- Section 106 Request for Review
- Level 1 Ecological Survey
- Asbestos Survey
- Categorical Exclusion Documentation
- Section 4(f) Determination of Applicability
- Section 404 Nationwide Permit
- Section 6(f) Coordination Package
ASC Group conducted a series of Cultural Resources, Ecological, and Environmental studies for the proposed rehabilitation of four bridges carrying Highland Road (CR 47) over Euclid Creek in the City of Euclid, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The proposed construction limits of the road work extended from 450 ft north of Bridge No. 156 (00.13) to 500 ft south of Bridge No. 226 (00.64); a stretch of Highland Road through the Cleveland Metroparks extending ca. 3,400-ft south of Euclid Avenue (US 6). It crosses the creek four times and also includes Bridges No. 157 (00.31) and No. 158 (00.54). The proposed undertaking involved bridge rehabilitation and road resurfacing. ASC worked with the client, city and county officials, and various state and federal agencies over an extended period of time to coordinate and complete the various studies needed for permitting of the project.
The Section 106 Request for Review presented information indicating that there are no known or previously inventoried cultural resources that would be impacted by the undertaking. The Ecological Survey identified habitats that are within the ranges of four endangered species, but it was determined the project was not likely to adversely affect them. Euclid Creek is a salmonid stream. ASC Group, Inc. prepared an application for a waiver on stream-entry times from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources as a part of the Section 404 permit submittal and coordinated with the US Army Corps of Engineers, who determined that a Section 401 permit would not be required. Asbestos requiring remediation during construction was identified in the utilities beneath all four bridges. Through coordination with the Ohio Department of Transportation, a determination of Temporary-No Use was made concerning potential impacts to the Euclid Creek Reservation of the Cleveland Metroparks and thus the undertaking did not require a detailed Section 4(f) permit to proceed.