1. HOC-664 Hocking Hills Study Stakeholder Meeting August 15, 2008 Hocking Hills State Park

2. Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose of Meeting

3. Meeting Purpose Update project stakeholders on the status of the Hocking Hills Study Present the Draft Preliminary Engineering Study Seek discussion/comment on the recommendations of the study and begin moving toward concurrence

4. Project Summary Study portion of the project to complete Steps 1-4 of the ODOT PDP for Minor Projects Project kick-off was held on October 21, 2006 Public involvement meeting was held June 25, 2007 –Preliminary alignments for the relocation alternative were presented to the public and legislative representatives –Based on comments received at this meeting, a pedestrian bridge alternative, which had been previously considered, was brought back as an alternative for further evaluation The Preliminary Engineering Study was then developed to further evaluate the alternatives and recommend a preferred alternative for advancement into detailed design

5. Preliminary Engineering Study

6. Purpose and need Statement (contd) Given the existing alignment of SR 664 and the safety and environmental concerns it creates, the following Purpose and Need Statement was developed. The purpose of the Hocking Hills Study is to improve motorist and pedestrian safety on SR 664 in the vicinity of the Old Mans Cave section of Hocking Hills State Park while considering future transportation and recreational needs. In order to fulfill this purpose, an effective solution must address the following needs as identified by the project team and stakeholders: Correct geometric deficiencies to maximize safety features where pedestrian safety is most compromised. Achieve effective and appropriate integration of the roadway and park for the benefit of both pedestrians and motorists.

7. Purpose and need Statement (contd) In addition to the identified needs, goals and objectives were established to help ensure that the interests and concerns of all project stakeholders are successfully met. The project goals include: – Protection of the gorge and park setting from potential environmental damage resulting from the proximity of SR 664. Concerns include noise and water pollution and damage from vibration – Incorporation of context sensitive solutions to improve the aesthetic character of both the state park and SR 664 and to reduce the permanent footprint of the project.

8. Overview of Alternatives Two build alternatives, along with the No-Build, are described and evaluated in the Preliminary Engineering Study. –No-Build: Required by the PDP to serve as baseline in comparison of other alternatives. Simply involves maintaining the existing facility and carrying out any committed work. –Alternative A: Relocates approximately 1 mile of SR 664 to new alignment north of the main parking lots. Is a hybrid of options B and C presented at the public meeting last June. The existing alignment would be abandoned and converted to a new use consistent with park development plans. –Alternative B: Pedestrian bridge extending over SR 664 from the main parking lots to the south side of the road near the picnic shelter and visitors center.

9. Overview of Alternatives

10. Two build alternatives, along with the No-Build, are described and evaluated in the Preliminary Engineering Study. –No-Build: Required by the PDP to serve as baseline in comparison of other alternatives. Simply involves maintaining the existing facility and carrying out any committed work. –Alternative A: Relocates approximately 1 mile of SR 664 to new alignment north of the main parking lots. Is a hybrid of options B and C presented at the public meeting last June. The existing alignment would be abandoned and converted to a new use consistent with park development plans. –Alternative B: Pedestrian bridge extending over SR 664 from the main parking lots to the south side of the road near the picnic shelter and visitors center.

11. Overview of Alternatives

12. Two build alternatives, along with the No-Build, are described and evaluated in the Preliminary Engineering Study. –No-Build: Required by the PDP to serve as baseline in comparison of other alternatives. Simply involves maintaining the existing facility and carrying out any committed work. –Alternative A: Relocates approximately 1 mile of SR 664 to new alignment north of the main parking lots. Is a hybrid of options B and C presented at the public meeting last June. The existing alignment would be abandoned and converted to a new use consistent with park development plans. –Alternative B: Pedestrian bridge extending over SR 664 from the main parking lots to the south side of the road near the picnic shelter and visitors center.

13. Overview of Alternatives

14. Evaluation of Alternatives: Purpose and Need No-BuildAlternative AAlternative B Improves Pedestrian and Motorist Safety No Yes – Eliminates pedestrian safety concerns and all geometric deficiencies but one No – Is unlikely to improve pedestrian safety* and corrects no geometric deficiencies Improves Integration of Roadway and Park No Yes – Allows for expansion of visitors center and parking, and creation of recognizable and uniform park entrances. Creates smooth transition from auto-oriented to pedestrian-oriented areas No – Conflicts with park planning efforts by precluding future expansion of park facilities. Further disrupts the park setting by introducing a large bridge over the road in the middle of the park. * - Based on research of pedestrian bridge usage (National Center for Safe Routes to School)

15. Evaluation of Alternatives: Goals and objectives No-BuildAlternative AAlternative B Reduces Pollution From Run-Off (Application of BMPs) NoYesNo Improves Aesthetics for Park Visitors and Motorists No Yes – Screens the road from view of the park. Better matches rest of Hocking Hills Scenic Byway. Includes context sensitive design solutions to establish a more natural feel to the road. No Reduces Potential Vibration Issues (Based on Distance to Gorge) NoYesNo Reduces Noise Impacts on Park (Based on Distance to Gorge) NoYesNo

16. Evaluation of Alternatives: Environmental Impacts No-BuildAlternative AAlternative B Potential Indiana Bat Roost Trees Impacted No740 Unique/High Quality Habitat Impacts No Stream Impacts (Linear Feet & Anticipated Permit) No 1,475 – Individual 404/401 Permit 0 Impacts to Observed Endangered Species No Potential for Cultural Resource Impacts No Section 4(f)/6(f) Impacts No Moderate – Large land conversion, but small impact to park facilities Moderate – Small land conversion, but large impact to park facilities

17. Evaluation of Alternatives: Impacted Land, Facilities, & Cost No-BuildAlternative AAlternative B Footprint of Completed Project (Acres) 04.970.12 Estimated Cost $0$5,454,630$960,000 Land Impacted By Project Construction (Acres) 019.200.12 Impact to Park Facilities Prevents future improvements Low – Temporary access changes at east & west ends of park. Removed parking lot adjacent to Culp Rd. Converts existing SR 664 to walking path & allows for improvements to existing facilities. High – Removes 60-65 parking spaces and eliminates west drive from highest demand lot. Prevents future improvements.

18. Overview of Alternatives