Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) between Newburgh Road and Market … · 2016-11-07 · Road to the...

Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) Improvements

Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) between

Newburgh Road and Market Street in the

City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan

Environmental Assessment

Job Numbers: 106621, 106613, and 110611 Control Section: 82101 September 2016

Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation

Old M-14 Reconstruction and

Bridge Replacement ii Abbreviated Environmental Assessment


Bridge Replacement iv Abbreviated Environmental Assessment


Bridge Replacement v Abbreviated Environmental Assessment

Preface

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires the analysis of all social,

economic, and natural environmental impacts of any proposed action of the federal

government. This project includes the use of federal funds. There are three classes of

action. Class I Actions are those that may significantly impact the environment. These

projects require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Class II

Actions (Categorical Exclusions) are those that do not have a significant impact on the

environment. Class III Actions are those projects which the significance of impacts is not

known. Class III Actions require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA)

to determine the significance of impacts and the appropriate environmental document to

be prepared - either an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

This document is an Abbreviated Environmental Assessment. The Abbreviated EA is an

expanded checklist providing sufficient evidence for determining whether to prepare an

EIS or a FONSI. This type of EA specifically applies to historic bridge projects that will

have an adverse effect, but little if any other significant impacts to the environment. The

project must also have little or no controversy to be documented with this type of EA.

This Abbreviated EA will be used for decision-making and public information purposes

for the proposed Old M-14(Ann Arbor Road), Newburgh Road to Market Street

Reconstruction and Bridge Replacement in the City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan.

This Abbreviated EA describes and analyzes construction alternatives, and the measures

taken to minimize harm to the project area. This analysis is done in compliance with

MDOT’s Environmental Procedures Manual, developed to implement NEPA. It is being

distributed to the public and to various federal, state, and local agencies for review and

comment. An opportunity for a public hearing on the project will be advertised in local

papers. If requested, a public hearing will be held. If the review comments submitted by

the public and interested agencies support the decision that there will be “no significant

impact”, a FONSI be will prepared. If it is determined that the preferred alternative will

have significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, an EIS is required.

This document also contains a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation. This evaluation is

required when the proposed project has an adverse effect on a property eligible for or

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This evaluation must determine that

there is no prudent and feasible alternative that avoids the 4(f) impact, and that all

possible measures to minimize harm have been taken. A signed Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) can be found in Appendix E to satisfy the requirements of Section 106


Bridge Replacement vi Abbreviated Environmental Assessment

of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet,

found at the back of this document, describes mitigation commitments.

This document was prepared by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT),

in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The study team

includes representatives from the following areas within MDOT: Design, Project

Planning, Real Estate, Environmental, Construction and Technology, Traffic and Safety,

Taylor Transportation Service Center, and Metro Region office in Detroit. Information

contained in this Environmental Assessment was also furnished by other federal and

state agencies, local units of government, public interest groups, and individual citizens.


Bridge Replacement vii Abbreviated Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................... v

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA ................................................................................................... 1

HISTORY ..................................................................................................................................... 2

DESCRIPTION OF PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ................................................... 3

EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 4

TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 7

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED ......................................................................... 9

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................... 15

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................................................................... 17

LAND USE ................................................................................................................................... 17

RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 17

AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 19

SOCIAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... 19

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................................................... 21

ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................................................................................................... 22

EFFECTS ON HISTORIC (ABOVE GROUND) RESOURCES ................................................ 23

EFFECTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................. 23

EFFECTS ON TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES .................................................... 24

EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 24

NOISE IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................ 25

FISH & WILDLIFE IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 25

EFFECT ON THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES ..................................................... 26

WETLAND IMPACTS ................................................................................................................ 28

EFFECTS ON LAKES, STREAMS, OR OTHER BODIES OF WATER .................................. 28

FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS ........................................................................................................... 29

EFFECTS ON WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS OR STATE DESIGNATED NATURAL RIVERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 30

COASTAL MANAGEMENT ZONE IMPACTS ........................................................................ 32

VISUAL IMPACTS...................................................................................................................... 32


Bridge Replacement viii Abbreviated Environmental Assessment

CONTAMINATED SITES ........................................................................................................... 33

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................. 34

PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................................................ 34

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 35

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................ 36

EFFECTS ON SECTION 4(f)/6(f) PROPERTIES ....................................................................... 37

PROJECT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 38

PROJECT COST ..................................................................................................................................... 38

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 39

PROJECT MITIGATION SUMMARY GREEN SHEET .................................................................. 41

APPENDICIES

APPENDIX A – ALTERNATIVES DOCUMENT ................................................................. A-1

APPENDIX B – MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC CONCEPT ................................................. B-1

APPENDIX C – MDOT COORDINATION LETTER AND RESPONSES ............................. C-1

APPENDIX D – PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION .................................... D-1

APPENDIX E – MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)............................................... E-1

APPENDIX F – PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS ................................................................. F-1

TABLES

Table 1.0 – Project Area ADT ........................................................................................................ 7

Table 2.0 – Census Data ............................................................................................................... 21

FIGURES

Figure 1.0 – Project Location Map ................................................................................................. 1

Figure 2.0 – Existing Old 14 (Ann Arbor Road) Cross-section ...................................................... 2

Figure 3.0 – Existing Hines Drive Cross-section ............................................................................ 3

Figure 4.0 – Alternative 2A – Preferred Alternative .................................................................... 11

Figure 5.0 – Alternative 2B .......................................................................................................... 12

Figure 6.0 – Alternative 2C .......................................................................................................... 13

Figure 7.0 – Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................. 14

Figure 8.0 – Proposed Roadwork .................................................................................................. 16

Figure 9.0 - ROW Impacts ............................................................................................................ 18


Bridge Replacement 1 Abbreviated Environmental Assessment

Abbreviated Environmental Assessment Checklist

Project Name: Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) Improvements Project

Project Location: Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) between Newburgh Road and Market

Street in the city of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan.

Project Control Section and Job Number: Control Section: 82101 Job Numbers:

106621, 106613 and110611

Description of Project Area: The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in cooperation with the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) is preparing an Environmental Assessment/Programmatic Section 4(f)

Evaluation for the proposed improvements on Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) between Newburgh

Road and Market Street in the City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan. The Project Location

Map is shown in Figure 1.0 below.

Figure 1.0 – Project Location Map



History

Old M-14

Old M-14 is an unsigned state trunk line running from the Washtenaw County/Wayne County

Boundary at the intersection of Ann Arbor Road with Napier Road, running east along Ann Arbor

Road to the junction of Plymouth Road. Old M-14 then runs east along Plymouth Road to the

Redford Township/City of Detroit boundary (near Hazelton Street). The Old M-14 designation is

a result of the completion of I-96 to I-275 and the introduction of the current M-14 freeway, built

in the 1970s, between Ann Arbor and I-275. While most of the old routing of M-14 returned to

local control, this 14.5 mile portion remained in the state inventory.

In the early 1920s Ann Arbor Road carried two lanes of traffic on a twenty foot wide roadway

with narrow, unpaved shoulders within the project limits. In 1928 the roadway was widened to

sixty feet, with eight-foot unpaved shoulders. The current four-lane configuration was built in

1974. The existing cross-sections for Ann Arbor Road are shown in Figure 2.0 below. Ann Arbor

Road is a four-lane road in the middle section with a five-lane cross section for turn lanes at both

the Plymouth Road and Newburgh Road intersections.

Figure 2.0: Ann Arbor Road existing cross-sections.



Edward N Hines Drive Bridge over Old M-14

The existing bridge is a single span rigid frame structure constructed in 1947-1948. The bridge is

part of the Middle Rouge Parkway, and spans Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road). The bridge retains

good historical integrity, including the retention of its original railings, but is considered

functionally obsolete due to deficient horizontal and vertical clearance on Old M-14 (Ann Arbor

Road) and is structurally deficient due to ongoing deterioration from age and environment

(freeze-thaw cycles, the long term use of salt-based deicers). No significant rehabilitation work

has been performed on the bridge since its construction. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic,

with the roadway flanked each side by eight-foot wide sidewalks. The existing cross-section for

Hines Drive is shown below in Figure 3.0.

The bridge is considered to be historically significant and is eligible to be listed on the National

Register of Historic Places. A Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation is required for this bridge,

which is protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (as amended).

A discussion of the bridge and its historic significance is included in Appendix D – Programmatic

Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Figure 3.0: Hines Drive existing cross-section

Description of Purpose and Need for the Project: The purpose is to address deficiencies within the project area which are described in the Existing

Conditions section of this document; focusing on the physical deterioration of the roadway and

bridges, safety and geometric concerns, as well as pedestrian safety and connectivity by widening

non-motorized pathways along Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Rd), providing a safety barrier between

the bridge shoulder and the path on the Hines Drive bridge, and filling in sidewalk gaps along

Newburgh Rd. Under all build alternatives, addressing the deficiencies on Old M-14 would affect

the historic bridge. The bridge itself, while safe for continued use, is structurally deficient and

functionally obsolete.

The specific needs that the project will address are:

Structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges on Hines Drive and Old M-14;

existing and projected unacceptable Level of Service within the project area;



pedestrian disconnect and safety on Newburgh Rd. and Old M-14;

improved geometrics to meet current standards.

Existing Conditions

Structures B03 of 82101 – Old M-14 over Middle Rouge River

The existing bridge is a single span earth filled arch with a total clear span length of 70 feet. The

bridge was constructed in 1925. In 1934, the clear roadway width was widened to extend from

back to back of the spandrel walls (the existing sidewalk was removed), and a new sidewalk

was constructed on top of the spandrel walls cantilevering out over the Middle Rouge River.

No additional plans for subsequent work performed are available. However, field observations

show that the bridge barrier railing has been replaced and the pavement has been resurfaced.

The existing structure is in fair condition according to the current NBIS Report (SIA Items 58A,

59, and 60 were rated “5”, “6”, and “6” in the October 27, 2015 inspection report,

respectively). It should also be noted that the slope protection is in poor condition according to

the current NBIS Report.

The variable depth earth filled arch superstructure is founded on timber pile supported cast-in-

place footings that are approximately 1 foot below grade. The original structure was designed

for H20 loading and the 1934 sidewalk widening was designed for a 100 pound per square foot

load without impact forces.

The structure has an out-to-out width of 50’-0” and a 40’-0” clear roadway width according

to record plan information. The substandard traveled way consists of four lanes (two through

lanes in each direction) with no shoulders. The current ADT on Old M-14 is approximately 24,100

with 2.3% commercial traffic, and the future 2036 traffic volumes are estimated at 30,900 with no

increase in the commercial traffic percentage.

Underneath the existing bridge, the Middle Rouge River flows from west to east

perpendicular to the roadway horizontal alignment. The Newburgh spillway, which is located

approximately 800 feet west of the existing structure, controls the depth of flow of the Middle

Rouge River. The existing angle of crossing results in a good alignment between the existing

bridge and the natural flow of the channel. However, during typical flow conditions the

conveyance occurs along the north half of the channel resulting in moderate sedimentation

deposits on the south half of the channel. Therefore, the proposed structure will be shifted to the

north approximately 5 feet and the existing angle of crossing will be maintained.

S01 of 82101 – Hines Drive over Old M-14

The existing bridge is a single span reinforced concrete rigid-frame, with a total span length of

72’-8” measured from Reference Point A to Reference Point B. The superstructure is founded on

timber pile supported cast-in-place footings. The rigid frame structure includes three 2’-6” wide

concrete tension ties/struts connecting the footings under the Old M-14 roadway. The original



structure was designed for HS-20 live loading. The bridge was constructed in 1948 and is

considered historic.

Other than the original construction plans, no additional plans for subsequent work performed

on this bridge are available. However, field observations show that the south sidewalk on the

bridge was widened to include a single tube railing along the edge of the shoulder. The bridge

carries two lanes of traffic, one in each direction. Per the 2010 MDOT Bridge Scoping Report for

this structure, the existing clear width is comprised of two 12’-0’ travel lanes, two shoulders of

10’-3” & 12’-0’, two sidewalks of 8’-6” & 9’-3” and a 1’-0” wide barrier railing resulting in a total

out-to- out width of 66’-0”. Additionally, the bridge scoping report mentions a concrete overlay

was added in 1982. The existing structure is in poor condition according to the current NBIS

Report (SIA Items 58A, 59 and 60 were rated “5”, “4”, and “6” in the June 6, 2015 inspection report,

respectively).

Underneath the existing bridge, the Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) runs north to south carrying two

lanes of traffic in each direction. A shared pedestrian and bicycle pathway exists on the south side

of the bridge along Hines Drive which will be maintained by construction of a temporary

pedestrian/non-motorized structure along the north side of Hines Drive during construction of

the proposed bridge. There is a hotel in the north east quad of the structure. There is an existing

retaining wall on the south side of Hines Drive east of the bridge and is nearly 500’ long. There

are no utilities attached to the existing bridge. Existing plan soil borings indicate the soils in the

area are stiff clay.

Safety Analysis

Crash data was obtained from the Traffic Improvement Association of Michigan for the study

area and the adjacent intersections of Newburgh Road/Hines Drive, Newburgh Road/Plymouth

Road, Hines Drive/Jughandle Road, Plymouth Road/Ann Arbor Road, and Plymouth

Road/Jughandle Road. The data encompassed all crashes occurring within this area from January

1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The crash data was analyzed to identify correctible crash

trends and patterns. The analysis featured focus on the following crash types: angle, head-on left-

turn, single vehicle, sideswipe and rear-ends and consisted of verifying the location and type of

all the reported crashes, then reviewing the weather and pavement conditions for each crash.

Over the three year period from which crash data was obtained, the primary study area and

adjacent intersections experienced crash rates typical for the intersection types. Within the

primary study area, there were four incapacitating injury crashes (Type A), five non-

incapacitating injury crashes (Type B) and 13 possible injury crashes (Type C). At the adjacent

intersections, there was one Type A crash, seven Type B crashes and 11 Type C crashes. No

fatalities occurred in the study area during the analysis period. There is also no identifiable

pattern in the Type A injury crashes.

The Old M-14/Newburgh Road intersection experienced 56 crashes during the study period.

There was a pattern of low severity crashes related to the lack of a left turn lane for north and



southbound Newburgh Road. The Old M-14/Plymouth Road intersection experienced seven

crashes, a mix typical for a signalized intersection. The Plymouth Road/Newburgh Road

intersection experienced 49 crashes during the study period. This intersection had a high number

of southbound rear end and head-on left-turn crashes. The head-on left-turn crash pattern

appears to be related to the lack of southbound left turn signal phasing at this intersection. The

intersections of Hines Drive/Newburgh Road, Hines Drive/Jughandle Road and Plymouth

Road/Jughandle Road experienced nineteen, four and seven crashes respectively, during the

study period. The crashes for these locations had no discernable correctable patterns.

Additionally, a more detailed comprehensive analysis of the safety issues (specifically Table 2-

09) can be found in the Feasibility Report located at: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-

151-9621_11058-328973--,00.html

Capacity Analysis

Capacity analysis was performed for both the Old M-14 corridor and adjacent intersections that

could be impacted by alterations to the primary study area. This analysis was completed

according to the methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. For

this study, Synchro, Version 7 software was used to conduct the analysis of the traditional

intersections. This analysis is used to determine the Level-of-Service (LOS) values for each

intersection movement.

Level-of-Service (LOS) is based on factors such as number and types of lanes, intersection controls

such as “STOP” signs or traffic signals, traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, and other

operational features. LOS is expressed as a letter grade, ranging from A through F. In this context,

LOS A represents the best conditions, with very little or no average delay to vehicles. LOS F

represents the worst conditions, equated with excessive delay to vehicles

Level-of-Service C is considered by many traffic safety professionals to be the minimum

acceptable condition in rural areas, and LOS D is the minimum for urban/ suburban areas. Given

the location of this site within the urbanized boundary of southeast Michigan, LOS D was used

as the threshold for acceptable delay under existing operations. Please see Tables 2-12 and 2-13

of the Feasibility Report http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058-328973--

,00.html for the detailed information on existing and future operations.

Existing Operations

Current operations within the majority of the study area are within acceptable levels of delay

during the PM peak period. However, the intersection of Old M-14/Newburgh Road is not within

acceptable delay levels.

Sim Traffic, Version 7 was used to evaluate system wide measures of effectiveness. During the

PM peak period the study area experiences a total delay of 204.8 hours. The total peak period

travel time for the study area is 294.5 hours. This data reflects average values from three

simulation runs.

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058-328973--,00.html






The anticipated growth in traffic will have negative impacts on all of the intersections within the

study area. The existing and future Average Daily Traffic (ADT) are shown in Table 1.0 below.

During the PM peak period the intersections of Old M-14/Newburgh Road, Hines

Drive/Newburgh Road and Hines Drive/Jughandle Road are not within acceptable delay levels.

In addition to these three intersections, the southbound approach of the Newburgh

Road/Plymouth Road intersection is also not within acceptable delay levels during the PM peak

period.

Roadway Segment 2013 ADT Future ADT

(2035)

Number of

Travel Lanes

Old M-14 Newburgh Road

to Plymouth

Road

34,830 36,571 4-5

Hines Drive Jughandle Road

to Newburgh

Road

12,700 13,335 2

Hines Drive Newburgh Road

to Levan Road

14,700 15,435 2

Newburgh Road Plymouth Road

to Hines Drive

39,662 41,645 4-5

Newburgh Road Hines Drive to

Old M-14

28,111 29,516 4-5

Plymouth Road Newburgh Road

to Old M-14

4,014 4,214 4

Plymouth Road Old M-14 to

Levan Road

37,917 39,813 5

Table 1.0 – Projec t Area ADT

Traffic Considerations: Yes No

Does the project adequately serve the existing and planned future traffic

projections?

Is the future traffic year 20 years from the date of construction?

Do changes in traffic cause additional project impacts?

Under future (no build) conditions the study area will experience a total delay of 291.4 hours

during the peak period. The total peak period travel time for the study area is 384.3 hours.

Additionally, a more detailed comprehensive analysis of the operations (specifically for delay,

see Tables 2-12 and 2-13 of the Feasibility Report) can be found in the Feasibility Report located

at: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058-328973--,00.html




Roadway and Multi-Modal Facilities

A field investigation was conducted by MDOT on June 14, 2011. The pavement from Newburgh

Road to the Middle Rouge River Bridge showed slight distress of the longitudinal construction

joint and some oxidation. Low severity map type cracks were observed.

The pavement from the Middle Rouge River Bridge to Market Street showed distressed areas

with both longitudinal and transverse reflective cracking, in addition to areas with possible

settlement. Using the latest Concrete Pavement Condition Survey Manual (1991) metrics as a

guide, the underlying concrete pavement is believed to have many underlying Severity Level 1

distresses. The cracks in these limits were unsealed at the time of inspection.

The existing crown is located in the center of the roadway. This does not meet current MDOT

design standards for the proposed five-lane sections. Concrete curb or concrete curb and gutter

exists throughout the entire length of the study area. From Newburgh Road to the Middle Rouge

River Bridge there is a 2.5 foot curb and gutter in fair condition. From the Middle Rouge River

Bridge to Market Street there is a 0.5 foot curb at the edge of pavement in poor condition.

Additionally, the current lane widths, shoulders and radii do not meet current standards and will

be corrected with this project.

Slopes in the vicinity of the existing structures are steeper than 1:3 and are currently protected by

guardrail.

Transit - SMART does not operate bus service in Livonia, thus this study area is not served by

transit.

Bicycle - The Hines Drive Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pathway and on-street bike lanes traverse the

study area. While these facilities cross Old M-14 on Hines Drive, there are no direct connections

from Old M-14 or the sidewalk system along Old M-14 directly to Hines Park within the primary

study area. Sidewalks along both sides of Newburgh Road tie into the Hines Drive pathway

system at the Newburgh Road and Hines Drive intersection.

Pedestrians - Concrete sidewalk is currently located at the Old M-14/Newburgh Road

intersection and is in poor condition. No sidewalk is located on Old M-14 from just east of the

Old M-14/Newburgh Road intersection to the Old M-14/Plymouth Road intersection. Pedestrians

have been observed walking through the Old M-14 corridor which is also evident by the “goat

paths” along the road. Additionally, pedestrians and bicyclists have been witnessed using the

roadway. There is an existing concrete sidewalk on both sides of Plymouth Road, east of the

Plymouth Road/Old M-14 intersection. Most of the sidewalk is in poor to fair condition and does

not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards.

A separate HMA pathway parallels the south side of Hines Drive. The 8 foot HMA path crosses

over Old M-14 on the same structure as Hines Drive. The HMA pathway has been recently

overlaid and is in very good condition.



Due to limited space, there are locations, particularly near the Hines Drive Bridge, where

pedestrians are forced onto Old M-14. Sidewalk is located at the limits of the primary study area

and tie into the City of Livonia sidewalks.

Existing Drainage

The drainage system along the study area is made up of a network of drainage inlets and storm

sewer. The outfall for the system is the Middle Rouge River. No existing facilities are present that

meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to treat “first

flush” storm water prior to discharge to receiving waters.

Right-of-Way (ROW)

The existing ROW plans depict the ROW as 106 feet along Old M-14 from Newburgh Road to the

Old M-14/Plymouth Road intersection. From the Old M-14/Plymouth Road intersection to Market

Street the ROW is 120 feet. The existing ROW for Hines Drive is 66 feet.

Alternatives Considered and Dismissed: A Feasibility Report was completed to help develop alternatives for the proposed project. This

study was completed in June of 2012. The Feasibility Report includes four “Practical

Alternatives” for repairing and upgrading the current roadway to improve safety, capacity, and

pedestrian mobility while minimizing impacts to the adjacent Edward Hines N. Parkway and

maintaining the rural feel of the corridor. These roadway improvements were chosen from more

than one dozen Illustrative Alternatives.

The study was a cooperative effort between the Michigan Department of Transportation, the

Wayne County Road Commission, and the City of Livonia. These three agencies came together

and formed a Steering Committee that met and communicated regularly during the study

process. Public involvement also played a key role in the study. The public provided important

feedback after being presented with several Alternatives. These comments were key in

determining the Practical Alternatives. The full Feasibility Report can be viewed at the following

web address: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058-328973--,00.html

No-Build Alternative

The no-build alternative was eliminated from the practical alternatives as it did not meet the

purpose and need for the proposed project. The Hines Drive Bridge would have to be replaced

regardless of doing any of the other work associated with the proposed project.

Practical Alternatives

As a result of the collaboration between the public, Steering Committee and study team, four

feasible “Practical Alternatives” were chosen. These alternatives were developed based on

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

guidelines.




Key elements of the four Practical Alternatives chosen include:

Geometric Improvements

Pedestrian Accessibility

Capacity Improvements

Safety Improvements (vehicle and pedestrian)

Structural Improvements

The Practical Alternatives chosen are described below:

Alternative 2B – Reconstruct Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) from west of Newburgh Road

to Market Street on the existing alignment. “T” Plymouth Road into Old M-14, replace

two structures, and reconstruct a portion of Hines Drive. This alternative is depicted in

Figure 5.0.

Alternative 2C – Reconstruct Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) from west of Newburgh Road

to “T” into Plymouth Road. Reconstruct Plymouth Road from Newburgh Road to west of

Market street. Replace two structures, and reconstruct a portion of Hines Drive. This

alternative is depicted in Figure 6.0.

Alternative 3 – Reconstruct Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) from west of Newburgh Road to

Market Street on the existing alignment. Replace the Middle Rouge River Bridge and

remove the Hines Drive Bridge, replacing it with an at-grade signalized intersection and

reconstruct a portion of Hines Drive. This alternative is depicted in Figure 7.0.

Preferred Alternative

Alternative 2A (Preferred Alternative) – Reconstruct Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) from

west of Newburgh Road to Market Street, shifting the alignment to improve sight

distance. Replace two structures and reconstruct a portion of Hines Drive. This alternative

is depicted in Figure 4.0.

After finalizing the Practical Alternatives, two Evaluation Matrices were developed to define

benefits and impacts of each alternative. The Evaluation Matrices and Memo reducing the

Illustrative Alternatives to Practical Alternatives is located in Appendix A. These alternatives

were then presented to the public, and they were allowed to vote for the alternative that they

preferred. Based on the results of that meeting and discussions with the Steering Committee

Alternatives 2B, 2C and 3 were dismissed and Alternative 2A was chosen as the Preferred

Alternative. This selection was made as it best met the purpose and need; kept the exiting

roadway configuration nearly the same, which was the main request of the public; had minimal

environmental impacts and right-of-way needs, and was preferred by MDOT, the city of Livonia

and the public. A complete description of the scope of work included in the Preferred Alternative

in the Description of Proposed Action section of this document.



Figure 4.0 - Alternative 2A – Preferred Alternative



Figure 5.0 -Alternative 2B



Figure 6.0 - Alternative 2C



Figure 7.0 - Alternative 3



Description of Proposed Action: This project is located on Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road), Newburgh Road, Hines Drive, and

Plymouth Road in the City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan. The project limits and scope of

work include the following:

Reconstruction of Old M-14, from approximately 300 feet west of Newburgh Road to 150 feet

east of Market Street.

Old M-14 will have two lanes in each direction, with a center left turn lane at the

intersection with Newburgh Road and northeast of Hines Drive.

Sidewalk is proposed on the north side of Old M-14, from Newburgh Road to Plymouth

Road, with a connection from the new Old M-14 sidewalk to the existing Hines Drive

shared use path.

The Old M-14 bridge over the Middle Rouge River (B03 of 82101) will be completely

replaced.

Reconstruction of Newburgh Road, from approximately 465 feet south of Old M-14 to 400 feet

north of Old M-14.

Right turn lanes will be added to both NB and SB Newburgh Road at Old M-14.

Sidewalk is proposed on both sides of Newburgh Road, except in areas where it already

exists.

Reconstruction of Hines Drive, from about 400 feet west of Old M-14 to 550 feet east of Old

M-14.

The Hines Drive bridge over Old M-14 (S01 of 82101) will be completely replaced.

Reconstruction of Plymouth Road, from about 700 feet west of Old M-14 over to and including

the Old M-14 /Plymouth Road intersection.

Drainage improvements and storm sewer installation.

Guardrail upgrades and retaining walls.

Permanent signing and pavement markings.

Temporary and permanent traffic signals (designed by MDOT).

MDOT will ensure that the Hines Dr. bridge replacement is designed in consultation with the

SHPO (SHPO consultation letter can be found in APPENDIX C), nearby property owners, the

city of Livonia, and the general public. MDOT will hold at least one additional meeting to assess

community preferences for the aesthetics of the replacement bridge based on engineering

requirements and local input. Figure 8.0 – Proposed Roadwork gives an overview of the scope

of work.

Any utilities on the bridge(s) and surrounding area have been identified for impacts caused by

the proposed project. Water, sanitary sewer, gas, phone and electrical lines adjacent to or crossed

by the project may require relocation or adjustment. If this should be the case, coordination

between MDOT and the affected utility company will take place during design, and relocation

will take place prior to construction of the new facilities if possible. All utility work will be done

within the footprint of MDOT right-of-way or existing utility easements. The contractor will

coordinate the construction activities with the affected utility company. Service to the project

area may be temporarily interrupted during the adjustment period.



Figure 8.0 – Proposed Roadwork



Existing Environment and Potential Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Identify (yes or no) if there are any project impacts. For each “yes,” describe the impact and the

potential for significant impact. Attach all agency correspondence.

Land Use: Yes No

Is the project consistent with the existing and future local transportation plans, land

use plans, and zoning ordinances?

Will the project affect existing or proposed land uses?

Describe any necessary actions and mitigation.

The City of Livonia Master Land Use and Zoning Plan, the School and Park Plan, and Future

Land Use Plan were reviewed for compatibility and the project is consistent with the future

intentions of those plans.

Right-of-way Impacts: Yes No

Will the project require additional fee right-of-way, easements, or grading permits?

Will the project require any relocations?


Additional right-of-way (ROW) of approximately 2.39 acres will be needed for the project. Most

of the ROW needed is in the form of grading permits (1.84 acres) for the new right-turn lanes on

Newburgh Road at the intersection with Old M-14, the new pedestrian pathway connection from

Old M-14 to the existing pathway along Hines Drive and for sidewalk improvements. Smaller

portions of fee ROW (0.55 acres) will be needed in the same areas. Additionally, there will be

consent to grade approximately 10 driveways as a result of the grade change to Newburgh Road.

A detailed map showing the “Proposed Right-of-Way Impacts” can be found as Figure 9.0 of this

document.

All fee right-of-way will be acquired in conformance with the Federal Uniform Relocation

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.



Figure 9.0 - ROW Impacts

Pla

nte

d P

rairie

Are

a



Agricultural Impacts: Yes No

Will the project affect lands zoned for agriculture or forestry?

Will Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act coordination be required?

If yes, what resource coordination is required?

Will the project affect PA 116 lands?

Are there any other agricultural impacts?


FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT (FPPA)

A review has been conducted per the U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR Part 658 - Farmland

Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The project is expected to require about 2.39 acres of fee, grading

permit and easement right-of-way. The project is located in mostly Prime and Locally Important

Farmland. The area within the vicinity of the Middle Rouge River and Newberg Lake is Not Prime

Farmland. The city of Livonia has an agriculture zoning district. All of the agriculture zoned

parcels are cemeteries. None of the agriculture zoned parcels will be impacted by this project. The

parcels adjacent to the project are zoned public lands, commercial, manufacturing, office and

residential. Since the local zoning takes precedence no further FPPA review will be required for

this project. Therefore, no Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (AD-1006/CPA106) will be

required to be submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources

Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS) for review under FPPA.

FARMLAND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AGREEMENT (PA116)

Within the vicinity of the project there are no parcels enrolled in the Farmland Open space

Preservation Program, Part 361 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection act, 1994

Act 451 (formerly known as PA116). There are also no known parcels enrolled in a Purchase of

Development Rights Program (PDR).

Social Impacts: Yes No

Will the project affect neighborhoods or community cohesion?

Will the project affect travel patterns or accessibility for vehicles, bicycles, transit

users, commuters or pedestrians?

Will the project affect the elderly, handicapped, non-motorized users, transit-

dependent users, minority and ethnic groups or the economically disadvantaged?



Will the project impact any school district, recreation areas, churches, businesses,

police and fire protection services, etc.?

If yes, what are the direct and the indirect impacts that may result from the displacement of

households, businesses, and services.


The proposed project will not cause any long-term negative impacts on low-income, minority,

ethnic, elderly, people with disabilities, or on area schools, churches, or emergency services

(police, fire, ambulance). The proposed reconstruction of the existing sidewalk and the new

sidewalk just south of the Old M-14/Newburgh Road will be done in accordance with the 1990

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). No neighborhood within the project area will be

permanently separated from community facilities or services. Access for motorists, school buses,

emergency vehicles, and pedestrians will be maintained during construction. MDOT will

coordinate with local officials in providing updated information to assist all motorists and

pedestrians.

However, the proposed project will cause temporary impacts to the residents, businesses,

community services, motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency services during the

construction phase of this project. Additionally, access to the Hines Park will be restricted during

construction. Please see Appendix D – Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation of this document

for a complete list of the recreational impacts. MDOT will need to close the existing bridges and

detour vehicle traffic for one year in order to construct the new bridges. During the one year

construction period, motorists (including emergency vehicles) and non-motorized users will

incur longer travel times and distances in reaching their destinations. A temporary

pedestrian/non-motorized bridge will be constructed on the north side of the existing Hines drive

bridge. Access will be maintained to area businesses and residents located on each side of the

roadway during construction and to the park. The detour routes for both pedestrians

(walkway/bike path) and motorists are shown in Appendix B- Maintenance of Traffic Concept.

Mitigation measures to address these temporary impacts include: minimizing disruption of traffic

in the construction area by coordinating with local agencies and the community; placing signs in

all of the construction areas notifying motorists and pedestrians; require construction equipment

to have mufflers in good working order and portable compressors must meet federal noise-level

standards for equipment; and require that contractors use adequate dust-control measures during

construction.

As part of an on-going coordination effort, MDOT will continue to coordinate with the city of

Livonia and the community in providing updated information about the proposed project and

detour route during construction.



Environmental Justice Yes No

Will the project affect minorities or low income population groups?

Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minorities or

low-income populations?

Are there any persons with limited English proficiency in the project area?


The purpose of Executive Order 12898 on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority and Low-Income Populations is to identify, address, and avoid disproportionately high

and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

An analysis of the U.S. Census Data (Table 2.0) along with field reviews of the project area

determined that there were minority and low-income populations and non-minority population

groups who reside in the city of Livonia and utilize the sidewalks and pathways along the

roadway and existing bridges in project area. Within the project area, most of the land is

park/recreation with a few commercial and residential properties located along Old M-14 and

Newburgh Road. The proposed project will not require residential or commercial displacements.

However, fee ROW and consent to grade driveways will be required in front of several residences

and commercial properties that are owned by minority and non-minority populations.

TABLE 2.0 – Census Data

Unit of

Government

Total

Population1

Percentage of

Minority

Populations2

Percentage of

Individuals

below the

poverty level2

Percentage of

individuals who

may be Limited

In English

Proficiency

(LEP)2

City of Livonia 96,942 8.0% 6.1% 9.0%

Wayne County 1,820,584 47.0% 23.8% 12.3%

State of

Michigan 9, 883,640 21.0% 16.3% 9.0%

1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census Data 2 U.S. Census Bureau. 2008-2012 American Community Survey

The proposed reconstruction of the roadway and replacement of the two bridges will not cause a

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and

low-income populations. However, the proposed project will cause temporary impacts to the

residents, businesses, community services, motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency

services during the construction phase of this project. Signed detour routes for motorists will be



needed for one year. Motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency service providers can

expect traffic delays, and having to travel further distances to reach their destination.

Although there are temporary impacts that will affect minority and low-income populations and

non-minority population groups, the proposed project will provide benefits to minority and low-

income populations as well as non-minority population groups after the construction is

completed. The proposed project will provide safety elements such as a new right-turn lane on

Newburgh Road at the intersection with Old M-14, and a new pedestrian pathway that will

provide a connection to the sidewalks on the north side of Old M-14, and to the existing pathway

along Hines Drive.

As part of public outreach, MDOT held a public information meeting inviting residents, local

officials and the public to the meeting to learn more about the project and the proposed detour

route. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting held in May 2014. Almost everyone who

attended the meeting supported the project. However, there were some concerns about tree

removals in front of residential properties that are needed in order to construct the sidewalk along

east Newburgh Road. As part of mitigation for removing the trees, MDOT will offer the property

owners replacement trees.

MDOT did not receive any requests to have translation services at the public information meeting

or to have brochures or other materials translated into another language. If MDOT does receive

a request for translation services during subsequent phases of this project, MDOT will make

translation services available.

Although the proposed project will not displace or cause disproportionate effects on minority

and low-income populations within the project area, a continuing effort will be made to identify

any additional impacts that may have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority

and low-income population groups during subsequent phases of this project. If additional

impacts are identified, every effort will be made to actively involve the impacted groups in the

project development process.

Economic Impacts Yes No

Will the project affect the regional or local economy resulting in changes to

development, tax revenues, public expenditures, employment opportunities,

accessibility, or retail sales?

Will the project have an impact on established businesses or business districts?


The proposed project will likely take an entire year for demolition and construction of the new

bridges, and to reconstruct the roadway. The proposed project will have no long-term effect on



the local economy or tax base in the area. Access to area businesses will be maintained during

construction.

Effects on Historic (Above Ground) Resources: Yes No

Will the project affect historic resources?

Are any sites in the project area eligible for or already listed on the National

Register of Historic Places?

Has a survey of the area been conducted?


The Edward N. Hines Drive Bridge over Old M-14 is the only National Register-eligible property

adversely affected by the project. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted

and determined that the proposed project would have an adverse effect on the Bridge due to its

replacement. Please refer to Appendix C for the SHPO letter dated June 24, 2015. A draft

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been prepared in compliance with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act. A draft copy of the MOA is included in Appendix E and

outlines the mitigation required for the project. For more information including photographs of

the bridge, please also refer to Appendix D - Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation.

There is one additional historic property within the Area of Potential Effect, namely the National

Register-eligible Newburgh Mill, and associated Newburgh Lake spillway. The proposed project

will have no effect on the mill and no adverse effect on the spillway.

Effects on Archaeological Resources: Yes No

Will the project affect archaeological resources?


MDOT consulted with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Michigan

Indian Tribes, and conducted an archaeological survey to comply with Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act. As a result of these consultations and the archaeological survey, no

National Register-eligible archaeological sites or sites of traditional cultural or religious

significance to Michigan Indian Tribes are located within the Area of Potential Effects for the

proposed project. The project will have no effect on archaeological resources per the SHPO letter

in Appendix D.



Effects on Traditional Cultural Properties: Yes No

Will the project affect any Traditional Cultural Properties? A traditional cultural

property is defined as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living

community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community.

Are any Traditional Cultural Properties in the project area eligible for or listed on

the National Register of Historic Places?

Will consultations with Indian tribes be required regarding Traditional Cultural

Properties?

Describe any changes or necessary action.

MDOT consulted with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Michigan

Indian Tribes, and conducted an archaeological survey to comply with Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act. As a result of these consultations and the archaeological survey, no

National Register-eligible archaeological sites or sites of traditional cultural or religious

significance to Michigan Indian Tribes are located within the Area of Potential Effects for the

proposed project.

Twelve federally recognized and two state-recognized Indian Tribes were contacted regarding

culturally significant and/or religious properties. Only one Tribe responded and was not aware

of any culturally significant and/or religious properties in the project area. See the response

letters from the Tribes located in Appendix C.

Effect on Air Quality: Yes No

Will the project affect a non-attainment area?

Is the project adding a lane in a single direction of 1 mile or more?

Is the project listed in the state or MPO’s long range plan?

Is the project in the MPO’s TIP?

Will the project require a CO, PM2.5, or PM10 microscale “hot-spot” analysis?


The project is exempt from air quality conformity analysis under 23 CFR 93.126 as a bridge

replacement without adding travel-through lanes. The project is identified in the Southeast

Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Long Range Plan and TIP (#10948).



Noise Impacts: Yes No

Are any noise sensitive receivers or land uses adjacent to the proposed project?

Has there been a substantial change in vertical or horizontal alignment?

Will traffic volumes change?

Is the project adding a lane in a single direction of one mile or more?

Will a noise analysis be required?


The bridge meets the definitions of a Type III project under 23 CFR 772.5 as a bridge replacement

and the addition of a turn lane. Type III projects are exempt from noise analysis.

Fish & Wildlife Impacts: Yes No

Will the project affect aquatic wildlife (i.e., fish, mussels, …)?

Will the project affect a designated trout stream or lake, a cold water lake, or an

outstanding State Resource Water?

Will the project affect terrestrial wildlife (i.e., turtles, birds, …)?

Will the project affect migratory birds?

Will the project affect Michigan designated Species of Special Concern?

Will the project affect Forester Sensitive Species designated by the U.S. Forest

Service?

Records from the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ) suggest that 9 freshwater

mussels are historically known from the river. Recent (2002 and 2011) site specific data collected

by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Friends of the Rouge

River indicate several freshwater mussels still occur below Newburgh Lake near Old M-14,

including Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava), Plain Pocketbook (Lampsilis cardium), Creek

Heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa), Giant Floater (Pyganodon grandis grandis), Creeper (Strophitus

undulatus), and Paper Pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis). As such, a survey and relocation was

performed by MDOT on July 29th, 2015. A total of 31 live individuals were found consisting of

five species: Plain Pocketbook (L. cardium), Creek Heelsplitter (L. compressa), Paper Pondshell (U.

imbecillis), Giant Floater (P. g. grandis), and Wabash Pigtoe (F. flava). All mussels were relocated

upstream to suitable habitat at the I-275 crossing based on recommendation from MDEQ.



In addition to freshwater mussels, a 2010 record in the Michigan Natural Features Inventory

database notes the presence of Smoky Rubyspot (Hetaerina titia) just downstream of the Old M-

14 crossing. The Smoky Rubyspot (H. titia) is a damselfly species of special concern in Michigan.

The flight period extends from May to October. Larvae may be present in Middle Rouge River in

pools or shoals with woody debris or aquatic vegetation. A field review did not locate H. titia,

although a related species was found: American Rubyspot (Hetaerina americana). This species is

widespread throughout the Midwest and is not listed in Michigan. Using appropriate erosion

and sediment controls during in-water and upland construction activities should limit impacts to

Smoky Rubyspot (Hetaerina titia) if it occurs at the site.

No migratory birds were found at the Old M-14 crossing of the Middle Rouge River. The

geometry of the structure (arch) does not possess the corners or ledges that create opportunities

for nesting birds. A field review was also performed for the Hines Drive bridge over Old M-14

and no migratory birds were found.

A seasonal work restriction to protect juvenile and spawning fishes is typically required for

projects where work in the water is expected. Initial feedback from MDNR Fisheries Division

indicates that no fisheries restriction is required for the bridge replacement due to the dam located

just upstream.


No mitigation for migratory birds or spawning fish is required.

Effect on Threatened and Endangered Species: Yes No

Will the project affect any threatened or endangered species listed in state or federal

laws and regulations?

FLORA

The MNFI endangered species database was checked for known locations of listed species

adjacent to the proposed project.

1. Cup plant (Silphium integrifolium), State Threatened is typically found in river

floodplains in forest openings, swales and sloughs along river margins, and other wet

edges. It may also be found in prairies, thickets, and roadside ditches. Possible habitat for

this species exists throughout the project corridor. This species was mapped throughout

the area of the Middle Rouge River on both sides of I-275. It is known to follow this river

and its floodplain.

2. Red Mulberry (Morus rubra), State Threatened has been observed in Wayne County

within the Rouge River riparian corridor fairly close to the project location. Suitable

habitat for this species is present within the project corridor.



No impact. This project was field reviewed for potential impacts to listed plant species on 8-21-

2013. No state or federally listed threatened or endangered plant species were seen during the

field surveys.

It should be noted that there is high quality prairie planting in Hines Park which contained over

50 different plant species (none listed). See Figure 9.0 for a depiction of this area. The planted

prairie area is located on the eastside of Newburgh Roars between Plymouth Road and Hines

Drive. Care should be taken not to disturb these plantings or the prairie habitat that exists at this

location.

Based on the field survey and documentation of the habitat conditions within the project corridor,

there will be no impact to any state or federally listed threatened or endangered plant species.

Further coordination or endangered species permits with the MDNR and USFWS are not

required.

FAUNA

Historical records from the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ) note one mussel

species, the State Threatened Slippershell (Alasmidonta viridis), from the Middle Rouge River. This

species is protected under the Endangered Species Act of the State of Michigan (Part 365 of PA

451, 1994 Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act). Recent surveys

performed by MDEQ and the Friends of the Rouge River did not locate A. viridis near the project

location. A mussel survey and relocation performed by MDOT on July 29th, 2015 did not locate

A. viridis or evidence of any state or federally listed mussels within the project area.

This project is also within the range of the federally threatened Northern Long-Eared (Myotis

septentrionalis) and federally endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Both of these bats can be

found in floodplain corridors where connected forested habitat is present. A review of the MNFI

database and internal MDOT data does not show any records near the project location. Winter

tree removals (Oct 1 – Mar 31) are still recommended to avoid direct impacts, however. Section

7 informal consultation with the USFWS will be required to get concurrence on winter tree

removals.


The project is within the range of two federally listed bat species and will require winter tree

removals (Oct 1 – Mar 31) to avoid direct impacts. Informal consultation is required with the

USFWS.

MDOT will coordinate with the Wayne County Department of Public Works, Parks and

Recreation to protect the high quality prairie plantings within Edward N Hines Park. Protection

of the prairie planting area could include fences, stakes with rope, signs, or other measures.



Wetland Impacts: Yes No

Will the project affect wetlands? If yes, complete the following:

Wetland Type Number of acres Fill quantity (cubic yds.) Dredge quantity (cubic yds.)

Forested Less than 0.3 450 cyd 450 cyd

State and federal laws and regulations (Section 404, Clean Water Act, Federal Executive Order

11990 and Part 303 of Michigan Public Act 451 of 1994) protect wetlands and require that road

construction activities avoid impacting wetlands when prudent and feasible. If impacts are

unavoidable, impacts must be minimized to the extent practical with compensatory mitigation

provided based on the requirements of Part 303 (Wetlands Protection) of PA 451.

Wetlands were delineated by MDOT staff October 9, 2012 an onsite coordination meeting was

held with MDEQ on May 29, 2013. The wetlands are primarily riparian and forested, occurring

along the Middle Rouge River. Potential impacts to these wetlands are difficult to assess due to

limited preliminary design. As such, less than 0.3 acres of wetland will likely be impacted. The

final design of the Old M-14 structure, delineation boundaries, and avoidance and minimization

measures will determine the final quantity. These wetlands fall under the jurisdiction of MDEQ

and will be mitigated either within the watershed site or a statewide site.


All wetland impacts will be mitigated to an appropriate mitigation site based on Part 303 of

Michigan Public Act 451 of 1994. Since the cumulative wetland impacts are anticipated to be less

than 1 acre, with no single wetland impact exceeding 1/3 of an acre, the wetlands will be mitigated

at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio at a statewide wetland mitigation bank in accordance with the DEQ

minor project category for public transportation projects.

Effect on Lakes, Streams, or Other Bodies of Water: Yes No

Does the project affect navigation of a water body (as defined by the U. S. Coast

Guard)?

Does the project affect navigable waters of the U.S. (as defined by the Army Corps

of Engineers)?

Will construction require any access pads or placement of rip rap in the stream?

Will the project require stream relocations?



Does the project include replacement or widening of bridges?

Will work take place in the water or below the ordinary high water mark?

The reach of the Middle Rouge River that flows through the project area is fragmented by dams

and associated lakes. No fewer than four lakes exist just upstream and downstream of the Old

M-14 crossing. The channel through this section is entrenched, with a sand-gravel substrate and

areas of heavy Dreissenid (zebra and quagga mussels) infestation. The flow through this reach is

controlled primarily by dams. Land use is mostly dense residential with some commercial land.

The Middle Rouge River is presently spanned at Old M-14 by one 70-foot concrete earth filled

arch first designed in 1924. The replacement structure is anticipated to be a single, larger span

structure measuring approximately 80 to 90 feet. This activity is regulated by the MDEQ Part 31

(Floodplains and Water Quality), Part 301 Inland Lakes and Streams program and will require a

permit.


A MDEQ Part 301 permit will be required to replace the existing concrete arch bridge over, and

for dredge or fill below, the ordinary high water mark (bottomland) of the Middle Rouge River.

Floodplain Impacts: Yes No

Will project affect a regulated floodway or alter floodplain functions or values? If

yes, complete the following:

Number of acres Fill quantity (cubic yds.) Dredge quantity (cubic yds.)

0.2 ac 1600 cyd 1400 cyd

Is the project consistent with local flood protection standards?

Is the project consistent with MDEQ flood hazard ordinances?

The floodplain through the project area is relatively broad and wooded, thereby providing an

important buffer to the Middle Rouge River and an urban corridor for wildlife. Disturbance

within this corridor should be reduced to the maximum extent practical to limit impacts to

wildlife.

From a hydraulic and regulatory perspective, the primary flood zone designated by Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is “A” (FEMA 26163C0210E) – meaning no base flood

elevations are available for this section of the river. This project will require a hydraulic analysis

to ensure the final design will meet all state and federal laws and permits. Scour



countermeasures, such as riprap, will extend approximately 20-feet out from each new bridge

abutment. An Act 451, Part 31 permit will be needed from the MDEQ.


A MDEQ Part 31 permit will be required to replace the existing concrete arch bridge and for

dredge or fill within the 100-year floodplain of the Middle Rouge River.

Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers or State Designated Natural

Rivers: Yes No

Will the project affect any federally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers?

Will the project affect any State-designated Natural Rivers?


None Required.

Water Quality Impacts: Yes No

Does the project impact a public or private drinking water source?

Will the project affect the potential discharge of storm water into the waters of the

State?

Does the project affect a designated impaired water body or a water body with total

maximum daily load restrictions?

If yes, list name(s), location(s), and pollutant(s) of concern:

The oldest and most heavily populated and industrialized area in southeast Michigan is located

within the Rouge River Watershed. The Rouge River has four main branches totaling 125 miles

of waterways primarily flowing through Wayne and Oakland counties, with some headwaters in

Washtenaw County. The Rouge River drains a 438 square mile area that includes more than 400

lakes and ponds and more than 50 miles of parkland along its banks. The river travels through 48

communities and provides recreational opportunities for more than 1.5 million people. The lower

four miles of the river are maintained as a shipping channel from the turning basin upstream of

the project to the river's mouth at the south end of Zug Island. The watershed is further split into

seven storm water management areas, also referred to as sub-watersheds. This project lies within

the Middle 3 sub-watershed.

In compliance with MDOT’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit,

measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate water quality impacts are compatible with the long

term goals for water quality for the Rouge River. The 2012 revised Rouge River Watershed

Management Plan identifies goals and objectives to restore the river to ecological health, and

includes; 1) improve water quality and reduce sources of pollution that threaten public health, 2)



reduce runoff impacts through sustainable storm water management strategies and programs, 3)

protect, restore and/or enhance natural features to maintain/improve river and watershed

ecosystems.

The Rouge River is listed as impaired by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ) for the following uses and has a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan:

1. Total and partial body contact recreation due to Escherichia coli

2. Warm water fishery due to other flow regime alterations, sedimentation/siltation,

3. Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife due to other flow regime alterations and

sedimentation/siltation

Additionally, the Rouge River has the following impairments with TMDLs scheduled:

1. Warm water fishery and other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife due to dissolved

oxygen

2. Fish consumption due to PCBs in fish tissue and the water column

Is the project located in an area with an approved local watershed plan?


Post-construction impacts. The preferred alternative will result in increased impervious

surface which will increase the volume of runoff from the roadway and non-motorized

path and subsequently sediment loads to surface waters. Stormwater from bridge decks

with open drains convey sediment and other pollutants directly to the river. Appropriate

post-construction BMPs will be installed to treat stormwater with the objective of

removing 80% of sediments. Direct discharge from bridges will be eliminated.

MDOT will be issued a new NPDES Permit in 2016. All projects constructed in 2018 or later

must comply with the post-construction standards as follows:

The Water Quality Treatment Standard for each project: the first one inch of runoff from the entire

project site or the runoff generated from 90 percent of all runoff-producing storms shall be treated

to remove 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). MDOT may elect to have both options available

as part of the regulatory mechanism. For some projects, using the standard of 90 percent of all

runoff-producing storms will result in treating less than one inch of runoff.

The Channel Protection Performance Standard requires retaining the post-development site

runoff volume and maintaining the peak flow rate at or below existing levels for all storms up to

the two-year, 24-hour storm. The terms “existing” or “pre-development” refer to the last land

use prior to the planned new development or redevelopment. If the post-development runoff

volume exceeds the existing runoff volume, then BMPs or design changes shall be required to



achieve a post-construction runoff volume equal to or less than the existing levels for all storms

up to the 2-year, 24-hour event. MDOT will be required to retain additional runoff from new

impervious surface.

To meet the goals of the TMDL, direct discharge into the Middle Rouge River will be eliminated

by directing all post-construction stormwater from the road and non-motorized path into the

storm sewer system and treating it for 80% sediment removal before it enters the Middle Rouge

River. In-line treatment within the storm sewer system will be utilized as the BMP for this project

and is considered the best option so as to avoid the impacts to the forested wetland floodplain

that vegetated swales or detention basins would cause.

MDOT shall phase out illicit connections to storm sewers, along with most previously permitted

storm sewer discharges and replaced with connections to sanitary sewers with adequate

pretreatment to the maximum extent practicable. All disturbed sewer lines will be addressed in

accordance with local ordinances. Beyond all these items, all other Michigan Department of

Community Health (MDCH), local health department and MDEQ requirements designed to

protect surface and groundwater quality will be met.

Coastal Management Zone Impacts: Yes No

Will fill or excavation be required within the Coastal Zone Management boundary,

critical dunes or Coastal Barrier areas?

This project corridor falls outside the coastal zone management boundary. There will also be no

impact to critical dunes, high risk erosion areas and the coastal barrier resources. Based on this

review, no permits or further coordination with the MDEQ is required.


None required.

Visual Impacts: Yes No

Will the project require removal of trees near streams?

Will the project require removal of trees near buildings?

Will the project affect other visual resources?


MDOT will facilitate a “context sensitive design workshop” during the design phase to involve

the community and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in determining the aesthetic

treatment for the proposed new structure.



Contaminated Sites: Yes No

Are there any known or potentially contaminated sites along the corridor? If, yes,

answer the following two questions:

Are any utility trenches (i.e., storm or sanitary sewer, water main, …) in the vicinity

of a contaminated site?

Are there any groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of a contaminated site?

If buildings or residences are relocated, have they been evaluated for hazardous

waste (i.e. asbestos?).


A Preliminary Site Investigation (i.e., PSI, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment) was

completed on January 8, 2015 for the area of the proposed Old M-14 over the Middle Rouge River

Bridge Replacement Project in the City of Livonia, Wayne County. The PSI was conducted to

determine if environmental contamination exists that could affect the project’s design, cost, or

schedule, and to meet the requirements of Part 201 of the Michigan Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), 1994 PA 451, as amended.

The PSI entailed collecting soil and groundwater samples from 15 locations (13 soil borings and

2 sediment samples) along a portion of Old M-14 over the Middle Rouge River, between

Newburgh Road and Plymouth Road in the City of Livonia. All soil samples and the two

groundwater samples were analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Polynuclear

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs), and metals. The two sediment samples collected from the

Middle Rouge River were analyzed for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in addition to the

VOCs, PNAs, and metals. Soil and groundwater analytical results were compared to the ‘Part

201 Residential and Non-Residential Generic Cleanup Criteria.

Concentrations of metals above the Statewide Default Background criteria, as well as arsenic,

cadmium, lead, and silver above the Residential and Non-Residential Drinking Water Protection

Criteria, were detected only within the area of fill material located in the area west of the Old M-

14 roadway and south of the Middle Rouge River, within Hines Park. The area of fill material,

up to 6 feet thick in borings RRB-4 and RRB-5, contained concentrations of metals which may

impact construction activities, as well as pieces of glass, brick, slag, and metal, and is easily

recognizable due to the brown-black-gray-rust color and inclusion of debris fragments. This fill

material is adjacent to the roadway (beginning approximately 50 feet west of the centerline) and

immediately adjacent to the base of the slope of the road/bridge fill, and extending to the west.

At this time, no further investigation is recommended.

MITIGATION

1) Areas of contamination should be identified on the final plans.



2) If excavation activities are to occur within the vicinity of the area of fill material located

west of the Old M-14 roadway and south of the Middle Rouge River, an estimate for

contaminated soil removal should be included as a pay item in the construction contract,

and the Special Provision for Non-Hazardous Contaminated Material Handling and

Disposal should be added to the final project package.

3) The “Supplemental Specification for Asbestos Removal and Disposal" should be included

in the final project package in anticipation asbestos conduits are encountered on the

bridge structures.

4) All contaminated media must be handled and disposed of appropriately in accordance

with state and federal regulations.

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts: Yes No

Will the project cause adverse indirect or cumulative effects?


None Required.

Permits and Authorizations: Yes No

Will the project require any of the following permits and authorizations?

U.S. Army Corps, Section 404 and Section10

U.S. Coast Guard, Section 9

Flood Hazard, MDEQ, and Act 451 Part 31

Wetland Protection, MDEQ, Act 451 Part 303

Inland Lakes and Streams, MDEQ, Act 451 Part 301

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) NPDES permit?

Storm water discharge NPDES permit?

Construction site NPDES permit?

Michigan Coastal Management Program, Section 307 permit?

County Drain Commissioner review/approval?

Other (for example, Threatened and Endangered Species, Critical Dunes).

If “yes, list additional permits and authorizations.




MDEQ Permits needed for the Old M-14 Bridge replacement over the Middle Rouge River in

Livonia, MI include Part 31 (Floodplains and Water Quality) and Part 301 (Inland Lakes and

Streams), and Part 303 (Wetland) of ACT 451 (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection).

Construction Impacts: Yes No

Will the project have any of the following potential construction effects?

Construction timing commitments?

Clearing or work in a stream

Will any bridge painting occur over watercourses?

Will the project disturb more than five acres of soil?

Temporary degradation of water quality?

Temporary stream diversion or work on an access pad?

Temporary degradation of air quality?

Temporary delays and detours of traffic?

Temporary impact to businesses such as access and parking?

Other construction impacts, including noise and vibration?

Will there be restriction dates for clearing?

Will there be restriction dates for work in a stream?


Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control During Construction. MDOT will control accelerated

sedimentation caused by construction before it enters the Middle Rouge River or leaves the right-

of-way by the placement of temporary or permanent erosion and sedimentation control

measures. MDOT has developed a series of standard erosion control items to be included on

design plans to prevent erosion and sedimentation. The design plans will describe the erosion

controls and their locations. The following is a partial listing of general soil erosion and

sedimentation control measures that will be carried out in accordance with permit requirements. Restrict work in the Middle Rouge River channel during periods of seasonally high

water, except as necessary to prevent erosion.

Provide adequate sedimentation controls around the shore work areas to provide the

necessary protection for mussels, fish, and other aquatic life forms.



Protect road fill side slopes, ditches, and other raw areas draining directly into the

Middle Rouge River with riprap (up to three feet above the ordinary high water mark),

sod, seed and mulch, or other measures, as necessary to prevent erosion. Stabilize and vegetate areas disturbed by construction activities within five days after

final grading has been completed. Where it is not possible to permanently stabilize a

disturbed area, appropriate temporary erosion and sedimentation controls will be

implemented. All temporary controls will be maintained until permanent soil erosion

and sedimentation controls are in place and functional. The contractor shall have the capability to perform seeding and mulching at locations

within 150 feet of any streams or drains within 24 hours of being directed to perform

such work by the project engineer. Protect the natural vegetative growth outside the project's slope stake line from

removal or siltation. Natural vegetation, in conjunction with other sedimentation

controls, provides filtration of runoff not carried in established ditches. Prevent the tracking of material onto local roads and streets. If material is tracked onto

roads or streets, it shall be removed by the Contractor.

See the Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet at the end of this section of this EA for a list of

the impacts and any additional mitigation measures.

Public Involvement and Agency Coordination:

Describe what actions were taken to identify stakeholders during scoping or at public

information meetings or formal public hearings.

A study steering committee was created under the direction of MDOT with the goal of guiding

the development of the Feasibility Study. The purpose of the Feasibility Study was to develop

alternatives and also reduce those alternatives from Illustrative to Practical and eventually get to

a Preferred Alternative. The Steering Committee consisted of members from MDOT, Wayne

County, the city of Livonia, and consultants OHM and Parsons Brinkerhoff.

Throughout the process of developing the Feasibility Study numerous meetings were held with

the Steering Committee and also a couple meetings with the public. The Feasibility Study can be

located and reviewed at the following web address: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-

151-9621_11058-328973--,00.html

Describe the type of public involvement and agency coordination that has occurred.

As part of early coordination, MDOT sent out letters to various federal, state and local agencies,

interested local groups, and the Federally recognized tribes located in Michigan. MDOT did

receive a few responses regarding the project. The MDOT coordination letter and the responses

from the resource agencies can be found in APPENDIX C.





In addition to the Steering Committee Meetings a public information meeting was held on May

15, 2014. The purpose of the meetings was to inform the community about the upcoming bridge

project and to seek input from the community. The meeting was held at the city of Livonia

government offices. Comments received at the meetings are included in APPEDNDIX F.

Additionally, a Public Hearing will be held once the Environmental Assessment is signed and

approved by FHWA.

Discuss pertinent issues raised by the public and resource agencies. Attach applicable

correspondence and responses.

Most comments received were in support of the project and were dealing with pedestrian issues.

There were some concerns brought up at the public meeting regarding the need for ROW from

property owners. MDOT real estate will be working with those individuals to come to a

resolution that satisfies both sides. MDOT will ensure that the replacement bridge is designed in

consultation with the SHPO, nearby property owners, the city of Livonia, and the general public.

MDOT will hold at least one meeting to assess the community preferences for the aesthetics of

the replacement bridge based on engineering requirements and local input.

Effects on Section 4(f)/6(f) Properties: Yes No

Will the proposed action affect Section 4(f) properties?

Will the proposed action affect Section 6(f) properties?

If yes to either of the above, attach appropriate Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) documentation.

The project will affect the Edward N. Hines Drive Bridge, which is eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places. The project will also have a de minimis impact to the Edward

N. Hines Park, also known as the Middle Rouge Parkway, which is a linear park running between

Northville and Detroit. See coordination letters in Appendix C.

The Preferred Alternative will have a negligible effect on the function of the Edward N. Hines

Park, as it will require only small pieces of undeveloped park property (approximately 0.55 acre

of fee right-of-way and approximately 1.84 acres of temporary consent to grade) along the edges

of property bordering Old M-14 and Newburgh Rd. The right-of-way will be utilized for

improvements such as increased turn radius at the intersection of Old M-14 and Newburg Road

and to reconstruct the existing pathway located on Hines Drive. Temporary consents to grade

will be obtained from the Edward N. Hines Park to construct a new pedestrian pathway

connection between Old M-14 and Hines Drive, to reconstruct the existing pathway along Hines

Drive, and for construction staging and storage.

Park exhibits were prepared and present to the public as part of the public meeting held May 15,

2014 at the City of Livonia government offices.



A letter was received from Wayne County Department of Public Services (WCDPS) on August

18, 2015 indicating the following: “The proposed work will involve the minor, or de minimis, use of E.

N. Hines Park Property, which has been determined to qualify as a Section 4(f) property.” Further the

letter indicates: “WCDPS has also reviewed and agrees to the assessment of the impacts of the proposed

project as well as the proposed mitigation for this project on the Park.” A copy of the WCDPS

correspondence is included in Appendix C. Updates to temporary impacts, through design

revisions, were subsequently approved though email by Wayne County on February 2, 2016. This

response has been added to Appendix C. It should be noted that Hines Park has received

numerous recreational grants for development, including Land and Water Conservation Fund

monies, also known as Section 6(f). The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has

confirmed this project will not impact any of the grant funded facilities within the extensive Hines

Park complex.

The following mitigation measures were agreed to by the WCDPS:

Vegetation at Edward N. Hines Park will be restored to its original condition, or better,

upon completion of construction.

MDOT Metro Region Resource Specialist and Lansing Project Development staff will

work with the Wayne County Parks Department to offer tree replacements, should any

tree removals be required during construction.

The construction area adjacent to Edward N. Hines Park will be fenced to prevent Park

users from entering the construction zone and to prevent the contractor from working

beyond the proposed consent to grade limits.

The shared use path on Hines Drive will be maintained by a temporary structure on the

north side of the Hines Drive bridge at all times during construction.

The areas utilized by the consents to grade will be identified to the contractor at the project

Pre-Construction meeting.

Project Planning Considerations: Yes No

Is the project listed in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)?

Is the project listed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)?

The proposed project is identified in the 2019 RTP and TIP for the Southeast Michigan Council

of Governments (SEMCOG), which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this

region.

Project Cost

What is the anticipated cost for the preferred alternative?

The cost of bridge replacement and the associated road improvement costs are approximately

$2.65 million for replacing the Old M-14 bridge over the Middle Rouge River. The cost for the

Hines Drive bridge is approximately $2.25 million, which includes an estimated $40,000 in ROW



costs. The road improvements for Old M-14 from Newburgh Rd. to Market St. are approximately

$7.42 million for a project total of $12.72 million. These cost estimates are using year 2017 dollars.

Measures to Minimize Impacts During Construction

The goal of mitigation measures is to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, existing

neighborhoods, land use, and resources, while improving transportation. Although some

adverse impacts are unavoidable, MDOT through the project development, design,

environmental, and construction processes, takes precautions to protect as many social and

environmental systems as possible. Specific project mitigation items being considered at this time

can be found in the Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet located at the end of this section. A

Final Green Sheet will be prepared and included in the project Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI). The Green Sheet may be modified during the final design, right-of-way or construction

phases of this project.

Construction activities which include the general mitigation measures listed below are those

contained in the 2012 MDOT Standard Specifications for Construction. These measures include:

1. The contractor shall locate all active underground utilities prior to starting work,

and shall conduct his operations in such a manner as to ensure that those

utilities not requiring relocation will not be disturbed. Relocated utilities may be

temporarily interrupted for short time periods.

2. Accelerated erosion and sedimentation caused by highway construction will be

controlled before it enters a water body or leaves the highway right-of-way by the

placement of temporary or permanent soil erosion and sedimentation control

measures. MDOT has developed a series of standard erosion/sedimentation

control items to be included on design plans to prevent erosion and sedimentation.

The design plans will describe the erosion and sedimentation controls and their

locations.

3. All regulations on the MDEQ governing disposal of solid wastes must be complied

with. When surplus or unsuitable material is to be disposed of outside the right-

of-way, the contractor shall obtain and file with MDOT written permission from

the owner of the property on which the material is to be placed. If federal funds

are used for this project, Executive Order 11990 states that no surplus or unsuitable

material is to be temporarily or permanently disposed of in any public or private

wetland area, regardless of size. In addition, no surplus or unsuitable material is

to be temporarily or permanently disposed of in any watercourse or floodplain.

4. Disruption of traffic in the construction area will be minimized to the greatest

extent possible. Although control of all construction-related inconveniences is not



possible, motorist and pedestrian safety will be ensured by signing all construction

areas. All lane closures, traffic shifts, short term detours, and changed travel

patterns will be clearly marked. Access will be maintained to adjacent properties

during construction to the extent possible.

5. The contractor must comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations

governing the control of air pollution. During the construction of the project, the

contractor will be responsible for adequate dust-control measures so as not to

cause detriment to the safety, health, welfare, or comfort of any person, or cause

damage to any property, residence or business. All bituminous and Portland

cement concrete proportioning plants and crushers must meet the requirements

for the rules of Part 55 (Air Pollution Control) of Act 451, Natural Resource and

Environmental Protection.

6. MDOT will coordinate with the Wayne County Drain Commissioner’s Office

during the design phase to review potential impacts to the county drain system.

Design plans will be reviewed by MDOT prior to contract letting in order to incorporate any

additional social, economic, or environmental protection items. The construction site will be

reviewed to ensure that the mitigation measures proposed are carried out, and to determine if

additional protection is required. More mitigation measures may be developed if additional

impacts are identified. Specific mitigation items are listed in the Project Mitigation Summary

Green Sheet and will be included on the design plans, project proposal, and permit applications.

The final mitigation package will be reviewed by MDOT representatives, in cooperation with

concerned state, federal, and local agencies. Some changes in the early mitigation concepts

discussed in this document may be required when design begins, when in-depth soil borings are

taken and analyzed, and slope stake lines and construction limits are identified. These mitigation

concepts will be implemented to the extent possible. Where changes are necessary, they will be

designed and field reviewed before permits are applied for and construction begins. Changes

may also be necessary during the construction phase, but they will reflect the early mitigation

intent.

Mitigation Follow-Up

This project will follow the new MDOT Mitigation Follow-Up Procedures for EA/FONSI projects.

This process begins after the project FONSI is issued. The new procedures required by FHWA

include signing off on mitigation measures as the project proceeds through the design, real estate,

construction, and maintenance phases. The Mitigation Sign-Off Form will be prepared by the

Project Manager and the Environmental Services Section (ESS) Mitigation Specialist to include

project specific mitigation requirements. The Mitigation Sign-Off Form will indicate who will

sign-off on mitigation for each project phase and will include electronic signatures by MDOT staff

to verify completion of required mitigation. The Mitigation Sign-Off Form along with project

mitigation documentation will be keep in a Mitigation Follow-Up folder in MDOT’s ProjectWise.

41

Project Mitigation Summary “Green Sheet”

For the Preferred Alternative

(Draft) August 29, 2016

Abbreviated Environmental Assessment

Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation

Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road), Newburgh Road to Market Street

Reconstruction

And Bridge Replacement over the Middle Rouge River

In the City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan This project mitigation summary “Green Sheet” contains the project specific mitigation

measures being considered at this time. An updated “Green Sheet” will be prepared and

included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project. These mitigation

items and commitments may be modified during the final design, right-of-way acquisition or

construction phases of this project. The project mitigation will be tracked and sign-off on the

mitigation commitments will occur as the project progresses through the various phases;

design, right-of-way acquisition, construction and maintenance.

I. Social and Economic Environment

a. Right-of-Way (ROW) – This project will require a total of 2.39 acres of additional ROW,

0.55 acre of fee ROW and 1.84 acres of Consent to Grade for the new turn lanes, new

pedestrian pathway connection, and for sidewalk improvements. A portion of fee ROW

(0.45 acre) and Consent to Grade (1.57 acres) will be needed from park property.

Consent to Grade will be also be required for approximately 10 driveways. All fee ROW

will be required in conformance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.

b. Visual Resources – Using a “context sensitive solutions process, MDOT will facilitate a

workshop during the design phase to involve the community and State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) in determining the aesthetic treatment for the proposed new

structure.

c. Maintaining Traffic – Traffic on Old M-14 will be detoured onto Newburgh Road and

Plymouth Road during construction. The detour is expected to be in place for

approximately one year. Coordination with local officials will occur prior to and during

42

construction to facilitate emergency service (police, fire, and ambulance) and school bus

routes. Access to residences and businesses within the project area will be maintained

during construction.

d. Parks – Approximately 0.45 acre of fee right-of-way (ROW) and 1.57 acres of Consent to

Grade are required from Edward N. Hines Park. The Contractor shall not use Edward

N. Hines Park for construction staging and no vehicles or materials will be stored on

park property except where previously agreed to by the Wayne County Department of

Public Services on August 18, 2015. See correspondence in Appendix C. The “Special

Provision for Construction Staging Areas” will be included in the project Proposal.

Access to Edward N. Hines Park shall be maintained at all times during construction.

The following mitigation items apply to this project:

Vegetation at Edward N. Hines Park will be restored to its original condition, or better,

when construction is complete.

MDOT Metro Region Resource Specialist and Lansing Roadside Development staff

will work with Wayne County Parks & Recreation to offer tree replacements, should

any tree removals be required during construction.

The construction area adjacent to Edward N. Hines Park will be fenced to prevent Park

users from entering the construction zone and to prevent the contactor from working

beyond the proposed consent to grade limits.

A temporary pedestrian/non-motorized bridge will be constructed along the north

side of Hines Drive to maintain pedestrian and non-motorized traffic during

construction.

The areas utilized by the consents to grade will be identified to the contractor at the

project Pre-Construction meeting.

e. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access – A temporary structure will be constructed along the north

side of Edward N Hines Drive to continue pedestrian/non-motorized traffic during

construction. Pedestrian and bicycle access is not provided on existing Old M-14 but will

be included in the reconstructed Old M-14 roadway.

II. Natural Environment

a. Stream Crossings – Construction of the new bridge abutments will be done inside

enclosed cofferdams. All work will be done by cranes located on Old M-14. A

construction staging plan that details structure removal and construction phases will be

prepared during the design phase. Removal of earth-filled concrete arch structures is

often difficult but any bridge debris that falls into the river will be removed within 24

hours. A temporary barge, platform, or other approved method will be used during

removal of the existing structure to keep any debris from falling into the river.

Coordination with permitting agencies will occur during the permit application phase

43

of the project. Soil erosion and sedimentation control measures will be included in the

design plans and enforced during construction.

b. Floodplains – The new Middle Rouge River structure will be able to pass the 100-year

storm event without causing harmful interference. The new bridge will be designed to

handle anticipated scour based on FHWA guidelines. Preliminary hydraulic review

indicates that approximately 20 feet of riprap will extend out from each new abutment

to minimize scour. The hydraulic information will be verified in final design once all

construction limits and design details are identified.

c. Wetlands – A narrow strip of forested wetlands currently exists along the edges of the

Middle Rouge River. The removal of the existing Old M-14 structure and construction

of the new structure will have a small impact on wetlands, approximately 0.3 acre or

less. The final design of the Old M-14 structure, wetland delineation boundaries, and

avoidance and minimization measures will determine the final wetland impact. Since

the wetland impact is anticipated to be less than 1/3 acre, wetlands will be mitigated at

a 2:1 ratio at a statewide site. If the wetland impacts fall under the minor permit

category criteria, the wetlands may be mitigated at a ratio less than 2:1.

d. Water Quality – Compliance with MDOT’s MS4 NPDES permit will be required. All

storm water outfalls will be properly labeled. Direct discharge into the Middle Rouge

River will be eliminated by directing all post-construction stormwater from the road

and non-motorized path into the storm sewer system and treating it for 80% sediment

removal before it enters the Middle Rouge River. In-line treatment within the storm

sewer system will be utilized as the Best Management Practice (BMP) for this project.

e. Wildlife Resources - A mussel survey was conducted in the vicinity of the Old M-14

crossing of the Middle Rouge River on 7-29-15. Thirty one live mussels were found

during the survey and were relocated to a suitable site just above I-275 per discussions

with MDEQ. Strict soil erosion and sedimentation controls will be implemented during

construction.

f. Threatened and Endangered Species - To protect potential roosting habitat for Indiana and

northern long-eared bats, tree removals and clearing will be only be allowed during the

winter cutting period of October 1 through March 31.

MDOT will coordinate with the Wayne County Department of Public Works, Parks and

Recreation to protect the high quality prairie plantings within Edward N Hines Park.

Protection of the prairie planting area could include fences, stakes with rope, signs, or

other measures.

g. Tree Removals – Residents along East Newburgh Road will be offered replacement trees

to mitigate for tree removals necessary for construction of the new sidewalk. Tree

44

species and numbers will be determined by the Metro Region Resource Analyst and

Lansing Roadside Development staff in coordination with Wayne County Parks &

Recreation.

III. Cultural Environment

a. Historic Resource – Prior to any construction activities, the historic Edward N. Hines

Drive structure over Old M-14 will be documented in text and graphics to record its

place in history. The design of the replacement bridge will draw from SHPO and

community input and will complement the setting and community values and vision.

Specific details of the historic structure mitigation commitments are listed in the

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) found in Attachment E of this EA.

IV. Hazardous/Contaminated Materials

a. Project Contamination – A Project Area Contamination Survey (PACS) and Phase II

Environmental Site Assessment were performed for this project. Concentrations of

metals above the Statewide Default Background criteria, as well as arsenic, cadmium,

lead, and silver above the Residential and Non-Residential Drinking Water Protection

Criteria, were detected only within the area of fill material located west of the Old M-14

roadway and south of the Middle Rouge River, within Hines Park. This fill material

begins approximately 50 feet west of centerline and immediately adjacent to the base of

slope of the road/bridge fill, extending to the west. At this time, no further investigation

is recommended. Potential areas of concern have been identified and additional review

(and testing if required) will occur during the design phase when slope-stake lines and

construction limits are determined.

b. Contamination Mitigation – All areas of contamination will be identified on the final

plans. If excavation activities are to occur in the vicinity of the contaminated soil area,

an estimated quantity for contaminated soil removal should be included as a pay item.

The “Special Provision for Non-Hazardous Contaminated Material Handling and

Disposal” will be included in the project Proposal. Conditions stipulated in this SP must

be met during construction; including laboratory testing to solicit landfill approval,

temporary storage requirements, and restrictions for reusing contaminated media as fill.

The “Supplemental Specification for Asbestos Removal and Disposal” will be included

in the project Proposal in case asbestos conduits are encountered on the bridge

structures. All contaminated media will be properly handled and disposed of in

accordance with state and federal regulations.

c. Contamination Exposure – The Contractor will prepare a Workers Health and Safety Plan

for this project.

V. Construction

45

a. Construction Permits – Permits under Act 451, Part 31 (Water Quality and Floodplains),

and Part 301 (Inland Lakes and Streams), and Part 303 (Wetlands) are required from the

MDEQ for this project. Coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES), which is administered by the MDEQ, is also required. Coordination

will occur with owners/operators of the dam located upstream of the proposed Old M-

14 structure over the Middle Rouge River in design and during construction to address

any water level changes.

b. Work in Water Construction Restriction Dates – A seasonal work in water restriction to

protect juvenile and spawning fish is typically required for projects where work in the

water is expected. Initial feedback from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR) Fisheries Division Staff indicates that no fisheries restriction dates are required

for the Old M-14 bridge replacement over the Middle Rouge River due to the dam

located just upstream. Any work in water restriction dates recommended by the MDNR

during review of this EA or MDEQ in the issued environmental permit will be set up

for this project.

c. Clearing/Tree Removal Restriction Dates – To protect potential roosting habitat for Indiana

and northern long-eared bats, tree removals and clearing will be only be allowed during

the winter cutting period of October 1 through March 31. The “Special Provision for

Tree Cutting” will be include in the project Proposal.

d. De-Watering – Water from de-watering of cofferdams used for work adjacent to the

Middle Rouge River will be treated prior to discharge.

e. Construction Noise - Construction noise will be minimized by measures such as requiring

that construction equipment have mufflers, that portable compressors meet federal

noise-level standards for that equipment, and that all portable equipment be placed

away from or shielded from sensitive noise receptors. Night time work is not

anticipated for the bridge removals or new bridge beam placement but may be needed

for bridge deck pours. MDOT will monitor the contractor to ensure they are in

compliance with the city of Livonia Noise Ordinance Policy (work prohibited from

sundown until 7:00 a.m. the following day) or any variances granted the contractor by

the city of Livonia.

f. Construction Vibration - Basement/foundation video-taping prior to construction will be

offered to structures within 150 feet of any construction activity in areas where vibration

effects could occur; where pavement and the bridge will be removed or where piling

and/or steel sheeting is planned. These areas will be identified during the design phase

and monitoring will occur before, during and after the construction phase. The “Special

Provision for Monitoring Vibrations” will be set up on this project.


Bridge Replacement Abbreviated Environmental Assessment

46

Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) between Newburgh Road and Market … · 2016-11-07 · Road to the...

Documents

Transcript of Old M-14 (Ann Arbor Road) between Newburgh Road and Market … · 2016-11-07 · Road to the...