prepared for: the ohio department of transportation...epm: 104.2, 104.2.4 possible yes no threatened...

Contributing Team Members

ASCPreferred Survey Company

Resource InternationalTraffi c Engineering Services

TSASS, Inc.TranSystems

Prepared by:

Prepared for:

HAM-75-10.10

The Ohio Department of Transportation

RED FLAG SUMMARY

HAM-75-10.10 - PID: 76256

Prepared for Ohio Department of Transportation

Submitted by M•E Companies, Inc.

635 Brooksedge Boulevard Westerville, OH 43081

614-818-4900

and

Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio, Inc. 312 Elm Street, Suite 2500

Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-639-2146

JULY 15, 2004

CONTRIBUTING TEAM MEMBERS ASC • Preferred Survey Company, Inc. • Resource International

Traffic Engineering Services • TSASS • TransSystems

1

RED FLAG SUMMARY (Form Revised 2/20/04)

The purpose of this Red Flag Summary is to identify concerns that could cause revisions to the anticipated design and construction scope of work, the proposed project development schedule, the estimated project budget, or the potential impacts of the project on the surrounding area. Date Red Flag Summary Completed: July 16, 2004 District: 8 Project Name (County, Route and Section): HAM-75-10.10 City, Township or Village Names(s): Arlington Heights, Cincinnati, Evendale, Lincoln Heights, Lockland, Reading, Glendale, Reading, Woodlawn, WyomingPID: 76256 Prepared by: M•E Companies, Inc., Parson Brinckerhoff Ohio, Inc., and Resource International, Inc. ODOT Project Manager: Jay Hamilton GENERAL PROJECT PLANNING INFORMATION

Project Description: The project is classified as a Major Project, where the anticipated end product of the improvement is expected to have a significant impact to the highway’s (I-75) public access, level of service, traffic flow, mobility patterns and modal share. From a design perspective there will be significant alterations to existing access and will result in the examination of multiple alternatives as a necessary and systematic progression to selecting the preferred alternative. Project development will follow ODOT’s fourteen step Major Project Development Process. The goal of the project is to reconstruct a portion of the IR 75 corridor to add capacity to effectively handle the high traffic volumes and high percentage of commercial traffic using this section of highway. The study area extends from Paddock Road to IR275 and includes the redesign of several interchanges including, Davis Ave., Cooper Rd., Shepherd Ln., Glendale Milford Rd., Sharon Rd., Galbraith Rd., SR 126, and the collector distributor system through Lincoln Heights. The Approximate length of the study area is 7.27 miles.

Project Limits/General Location: The study limits are set as: eastern boundary is US 42 (Reading Road); The western boundary is (Anthony) Wayne Avenue and Chester Roads; The southern boundary is Seymour Road and SR 4 (Springfield Pike/Paddock Road). See Exhibit 1 (Red Flag Map) and Appendix 1 (Photolog).

2

Structures: Bridge Number 1010 Structure File Number 3110389 Bridge Number 1557 Structure File Number 3110982 Bridge Number 1089 L Structure File Number 3110419 Bridge Number 1642 E Structure File Number 3111083 Bridge Number 1102 R Structure File Number 3110443 Bridge Number 1642 L Structure File Number 3111040 Bridge Number 1105 L Structure File Number 3110478 Bridge Number 1642 R Structure File Number 3111075

Bridge Number 1151 L Structure File Number 3110508 NON MAINLINE Bridge Number 1152 R Structure File Number 3110535 Bridge Number 0701 Structure File Number 3113728 Bridge Number 1166 L Structure File Number 3110567 Bridge Number 0266 Structure File Number 3100464 Bridge Number 1184 Structure File Number 3110591 Bridge Number 0992 Structure File Number 3110133 Bridge Number 1187 Structure File Number 3110621 Bridge Number 1373 L Structure File Number 3118525 Bridge Number 1192 R Structure File Number 3110656 Bridge Number 1373 N Structure File Number 3104915 Bridge Number 1205 L Structure File Number 3110699 Bridge Number 1373 R Structure File Number 3118533 Bridge Number 1292 Structure File Number 3110747 Bridge Number 1373 S Structure File Number 3104907 Bridge Number 1338 Structure File Number 3110834 Bridge Number 1406 Structure File Number 3104923 Bridge Number 1390 Structure File Number 3110869 Bridge Number 1419 L Structure File Number 3118614 Bridge Number 1426 Structure File Number 3104958 Bridge Number 1434 L Structure File Number 3118630 Bridge Number 1539 L Structure File Number 3110923 Bridge Number 0823 Structure File Number 3136612 Bridge Number 1539 R Structure File Number 3110958 Bridge Number 0000 Structure File Number 3137600

Estimated Cost: $135,000,000 Funding Source(s):

X Federal X State Local Private

Are funding splits required? Yes No Specify: To be determined. Anticipated quarter and Fiscal Year of project award: To be determined. Project Sponsor: ODOT Is local legislation required? X Yes No Is FHWA oversight required? X Yes No

3

Is project location on the congestion/safety list? X Yes No Problem identified by (indicate document date):

District Work Plan Congestion Study Safety Study

X Major New MPO TIP MPO LRP

X Access Ohio Macro Corridor 1993 and 2004, Safety hotspot 2004 Other

Are there any other projects in the area (ODOT, local or utility) that might conflict with the project (e.g., a local project on the proposed detour route for the ODOT project, a resurfacing project a year after a pavement marking project)?

Specify: Yes X No

Are there growth or land use changes in the area surrounding the project that could have an impact on project scope?

Specify:

Yes X No

Are there any known public involvement issues? X Yes No Specify: Impacts to residential areas from original project.

Purpose and Need (Must be a separate document for Major Projects): Separate document to be submitted to District 8 on July 23, 2004.

EXISTING INFORMATION: For details HAM-75-10.10 PID: 76256 Existing & Future Conditions Report September 2004 Check all information that was reviewed for the Red Flag Summary. Not all information is available or necessary for every project. The scope of the Red Flag Summary should be commensurate with the nature of the proposed project.

X Legal Speed 55 mph X Design Speed 55 mph Traffic Data:

Opening Year ADT: Design Year ADT: Design Hourly Volume: Directional Distribution:

4

Trucks (24 Hour B&C): (Traffic data does not need to be certified for the Design Red Flag Summary.)

Turning movement traffic counts X Functional Classification:

X Interstate, freeway Arterial Collector Local

X Locale:

Rural

X Urban X National Highway System (NHS):

X NHS Routes: I 75 X Non-NHS Routes: SR 126, SR 4, SR 561

X (3R) Project?

Yes

X No X Aerial mapping Ohio Utility Protection Service (OUPS) Markings

X United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping X Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain study mapping- Urban X Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) mapping X County map(s) X Airport locations within 4 miles of project Blue Ash Tax maps Property deeds Pavement marking log

X Original construction plans Existing right of way plans

X Bridge inspection reports X Bridge Load Ratings Pile Driving Logs

5

X Recorded vertical clearances for overpasses and underpasses X Old Soil borings Old Geologic reports Pavement Cores Dynaflect Testing Deck Cores

X Maintenance history X Pavement Condition Ratings (PCR’s) X County Manager concerns Traffic Studies, Highway Safety Program (HSP) Studies Previous Maintenance of Traffic concerns on roadway

X Accident History/Accident Reports Past project construction diaries

X Permitted Lane Closure Map Property owner contacts

X National Register of Historic Places Other:

EXISTING GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION: Identify all geotechnical references found. It is assumed, based on the project type, that not all reference materials listed herein will be applicable for use during the Red Flag Study. This study should provide a comprehensive review of all existing information available for the project area and should be supplemented with a complete field reconnaissance. Review of information from ODOT:

X Original construction plans including plan views, profiles, and cross-sections Construction diaries and inspection reports for original construction Compile information on changes to the plans during construction activities (e.g., slope, spring drains) Interview people knowledgeable with the previous projects Maintenance records

X Boring log on file with the Office of Geotechnical Engineering X History and occurrence of landslides X History and occurrence of rockfalls Other

6

Review of information from ODNR: From the Division of Geological Survey

X Boring logs on file Measured geologic sections

X Bedrock Geologic Maps X Bedrock Topography Maps X Bedrock Structure Maps X Geologic Map of Ohio X Quaternary Geology of Ohio X Known and Probable Karst in Ohio X Bulletins X Information Circulars X Report of Investigations X Location and information on underground mines X Location and characteristics of karst features Landslide maps Other

From the Division of Mineral Resource Management

X Applications and permits files for surface mines (coal & industrial mineral) X Active, reclaimed or abandoned surface mines X Abandoned Mine Land (AML) sites X Emergency Projects Other

From the Division of Soil & Water

X Water well logs X Soil Surveys X Ohio Wetland Inventory Maps X National Wetland Inventory Maps X Presence of lake bed sediments, organic soils or peat deposits Other

7

Other Sources: X Aerial photographs Satellite imagery

X USGS quadrangles X USGS publications and files X City and County Engineers Academia with engineering or geology programs

X USGS Open File Map Series #78-1057 “Landslides and Related Features” Other

SITE VISIT: A site visit is required for ALL projects. The site visit shall consist of visual inspection of the entire project area including the ditch lines, cut slopes, stream banks, bridge foundations, pavement, rock/soil slopes, etc. Date(s) of site visit: June 16, 2004 ODOT DISCIPLINE INVOLVEMENT: List name and phone number of individual(s) representing each discipline during the site visit and preparation of the Red Flag Summary. One individual may represent multiple disciplines. Check box if individual attended the site visit.

X District Project Manager Jay Hamilton, 513-933-6584 Geometrics Hydraulics Pavements Geotechnical General Roadway Structures Traffic Control Signals Maintenance of Traffic Right of Way/Real Estate Utilities

8

Survey Environmental Hans Jindal/ Mark Clark 513-933-6594 Highway Management Central Office Program Manager ODOT County Manager** District Production Administrator** District Planning and Programming Administrator**

** The County Manager, Production Administrator and Planning/Programming Administrator (or qualified representative) must attend the site visit. EXTERNAL AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: Indicate external agency involvement during identification of red flags. List the name and phone number of individual(s) representing each agency during the site visit. Check box if individual attended the field review.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) County Engineer City Engineer Other local public agency Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) U.S. Coast Guard Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Railroad/Railway Company State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Utility Companies: (Power)

(Telephone) (Water) (Gas) (Sanitary) (Cable)

Other

9

ODOT COUNTY MANAGER CONCERNS: List any comments/requests from the ODOT County Manager.

ACCIDENT DATA: Summarize accident history. Indicate any design features that should be revised to increase safety.

See HAM-75-10.10 PID: 76256 Existing & Future Conditions Report, September 2004

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Make a preliminary determination on whether the following resources will be affected by the proposed project.

Involvement Resource Comments References*

Yes No Parkland, nature preserves and wildlife areas

(Name) See Exhibit 1 Red Flag Summary Map X Possible

X Yes No

Cemetery (Name) Two cemeteries- See Exhibit 1, Red Flag Summary Map

Possible

Yes X No

Scenic River (Name) EPM: 104.2, 104.2.4 Possible

X Yes No

Public Facilities (Name) See HAM-75-10.10 PID: 76256 Existing & Future Conditions Report, September 2004 M•E Companies EPM: 104.2, 104.2.4

Possible

Yes No Threatened and Endangered Species and/or

habitat (e.g., Indiana bat trees, etc.) The project is is within the range of: Indiana bat, running buffalo clover, wintering bald eagle. EPM: 104.2, 104.2.6

X Possible

X Yes No

Existing cat tails (Location) Roadside side ditches and long Mill Creek. EPM: 104.2, 104.2.3 Possible

X Yes No

Existing wet areas (Location) See Exhibit 1, Red Flag Summary Map- based on NWI map

Possible

X Yes No Streams, rivers and watercourses (Use

Designation) Mill Creek and West Fork of Mill Creek- WWH EPM: 104.2, 104.2.4 Possible

10

Involvement Resource Comments References*

Yes No

Historic Building(s) (Location) See Exhibit 1 Red Flag Summary Map EPM: 104.3 X Possible

X Yes No

Historic Bridge(s) (Location) See Exhibit 1 Red Flag Summary Map- Benson Street Concrete Rainbow Arch. EPM: 104.3

Possible

Yes X No

Farmland (Location) Possible

X Yes No

Landfill(s) (Location) See Exhibit 1 Red Flag Summary Map Possible

X Yes No

Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) Streams Mill Creek and West Fork of Mill Creek Possible

X Yes No

ODOT MS4 Phase 2 Regulated Areas Possible

Yes No

Evidence of hazardous materials (Location) See Exhibit 1 Red Flag Summary Map EPM: 104.7 X Possible

X Yes No

Sensitive environmental justice areas See HAM-75-10.10 PID: 76256 Existing & Future Conditions Report, September 2004 M•E Companies

Possible

Yes No Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) floodplains See Exhibit 1 Red Flag Summary Map EPM: 104.2, 104.2.5 X Possible

Yes X No

Lake Erie Coastal Management Area EPM: 104.2 Possible

Yes X No

Sole Source Aquifers (Location) Possible

Yes X No

Wellhead Protection Areas (Specify) Possible

Yes No

Other environmental issues Potential for public involvement issues due to impacts to neighborhoods from the original construction project. See Appendix 2 Public Involvement Plan.

X Possible

11

GEOMETRIC ISSUES: Use the design speed, design functional classification and available traffic data to make a preliminary determination as to the geometric standards for the project. Compare these requirements to accident data and impacts if deviations are being considered.

Design Exception Required? Design Feature Preliminary Comments Regarding

Justification References*

Yes No

Lane Width (including curve widening)

Existing interstate and local road lane widths appear to meet current LDV1 design requirements per review of existing drawings and site visits. Any modifications to existing conditions could affect future lane width meeting the LDV1 design requirements.

LDV1: 301.1.1 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Graded Shoulder Width

Existing graded shoulder widths along interstate and local road appear to meet current LDV1 design requirements per review of existing drawings and site visits. Any modifications to existing conditions could affect future graded shoulder widths meeting the LDV1 design requirements.


Not Applicable

Yes No

Bridge Width

Existing bridge widths along interstate and local road appear to meet current LDV1 design requirements per review of existing drawings and site visits. Any modifications to existing conditions could affect future bridge widths meeting the LDV1 design requirements.

LDV1: 302.1 X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Structural Capacity

Per review of existing drawings, majority of the bridges design loading along the interstate was CF 2,000 (57). Some of the bridges appear to have been reconfigured per field review. Additional bridge review will be needed upon final determination of reuse of any existing bridges.

X Possible

Not Applicable Yes No Horizontal Alignment (including Excessive

Deflections, Degree of Curve, Lack of Spirals, Transition/Taper Rates and Intersection Angles)

Per review of existing drawings, dependent on design speeds, existing conditions could possibly not meet the design requirements of the LDV1. Due to the urban environment, curve radiuses at some of the ramps are very minimal.

LDV1: 202, 401.2 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Vertical Alignment (including grade breaks) Per review of existing drawings, a few of the existing NB I-75 sag vertical curves do not meet design requirements per the LDV1. A few sag curves were calculated to be rated as low as 50 MPH.

LDV1: 203 X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No Grades

Per review of existing drawings, profile grades along the interstate meet design requirements of the LDV1. Due to the urban environment, a few ramps grades may need additional review dependent on final design configuration.


X Yes No

Stopping Sight Distance Per review of existing drawings, a few curves were found to have horizontal stopping sight distances as low as 50 MPH.

LDV1: 201.2 Possible Not Applicable

12

Design Exception Required? Design Feature Preliminary Comments Regarding

Justification References*

Yes X No

Pavement Cross Slopes LDV1: 301.1.5 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Superelevation (Maximum rate, transition, position) Per review of existing drawings, a few of horizontal curves/superelevation rates are rated as low as 50 MPH.


Yes No

Horizontal Clearance

Per review of existing drawings and site visits, minimum horizontal clearances are currently being met/protected per ODOT stds. Any slight alignment changes would have a direct impact to meeting horizontal clearance requirements.


Not Applicable

Yes X No Vertical Clearance LDV1: 302.1 Possible

Not Applicable Indicate if the following geometric issues are present or should be considered during project development. Consider work on the mainline as well as any side roads or service roads. Provide additional comments as needed.

Design Issue Comments References*

Yes No

Does the existing horizontal alignment need to be modified?

Dependent on final design configuration, it is anticipated that portions of the existing horizontal alignment will need to be modified.

LDV1:202 X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Does the existing vertical alignment need to be modified?

Dependent on final design configuration, it is anticipated that portions of the existing vertical alignment will need to be modified.

LDV1:203 X Possible Not Applicable

X Yes No

Does stopping sight distance need to be increased? Dependent on final design configuration, it is expected that stopping sight distance will need to be upgraded.

LDV:201.2 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Does intersection sight distance need to be increased? Dependent on final design configuration, it is anticipated that some of the local intersection will need sight distance modifications.


13


X Yes No Are there any hazards in the clear zone? Specify treatment.

Due to the urban environment, many of the existing bridge abutments and other surrounding environment are within the clear zone area. Dependent on final design, it is anticipated guardrail and concrete barrier will be needed to protect hazards in the clear zone area or removal of the hazard at a cost.

LDV1: 600.2, 601 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No Does existing guardrail need to be replaced (e.g., too low, poor condition)?

Dependent on final design, it is anticipated portions of the existing guardrail will need to be replaced.

LDV1: 602, 603 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No Is there sufficient area for guardrail anchor assemblies (E-98 or B-98)?

Dependent on final design, it is anticipated sufficient area will be available for anchor assemblies.

LDV1: 602, 603 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No Does the number of turn lanes appear to be adequate?

See HAM-75-10.10 PID: 76256 Existing & Future Conditions Report, September 2004

LDV1: 401.7, 402 Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No Does the number of through lanes appear to be adequate?

See HAM-75-10.10 PID: 76256 Existing & Future Conditions Report, September 2004 LDV1: 401.7 Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No Are changes to access control required?

Dependent on final design configuration, it is expected that changes to access control will be required especially in the area between Shepherd Lane and Glendale Milford Rd.

LDV1: 800, 801, 802 Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No Are there any drive locations that will require special attention during design (e.g., very steep grades, high volume commercial drives, drives close to bridges or intersections)?

Dependent on final design configuration, it is expected that drive locations in the area between Shepherd Lane and Glendale Milford Rd will need to be studied for possible relocation.

LDV1: 803, 804, 805 Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No

Are new mailbox turnouts required? LDV1: 803.1 Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No Is there any evidence of accidents due to substandard vertical clearance on overpass structures?

Vertical clearance on the Glendale Milford Road overpass has been stuck several times. Possible

Not Applicable

14


Yes No

Will an interchange be added or modified? Dependent on project findings. LDV1: 403, 404 X Possible Not Applicable Yes No Do the existing intersection radius returns need to be

modified to accommodate larger truck turning movements?

Dependent on final design configuration, it is anticipated that some intersection radius will need to be improved to address the large volume of commercial traffic.


Yes No

Does grading need to be upgraded? To what criteria (e.g., clear zone, safety, standard)?

Dependent on final design configuration, it is anticipated that some grading upgraded will be required to address existing and proposed conditions.

LDV1: 307 X Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Are there any other geometric issues? Describe

Due to the urban environment, the close proximity to residences and businesses in the area and existing conditions such as the concrete retaining walls along SB I-75 at Lockland and the railroad bridges/tracks in the area will affect geometric design decisions.

X Possible Not Applicable

HYDRAULIC ISSUES: Indicate if the following drainage issues are present or should be considered during project development. Side road and service road work should be considered in this assessment. Provide additional comments as needed.


X Yes No Based on visual evidence (height of debris, erosion or

other markings left from high water) and approximate drainage areas, does the existing drainage system (culverts, storm sewers and/or ditches) appear to be appropriately sized and functioning properly? Describe deficiencies.

LDV2: 1003 - 1006 Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No Is there evidence of alignment or flow velocity

problems (e.g., scour, bank erosions, silting) at culvert entrances or exits?

There is scour present around some piers. LDV2: 1107 Possible Not Applicable

Yes X No Are there sinkholes or other deterioration in the

pavement that would indicate separations in the existing pipes?

Possible Not Applicable

15


Yes No

Should guardrail over culverts be eliminated with clear zone grading? LDV1: 307.2 Possible

X Not Applicable X Yes No

Should the existing culverts be replaced? LDV2: 1105 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Should the existing culverts be extended? LDV2: 1105 Possible X Not Applicable

Yes No

Will a new alignment concentrate flow (in culverts) that is currently overland flow? LDV2: 1105 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No

Will the maximum height of cover (100’) be exceeded for any culvert? LDV2: 1008 Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No

Will bankfull design be used for any culverts? LDV2: 1105.3.3 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Could materials with long lead times (e.g., large boxes) have an impact on construction schedule? X Possible

Not Applicable X Yes No

Does the existing drainage system have an odor that might indicate that it includes septic connections? LDV2: LD-30 Form 111.1 Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No Is the exposed curb height in existing gutters adequate

to contain flow (include height of proposed resurfacing)?

LDV2: 1103 X Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Do the existing inlets or catch basins need to be raised to meet proposed grade? X Possible

Not Applicable

16


X Yes No

Is the project in a FEMA flood zone? LDV2: 1005 Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Does the project affect a wetland or waterway (e.g., stream, river, jurisdictional ditch)? LDV2: 1001.2 Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No

Is the existing and/or proposed channel alignment compatible with the existing/proposed structure? Possible

Not Applicable Yes No

Will channel relocation be required? LDV2: 1102.2.4 X Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Will Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requirements apply? X Possible


Will post construction flow requirements be required? LDV2: 1115.1 1115.2 Possible

Not Applicable Yes X No

Is there evidence of existing field tiles? LDV2: 1002.3.6, 1108 Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Are underdrain outlets functioning properly? X Possible Not Applicable Yes X No

Will a new storm sewer outfall be required? LDV2: 1104 Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Is ditch cleanout required? X Possible Not Applicable

17


Yes No Does the drainage work warrant any special maintenance of traffic considerations? TEM: PART 6 X Possible


Are there any other hydraulic issues? Describe. Possible Not Applicable GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES: “Geotechnical Red Flag” features may include, but are not limited to, known or suspected geologic hazards (e.g., organic soils, karst, rockfalls, landslides, surface and underground mines, poor subgrade conditions, or difficulty in correcting existing surface or subsurface drainage problems). GEOLOGY The subject site is located within the glaciated portion of Ohio consisting primarily within the Illinoian Till Plain region. This region is characterized as rolling ground moraine of older till generally lacking ice-constructional features such as moraines, kames, and eskers with many buried valleys that are alternating between broad floodplains and bedrock gorges. The regional topography is cut by steep vallyed Mill Creek and associated tributaries of Mill Creek, including the West Fork of the Mill Creek. Existing topography within the Red Flag Study Area is sloping slightly to the east toward the Mill Creek Stream valley. On the north side of I-75, the topography ranges from 573 feet near the I-75/I-275 interchange and increases to approximately 600 feet near the I-75/Paddock Road interchange. See Appendix 3 Section IV for a list of references that were utilized to compile the topography of the study area. Surficial and Glacial Information The Study Area lies within the glaciated portion of Ohio, within the Pre-Illinoian, Illinoian and Wisconsin glacial remnants. The surficial deposits consist of Late Wisconsinan-age till, and Illinoian and Pre-Illinoian deposits. See Table 1 below for a summary of the Surficial and Glacial deposits within the Study Area.

Table 1. Surficial and Glacial Summary

Surficial Units Glacial Period Bedrock Units Location within the Study Area

Percent of the Surficial Units within the Study

Area

Loam till Wisconsinan-age Limestone-dominant bedrock Mile Post 16-15 36.5

Made land and pits Wisconsinan-age Large cut and fill areas Mile Post 15-14 10

Loam till Wisconsinan-age Limestone-dominant bedrock Mile Post 14-13 36.5

Clay Illinoian-age Limestone-dominant bedrock Mile Post 14-13 15.4

Loam till Wisconsinan-age Limestone-dominant Mile Post 13-12 36.5

18

Surficial Units Glacial Period Bedrock Units Location within the Study Area

Percent of the Surficial Units within the Study

Area bedrock

Sand and Gravel Wisconsinan-age Limestone-dominant bedrock Mile Post 13-12 13.4

Clay Illinoian-age Limestone-dominant bedrock Mile Post 12 15.4

Alluvium Holocene-age Shale-dominant bedrock Mile post 12-11 24.7

Sand and Gravel Wisconsinan-age Limestone dominant bedrock Mile post 11-10 13.4

Alluvium Holocene-age Shale-dominant bedrock Mile post 11-10 24.7

Clay Illinoian-age Limestone-dominant bedrock Mile Post 10-9 15.4

Soil Information Based upon the Hamilton County Soil prepared by the Division of Soil and Water the following association series and corresponding soil types, as presented in Table 2, were noted within the subject area:

Table 2. Soil Identification Summary

Soil Association Soil Location within Study Area Soil Type

Soil Listed on Red Flag

Profile Sheet Urban Land-Martinsville Fox North Bound, East of I-75 ErB Urban Land-Martinsville Fox and Russell-Urban land-Xenia

North Bound, East of I-75 and South Bound, West of I-75 ErA

Urban Land-Martinsville Fox and Bonnell-Rossmoyne Cincinnati North Bound, East of I-75 UX Yes

Bonnell-Rossmoyne Cincinnati South Bound, West of I-75 UmC Bonnell-Rossmoyne Cincinnati South Bound, West of I-75 UmB Bonnell-Rossmoyne Cincinnati South Bound, West of I-75 CdD Russell-Urban land-Xenia and Markland-Irban land-Patton South Bound, West of I-75 RxB

Russell-Urban land-Xenia South Bound, West of I-75 MoE2 Yes Russell-Urban land-Xenia South Bound, West of I-75 EeD Russell-Urban land-Xenia South Bound, West of I-75 EeB Russell-Urban land-Xenia South Bound, West of I-75 EcC2 Yes

19

Soil Association Soil Location within Study Area Soil Type

Soil Listed on Red Flag

Profile Sheet Russell-Urban land-Xenia South Bound, West of I-75 Go Yes Russell-Urban land-Xenia South Bound, West of I-75 MuC Markland-Urban land-Patton North Bound, East of I-75 Uo Markland-Urban land-Patton North Bound, East of I-75 EeC Markland-Urban land-Patton North Bound, East of I-75 Gn Yes Markland-Urban land-Patton North Bound, East of I-75 Ud

The Urban land-Martinsville-Fox (UmB and UmC) association series was located. The Urban land-Martinesville Fox land complex is located on the north and south sides of the Lockland split within the Study Area, on the east and west side I-75. The Martinsville-Fox series of soils consist of well-drained soils. These soils are formed in loamy outwash materials on stream terraces and outwash plains. The slopes range from zero to 15 percent. The UmB soil consists of a three to eight percent slope. The UmC soil consists of eight to 15 percent slopes. The Eldean-Urban Land Complex (ErA and ErB) and the Urban land-Stonelick Complex (Ux) soils were identified within the Urban Land-Martinesville series. Te Eldean-Urban Land soils have slopes generally ranging from zero to 12 percent. The Ux soils were identified as along the Mill Creek and the Mill Creek tributaries. These soil types are considered to be frequently flooded soils. The Ux soils are identified on the Centerline Profile sheet in Appendix 3 Section II. The Bonnell-Rossmoyne-Cincinnati association series consist of deep, gently sloping to very steep, well-drained slowly permeable soils with a medium texture. This soil series is generally found in upland areas. These soils are formed in loess and the underlying Illinoian glacial till. Typically the Rossmoyne soils are well drained and have mottles under the A-horizon. Soils that were identified within the Bonnell-Rossmoyne-Cincinnati association are the Urban land –Stonelick Complex (Ux), the Urban land-Martinsville Complex (UmB and UmC), and the Casco loam soils. The Ux soils were identified as along the Mill Creek and the Mill Creek tributaries. These soil types are considered to be frequently flooded soils. The Ux soils are identified on the Centerline Profile sheet in Appendix 3 Section II. The Russell-Urban land-Xenia association series are deep, nearly level to strongly sloping and are moderately well drained with a medium texture. These soils are formed in loess and glacial till and in underlying calcareous Wisconsinan glacial till. The slope ranges from three to eight percent. The Xenia soils are moderately well drained, and have low chroma mottles within the upper 10 inches of the horizon. Soil types identified within the Russell-Urban land-Xenia association series are the Eldean-Urban Land Complex (ErA), the Russell-Urban Complex (RxB), the Miamian-Hennepin Silt Loam (MoE2), the Eden-Urban Land Complex (EeD), Eden-Urban Land Complex (EeB), the Eden Silty Clay Loam (EcC2), the Genesee-Urban Land Complex (Go) and the Miamian-Urban Land Complex. Of these soils, the MoE2 and EcC2 soils are identified as easily erodable soils generally found on steep hillsides and stream valleys. Similarly, the Go soils are found along streamsides and are considered occasionally flooded soils, with slow permeability. These soil types are identified on the Centerline Profile sheet in Appendix 3 Section II. The Markland-Urban land-Patton association series consists of deep, moderately well drained, slowly permeable soils that form in lacustrine sediments on terraces and basins in some of the larger valleys within Hamilton County. Slopes within the soil range from two to 25 percent. Soils types that were identified within the Markland-Urban land–Patton series are Urban Land-Patton Complex (Uo), Russell-Urban Complex (RxB), Eden Urban Land (EeC), Genesee Loam (Gn) and the Udorthents Clay (Ud). Of these soil types, Gn soils were identified as being slowly permeable and occasionally flooded, located along streams valleys. This soil type is identified on the Centerline Profile sheet in Appendix 3 Section II. It should be noted—the soil series association and soil types are listed and described in the Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Ohio, August 1992.

20

Bedrock Geology As shown on the Centerline Profile, the uppermost formation of rock consists of the Ordovician Geologic System. This System underlays approximately 150 to 250 feet of overburden soil across the study area, although rock is as shallow as 50 feet to exposed in a stretch of I-75 just north of the Glendale-Milford Road interchange. The site area lies within the Ordovician uplands of southwestern Ohio. Specifically, the Grant Lake formation (Bellevue and Mount Auburn) and Grant Lake Limestone (Bellevue and Straight Creek) have developed four known sinkholes in Hamilton County, Ohio. The predominant upper most rock formations within the project area consist of the Kope, Fairview and Clays Ferry formation. Moreover, the project area is overlain by a thick glacial deposit as depicted in Appendix 3 Section III, which severely impedes and/or precludes the karst forming process. The Ordovician Geologic System consists of Ordovician carbonate rocks and calcareous shales. Three Ordovician and Silurian-age formations were noted within the study area as noted below:

Point Pleasant Tongue of the Clays Ferry Formation; Kope Formation; and, Fairview Formation

These areas are further identified within the project area by the locations presented in the following Table 3. A list of references utilized in compiling the Bedrock and Geological information can be found in Appendix 3 Section IV.

Table 3. The Geologic System Summary

Formation Location within the Study Area Adjacent Intersection or Road Composition

Point Pleasant Tongue of the Clays Ferry Formation North Bound, East side of I-75 Near the I-75/I-275

Intersection Interbedded Limestone and Shale

Fairview Formation South Bound, West side of I-75 Near the I-75/I-275 Intersection Miamitown Shale, undivided

Pont Pleasant Tongue of the Clays Ferry Formation North Bound, East side of I-75 Sharon Road Interbedded Limestone and Shale

Kope Formation South Bound, West side of I-75 Sharon Road Interbedded Shale and Limestone

Fairview Formation South Bound, West side of I-75 Glendale-Milford Road Miamitown Shale, undivided

Point Pleasant Tongue of the Clays Ferry Formation North Bound, East side of I-75 Glendale-Milford Road Interbedded Limestone and Shale

Kope Formation South Bound, West side of I-75 Shepard Road Interbedded Shale and Limestone

Point Pleasant Tongue of the Clays Ferry Formation North Bound, East side of I-75 Shepard Road Interbedded Limestone and Shale

21

Formation Location within the Study Area Adjacent Intersection or Road Composition

Kope Formation North Bound, East side of I-75 Lockland Split Interbedded Shale and Limestone

Point Pleasant Tongue of the Clays Ferry Formation South Bound, West side of I-75 Lockland Split Interbedded Limestone and Shale

Kope Formation North Bound, East side of I-75 Paddock Road Interbedded Shale and Limestone

Point Pleasant Tongue of the Clays Ferry Formation South Bound, West side of I-75 Paddock Road Interbedded Limestone and Shale

Ground Water Information Hydrogeologic settings from the basis of the system and incorporate the major hydrogeologic factors that affect and control ground water movement and occurrence including depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, impact of the vadose zone media and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. The Study Area lies within a ground water area that has the potential to yield several gallons of water per minute. The ground water area contains shale and sand and gravel deposits, generally well sorted that may yield 100 to 500 gallons of water per minute. The highest yields have been reported where ground water recharge is available from nearby Mill Creek and associated tributaries. The study area lies within buried valleys and thin till over bedded sedimentary rocks hydrogeology setting. Groundwater pollution potential identification optimizes the use of existing data to rank areas with respect to relative vulnerability to contamination. The majority of the study area lies within the buried valley. The hydrogeologic setting is characterized by thick layers of sand and gravel that have been deposited in a former topographic low, glacial formed meltwaters. This hydrogeologic setting has a pollution potential index range of 140 to 179, with a medium potential of becoming contaminated. From Sharon Road to Glendale Milford Road (Mile post 15.5 to 14), the hydrogeologic setting of thin till over bedded sedimentary rocks is located within the study area. The hydrogeologic setting is characterized by moderate to low topography and deposits of thin glacial till overlying alternating layers of fractured, consolidated sedimentary rocks. This area has a low pollution potential index range of 80-00. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN OBSERVATIONS Resource International, Inc. researched and reviewed available geotechnical plans and studies obtained through the Ohio Department of Transportation as they pertain to the original construction, reconstruction, or improvements to I-75 and the surrounding study corridor. Following are observations from the archived files, which could prove beneficial in considering various options for the future of I-75. One component of selecting an alignment for a major interstate is access. The selected alignment must both be convenient for the community to access the highway, with periodically spaced interchanges. Second, though, is that the highway cannot dissect a community and expect it to survive, unaffected. The route of a major highway can separate school districts, change bussing routes, and affect the way citizens get around town. Currently, many I-75 bridges, both overhead and mainline, attempt to minimize the past impacts and maintain local access. The existing structures are as follows, in Table 4:

22

Table 4. Structures Location Structure Type Milepost

Paddock Road (SR 4) Overhead Bridge 9.45 Pedestrian Overpass Overhead Bridge 9.92

Mill Creek Parallel Mainline Bridges 10.10 SR 126 Eastbound Overhead Bridge 10.31 SR 126 Ramp D Overhead Bridge 10.33

SR 126 Westbound Overhead Bridge Approx. 10.77 (SB Only) Galbraith Road Overhead Bridge 10.89 (SB Only)

Conrail RR Overhead Bridge Approx. 10.99 (SB Only) West Fork of Mill Creek Mainline Bridge Approx. 11.52 (SB Only)

Lock Street Overhead Bridge Approx. 11.69 (SB Only) Wyoming Avenue Overhead Bridge Approx. 11.76 (SB Only) SR 126 Westbound Overhead Bridge 10.86 (NB Only)

Galbraith Road & Mill Creek Mainline Bridge 11.02 (NB Only) Clark Street Mainline Bridge 11.52 (NB Only) Davis Street Mainline Bridge 11.84 (NB Only)

Mill Creek, Benson St & Conrail RR Mainline Bridge 11.92 to 12.38 (NB Only) Shepherd Lane Overhead Bridge 12.92

General Electric Ramp C Parallel Overhead Bridges 13.38 General Electric Ramp J Overhead Bridge 13.90 Glendale–Milford Road Parallel Overhead Bridges 14.26

Sharon Road Parallel Mainline Bridges 15.39 Kemper Road Parallel Mainline Bridges 16.42

Historical Geotechnical Investigations have been reviewed, as listed in Appendix 3 Section V, for geotechnical impacts to future construction. During earthwork operations, soft subgrade is common within transitional areas or where the profile changes from a cut to a fill section. These areas commonly require undercutting during construction. Along the existing alignment, there was an estimated 18 of these transitional areas during initial construction. This number may be higher due to the profile oscillating above and below or closely following the existing grade in the northern portion of the study. Finally, the historical plans were referenced for the likely occurrence of unsuitable subgrade material. Pursuant to ODOT’s Geotechnical Bulletin 1 (GB1), soil types A-4b, A-2-5, A-5, and A-7-5 soils shall not be utilized in a proposed pavement subgrade. Review of the plan findings are presented graphically in Appendix 3 Section II. Soils of types encountered during the original construction which were then deems unsuitable for subgrade construction would likely have been wasted outside the roadway limits, or in areas today between the outside shoulder and right-of-way fence, or within the wider medians. Construction within these areas could proceed with the understanding that some significant undercuts could be expected. A geotechnical investigation of proposed improvements would identify and quantify the need for undercuts, in accordance with GB1.

23

DISTRICT NOTATIONS Soil information from roadway subsurface investigations and structure foundation investigations were obtained from The Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Materials Management, 1600 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio. Files dating back to 1941 were obtained from ODOT archives and reviewed for pertinent information relative to the current study. Many of the older projects investigated within the current study corridor could not be identified with enough accuracy to be of use in this Red Flag Summary. A listing of the files obtained from ODOT are shown in Appendix 3 Section V. An inquiry was made to ODOT District 8 Office, regarding files located at the District Office. It was determined by Mr. Jay Hamilton, District 8, that old construction diaries, maintenance records and inspection reports would not be of value to this study, therefore, no further action was taken toward obtaining other information from the District. Review of the subsurface investigation reports on file with ODOT revealed several areas of slope instability over the course of construction and reconstruction along the current I-75 alignment. More specifically, they are generally located along the Mill Creek in the vicinity of the SR 126 (Ronald Reagan Highway) exit ramps and at the I-75 northbound lanes in Lockland. These areas are highlighted in Appendix 3 Section I. The review indicated that the principal cause of slope failures could be attributed to the thick sand lenses in the soils near the flow line and channel bottom of the Mill Creek. Inclinometers had been set and monitored by the State Highway Department, aka ODOT, in these areas, and engineered repairs made. FIELD REVIEW Resource International, Inc. performed visits to the project site for the purpose of project orientation, scope verification, general observation, and detailed research pertaining to various geotechnical aspects of the project. Details of these visits are summarized in the following paragraphs, and in the photographs presented in Appendix 3 Section VI. Resource International, Inc. performed an initial site visit on Wednesday, June 16, 2004. This project visit was also represented by M•E Companies, ODOT, and Parsons Brinckerhoff. Initially, the I-75 mainline was traveled, identifying the study limits of the project from SR 561/Paddock Road at straight line mileage (SLM) 9.31 to the I-275 interchange at SLM 16.58. Within the study area, the identified construction limits were visually referenced as the mainline bridge over the Mill Creek at SLM 10.10 to the mainline bridge over Kemper Road at SLM 16.32. Specific concerns of ODOT, as it relates to the project, were discussed. These include the completion of the SR 126, Ronald Reagan Highway Interchange, the relocation (or possible elimination) of the left exit from I-75 northbound to Galbraith Road, and the elimination of the collector-distributor roads to Neumann Way at the GE Plant in Evendale. During our initial visit, the I-75 mainline appeared to be in stable and sound geotechnical condition. The west side of I-75, north of Glendale-Milford Road, had an exposed rock backslope, indicating a rock cut during some phase of original construction. No evidence of slides, slips, excessive erosion, or subgrade failures was observed. Additionally, the existing highway structures and neighboring buildings showed no apparent signs of geotechnical problems. A second visit was planned to closely examine structures for geotechnical concerns. Intended areas that will be explored include, but are not limited to, the property of St. Rita’s School for the Deaf, the Evendale Drive retaining wall, highway and neighboring structures in Lockland, and the water retention pond at Dorothy Court and Mangham Drive (across I-75 from GE). A second visit was conducted by Resource International, Inc. on Monday, June 28, 2004. The purpose of this visit was to document geotechnically important features or concerns along the study corridor, to identify potentially problematic areas, and document the state of previous geotechnical problems.

24

A visit was made to St. Rita’s School for the Deaf. The property sits in the northwest quadrant of I-75 and Glendale-Milford Road. The school sits atop a hill, around elevation 600, on less than 50 feet of overburden. The building structures adjacent to the highway right-of-way are brick masonry, single and two-story maintenance type structures. Further to the west, the main building structure is a four story with basement, brick façade structure, sitting an estimated 20-feet higher in elevation from the maintenance structures. I-75 sits, visually, about 30 feet lower in elevation than the eastern ground elevation of St. Rita’s, with the slope being a 2:1 (H:V) or flatter. Geotechnically, the structures appeared in sound, structural condition without the presence of foundation problems. Also visited was the water reservoir located at the southwest quadrant of Mangham Drive and Dorothy Court. This water storage facility is a below grade open top rectangular tank of unknown depth, owned by the Southwestern Ohio Water Company. The tank is constructed in a side hill cut, where the south and eastern sides are supported by an earth embankment. Adjacent to the tank, to the south, are located two outbuildings, likely housing pumps and maintenance equipment. The property is well maintained and does not exhibit signs of slope problems or settlement. The location of this facility is believed to support the GE Manufacturing Facility on the east side of IR-75. Located along Evendale Drive just north of Glendale-Milford Road, an existing retaining wall where Evendale Drive runs adjacent to I-75 was examined. This precast concrete tieback retaining wall was approximately ten to 15 feet tall, and several hundred feet long. Structurally, the tiebacks and concrete beams were in good condition, with no signs of failure or problems. A second retaining wall was identified along the Mill Creek in Lockland, just south of West Benson Street and the historic Arch Bridge. This retaining wall is also a precast concrete tieback design. The wall is on the magnitude of 30 to 40 feet in height, and considerable length. The wall serves as the west bank of the Mill Creek, which is undoubtedly the reason for its current condition. As documented in the photographs in Appendix 3 Section IV, the original wall has been heightened by about ten feet in some areas by stacking field stone on the top of the wall and backfilling. This produced level lawns for some residents on Central Avenue, but likely was not calculated in the design of the tieback wall. Several areas of the wall exhibit broken precast members, foundation settlement, and the southern end has failed completely. Review of old construction and geotechnical investigations revealed several slide problems encountered during construction of the Ronald Reagan Highway (Cross County Highway) in the vicinity of the Mill Creek just east of I-75. Areas of initial problems were visited, and no further signs of problems were observed at this time. Thus, the original slide has been satisfactorily repaired and holding up well. Finally, the Mill Creek Sports Park, Limited property was visited for potential impacts to the I-75 study. This site previously was zoned industrial, and remnants of a powerhouse and associated brick smoke stack remain. The majority of the 25 acres is relatively flat, heavily brush covered, with a few unpaved or scarcely paved roads traversing the site. Access to the property is from the north, crossing the Mill Creek on a one-lane concrete slab bridge. Several piles of debris were observed around the remaining structures. Given the limited amount of available information for this site, it is assumed that some level of site cleanup would be required if the property is incorporated into the I-75 alignment corridor. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES Based on the information compiled during this study indicate whether or not the following geotechnical issues are present or should be further considered during project development. Provide additional comments as needed.


X Yes No Is there evidence of soil drainage problems (e.g., wet or pumping subgrade, standing water, the presence of seeps, wetlands, swamps, bogs)?

As indicated in the geology section and shown on the Plans and Centerline Red Flag profile in Appendix 3 Section I and II respectively, several wetland areas and poorly drained soils were noted across the corridor area.

SSI: 2.1, 2.2 Possible

Not Applicable

25


Yes No Is there evidence of any embankment or foundation problems (e.g., differential settlement, sag, foundation failures, slope failures, scours, evidence of channel migrations)?

Based upon a review of previous reports as detailed in Appendix 3 Section V and shown on a plan in Appendix 3 Section I, the embankment area near SR 126 has experienced embankment slope failures in the past.

SSI: 2.1, 2.2 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Is there evidence of any landslides? Same as above SSI: 2.1, 2.2 X Possible Not Applicable

Yes X No Is there evidence of unsuitable materials (e.g., presence

of debris or man-made fills or waste pits containing these materials, indications from old soil borings)?

Nothing was observed SSI: 2.1, 2.2 Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Is there evidence of rock strata (e.g., presence of exposed bedrock, rock on the old borings)?

There are rock back slope in the Glendale area. A top of rock profile is presented in Appendix 3 Section III.

SSI: 2.1 Possible Not Applicable

Yes X No

Is there evidence of active, reclaimed or abandoned surface mines? No information was located. SSI: 2.1, 2.2, AUM Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No

Is there information pertaining to the existence of underground mines? Same as above. SSI: 2.1, 2.2, AUM Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No Are soil borings needed for pavement design,

foundations (bridge, headwall, retaining wall, noise wall) or slopes?

Soil borings are required per ODOT SSI and GB-1 specifications for roadway, culvert and bridge design.

SSI: 2.1, 2.2 Possible Not Applicable

X Yes No

Does an undercut appear to be needed?

Undercut will be required per GB-1. Note that transitional cut and fill areas, as noted in original subsurface conditions, typically require some undercutting. The Centerline Red Flag Profile in Appendix 3 Section III highlights poor soil areas that may require undercut depending on the proposed construction limits.

SSI: 5.3.2.1 Possible

Not Applicable

26

Provide a list of bulleted items referencing additional areas of concern or special notation.

WETLANDS All available information was obtained to compile information on the wetlands within the Red Flag Summary study area. Wetland information was obtained and reviewed to determination if wetland exists on the property and if the conditions within the study area have the potential to develop a wetland. During the site reconnaissance, the study area was observed and walked to determine if the potential presence of jurisdictional wetlands per the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987). Jurisdictional wetlands are included in the definition of “Waters of the United States” which are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). In order to qualify as a jurisdictional wetland, an area must contain each of the following three criteria: (1) hydric (wetland) soil conditions; (2) the presence of hydrophytic vegetation; and (3) field indicators of wetland hydrology Historical information concerning wetlands in the area was reviewed. This historical review included the Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Ohio report, and the National Wetland Inventory Map (1995), Glendale Quadrangle and East Cincinnati Quadrangles. This background review was completed to gain an understanding of soil, vegetative communities, and surface hydrology conditions on the property. The Soil Survey of Hamilton County identifies several soil types that lie within the study area. However, according to the Ohio List of Hydric Soils, these soils are not identified as hydric soils. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map classifies wetlands based stereoscopic analysis of high altitude aerial photographs. Wetlands are identified on the photographs based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography in accordance with Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Based on the NWI Map, wetlands are identified within the study area. These areas were observed during the site reconnaissance. Many of the wetlands that were identified on the NWI maps are not present due to IR 75 and construction along IR 75 and the adjacent intersections. Of the wetlands that were identified, many wetlands were located along the west side of Evandale Drive, east of the IR 75. The wetlands are located adjacent to a tributary of Mill Creek. Two (2) detention ponds were located north of Kemper Road, east of IR 75. A pond was located adjacent to the Landmark Christian School and Church. One (1) water retention pond was located at the southwest quadrant of Mangham Drive and Dorthy Court. See Appendix 3 Section I for the location of the wetlands. THE MIAMI AND ERIE CANAL The Miami and Erie Canal, from Cincinnati to Toledo, was built as three separate canals in the period of 1825 to 1845. The canal, operational beginning in 1828, entered Hamilton County in the Crescentville area of western Sharonville, where Lock 39 was located just inside the county line. The channel of the old canal as well as abutments for an aqueduct across a small creek can still be seen in this area. The canal ran from this point south, parallel to present day Canal Road and along Evendale Drive, near the St. Rita School for the Deaf property and finally along what is now IR-75. Original Canal Construction Drawings and a map depicting the canal's alignment are presented in Appendix 3 Section VIII. The canal passed through Lockland, where the southbound lanes of IR-75 are today. There were three locks, within area of two blocks, just south of an iron lift bridge at Wyoming Avenue. The towpath, along which horses or mules pulled the boats, was ten feet wide. In Lockland, the towpath was on the east side of the channel and the locks. Businesses located there to take advantage of the power provided by the falling water over the three locks. A dry-dock was established at Locks 40 and 42 (between the canal and South Cooper Avenue). Canal Boats were repaired and built there. The potential that along the alignment of the original canal, buried foundations, remnants of the original locks, debris, low-strength backfill, or unsuitable material exists. These obstacles cannot be discounted, but rather should be anticipated along the IR-75 corridor, especially in the Lockland area, where heavy canal based businesses were located.

27

PAVEMENT ISSUES: Indicate if the following pavement issues are present or should be considered during project development. Side road and service road work should be considered in this assessment. Provide additional comments as needed.


X Yes No

Are pavement cores needed to determine the existing pavement buildup and/or condition? Possible

Not Applicable Yes X No Is the proposed pavement buildup known? (For

pavement preservation projects, pavement treatment, including pavement type & thickness should be specified in the design scope of services)

Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No

Is the existing pavement concrete or asphalt? Concrete Base w/ asphalt overlay. Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Are dynaflect tests available to assess existing pavement condition? X Possible


Does the proposed pavement buildup need to be approved by the Pavement Selection Committee? Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Are joint repairs needed? X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Are pressure relief joints needed? X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Are pavement repairs needed? X Possible Not Applicable

X Yes No

Does the maintenance of traffic scheme require additional permanent or temporary pavement? Possible

Not Applicable

28


Yes X No

Does curb need to be replaced due to deteriorated condition or lack of curb reveal? Possible


Does sidewalk need to be replaced or installed? LDV1: 306.2 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Are new curb ramps needed? LDV1: 306.3 X Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Do truncated domes need to be installed? LDV1: 306.3.5 X Possible Not Applicable

X Yes No

Is there any work on side roads, service roads or ramps? Possible

Not Applicable Yes No Are there any special drive treatments or preferences

(e.g., concrete for all drive aprons, curved aprons, etc.)?


X Yes No

Has the site received repeated resurfacings in recent years? Possible


Does pavement deterioration appear to be caused by drainage or geotechnical problems? Possible


Are there any other pavement issues? Specify. Spot locations of base failure/patching. Considerable crack sealing. Possible

Not Applicable

29

STRUCTURAL ISSUES: Indicate if the following structure issues are present or should be considered during project development. Provide additional comments as needed. Provide a separate table for each structure.


Yes No

Can the structure be replaced with a prefabricated box culvert or 3-sided box? BDM: 201 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No

Does the bridge (including foundation) meet current design live loading? BDM: 301.4, 301.4.1,

301.4.2 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Was the existing structure built according to plan? BDM: 206, 401.1, 610.1 X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Is deck coring needed? BDM: 412 X Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Is the deck delaminated? Specify. BDM: 412 X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Is non-destructive testing needed to determine the amount of delamination? BDM: 412 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Is the bridge deck in good condition? BDM: 412 X Possible Not Applicable

Yes X No

Has a deck condition survey (Bridge Design Manual, Section 412) been performed? Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Are there areas to be patched or repaired on the deck? BDM: 403.1, 404.3 X Possible Not Applicable

30


Yes No

Is the bridge a good candidate for an overlay? Specify type of overlay if known. BDM: 404.1, 404.2 X Possible


Does the bridge rail meet current standards? Majority have been updated to jersey barrier. BDM: 209.2, 304, 410 Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No

Is a fatigue analysis required? BDM: 402.2, 402.3 Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Should all fatigue prone details be retrofitted or replaced? Specify. BDM: 402.2, 402.3 Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No Is the abutment (including backwall, beam seats,

breatwall, wingwall, etc.) in good condition? Specify location and level of deterioration.

Minor cracking. BDM: 403.1 Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Is there any evidence of substructure movement (e.g., settlement, rotation)? X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Should piers be replaced or reused? Specify. Varies. BDM: 303.3 X Possible Not Applicable Yes X No Is there any evidence of existing beam

deterioration/section loss, strands exposed, shear joints leaking or longitudinal cracks?

Minor deterioration. BDM: 402.1 Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Are the bearings in good condition? Minor maintenance needed. BDM: 411 Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Can the deck joint be eliminated? If not, specify what modifications are necessary. BDM: 205.8, 205.9, 406 X Possible

Not Applicable

31


X Yes No Are new approach slabs needed? BDM: 209.5 Possible


Can hinges be removed to make the members continuous?

At minimum the super structure should be replaced. BDM: 402.8 Possible


Does existing vertical and horizontal clearance meet design standards?

Majority of the structures are 2’ +/- below the current 17’ minimum. BDM: 207.1, 207.3, 209.8 Possible


Is the bridge on a curve, skew or superelevation transition? The RR bridge is heavily skewed. BDM: 207.5, 209.1 Possible


Is there any evidence that the bridge does not meet hydraulic capacity? BDM: 202.5, 203 Possible


Are there existing sidewalks on or adjacent to the bridge? Along the side road overpasses. BDM: 209.11 X Possible

Not Applicable Yes No Will the structure work require any special

maintenance of traffic (e.g., closing of roadway for erection of beams, maintenance of waterway traffic, location of cut line, etc.)? Specify.

BDM: 208, 409, 304.3.5 X Possible


Is the structure in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain? BDM: 203 Possible


Is there any erosion in the existing channel? BDM: 203.3 Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Is the foundation exposed due to scour? BDM: 203.3, 409.3 Possible Not Applicable

32


Yes No Will there be more than 25’ of channel relocation? X Possible


Are there any opportunities to construct the bridge faster (e.g., precast walls, segmental construction)? Smaller stream crossings. X Possible


Is there any railroad involvement? BDM: 209.8 Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Does the bridge need to accommodate future additional roadway lanes or railroad tracks?

Wider paved shoulders for future maintenance of traffic. Possible


Will temporary shoring be required next to the railroad? BDM: 208.3 X Possible

Not Applicable X Yes No Could materials with long lead times for delivery (e.g.,

steel beams) have an impact on the construction schedule?

Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Are there any problems with existing retaining walls? BDM: 204.9 Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Are there any other structures issues? Specify. Age of bridges and past work history indicate that complete replacement or major rehab will be required.


33

TRAFFIC CONTROL ISSUES: Indicate if the following traffic control (signals, signing, pavement markings, etc.) issues are present or should be considered during project development. Provide additional comments as needed.


Yes X No

Do the existing signs need to be replaced due to poor condition? TEM: 260 Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No Are there any obvious deviations from requirements of

the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD)?


Yes No

Is a particular type of pavement marking desired (e.g., paint, epoxy, thermoplastic)? TEM: 320 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Will pavement-planing affect loop detectors? TEM: 450-10.7 420-5 X Possible


Will pavement widening affect pole locations? TEM: 450-6 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Will resurfacing effect signal height? TEM: 450-7 Possible X Not Applicable

X Yes No Does it appear that any traffic control items will fall

outside the existing right of way limits (e.g., large signs, strain poles)?


Yes X No

Are there any special pedestrian considerations? TEM: 404 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Are there any accidents that can be related to existing signal deficiencies (e.g., timing, lack of turn lanes)? TEM: 402-3.5 Possible

X Not Applicable

34


Yes No

Do turn lane lengths appear to have sufficient storage capacity? LDV1: 401.7 X Possible


Does the controller need to be upgraded? TEM: 460 X Possible Not Applicable

Yes X No

Do proprietary materials need to be specified? Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Should signs or signal installations be supplemented with lighting? TEM: 408 Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No

Are any TODS signs present? TEM: 207-3 Possible Not Applicable X Yes No Could material with long lead times for delivery have

an impact on the construction schedule (e.g., strain poles)?

Not anticipated, but awareness is needed with respect to the number of overhead sign trusses and poles, and light poles, etc.

Possible Not Applicable Yes No If traffic control at an intersection is being changed

from stop control to signalization, does the stop condition road need to be upgraded to accommodate faster traffic?

X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No Are there any other traffic control issues? Specify. Possible

Not Applicable

35

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC ISSUES: Indicate if the following maintenance of traffic issues are present or should be considered during project development. Provide additional comments as needed.


Yes No

Can traffic be detoured? Project will impact local traffic. The MOT plan for the project will need to utilize alternate detour routes, traffic detours, and traffic shifts to maintain traffic curing construction.

TEM: 602-6 X Possible Not Applicable

X Yes No

Is the local alternate detour route in good condition? Are there any load limits or bridge width restrictions?

Per site visits, overall local alternate detour routes are in good conditions. Between the city of Lockland and Reading, there is one bridge that has a bridge loading limit of 25 tons. Some of the local streets also have load restrictions placed on them, but not enough of them to have a negative impact on the project.

Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Will the detour route have a detrimental impact on emergency vehicles, school buses or other sensitive traffic?

There is a school located adjacent to the project area. There are also several small communities, which during construction could have local access rerouted which would require a long response time for emergency vehicles.

X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Are there any load limits on the proposed detour route?

Between the city of Lockland and Reading, there is one bridge that has a bridge loading limit of 25 tons. Some of the local streets also have load restrictions placed on them. Proposed detour routes will have to be coordinated with restrictions.

X Possible


Does the project fall within the permitted lane closure map?

As part of the MOT for final design, it is expected that lane closures will be required beyond what is allowed.

TEM: 630-4 Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Is the existing bridge width sufficient to maintain traffic? Dependent on final design requirements. TEM: 640-2 X Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No

Will temporary pavement be required? Due to the scope of the anticipated project, temporary pavement will be required. TEM: 640-2, 640-11 Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Should temporary pavement be retained after project completion? To be determined. TEM: 640-11 X Possible

Not Applicable

36


Yes No

Will the speed limit be lowered by more than 10 mph during construction?

It is not anticipated that traffic will be reduced by more than 10 MPH. TEM: 640-18 X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes X No

Is the existing shoulder in good enough condition to support traffic during construction?

Shoulder reconstruction will be required as part of this project to support MOT. TEM: 640-5 Possible


Does pedestrian traffic need to be maintained? Due to the urban environment, local pedestrian traffic will need to be maintained or provided an alternate route.


Yes No

Will additional width be required on culverts or bridges to maintain traffic?

It is not anticipated additional width will be required. Dependent on final design requirements.

TEM: 640-2 X Possible Not Applicable Yes X No

Will a temporary structure/runaround be required? Due to number of existing bridges in the area, it is anticipated that no additional temporary structures/runarounds will be required.


Yes No

Will a cross over be utilized? TEM: 640-11 X Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Will the road need to be closed for short durations (e.g., 15 minutes for beam erection)?

During demolition and construction of bridges. Also during other construction operations.

TEM: 640-8 Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Can drive access be maintained at all times? Overall, drive access will be able to be maintained at all times. TEM: 640-10 X Possible


Can trucks make turning movements during construction? Will need to be incorporated in MOT plans. Possible


Will portable concrete barrier wall obstruct stopping sight distance?

Due to the tight existing alignment and short curve radius, it is anticipated that SSD will be obstructed by concrete barrier.

LDV1-201.2 Possible Not Applicable

37


Yes No Will additional signal heads be needed for drives and/or side roads? Dependent on final design requirements. TEM: 605-13 X Possible


Are there any issues regarding access to the work site? Due to the urban environment, there are a large number of access points to the project; however, this environment can also provide problems for access. Dependent on final design requirements.

TEM: 640-9 X Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Are there any issues regarding construction timeframes (e.g., time of day, time limits)?

Due to the urban environment with local residences and businesses in the area. Dependent on final design requirements.

TEM: 606-3 640-14 Possible


Have innovative contracting ideas been considered? Specify. Not at this stage of the project. Possible

X Not Applicable X Yes No

Are there specific requirements for maintaining railroad traffic?

There is several at grade railroad crossings and bridges with in the project limits, railroad traffic will need to be maintained at all times.

TEM: 606-19 Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Does it appear that the maintenance of traffic will require additional right of way? Dependent on final design requirements. X Possible


Are there any other maintenance of traffic issues? Specify. Dependent on final design requirements X Possible

Not Applicable RIGHT OF WAY/SURVEY ISSUES: Indicate if right of way or survey issues are present or should be considered during project development. Provide additional comments as needed.


X Yes No

Will there be any work beyond the existing right of way limits? Possible

Not Applicable

38


X Yes No

Will major real estate relocation acquisition be involved? Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Will relocation of residences be involved? X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Will relocation of businesses be involved? X Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Does access control need to be revised? Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Are there any obvious encroachments? There are several structures and parking lots close to the freeway, primarily through the Lockland split.


Yes X No

Can the number of involved property owners be determined? If so, how many? Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No

Will temporary parcels be needed (e.g., for drive work)? Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Will right of way need to be acquired for an agency other than ODOT (e.g., county, city)? Specify. Side road alignment work. X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Will additional right of way be needed for utility relocations? X Possible


Will right of way need to be acquired for storm sewer outfalls? Possible

Not Applicable

39


Yes No Do property owners need to be contacted for the locations of underground items such as leach fields, septic systems or field tiles that might be effected by the proposed take?

Unlikely. X Possible


Are there any mineral rights considerations? Unlikely. X Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Are there any specific property owner concerns? Close properties and houses through the Lockland split. X Possible


Will right of way acquisition from a railroad/railway be involved? Conrail crossing. X Possible


Can work agreements be used? Possible Not Applicable Yes No

Will right of way be acquired for wetland or stream mitigation? X Possible


Are there any other right of way or survey issues? Specify.

There are several structures and surface streets close to the freeway that may be affected by interstate widening.

Possible Not Applicable UTILITY ISSUES: Indicate if the following utility issues are present or should be considered during project development. Provide additional comments as needed.


Yes No

Do existing utilities need to be relocated? The probability for relocation of the utilities as noted in the Technical Proposal will depend on the final design in regards to alignment, widening and depth of cover.


40


X Yes No

Can utility conflicts be minimized (e.g., by careful placement of storm sewer and underdrains)?

Yes. However, there still needs to be careful and expert coordination with the utility companies to insure the existing facilities will be able to provide ample capacity.


X Yes No

Would the project benefit from subsurface utility engineering (SUE)?

Definitely. Using SUE on projects such as this one would benefit in the overall design, reducing relocation costs, delays and claims.


Yes No

Are there existing utilities on an existing structure that need to be relocated?

There may be relocation of some utilities necessary that are currently attached to the bridge structures, otherwise most are underground.

X Possible Not Applicable X Yes No

Are there any specific utility requirements or concerns? Specify.

Most of the utilities in the project limits are major feeders or truck lines. Provisions will have to be made to address concerns to insure that there would be minimal interruption to customers that they serve.


X Yes No

Are there facilities that require a large lead-time to relocate?

Usually any major underground facilities that would require relocation depends on availability of material and construction schedule. This would definitely apply to CINergy’s electric towers as well.


Yes No

Is additional right of way needed to accommodate utility relocations?

Depending on final alignment design, if the utilities need to be relocated, they will require an easement and right of way in order to maintain their facilities.


Yes No

Are there water or sanitary lines that will be relocated as part of the ODOT contract?

If they have to relocate, the utilities usually work with the DOT to negotiate a win-win solution good for each party involved.


Yes No

Are there any other utility issues? Specify.

The utilities currently identified are facilities that have been preliminarily identified by the major utility companies. There will have to be expert coordination since there is probably additional unknown utility information at this time, but that is where SUE is very important. Also, the utilities normally want to know about future corridor development for upgrading capacity requirements. Five areas along the project area contain combined sewers. These include Seymour Ave., SR 126, Galbraith Rd., Shepherd Ave., and Sharon Rd.


41

PERMIT ISSUES: Indicate if the following permit issues are present or should be considered during project development. Provide additional comments as needed.


Yes No

Will an individual Corps of Engineers/Environmental Protection Agency 404/401 permit be required? With respect to Mill Creek impacts. X Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No Does it appear that the project can be constructed under

a nationwide 404/401 permit? If so, which permit and what specific requirements apply?

With respect to Mill Creek impacts- NW#14- lateral stream impacts less then 200’ and wetlands impacts less then .5 acre.


Yes X No

Will a Coast Guard permit be required? Possible Not Applicable

X Yes No

Is review by a local public agency or project sponsor required? Specify. Local villages and City of Cincinnati Possible


Is Airway/Highway clearance analysis required? Possible Not Applicable

Yes No

Is Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval required? Potential impacts to Mill Creek. X Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No

Is railroad/railway coordination required? Possible Not Applicable

Yes No Is State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

coordination for work involving historic bridges or historic properties required?


Yes X No Is coordination with ODNR for work involving State

Scenic Rivers, State Wildlife Areas or State Recreational Areas required?


42


Yes No Is coordination with any other agency required? (See

Location and Design Manual, Figures 1402-2 through Figure 1402-7.)

OEPA depending on level of USACE permit required. X Possible

Not Applicable MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES: Indicate if the following issues are present or should be considered during project development. Provide additional comments as needed.


X Yes No Will a value engineering study be required due to

project cost (total cost greater than $20 million) or project complexity?


Yes No

Will warranties be used? At ODOT’s discretion. X Possible Not Applicable

X Yes No

Are there aesthetic concerns? Specify. ODOT’s “Aesthetics Design Guidelines” will be utilized during later phases of the project to improve the visual impacts of the project.


X Yes No

Are there any concerns relating to noise walls? Existing noise walls and the potential for new walls. Possible


Are there areas available within the existing right of way for portable plans or waste and borrow sites? Parcel Number 641-0009-0011-00 Possible

Not Applicable

Yes No

Are there specific concerns related to pedestrian access?

Will be addressed through public involvement. LDV1: 306 X Possible

Not Applicable

X Yes No

Any concerns related to landscaping? ODOT’s “Aesthetics Design Guidelines” will be utilized during later phases of the project to improve the visual impacts of the project.


43


Yes X No Are there any concerns related to existing or proposed

lighting (e.g., light trespass, river navigation, airway clearance)?


Yes No

Are there any other concerns? Specify. Nearby location of the proposed future transit corridor along I-75. (See Exhibit 3) X Possible

Not Applicable RED FLAG MAPPING: See Exhibit 1 Is a map showing locations of red flag areas attached? X Yes No GEOTECHNICAL DELIVERABLES: See Appendix 3 Include copies of plan views, geologic cross-sections, existing boring logs, and soil and rock testing data. This information should be augmented with data from ODOT’s archived files of previous projects in the area. Additional information on soil survey data, glacial deposits, bedrock topography, bedrock structure, and aquifer mapping, etc. should be compiled as a GIS workspace. Both digital ortho-quarter quadrangles and U.S.G.S. quadrangles should be available for base mapping. Copies of the reference maps and ArcView files should be provided. SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: Based on the responses to the red flag questions, do any of the following need to be modified?

Issue Comments References*

Yes X No

Conceptual scope? Possible Not Applicable

Yes X No

Work limits? LDV3-1303.7 Possible Not Applicable

Yes X No

Probable environmental document type? Possible Not Applicable

44

Issue Comments References*

Yes X No

Major/Minor/Minimal classification? Possible Not Applicable Yes X No

Schedule? Possible Not Applicable

Yes X No

Budget? Possible Not Applicable

*Abbreviations: AUM = Manual for Abandoned Underground Mine Inventory and Risk Assessment BDM = Bridge Design Manual LDV1 = Location and Design Manual, Volume 1

LDV2 = Location and Design Manual, Volume 2 LDV3 = Location and Design Manual, Volume 3 SSI = Specifications for Subsurface Investigations TEM = Traffic Engineering Manual

EPM = Environmental Process Manual

prepared for: the ohio department of transportation...epm: 104.2, 104.2.4 possible yes no threatened...

Documents