transport construction supplies and materials to the construction site on the north side of the river. Infrequent, short-term closures of Vrooman Road and access to Mason s Landing Park from SR 84 may be necessary. b.) Mason s Landing Park facilities (Steelhead Run Trail, parking lot, canoe access, picnic area with grills, fishing, playground and portable restrooms) will remain open until the new facility (parking lot, canoe access, picnic area with grills, fishing, playground and portable restrooms) is ready for use on the south side of the Grand River. c.) Short-term closures of the Mason s Landing Park s Steelhead Run Trail may be necessary due to access constraints and safety concerns for persons using this trail during removal of the park s parking lot, canoe access, picnic area with grills, fishing, playground and portable restrooms and construction of the pedestrian bridge (on the location of the existing Vrooman Road Bridge).. The park s trail will be re-opened once these activities are completed. The closure is expected to be temporary and will be of short duration and less than the total time needed for construction of the project. Precautions will be taken to protect the Mason s Landing Park from damage. Mason s Landing Park will not be used for the staging of construction equipment of materials. It is anticipated that construction vehicles and activities during the removal of park equipment may result in voids, pits and ruts in the ground changes in grading, or the removal or destruction of vegetation. Best management practices (BMP) will be incorporated in the design and utilized as appropriated during construction. This property will be repaired and regraded at the conclusion of construction activity. d.) A former farmstead (residence and an outbuilding) (5343 Vrooman Road) is present on the south ridge of the Grand River Valley in Indian Point Park. The Lake Metroparks rents this property to park employees. Access to this property will be maintained during Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 10 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

98 all phases of the project. During construction of the project, it may be necessary to provide a temporary driveway to maintain access to the property from Vrooman Road. Permanent access to this structure will be restored as part of this project. e.) A portion of existing Seeley Road is used by vehicular traffic to connect visitors to Indian Point Park from Vrooman Road. This route will be used for construction access and will be reconstructed to a condition at least as good as or better than that which existed prior to the project. Construction traffic on this road during the project could present a safety issue for park visitors. Signs notifying park visitors that the road is being used by construction vehicles will be posted. Should it be necessary to use portions of Seeley Road for construction staging activities, visible detours will be established to route all park visitors and vehicular traffic to access Indian Point Park from alternative roadways. The project will not involve the relocation of Seeley Road from its current location adjacent to the Grand River. f.) A portion of Indian Point Park will be used for construction activities and haul roads. It is anticipated that construction vehicles and activities may result in voids, pits and ruts in the ground, changes in grading, or the removal or destruction of vegetation to current Lake Metroparks property during the construction period. Best management practices (BMP) will be incorporated in the design and utilized as appropriated during construction. This property will be repaired or restored at the conclusion of construction activity. g.) If there is an opportunity through final bridge design to identify ways to reduce noise from vehicles on the bridge deck and joints, the Lake Metroparks feels it would be beneficial to the project and the park below. Sound as a result of vibration and reverberation on the new bridge is a concern to Lake Metroparks and would appreciate a cost effective bridge design that would reduce the noise as much as possible. Mitigation Measures Project impacts will be mitigated by the following measures: a.) The following Mason s Landing Park facilities will be removed from the north side of the river and replaced in-kind on the south side of the river include parking lot; playground; canoe access; and amenities (picnic tables, grills, portable toilets). b.) Access from the south side to the north side of the Grand River will be maintained with a replacement pedestrian bridge suitable for pedestrian and light park service vehicles. This ADA compliant replacement bridge will be at the same location as the existing Vrooman Road Bridge. The existing bridge and center pier will be removed and replaced with a single span pedestrian bridge on the existing abutments. Lake Metroparks will assume ownership of the Vrooman Road pedestrian replacement bridge. This will maintain the Lake Metroparks direct access to their property from the south side of the Grand River in the area of the project. Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 11 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

99 c.) The Sidley Property (14.92 acres) along the north side of the Grand River, adjacent to the east side of Vrooman Road has been identified as an acceptable replacement property for the permanent acquisition (3.50 acres) from Indian Point Park and exceeds the amount of land acquired. This property will be owned by the Lake Metroparks and will include all necessary and appropriate conservation easements (USDA Wetland Reserve Program Easement and Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grant Deed Restriction, Indiana Bat Conservation Easement). This replaces and expands the existing easements on the acquired property. d.) Vacated portions of the current Vrooman Road right-of-way will be transferred to Lake Metroparks (approximately 2.62 acres). Prior to transfer, the asphalt will be removed from the vacated right-of-way. The specific locations for the removal of asphalt will be determined during detail design and in consultation with Lake Metroparks. e.) Lake Metroparks will assume ownership of the existing retaining wall but is not responsible for the long-term stability of SR 84. The remaining portion of the roadway bed may be converted to an informal access trail from SR 84 to the Lake Metroparks property on the north side of the Grand River at the discretion and responsibility of Lake Metroparks Benefits Lake Metroparks and the Lake County Engineer s Office are undertaking projects in the Grand River Valley that will complement each other, resulting in better facilities for both motorist and users of the recreational facilities and attractions. The proposed undertaking supports the long-term plans and goals associated with Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park as outlined in the Lake Metroparks 1990 Open Space & Opportunities Master Plan and the subsequent 2010 Lake Metroparks 10 Year Strategic Plan The overall goals of these master plans are to assure permanent protection of land, in-park & inter-park trails, and conservation easements to ensure protection of property. The acquisition of the Sidley parcel will also provide direct access to the former Anzelc property (12.4 acres), previously purchased by Lake Metroparks. Lake Metroparks property holdings will have a net increase of acres within Grand River Valley. The relocated facilities in Mason s Landing Park, the new park bridge, the additional protected Indian Point Park land, the ability to expand the multi-use trails within the parks, and direct access to the former Anzelc property for public use will allow Lake Metroparks Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park to not only remain viable, but the overall recreational and natural opportunities will be enhanced, resulting in a net benefit for the public. Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 12 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

100 COORDINATION with Official with Jurisdiction Lake Metroparks is the official with jurisdiction over Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park and was an active member of the Stakeholder Committee. The Lake Metroparks has met with the Lake County Engineer and the project team to provide input on impacts to Indian Point Park and Mason s Landing Park, and the refinement of alternatives to optimize bridge spans, reduce the number of piers, reduce the amount of cut/fill within the Grand River Valley, maximize the distance of piers from the Grand River, and avoid the need to realign Borden s Ditch. Through this coordination effort, the proposed undertaking correlates with Lake Metroparks plan to develop contiguous park property on the north bank of the Grand River and gain access to the land-locked area east of Borden s Ditch. On November 14, 2012, Paul Palagyi, Acting Executive Director, Lake Metroparks concurred with the Net Benefit for Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The project team developed a Public Involvement Plan in order to engage the public by soliciting input on the proposed project; and to establish protocol for information dissemination. A Stakeholder Committee was formed and met a total of eight times during the period of 2004 to 2012 and was encouraged to take an active role in the project development process, including the discussion of environmental resource involvement and impacts including Section 4(f) resources. Public meetings were held on July 7, 2004 and January 27, During each of the two public meetings, the general public was presented alternatives including impacts to the Lake Metroparks Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park and encouraged to submit comments. Section 4(f) comments have been submitted to ODOT, Lake Metroparks, Leroy Township from three members (Ronald Filson, Pat Greene and Pat Bork) of the project s Stakeholder Committee. The three Stakeholder Committee members represent the residents of Vrooman Road. The three Vrooman Road residents contend that the "prudent" consideration to mitigate park property and re-locate a new road there will have less impact on the park than it will on our safety and quality of life (March 13, from Pat Greene). That if the Metroparks' holdings are roughly 215 acres as noted in your and the alternative location impacts roughly 15 acres then this represents an impingement of 7% of your land. In addition there are a couple thousand acres of untouched woodlands surrounding this area that does and would continue to act as habitat for indigenous flora and fauna. Our position is that when this use of park land is balanced against the very destructive impacts of the roadway development on land owners it seems a reasonable compromise for all parties involved (April 4, from Ron Filson). Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 13 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

101 In an April 2, from Vince Urbanski, Director of Planning, Lake Metroparks, responded that (he) thought it was important to provide Lake Metroparks perspective on the suggestion to relocate the section of Vrooman Road from I-90 to the proposed high level bridge onto parkland. At the most recent stakeholders meeting (March 6, 2012) it was stated that the land currently owned by Lake Metroparks along Vrooman Road was donated to the park and therefore didn t represent any loss of resources to Lake Metroparks. The land that surrounds the park-owned house at 5343 Vrooman was actually part of a 1993 transaction in which the park district acquired 99 acres for $200,000. In addition, the Lake Metroparks land that surrounds the private residence at 5599 Vrooman, which would be most affected by a relocation of Vrooman Road, was acquired as part of a 2001 transaction involving 116 acres acquired for $526,000. The other contention that has been expressed is that the parkland along the east side of Vrooman Road is valueless scrubland. While this land may not represent what some of us think of as pristine - which the Grand River valley has been referred to in these discussions it does play an important role in providing habitat to dozens of species of wildlife that use the Grand River and Paine Creek corridors to migrate and forage for food. Using the 1968 engineering report as a guide, roughly more acres of parkland would be affected by the proposed alignment. The park district wants to see the least reasonable impact of the Indian Point and Mason s Landing Parks as possible while accomplishing the purpose and need of the project. We do not believe the relocation of Vrooman Road fits within the purpose and need of the project, while the impacts are definitely exponentially greater (April 2, from Vince Urbanski). CONCLUSIONS The Lake Metroparks Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park were evaluated under the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Transportation Projects That Have a Net Benefit to a Section 4(f) Property Pursuant to 23 CFR 774. The proposed undertaking supports the long-term plans and goals associated with Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park. The new replacement facilities in Mason s Landing Park, the new park bridge, the additional protected Indian Point Park land, the ability to expand the multi-use trails within the parks, and direct access to the former Anzelc property for public use, will allow Lake Metroparks Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park public use opportunities to be enhanced. The Section 4(f) impacts on the Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park have been minimized and mitigated in consultation with the Lake Metroparks, Lake County Engineer s Office, ODOT, ODNR and FHWA. This collaboration has developed a mutually beneficial transportation project, resulting in a net benefit to the recreational and natural opportunities within Mason s Landing Park and Indian Point Park. Vrooman Road Bridge and Roadway Improvement Project (PID 5669 / PID 85131) 14 Section 4(f) Net Benefits Programmatic Evaluation October 2012

102 APPENDIX A MAPPING

103 Figure 1 Project Location County Highway Map

104 Figure 2 Project Location Aerial Map

105 Figure 3 Project Location Planimetric Map

106 Figure 4 Project Study Area Map from USGS 1960 (photo revised 1985) Painesville, Ohio quadrangle

107 Figure 5 Location of Lake Metropark s Parks in Relation to the Project s Study Area in Lake County, Ohio (Lake Metroparks Park Guide 2009 Map-

108 Figure 6 Location of Lake Metropark s Parks in Relation to the Project s Study Area in Lake County, Ohio (Lake County GIS 2012 Map-

109 Figure 7 Location of Lake Metropark s Parks, Anzelc Property, and Sidley Property in Relation to the Project s Study Area in Lake County, Ohio (Lake County GIS

110 Figure 8 Lake Metropark s Mason s Landing Park Designated Trail Map and Facilities (Lake Metroparks,

111 Figure 9 Lake Metropark s Mason s Landing Park Designated Trail Map and Facilities (Lake Metroparks,

112 Figure 10 Location of Section 4(f) Avoidance Alternative in relation to Lake Metropark s Parks and Property in Lake County, Ohio (Lake County GIS

113 APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS

114 Photo 1 Indian Point Park, the area where Alternative B ties into existing Vrooman Road. Facing northwest. Photo 2 Indian Point Park, Alternative B alignment southwest of the existing Lake Metroparks outbuilding associated with a residence (5343 Vrooman Road) rented to Metropark employees. Facing south.

115 Photo 3 Indian Point Park, Alternative B alignment east of the existing Lake Metroparks residence and outbuilding structures. Facing north. Photo 4 Indian Point Park, residence at former farmstead, located at 5343 Vrooman Road. Alternative B alignment will be to the rear (right) of this building. Facing north.

116 Photo 5 Indian Point Park outbuilding at 5343 Vrooman Road. Alternative B alignment is to east of the existing Lake Metroparks building. Facing northwest. Photo 6 Indian Point Park at Alternative B alignment east of the existing Lake Metroparks outbuilding at 5343 Vrooman Road. Facing north.

117 Photo 7 Indian Point Park, Alternative B alignment along Seeley Road and the high tension electric power line corridor. Facing north. Photo 8 Indian Point Park, Alternative B alignment along Seeley Road and the high tension electric power line corridor. Facing south.

118 Photo 9 Indian Point Park, Alternative B alignment along the Grand River. Facing south. Photo 10 Indian Point Park, Alternative B alignment along the Grand River. Facing westnorthwest.

119 Photo 11 Mason s Landing Park parking lot and portable toilets. Facing west Photo 12 Mason s Land Park entrance and the area containing picnic tables and playground equipment. Facing southwest.

120 Photo 13 Mason s Land Park picnic tables, grills and playground area. Facing south. Photo 14 Mason s Land Park playground area. Facing south.

121 Photo 15 Mason s Land Park entrance and information kiosk. Facing east-northeast. Photo 16 Indian Point Park, Alternative B alignment along the top of the northern escarpment of the Grand River Valley, adjacent to SR 84 and River Road. Facing south.

122 Photo 17 Indian Point Park, Sidley Property, and Alternative B alignment along the top of the northern escarpment of the Grand River Valley, adjacent to SR 84 and River Road. Facing southwest.

123 APPENDIX C Proposed Project

124

125

126 APPENDIX D LAKE METROPARKS 1995 PRELIMINARY MITIGATION CONCEPT PLANS

127

128

129 APPENDIX E OFFICIAL WITH JURISDICTION CONCURRENCE LETTER

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139 APPENDIX F PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS

140 ST C-309 LAUREL CT RD RD CASEMENT AVE VALLEY RD BIG CREEK CT ERIE EXT VIRGINIA DR HAZEL WAY TULIP DR DR WINTERGREEN DR DR CT BRYN MOWER DR GRAYVIEW OVERLOOK NELMAR LEDGELAKECT COUNTRY DUNBAR CT LANE DR ARLINGTONAVE RIO VISTA DR CT BELLMORE AVE LN MEADOWS BARLEY DR RD WHITMORE CT DR DR HELENE DR RUTGERS CT DARTMOUTH DR DOROTHEA DALTON DR PINEVIEW DR FOXFIRE FANWOOD DR DR APPLETREE HEMLOCK CT PL PINE DR DR DR BOULDER RADLEY HECKATHORN DR RIDGE PL SALEM RD ARBOR LN BANNERSTONE RIDGECREST RD DR LEE SANDS TONE FALLING RO CKLN PURDUECT BOWDOIN CT PARKHALL DR PONDHAVENCT DR DR BIG ROCK DR ROGERS RD MOUNTAI NSIDE DR YALEPL DR THATCHER VASSAR RD RD CEDAR GLEN ARMI CT DR FRUITLAND AVE GREENFIELD DR RED MAPLE D R SIVON DR WILLOWOOD CT W HITE ASHDR AMBERWOO D LN BRIAR HILL DR DR ATHENS AVE DR T-301 RD HICKORY HILL RD LYNDALE RD SOUTHWOOD BRISTOL MANHATTAN PKWY DORCHESTER RD TROTTER BIRCH RD CRESTWOOD STATEN CT HAMPTON CT QUEENS CT ORTON CENTER RD LN RD RD MORGAN DR BRIDLE PATH DR DR MORGAN SPRING LAKEBLVD RD RD BRISTOL MURRAY ST THOR CT NORWAY BARTWOOD RD WOODHILL ST RIDGE MONTE LARCHVIEW DR NAYLOR ST EXTRD KLANN RD ST CIRCLEDR DR REDW OODDR DR AVE LABURNUM DR RD RED VERMONT OAKCT WHITE PINECT AVE OAK LOWA CT OREGON WHITE CEDARPL MAINE AVE FLORIDA ST RD DR BLUE SPRUCE CT LILAC CT UTAH ST CT JODI DR GIVENS CT MILL OAKBROOK DR SHIRLEY DR C-219 C-221 BRAKEMAN MAGGIE T-215 LN MAPLE DEPOTST MILFORD DR THOMPSON ST GREEN ST C-105 HARPER WELLINGTOHN DR RD BRIDGEWATER AVE C-207 KNIFFEN ELBERTA RD GREENINGAVE BALDWIN RD BALDWIN RD VIEW RD MANTLE RD MANTLE Big T-418 C C-311 T-308 MADISON C-306 C-50 GRANDRIDGEPOINTE RIVERSIDE T-407 T-351 BALBOA SUNNYWOOD T Cr. BAYBERRYCT COPPERFIELD CT C-303 AVE T-407A GARWOOD HAWKRIDGEDR WONDERLUST HEATHERSTONEDR Grand MEADOW PL RD CONLEY RD BOWHALL T-405 PARADISE CEDARCREEK NEM ETH RD RED PINE PARK RD HONEY LOCUST CT C-379 C-301 CARTER C-322 River C-212 CANYAN C-104 CANYON VIEW DR W OODHILL HALE RD RD C-227 Lane RIVER C-100 VROOMAN T-216 Red POND CIR PERRY T-102 T-121 Norfolk Southern Corporation 84 RD Grand River SEELEY INDIANPOINTRD RD PERRY 90 Paine PAI NE RD PINEY HOLLOW LN TAYLOR T-107 WEBB RD BLAIR RD RD C-104 C-217 C-6 Creek C-100 BAKE T-232 STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LAK/VROOMAN ROAD ALTERNATIVE B PRELIMINARY PLANS PROJECT EARTH DISTURBED AREA: ACRES ESTIMATED CONTRACTOR EARTH DISTRUBED AREA: ACRES NOTICE OF INTENT EARTH DISTURBED AREA: ACRES FEDERAL PROJECT NO. PID NO RD HUNTOON C-210 RD Five Points LEROY CENTER RD C-208 T-225 N CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. CURRENT ADT (2012) RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT NONE URBAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONTACT BOTH SERVICES CALL TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CALL (TOLL FREE) OHIO UTILITIES PROTECTION SERVICE NON-MEMBERS MUST BE CALLED DIRECTLY LAK - VROOMAN RD. 1 OIL & GAS PRODUCERS PROTECTIVE SERVICE CALL: