[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
vi, CL C)LA. f\ Coastal Zone Information Center . ...... ...... . ION CENTER, 00 UJI 1@ COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER PREPARED FOR: ASHTABULA COUNTY ASHTABULA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PARK COMMISSIONERS THIS PLAN WAS FUNDED IN PART THROUGH A COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM GRANT PROVIDED THROUGH THE U.S. DEPART- MENT OF COMMERCE, NOAA, COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BY THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. ASHTABULA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Thomas Nassief, President Alfred Mackey Peter Iarocci Hugh L. Thomas, Deputy Administrator" ASHTABULA T014NSHIP PARK COMMISSION Richard Charles Homer Nevel ASHTABULA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Eber L. Wright, Executive Director WOODRUFF ENGINEERING INC., CONSULTING ENGINEERS 23875 Commerce Park Road Beachwood, OH 44122 Vincent J. D'Angelo, Executive Vice-President of Engineering David Shorr, Environmental Planning Consultant" OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY James A. Rhodes, Governor Robert Ryan, Director Michael Adams, CEIP Coordinator Principle Authors TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT Page Introduction 1 Land Use 7 Traffic and Parking 17 Park Security 24 West Lakefront Area 26 Multiple Use Alternatives 28 Mitigation of Adverse Coastal Energy Impacts 34 Shoreline Protection 35 Cost Estimates 35 Recommendations 38 Central Lakefront Area 40 Multiple Use Alternatives 41 Mitigation of Adverse Coastal Energy Impacts 45 Shoreline Protection 45 Cost Estimates 45 Recommendations 46 East Lakefront Area 48 Multiple Use Alternatives 51 Mitigation of Adverse Coastal Energy Impacts 57 Shoreline Protection 57 Cost Estimates 64 Recommendations 65 East Inland Area 67 Multiple Use Alternatives 67 Mitigation of Adverse Coastal Energy Impacts 73 Cost Estimates 74 Recommendations 75 Central Inland Area 77 Multiple Use Alternatives 77 Mitigation of Coastal Energy Impacts 78 Cost Estimates 78 Recommendations 78 West Inland Area 80 Multiple Use Alternatives 80 Cost Estimates 85 Recommendations 86 Composite Master Plan 89 Implementation Schedule 90 Inventory of Costs 91 Summary 92 Appendi,x Table of Contents - con't TIST OF MAPS .U MAP MAP SUBJECT Page 1 Planning Area Location Map 2 2 Lakeshore Park Recreation Plan Planning Area 6 3 Generalized Land Use 1979 9 4 External Traffic Flow 18 5 Internal Traffic and Parking 23 6 Lakeshore Park Recreation Plan 87 88 LIST OF FIGURES FIG. FIGURE SUBJECT PAGE 1 Lakeshore Park Recreation Plan Planning Area 27 2 West Lakefront Area 84 3 Lakeshore Park Recreation Plan Boat Marina "A" 29 4 Lakeshore Park Recreation Plan Boat Marina "B" -@O 5 Coast Guard Station Marina Area 32 6 Vicinity Map Lakeshore Park Marina 33 7 Central Lakefront Area Alternative A 42 8 Central Lakefront Area Alternative B 43 9 East Lakefront Area Alternative A 53 10 East Lakefront Area Alternative B 54 11 East Lakefront Area Alternative C 55 12 East Lakefront Area Alternative D 56 13 Beach Alternative 2 58 14 Beach Alternative 3 59 15 Beach Alternative 4 60 16 Beach Alternative 5 61 17 Beach Alternative 7 and 7A 62 18 Beach Alternative 8 and SA 63 19 East Inland Area Alternative A 69 20 East Inland Area Alternative B 70 21 East Inland Area Alternative C 71 22 East Inland Area Alternative D 72 23 West Inland Area Alternative A 82 24 West Inland Area Alternative B 83 25 West Lakefront Area 84 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The Ashtabula Township Park Commission's Lakeshore Park is located in Ashtabula County, Ohio on Lake Erie. The park is approximately 56 miles east of Cleveland, Ohio; 45 miles west of Erie, Pennsylvania; and 50 miles north of Youngstown, Ohio. The Southwest park boundary is the Ashtabula City corporation limits. This area is illustrated in Map 1 entitled Planning Area Location Map. 3oth the regional and local settings of Lakeshore Park are located on this map. Park's immediate neighbors along the Lake Erie shoreline are Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company's Ashtabula generating plant to the east and the port of Ashtabula with its major coal and iron ore handleing facilities to the west. The landward neighbors to the southwest are residential neighborhoods and to the southeast a heavily industrialized area known as the Ashtabula Chemical Complex" is sited. The land area known as Lakeshore Park consists of about 50 acres of lakefront property with about 2,500 feet of frontage on Lake Erie. The Ashtabula Township Park Commission purchased Lakeshore Park's land in 1910 for $15,000. In 1914, Volney Rogers, landscape architect, and Harry M. Rell, Civil Engineer of Youngstown, Ohio, iaid out the roads and designed the park. AND 1A A A I... c '24 c. Z 1. IDAN ST PLANNING AREA LOCATION MAP 664; '3;:] PORT ERIE MIDDLE- PORT CONNEAUT 1. ST 90 PORT CONNEAUT ABNTABUL,4 Erie NORTH NQSrVILLE ASH A PORT FAIRPOR QGEVEVA .001*" JX PAINESNALLE JEFFERSON 100 F'-' 1-79 r PORT CLEVE rr* @Ashtabufo CrOWford Xj CLEVEL AND Cuyah WARREN --10 TURNPIKLr 1-00 AK Mercer Portage VL -------- r onlng ?IaT) The roads were completed in 1916. J. L. Wilson was employed as the Park Commission's architect in 1919 to design the Lakeshore Park main pavillion. The twenty-four foot by four hundred forty foot structure cost about $40,000. The pavillion still stands today as a historical landmark in Ashtabula County. Since the time of these early capital improvements and park planning, many small changes in the park have taken place. The park, however, has remained the same in character as its original design. People enjoy feeding the ducks in the ponds, skipping stones across the lake's surface, and picnicing under the shade trees. Lakeshore Park, for the past 65 years, has been adequately served by the foresight and planning of Mr. Volney Rogers. If you were standing in the park today you may be lulled into thinking that Lakeshore Park could go on another 65 years just as it is. It could if the rest of Northeast Ohio and the world did not change. This problem alone justifies the need for this study and the need for a new recreation plan for Lakeshore Park. Other, even more subtle, problems for the park have grown over the last few years. The nature of recreation itself has changed. The taxpayers supporting the park demand new types and multiple use forms of recreation. Passive recreation such as feeding the ducks must be balanced with active recreation opportunity such as swimming. Water sports have always been popular recreation forms. 3 The lack of public access to Lake Erie for water sports in the next decade will put more pressure on existing public beaches, boat launching facilities, and marinas. Erosion of the shoreline is another major problem for the park and many other parts of Ashtabula County's shoreline where the clay bluffs have been eaten away by high water levels in recent years and severe northeast storms. Two other problem areas for the park that are both critical and nebulous (in terms of finding and pinpointing causes and solutions) are user apathy and inflation. Recreational users have been lulled into complacency by the sameness and the lack of rejuvenation of many of the best and oldest facilities the park has. Th.e reason why many of these facilities have not been reconstructed, restored, or replaced is the very tight budget the Park Commission has to work with. Support of additional tax revenue through a levy pas.sed a few years ago-pulled the park out of imminent financial disaster and allowed the Park Commission to initiate programs to save the main pavillion from erosion and deterioration due to age. Prom these problem areas this plan has developed a basic set of goals to be eventually accomplished or at least to strive towards. The goals are: 1. Enhance the park's competitive position as a viable land use on Lake Erie's shoreline, 2. Mitigate adverse coastal energy impacts on the park, 3. Develop shoreline protection from erosion, 4. Identify multiple use recreational activity sites, 4 5. Maximize recreational opportunity to all persons on an equal basis and increase the useage of the park, and 6. Develop a capital improvement program within a workable budget. The organization of this plan follows in three phases. The first is an overall perspective of problems shared by the entire land area of the park, including discussions of land use, traffic, security, and the general environment. The second phase within the sequence divides the park into planning areas where each area has natural dissimilarities with the other areas. Map 2 shows the general planning area boundaries within Lakeshore Park. The last phase of the plan blends together the other sections into a composite plan. 5 Map WEST LAKEFRONT CENTRAL L KEFR .... . ............................ "I'll,".."ll, WEST INLAND LAKESHORE PARK RECREATION PLAN PLANNING AREA SCALEINFEET 0 200 400 LAND USE LAND USE '@he land use of the Lakeshore Park area is important to consider first in this recreation plan because the environmental, economic, and social constraints on the park are reflected by neighboring land uses. The general character of the area's land use is predominantly urban. The lakeshore of northern Ashtabula County has been urbanized for many years. Growth pressures in this coastal zone are similar to many other areas in the United States. Demand for residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational land with access to a large body of water is increasing rapidly. The Ohio Coastal Zone Management Program has addressed this issue along with many other coastal related issues. Parks along Lake Erie have been designated areas of particular concern in a generic category due to the importance of preserving public access to Lake Erie. Access to Lake Erie is a regional and state Problem. Lake Erie is Ohio's largest body of water and a large number of people living in Ohio live very near the lake. Recreational access competes with other uses that are important to the overall economics of the State and the United States. Compromising and prioritizing future land uses in the coastal zone will be even more complex as the nation's energy needs are evaluated. Ohio's electrical energy generating plants have to be located near the markets for that energy. They also need water. Both nuclear and fossil fuel plants in the northern part of Ohio could be located near Lake Erie in the future. 7 Land uses are depicted on Map 3 entitled Ashtabula Area Generalized Land Use 1979. This map shows the adjacent land uses around Lakeshore Park as well as the generators of traffic, pollution, and recreational demand. C.E.I. One of the dominant land uses along the Ashtabula shoreline is Lakeshore Parks eastern neighbor The Cleveland Electric Illum- inating Company (C.L.I.). C.E.I. has two generating plants on this property. The eastern plant was formerly owned by the Union Carbide Corporation and its generators are powered by coal. The western plant has five generating units contained within the plant . in 1972, four of the units were converted from coal fired to oil fired in an effort to decrease the air pollution. The fifth generating unit is coal fired and is the major power source of the plant. The other four units are used during peak demand times. To decrease the pollution of the coal fired generating units, C.E.I. is presently installing electrostatic Precipitators that are designed to eventually remove 99.8% of the particular matter rising out of the smoke stacks. The electrostatic precipitators are scheduled to be completed in 1981 and will cost approximately $20 million. Fuels for the generating units are stored to the south and east of the generating plants. Number 6 oil is transported by truck to storage tanks south of the plant. 8 ASHTABULA AREA Map 3 Generalized Land Use 1979 ...... lp Auj ...... 531 Vtoad Lake rie Lalke Uj > Z:v) O:K 0 Z 0 Of% 40 I pi Land Use Key Open Industrial EM 2 0 Commercial Residentia Recreational X SCALE IN FEET Transportation 0 2000 4000 . . . Public &Quasi Public A shtabula County Planning Commission Industrial Nonma nu factoring Coal is trucked or sometimes brought to the plant by rail. The coal storage "mountain" has an 80 day capacity at most times to allow for unanticipated stoppages of supply. Coal is transported from mines in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. Low sulfur coal from the western states is presently not being considered for burning due to the large regional supply of high sulfur coal and its lower price and the availability of low sulfur coal in Kentucky. Expansion of C.E.I.'s facilities is a real possibility in Ashtabula Township. In 1978, C.E.I. President Robert Ginn confirmed the fact that C.E.I. is looking into building another coal or nuclear power plant on the 1,500 acres of land it ownes along Lake Erie in Ashtabula. C.E.I. is expecting Ashtabula, Geauga, and Lake Counties to grow. If U.S. Steel builds, according to its present plans, a Lakefront Steel Mill in Conneaut, the development of a new power plant may be accelerated (see Appendix A). The current C.E.I. facilities in Ashtabula Township have created both negative and positive effects on Lakeshore Park. C.E.I. is one of the largest taxpayers in Ashtabula Township. This tax base provides a substantial income for the park operations and improvements. Additionally, C.E.I. has assisted the park in providing free materials such as fill dirt from time to time. On the negative side, the park has been adversly effected by air pollution, water/shoreline changes, noise, and aesthetics degradation. 10 Air pollution from the C.E.I. power plants currently are primarily particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. The close proxim- ately of the park makes it particularly vulnerable when there is little wind to dissiminate pollutants from the high smoke stacks. Current additions of air pollution control devices should greatly improve air quality as far as reducing the particular matter effluent. Some additional pollution is caused from coal dust when wind patterns are abnormal and come from the east. Water quality and flow have been altered by the outflow structure construction just east of Lakeshore Park and the out- flow of warm water used in the power plant generating processes. The outflow structure effects the littoral drift along the Lake Erie shoreline thus effecting the sand build-up along the park beach. The water temperature influence on the park's shoreline or recreational activities is negligible other than the marine habitat has been altered. The alteration of water temperature effects the fish (and other cold blooded aquatic life) and the sport fishing recreation activities. The warm water attracts some fish during cool water periods of the season. The flow of water also attracts many fish. Most of the sport fishermen fishing from boats (the only allowable method of fishing due to the private access of the area) launch their boats at Lakeshore Park. The aesthetics of the park and its natural beauty are reduced considerably by the C.E.I. smoke stacks. The stacks are the dominant feature of the landscape. Additional structures near the park are usually screened during the summer by a dense row of foliage. During the winter, much of the foliage is off the trees and bushes. Noise from machinery, horns, trucks, loudspeakers, and con- struction equipment are the primary sources of noise pollution. Some of the sound is buffered by the dense foliage between the park and the C.E.I. Port of Ashtabula Another major land use and environmental factor in the park setting are port operations to the west of Lakeshore Park. The park is separated by only a few hundred feet from the nearest dock owned by Pinney Dock and Transport Company. The port operations in Ashtabula Harbor have been traditionally based on iron ore and coal. Stockpiling large amounts of both commodities occurs along the shoreline in large open piles. The coal is continually moved and mixed to prevent combustion. Pinney Dock, in addition to handling iron ore, stores and transports other general commodities. Presently, Ashtabula Harbor is one of the largest iron ore and coal handling ports in the Great Lakes. Coal storage has become a major land use with the price increases in the past years of fuel oil and the instability of the oil supplies. 12 Bulk shipment of coal and ore (usually taconite) by lake freighter has been one of the most cost and fuel efficient means of transport . mhe harbor serves as in the industrialized Great Lakes states the intermodal interface for the break (or transfer) of the bulk camodity from water transport into either truck or rail transport. Future considerations and expansion for the port are limited by available space and competing land uses. r2he port has over- riding economically beneficial effects on the entire county and region. However, the port is bounded on the west by Walnut Beach Park and on the east (a few lots removed) by Lakeshore Park. Expansion to the south would mean considerable dredging and dis- placement of recreational boaters and residential uses. The demand for increased coal and iron ore storage space is a major problem as well as belt system bulk handling and turning/docking space for new larger freighters (1,000 feet or more in length). The new technology and energy demand problems necessitating port expansion could have obvious competitive land use pressures on Lakeshore Park. Air and water quality degmadation problems are the primary port area adverse environmental impacts on Lakeshore Park. Most of the pollution of the air and water either comes from the operation of the various modes of transportation handling iron ore, coal, and other bulk commodities; or from the dispersal of fine particles of coal and iron ore by the wind. 13 The port's transportation network requires the operation of a considerable number of diesel and gasoline powered engines for the ships, trains, trucks, and heavy equipment. The resulting emissions to the air and the noise have an effect on the Park. The effect is accentuated by the prevailing winds and the open water area between the port and the park that provides no buffer to reduce these effects. Air pollution has a more noticeable effect on the Park. Recreational users would probably not notice any of the direct water pollution of the port by itself unless it was coupled to abnormal pollution by other sources or something like an oil spill occurred. Coal dust on the water could be another problem especially if more coal storage areas are developed west of Lakeshore Park. Industry Ashtabula Township, and particularly the area immediately southeast of Lakeshore Park, is the most heavily industrialized area in Ashtabula County. The area is characterized by heavy industries with products such as chemicals, f erro alloys, and other metals. Lakeshore Park is immediately adjacent to bulk oil/gasoline storage facilities to the southeast and southwest. New industries have been developing in the open space areas south of the park and existing industries have made significant expansions in recent years. 14 This land use again creates some direct and indirect adverse environmental effects for recreation users of the park. Air pollution that is most noticeable when traveling to the park on State Road is usually blown east so it does not blow directly toward the park except for a small percentage of the time. Water pollution from industry ef f ects Lakeshore Park in an indirect manner. Industries are permitted (under EPA supervision) to release industrial waste water after it is treated into Field's Brook which is tributary to the Ashtabula River. The Ashtabula River carries the treated effluent north to the harbor area at the mouth of the river as it enters Lake Erie. The effluent dissipates in the lake. Water pollution problems in Fields Brook are not as critical now as they were ten years ago but they are still being addressed in the Ashtabula County Water Quality Management Plan (208) being developed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Surface runoff from industrial areas south of the park drains directly into the ponds in the park. Further industrialization of the open space directly adjacent to the park could alter or pollute these. Residential Neighborhoods Ashtabula Township's Lakeshore Park is at the eastern edge of the residential areas of Ashtabula. Immediately east of the park is a residential area. Most of the homes are single family residences occupied year round. 15 They range in general condition from good to fair and are mostly older homes. There has not been any recent new construction. The neighborhood is characterized by low to moderate income families. Lakeshore Park is the only available open space and play area available in the area north of Columbus Jr. High School and east of the Ashtabula River. 16 TRAFFIC 8t PARKING DIU 9 Lill TRAFFIC AND PARKING Access to Lakeshore Park and internal traffic circulation and parking are of critical importance to the development of the Recreation Plan. Direct public access to Lake Erie for recreational users is the principle objective in the park's road design. The roads also give access to the inland recreational areas and wind around the hills and ponds that give Lakeshore Park its individual scenic character. The policy of the Ashtabula Township Park Commission has been to keep as much of the park in vegetated open space with only minimal paving to satisfy the access and parking needs of visitors. This plan is consistant with that policy. Additional parking has been planned only where new facilities demand increased parking space. Access Map number 4 illustrates the major access corridors and routes to Lakeshore Park. The park fronts on State Route 531 (Lake Road) which carries most of the traffic eventually to the entrances to the park. State Road (Ashtabula County road) ends directly in front of the park's east entrance at the State Road and State Route 531 intersection. State Route 11, a four lane limited access road, has its northern terminus less than one-quarter of a mile away from the park. 17 mm@ml @@m m moo Ohio Ave 80 West Ike %UMW)s !n ti m "Cl m ;a m lk & State Road IF IF IF 91 9r IF IF 9r OF lp r cr c 0 0 c 2 0 m 0 0 0 0 fp m 01 0 0 LIM 0 ASHTABULA TOWNSH.P NORTm KINGSVILLE VILLAGE 'VS State Route 11 is connected directly to Interstate Route 90 south of Ashtabula. State Route 84 and U.S. 20 also feed into State Route 11. Vehicular access to Lakeshore Park both locally and regionally should not present any major problems. Mass transit service via the Ashtabula City Division of Transit's bus system was once available at the park during the summer months. Service was discontinued, but if demand increases for this service as more recreational activities are developed, the system could easily be reinstated. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the park from adjacent neighborhoods is easily routed off the major access highways and onto the residential streets leading to the park entrances. Future regional access may be further enhanced by the development of the proposed Lakeland Freeway (Rt. 2) extension from Painesville to S.R. 11 at Ashtabula. This would shorten travel time from areas west of Ashtabula. Demand for recreational access to Lake Erie should increase in the next few years as the lake's water quality increases and vacationers have less gasoline to utilize on long trips. The existing and proposed highways provide Lakeshore Park with one of the best local/regional Lake Erie access routes in Ohio. 19 Internal Circulation The internal circulation pattern of the park roads adequately handles existing traffic flow within the park on most days. On many peak boating/picnicing days the traffic slows down considerably as car and pedestrian traffic congest the area around the main pavillion. Traffic also slows in the area of the duck ponds. This is usually due to the driver and passengers watching the activity in the pond rather than a large influx of traffic and not enough room to accommodate it. In the park the recreational activities generate the traffic. The higher the quality of the activity and the closer the activity comes to meeting the recreational demand of the community, the higher the traffic generated by that area of land. The recreation plan's goals include maximizing the quality of the park's recreation activities and thereby increasing demand. This could put additional stress on the park's roads. Presently the park closes its roads to automobile traffic during the winter. This lessens the amount of wear on the roads during the season that the road is expanding and contracting. There is no snow plowing to be done nor any salt to be placed on the road surface either. If the Park Commission were to open any portions .of the park roads during the winter season, the maintenance of the roads would rise significantly. 20 Additional circulation problems are created by on-street parking along the roadway, especially between the two duck ponds. Peak day parking overflow has encroached the picnic areas and roadway near the main pavillion and concession stand. Parking The existing parking situation ranges from adequate to intolerable. All of the parking lots are unpaved with only a gravel base. The boat launching area parking lot has seasonal problems with capacity. The area is at capacity or overflowing to other areas on almost every good boating day during the season, at one time or another during the day. The parking area is also eroding away on its western end near the ramps due to heavy wave action during northeast winds and a lack of beach or seawall protection at this point. An area parallel to the road and over looking the boat launching area parking lot is available for diagonal off-street parking. The area also serves as an overflow for the launching area parking lot. 'This area has good potential for a scenic overlook area. A small pavillion looking over the lake is immediately west of this area. The most heavily used parking lot at the park is adjacent to the main pavillion and the concession stand. The children's playground is on the east side of the lot. 21 The area also provides another good viewpoint to overlook the lake and shoreline activity. The large parking lot east of the playground has been converted to a camping area for recreational vehicles. The policy of the Park Commission is to hold this area as a reserve parking area and keep its present use until parking demand increases. South of the camping area and up the hill is another pavillion and picnic area with a small parking lot. This area receives heavy pi cnic useage from group outings. The area is also a base for many winter sled riders going down the hill toward the road. On the east side of the park there are picnic areas, pavillions and tennis courts that require parking areas. There are a few parking spaces along the cul-de-sac in front of the Kiwana's pavillion and the tennis courts. Additional parking parallel to East lst. Street provides parking for the pavillion north of East lst. Street. Future parking considerations should be predicated on recreational demands on new and existing activity areas. Map number 5 illustrates the location of the parking areas and the park roads of Lakeshore Park. 22 1-1-156Y S-5 NXN1 R@@ 0-,,t @ el -tml- 7 � tic ORM10MIM"W4, @1141--f%,% Scale in Feet 0 200 400 MA LAKE SHORE F-/-%RK AV INTERNAL TRAFFIC a PARKING PARKING AREAS (UNPAVED) PARK ROADS Ashtabula County Commissioners Ashtabula County Planning Commission kgt. Ashtabula* Township Park Commission Map 5 I I I I I I I I I PARK SECURITY I I I 1@1 I 1 0 I I I I 0 m PARK SECURITY Lakeshore Park I s security and saf ety will be of paramount con- sideration as the projects in this plan are developed. Existing problems will be amplified as the number of recreational users in the park increase. The major existing security and safety problems are related mostly to vandalism, littering, speed control, and general park emergencies (i.e.-swimming, boating, auto, and fire accidents). Future problems may consist of similar violations of the park's regulations plus those related to the recommended facility improvements. Water related accidents will be a priority concern of the park visitors. As activity increases with boating and swimming, accidents will increase. If the park becomes involved with a marina, toat storage, a lodge, or similar facilities; the available opportunities for vandalism and theft increase. Along with the increased park useage that new facilities attract will come problems with traf f ic and parking. Additional environmental hazards (hazardous materials spills, port fires, oil spills, water pollution, air pollution, etc.) will also effect the safety of the park by the nature of its industrial and port proximity. The mitigation of these present and future safety and security problems should be addressed as the implementation of the park plan progresses. 24 Steps to prevent accidents and lessen park regulation violations can be segmented into various stages rather than implemented at one time. The following list of actions that can be taken by the Park Commission should reduce security and safety problems: 1. Increase lighting in parking and boating areas 2. Upgrade park police protection 3. Increase the number of waste containers 4. Relocate the central waste containment area and daily pick- up of the small containers 5. Construct speed bumps at strategic locations 6. Have park patrols monitor the parking 7. Employ lifeguards 8. Develop direct emergency communications with the Ashtabula Township Fire Department, Ashtabula County Sheriff, and Ashtabula City Police 9. Develop plans to accommodate Coast Guard or Sheriff's Depart- -nent Marine Patrol at the waterfront 10. Fence in secure areas 11. Monitor for environmental hazards (especially air and water) 12. Develop an emergency evacuation plan and procedures It is evident that the recommended facilities construction in this plan will generate additional user levels at the park. The facilities will also necessitate additional budget increases for the safety and security for those users and the park's facilities investment. 25 I I I I I I I I WEST LAKEFRONT AREA I I I i I i - I 1 1 1 1 I I j,:@ t I I VIEST LAKEFRONT AREA The location of this area is graphically displayed in Figure 1. . Currently this area is being used for boat launching from two existing boat ramps which are in disrepair. Additional uses are for parking for the boat ramp and fishing fr.cm tlie breakwall. The brealnqall was partially reconstructed in 1978 for additional protection needed during high water periods. Major problems in the area exist due to deterioration and incomplete lake protection. The boat ramps have suffered from the increased lake level conditions, ice during winter and general decay from age. The parking area has suffered from similar TDroblems and in addition lacks a pavement surface. The breakwall is sufficient in the reconstructed areas, however, it has to be completed to provide adequate protection. The Park Board is already making efforts to correct pro- blems in this area. Replacement boat ramps are currently in the design phase and are high priority on their improvement schedule. As a result the following planning assumptions were used for this area: 1. Current multiple uses for this portion of the park are adequate. 2. The current projects under design will be constructed. 3. Plore intensive uses for this area can be realized. 26 ----_.CENTRAL LA WEST LAKEFRONT . . . ............ . ... ........... ........ WEST INLA FIGURE I LAKESHORE 'PARK'RECREATION PLAN PLANNING AREA SCALE IN FEET 0 200 400 4. This area should maintain its water orientation. MULTIPLE USE ALTERNATIVES A singular two phased alternative is proposed in this area. Phase 1 is a new boat ramp with the appropriate shore protection and auxiliary parking facilities. This proposal is graphically depicted as Figure 2 (found with Figure 25 in the West Inland Area discussion). Phase 2 is a boat marina facility extending north from the main entrance of the boat ramp parking area. These proposals are graphically depicted as Figures 3 and 4. PHASE 1. LAKESHORE PARK BOAT RAMP This project consists of the construction of 3 boat ramps in the same general location as the two existing ramps. A new parking area capable of handling cars and cars with trailers is included. This parking area will be paved with asphalt and lighted. Com- pletion of the breakwall is also required to insure longevity of the new improvements. PHASE 2. LAKESHORE PARK BOAT MARINA The additional proposal for this area is a marina north of the proposed boat ramp. Two alternatives are presented as Figures 3 and 4. Alternative A consists of a 428 boat marina, a breakwal.Vpier combination, a restaurant, boat services and parking. The breakwall/ pier serves a multiple purpose: It functions as a protection device, a fishing pier, and additional parking. 28 leaf Ser&,4 W,@ALL Tc, PijoQey Dc@eX Rose)LL- 5WE&K VALL FWO Fb SEI- 12AKE BRXZ T- Type TURQ0bu0c) i?)k:;'EAK \WALL 1-21 14 @7 u&L @:k s" f5 (Ts%T TT- v6t; LIJ I I -IF--r-r-T-TT-T FT ul SoATS ow 5E-0 $?UBSLE pwo -M CT lot,) 9(:6 rMWA MAQWA -TO IFT-T- pwwef cee-lc .4me FLQA-ri0(j Oocvse@7 STEGEL @"&&7 PlLti,'@ oockn, RL-STA1e4QT 328 I&PACES \VIOTEIZ S10v-ACxE- FLOA1106 SW\jICE- Docks SLIP L40CW AR E-& WOMIRUFF, INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS CLEVELAND. OHIO %IT 590P FIGURE 3 FT@ mems 7 V@. oavm m J-@,& cmv@ un ni,-- F1 @3 UPE LAKE SHORE Ic:'AIYK I-,;ECFZ-AT101V FLAN Z30AT RARflV,4 8 SCALE C90 PROPOSED RUB3LE S90RE P1?0TZ-CT10A1 PPOPOSED, MARINA TO ACCOR,4DArE 400 BOATS F-I ifc S TX URA AJ 7' 60A T 5 709F Li BOAT eA Ml`@' BOA T IfAM)O PA R'K kc- Z A 41AICY Ag,EA The docks are to be of the'floating variety set in seven sets running west of the pier. Parking is the major restriction to the marina size. Two parking areas will function for both winter storage of boats, marina parking and restaurant parking. The first lot will be built north of the existing breakwall by the boat ramp lot. The'oth er wilIbe' on the 80 fcot v@ide pier bulkhead. These lots can handle 328 cars and 270 cars respectively. In addition, the relocation of the existing Coast Guard station is recommended at the end of the pier. This is graph- ically depicted as Figure 5. The new location provides greater access to all portions of the lake and harbor in the Ashtabula District. Figure 6 shows the relation-ship of the marina structure to the rest of Ashtabula Harbor. This outer harbor location should decrease response times by eliminating the slow runninq areas within the harbor and river. Alternative B provides for a marina in the same location as Alternative A. Alternative B (Figure 4) provides for docking of 400 boats in 8 sets of docks. The docks in this Alternative go porth-south abutting to an access road in front of the existing breakwall. Facilities are provided for boat service and a restaurant. 31 Fl(@URF- 5 t)B02E PZ\.P-V- CC)A:t)7 C-nUt@,P-C) -fETtl\TI0KJ pr2om 5tz W,6.LL -DA= -ro VwE51@>LS E>2,P-&V- V\/&LL- cll@ OQ L-Y P&Cr.:f-> InD U7(Ljry l5f?Llll:A-:--t>j CAL ", I-QAILT--P- CC\2- r-*JLq OC2 TUPJJ L\Ql--)UNJC> t)T&TIOU PILI C-2 t>21E*A-@ WN" -.I: -L I I C@Ll Paopco&D CC)4,->T CUwZD-@ 05--5F-b-VN-ttOKI 7OVVEj2- Pplbpo5ED PLOLMuca Doct@ L\NID @--t@,Cj LA-ry WOOE)P-UPF IKV-, LDKT::-!)L-)LTIUC4 FIGURE G LL\V-C- t)L.'oE2E- PL\P-V- VIOUITY ML\P LAV-L --Abl2L- NAN121KIh, SCA L@-7: mloo LAKE EalE "0. 4 t-A A t-.,AN -F-Xll:@)T. Pt-\VIUOW ovvJt- Lm-T rr-71V. F-@ .)TQLLT lkr-- CC>Kl-->ULTlUC-, LWC:oWEL1--)j Parking will be on the bluff requiring land acquisition. The parking area will be capable of handling 400 cars. in this alternative Coast Guard facilities are also pro- vided for. In this alternative they will be located on the west side of the proposed marina. This area should also be ad- vantageous to Coast Guard efficiency. MITIGATION OF ADVERSE COASTAL ENERGY HIPACTS Many of the improvements in this plan effectively mitigate adverse impacts simply by their presence. The most important mitigation is preserving the land and waterfront in the public domain. This is accomplished by providing an active recrea- tional use to counteract the commercial pressure to turn the Jand over to the public sector. By increasing the public use of the area more people have a part in the decision of land control. As this area is directly adjacent to the Pinney Dock Company, and the threat of expansion is always present, these alternatives effectively limit the growth potential yet allow the Dock Company full utilization of existing space. These do however, lend a co- operative setting versus a competitive one. This is expecially true of the marina. 34 SHORELINE PROTECTION Both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 portions of the proposal for this area effectively reduce the shoreline erosion problem in this portion of the park. Within the boat ramp construction project (Phase 1) completion of the breakwall is accomplished. This new construction should prevent further loss of area to the park. Phase 2, the Lakeshore Park Marina, will further mitigate wave action on the west side of the park area. The pier/ breakwall should effectively reduce wave heights and dissipate the energy causing the majority of loss. COST ESTIMATES Budget cost estimates are provided on the following tables for the alternatives presented for this area. These costs represent total costs including engineering and contingencies, and based upon 1979 price indexes. These budget estimates are included only for use in comparison of alternatives and to help establish funding objectives. More exact estimates would have to be made for each individual project after its exact scope and design criteria have been determined. WEST LAKEFRONT AREA COST ESTIMATES Phase 1 Boat Ramp Project $ 520,000 Phase 2 Lakeshore Park Marina Alternative A 4,051,000 Phase 2 Lakeshore Park Marina Alternative B 4,090,000 LAK SHORE PARK RECREATION P1. EUNIATED MARINA PROJECT COSTS-A MARINA PROJECT Floating Docks $ 544,000 328 Car Parking Area 410,000 Roadway 30,000 Parking with Drainage 80,000 Sheet Piling 1,300,000 Fill 533,000 Boat House 200,000 Restaurant 100,000 Rubble Mound Breakwall 260,000 Rubble Mound Shore Protection 500,000 Beacon with Electric 15,000 Dockside Water and Electric Connections 64,000 Marine Service Station 15,000 Total $4,051,000 36 LAKESHORE-PARK RECREATMON PLAN ESTIMATED-MARINA PROJECT COSTS-B MARINA PROJECT Floating Docks with Electric & Water $ 745,000 Land Acquisition 850,000 Parking Area 400 Cars 480,000 Breakwall (1470) 1,081,000 Beacons with Electric 30,000 Service Station 15,000 Roadway 24,000 Restaurant/Boat House 200,000 Sheetpilinq 430,000 Fill 150,000 Demolition of Structures 85,000 Total $4,090,000 37 RECOMMENDATIONS For the West Lakefront area, both the Phase 1 boat ramp project and the Phase 2 Lakeshore Park Boat Marina A proposal should be dev eloped. The major reason for this recommendation is the enhanced opportunity provided to the general public for recreational use of this area. Alternative A Marina proposal is recommended for several reasons. First, it is the least costly of the two alternatives. Second, it does not require the taking of private land that Alternative B does. Finally, the cohesion to the park is enhanced by this Alternative. Revenues pro duced by Alternative A are shown on the fol- lowing table. Indications are that this alternative can effect- ively produce a return on the investment. 38 LAK[SHORE PARK RECREATION PLAN MARIINIA REVENUES* Boat Rental Revenues 600/Boat/Season (416'Slips) $ 249,600 Parking Revenues.Boat Reserved (Y'20/Space) 8,320 General ($1.00) (116 Spaces) 20 Wks @ 9,280 2 Day/Wk 2 Turnover/Day $ 267,200 42800 Gallons per Summer Season 6,420_ @ 15@ Profit per Gallon $ 273,620 NNiAWAL PAYMENTS Annual Payment for 5 1/4% for 20 Yrs. $ 331,988 Annual Payment for 5 1/4% for 25 Yrs. $ 294,674 Annual Payment for 5 1/4% for 30 Yrs. $ 271,081 *Exclude leases and concessions. 39 I I I I I I I I I CENTRAL LAKEFRONT AREA I I I i - I I I I i . i F- - I ZZx > i A I /11 "I-, CENTRAL LAKEERONT AREA The location of this area is graphically displayed in Figure 1 . Currently this area is considered the focal point for all lakefront park activities. Included in this area are the Lakefront Pavilion, rest rooms, refreshment stand and parking. The greatest problem in this area is deterioration o.f structures. The existing pavilion, an Ashtabula landmark, had suffered from considerable lake abuse due to high lake levels. This -oroblem was rectified in 1978 by rebuilding the breakwall which provides additional protection. As a result the pavilion and surrounding mav now be improved. The existing parking area is also in need of rehabili- tation as well as the refreshment stand. The refreshment stand is seriously deteriorated and is in a poor location, interrupting traffic flow. When making the alternatives for this area the following assumptions were made: 1. The Lakefront Pavilion is to be improved and retained and therefore incorporated into the general plan. 40 2. This area is to have a multi-use character but should retain its basically passive nature. 3. To the east will be constructed a beach facility by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to the west will be the boat ramp as proposed in the previous section. 4. This area should retain its passive water orientation. RULTIRLE LISE ALTERNATIVES Two general alternatives for this area are presented in Figures 7 and 8 . A beach alternative depends. upon the decision of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for the adjacent beach area with respect to size (800 feet versus 1300 feet) . An other alternative is for a lakefront picnic area. Both alternatives are feasible. At the present time the area behind the breakwall is being filled. To improve this area a retaining wall to stabilize the fill should be included in both alterna- tives. This would preserve the lower tier of the pavilion for storage facilities. The retaining wall should be between 15 and 20 feet from the pavilion to allow for vehicular access by park personnel and pedestrian traffic. It would also separate these activities from the uses planned for the fill areas. 41 G U R E 7 P\ LTP-12 Q t-\T I V E Z\ ISCIAN LC 1 I L L C\QC> NAWKITW@JC@7C-r-- DQJVe 81/s STOP PULL -7YR'OUC-Y MZ77 OAI-F-M14Y Tj 0 PUMP "5TOMO+j AIC)OVQUpr- Imc. CONSUL-Tluea E141WEV-7p-.5 FIGURF 6 I;-l-F-C2-F-,L,-rIDlJ ClLt\Kj C-C---UT@2&L L&<T--:l=P-OfQT 1-\t-;IEL\ 4\LTF-f2klNTlVL t) f5EAC4-1 PILL I -Awl) P/-\V I L I Oki ,6U5 S7C OAJ.C- M y MP -5-TATICA-i Alternative uses for the fill area are for picnic and play areas. This is graphically depicted in Figure 7 The upper portion of the pavilion should be kept in its cur- rent use and no alternatives are proposed. The lo wer portion should be used for storage or supply facilities should the demand warrant. The storage areas on the west side of the pavilion should be considered for solid waste handling. Rollable dumpster boxes could easily be stored here and pickup could be accomplished via the boat ramp road. The remaining shelters could be used to store trash containers in the winter or could be leased in the future to provide umbrellas, rafts, etc. to the park goers. Alternatives for the refreshments stand are limited to relocation or complete removal. The structure is deteriorated and poorly located in terms of traffic flow and incompatable aesthetically with the pavilion structure. This location would be ideal for a bus turn off or mass transit station. The parking area is needed for use with the beach facility. There is only one alternative and this is presented in Figures 7 & 8. The proposed lot will serve 62 cars and should be paved with asphalt and lighted. Paving is required for two reasons: First to reduce dust and second to increase parking density. 44 It should be noted that in the fill area careful engineer- ing will be required to prevent soil erosion due to over- topping waves washing through the porous rubble breakwall. This measure is not only for aesthetic purposes but also to insure public safety. MITIGATION OF ADVERSE COASTAL ENERGY IMPACTS As is the case with a number of the alternatives, a major mitigation is gained through increased recreational use. By improving the patk facilities more people will frequent the park, thus creating greater public awareness of the need to preserve the park facilities and keep them in the public domain. The iDarking and other facilities provided in this area are integral components of the alternatives in other areas such as the beach area which provide direct mitigation of adverse energy impacts. SHORELINE PROTECTLON In this area the shore erosion problem has been eliminated by the new breakwall built in 1979. COST ESTHIATES Budget cost estimates are provided on the following table for the alternatives presented for this area. These costs represent total costs including engineering and contingencies, and is based on 1979 price indexes. These budget estimates are included only for use in comparison of alternatives and 45 to help establish funding objectives. More exact estimates would have to be made for each individual project after its exact scope and design criteria have been determined. CENTRAL LAKEFRONT AREA COST ESTIMATES Alternative A Retaining Wall $ 26,000 Parking Area 85,000 $ 111,000 Alternative B Parking Area $ 85,000 500' of Beach 1,000,000 $1,085,000 RECOMMENDATION For the Central Lakefront Area alternative A is recom- mended. This alternative is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Cost 2. The 1300' beach alternative cannot be handled without massive parking improvements. 3. Improved multi-use orientation. Removal of the existing concession stand is also recom- mended. Replacement with a bus stop is the most feasible 46 I I I concept. A new refreshment stand in the East Lakefront Area I is suggested and discussed in the following section. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 47 I I I I I I I I I EAST LAKEFRONT AREA I I I I - i I I i I . it . - !Z"/- 1 14% I I I EAST LAKEFRONT AREA The location of this area is depicted in Figure 1. Currently this area is being used for a recreational vehicle campground. All necessary services, electricity, water-arid sewer are provided to the campers. In this area a major erosion problem exists. As a result, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers was called in to evaluate possible corrective measures. Their recommendation was to place a beach in this area either 800 or 1300 feet in length. Protection for the beach would be provided by a two segment breakwall for the 800 foot beach alternative, a three segment wall for the 1300 fo ot beach or a continous wall to protect the entire park. Limitations on the development of the project are parking and financing. The 800 foot beach was considered more acceptable by the Park Commission because it protected the area east of the pavillion adequately, provided a recreation beach, did not require unrealistic amounts of parking space, and the cost of the project was not prohibitive if assistance was available from the State of Ohio and the federal government. The 1300 foot beach would serve the purpose of protecting the main pavillion as well as the east bluff area. The pavillion is protected by a recently constructed sea wall. This wall would have to be torn down before the beach could be constructed. 48 ZZ While the 800 foot beach does not match the bathing area of the 1300 foot beach proposed, the 800 foot beach will accom- modate the future peak demand for the next twenty years or more. This projection is based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stage II Report for the Lakeshore Park Beach Erosion and Shoreline Protection Study, August 1979. The projected instantaneous future peak daily demand for the year 2032 is 2,765. The 1300 foot beach has the capacity for 3,761 people and the 800 foot beach can accommodate 2,315 people. The minimum beach area requirement in these projections is 75 square feet per bather. The 1300 foot beach does meet the projected demand for fifty years. A.>ecause of the lower bathing area capacity projection for the 800 foot beach, the parking demand is lower than the 1300 foot beach. The Park Commission has planned for about 556 parking spaces to be utilized by the bathers. The Corps of Engineers has estimated that by 2002 (when the beach will be at its maximum capacity) the parking will be at maximum if 3.6 persons per car are riding to the beach. The table below shows a comparison of the two beach sizes for capacity of beach and parking. 49 Lakeshore Park Beach Area Parking Requirements 800 Foot Beach x 217 Feet Wide 173,600 square feet 3.99 AC @ 100 square feet/Person Average Day 1736 Persons @ 75 square feet/Person Peak Day 2315 Persons 1736 Persons @ 4/car 434 Autos 2315 Persons @ 4/car 579 Autos 1300 Foot Beach x 217 Feet Wide 282,100 square feet 6.48 AC @ 100 square feet/Person Average Day 2821 Persons @ 75 square feet/Person Peak Day 3761 Persons 2821 Persons @ 4/car 705 Autos 3761 Persons @ 4/car 940 Autos The demand for parking for the 1300 foot beach would escalate 675 by 2032 as estimated by the Corps of Engineers and upwards to 940 spaces as indicated in the last line of the table above. The final element considered by the Park Commission in the comparison of the 1300 and 800 foot beaches was the cost of the project. The Corps of Engineers (in the previously cited report) estimated the total cost of the 1300 foot beach with three offshore breakwaters at $2,435,700 and the 800 foot beach with two offshore breakwaters at $1,666,800. These costs were calculated using May 1979 construction costs and price levels. The non-Federal share of the project is $603,440 for the 800 foot beach project and $1,351,515 for the 1300 foot beach project. 50 If the State of Ohio participated in the funding assistance of the project'to a maximum of two-thirds the non-Federal share, the Park Commission's cost would be $450,505 for the 1300 foot beach project and $201,146 for the 800 foot beach project. The present budget of the Ashtabula Township Park Commission could not withstand the type of expenses incurred for the 1300 foot beach along with the annual beach nourishment costs. The Park Commission has determined that it could consider the costs of the 800 foot beach in a few years. The cost could go up depending on the rate of inflation for this type of construction project. The following assumptions were used for this area: 1. The park desires a new beach and shore protection. 2. -Parking is required to accomplish the above goal. MULTIPLE-USE ALTEENATIVES The proposed beach is to be located in the East Lakefront Area. This will change the erosion prone deteriorating area to an active, highly populated one. Parking to serve the beach is a main concern of this study. At present, the old parking area is now a campground. Alternatives for this area are for the most part, to return 51 the parking lot to its original use. Figures 9 and 10 show various parking alternatives which were investigated in an effort to maximize capacity. All Figures have calculations of parking capacity for the alternatives. In order to gain parking in the West Inland Area (See Fig- ure I )relocation of the maintenance facilities to this lot is considered. Figures 11 and 12 show the various parking alternatives modified to include a maintenance facility. Figures 11 & 12 collate the possible alternatives. In all cases asphalt paving and lighting is suggested to reduce dust and provide appealing facilities. Electric utilities should be placed under- ground. The existing trailer connections should be dropped to ground level and preserved for possible future uses. A new modern "lumber" playground is also suggested for this area to replace existing facilities. Lumber playground systems have lower maintenance costs, longer life-spans, are more aesthet- ically pleasing, and tend to hold children's interest longer than traditional equipment. Beach oriented activities are slated for this area with the development of a new pavilion. This pavilion would have a refreshment stand to replace the structure in front of the Lakefront Pavilion. In addition a bath house with showers, and rest room facilities would be provided in this structure. 52 FIGURE 9 TD Q op(o---sr-- L L\ La:EC-PZF-.NTlC)" PL&KJ I`= xio, PIN 0- V- I u C.2 ?2C)Po-@)ED Pt-\\) I LOU W/ 2-L'PP-C--')Llt\A4-7- WT:) LU M EME Cl :5LOWE-D-n 2E--)720C*\A!-> .4\CLZ--3@) DOVE rvc'@ C3 EYt:5Ti@-J4::z, Onno LOT .24rn IV M550 ClL < wcoD PF I W-C. cc@@x@ LTI "G UEF-12!> F)GURE )0 P20pol--)ED Pt-lvluc>Q '575 n>j@\Aj r- a-5 P-;-: @'T l2c,@@ @o L 98-) ALTZP-W\Tl\JQ p>2l,>ptz>-S E 0 PL\Pll:@- I KA Or ef --5L%OWlJ LAU Ds Lr@> nVe I 4 1-5 Lat'i C> AL7,t-ZkJA71VE B-4 utsl tAG tic. IAO 4 < ice IK@C, Co@j5UL-TjKjC FICURE li F:!> E-7 A," 2F=C-[2P:&TIOQ PL&U 17->F-ACU -SE-C?-ViC-f-- A t@3 E-)(I-->TU4-rj !!)ao P4j2xtUc.-, LoT FICIURE 12 AT I C) ki IDL-L\ki LE: 50 %:;"&a W-1 Q C-3 (G u ki C> AIX) E>EL%C-U C3 U--swcl CE@)Oo P&V-k-,IKjC, 725 4 LTZ 2- tj A-T- I V F- L\ i K I T F-U i\- W C-E UMAUCA 6000 PZIP-V-IKIG rl Va V-s @-:i > L t-\ UD! -IIC@ @ZC-2 pb,2y-lK" w C> 4 WO DI@UFP IkJC-. COkl5UCTIKIC--3 G:.kjc-j)Kjp L L L L 0 M 10 8 U.S. EAST BREAKWATER L .4 KE ERI E w z PROPOSED 3: BREAKWATERS ?50 6 250 750 PROPOSED 4, BEACH FILL 000 ASHTABULA HARBOR, OHIO LAKESHORE PARK BEACH RESTORATION STUDY ALTERNATIVE 2 LAKESHORE PARK U S ARMY EN@INEER DISTRICT BUFFALO 'Fig. 13 /0 U.S. EAST BREAKWATER 8 L A KE ER E /0 w lo, z cr 8 Ld PROPOSED BREAKWATERS Z50 1 EAST 6 CIE t4j\kN 4 Z15 250 750 PROPOSED BEACH FILL 4, A@ el PARTIALLY REMOVE EXISTING REVETMENT ASHTABULA HARBOR, OHIO LAKESHORE PARK f BEACH RESTORATION STUDY ALTERNATIVrE 3 LAKESHORE PARK U S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT BUFFALO F ig. 14 /0 8 U.S. EAST BREAKWATER LAKE ERIE /0% w z w 8 4 PROPOSED 4, FB7EA7CH FILL JBOo ASHTABULA HARBOR, OHIO LAKESHORE PARK BEACH RESTORATION STUDY ALTERNATIVE 4 LAKESHORE PARK U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT BUFFALO Fig. 15 /0 8 U.S. EAST BREAKWATER L AKE ERIE /0 lo, z n: w 8 6 6 4 PROPOSEll BEACH FILL] PARTIALLY REMOVE EXISTING REVETMENT 4 1-500 ASHTABULA HARBOR, OHIO LAKESHORE PARK BEACH RESTORATION STUDY ALTERNATIVE 5 LAKESHORE PARK U.S ARMY ENdINEER OISTRICT BUFFALO Fig. 16 U.S. EAST BREAKWATER /0 8 L AKE ERIE J, 11,000 250' /0 PROPOSED z 25 BREAKWATER Ir w 8 4 PROPOSED BEACH FILL 4, BOO ASHTABULA HARBOR,01-110 LAKESHORE PARK BEACH RESTORATION STUDY ALTERNATIVES 7 AND 7A LAKESHORE PARK U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT BUFFALO Fig. 17 U.S. EAST BREAKWATER 8 LAKE ERIE 2@000 250't /0 PROPOSED z 250 BREAKWATER a: Lu 8 4 PROPOSEDL BEACH FIL] PARTIALLY REMOVE ell EXISTING REVETMENT ./.5001 4, ASHTABULA HARBOR,OHIO LAKESHORE PARK BEACH RESTORATION STUDY ALTERNATIVES 8 AND BA LAKESHORE PARK U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT BUFFALO Fig. 18 COST ESTIMATES Budget cost estimates are provided on the following table for the alternatives presented in this area. These costs represent total costs including engineering and contingencies, and are based on 1979 cost indexes. These budget estimates are included only for use in comparison of alternatives and to help establish funding objectives. More exact estimates would have to be made'for each individual project after its exact scope and design criteria have been determined. EAST LAKEFRONT AREA COST ESTIMATES Alternate A Beachfront Parking Area (267) $ 288,000 800' of Beach 1,925,000 Beach Pavilion and Bath House 500,000 $ 2,713,000 Alternate B Beachfront Parking Area (261) $ 334,000 800' of Beach 1,925,000 Beach Pavilion and Bath House 500,000 $ 2,759,000 64 Alternate C Beachfront Parking Area (197) $ 235,000 Maintenance Parking Area 37,000 Maintenance Structure Replacement 268,000 800' of Beach 1,925,000 Beach Pavilion and Bath House 500,000 $ 2,965,000 Alternate D Beachfront Parking Area (200) $ 279,000 Maintenance Area Parking 41,000 Maintenance Structure Replacement 268,000 800' of Beach 1,925,000 Beach Pavilion and Bath House 500,000 $ 3,013,000 KC011-11MENDAT IONS For the East Lakefront Area, Alternative A is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Least cost. 2. Greatest parking capability. 3. Greatest use of existing facilities. 4. Most appealing to the public. 65 The following comments should be noted: 1. The 800 foot beach with the twin breakwalls is recom- mended for the following reasons: a. Least cost. b. Parking constraints as indicated in the intro- duction. 2. The beach service access drive can be located at either the east or west side of the beach. 3. The lakefront beach pavilion will greatly increase beach attendance. 4. This parking area can handle 267 cars. 5. A new lumber playground should be constructed. 66 EAST INLAND AREA J5. EAST INLAND AREA The location of this area is displayed in Figure 1 Currently this area is an activity area for small open space activities. An older pole pavilion and a rest room building occuping this area. The area is served by a gravel parking lot. This area is especially vulnerable to encroachment by CEI from the east as it, too, is open space. As a result, this portion of the park needs new development opportunities. The terrain is plateau-like with steep hills on three sides limiting potential alternatives. The following assumptions are used in the design of. alternatives for this area: 1. The area should fit in with the multi-use character. 2. Possible winter sports are viable. 3. Location to main gate is advantageous. 4. Year round activities would mitigate CEI encroachment better than seasonal. MULTIPLEASE ALTERNATIVES Three considerations are examined for this area: 1) Re- placement of the campground facility; 2) Parking for beach goers and 3) Year-round activity. In all alternatives winter sports is a consideration as this is the prime location in the park for this activity. In an effort to gain parking for the proposed.beach area, the first alternative calls for three parking lots. These lots would be capable of handling 116 cars in the summer season for beach traffic. In the winter one of the lots would be flooded to become an outdoor skating rink. In winter parking would be reduced to 81 spaces. Replacement of the pole pavilion with a new pavilion with a fire place and rest rooms is proposed. The hill towards the lake would be used for sledding and toboganning (Figure 19). Two alternatives, Figures 20 and 21, involve campground facilities to replace the existing facility at the lakefront. Both layouts provide for full hookups (water, sewer ahd electric) at every campsite. The slant-in design provides for 21 sites. The shamrock design has 24 sites. Both require a pavilion with facilities. The slant-in design provides less roadway but has smaller campsites. The shamrock design provides greater privacy, more space and greater separation. The final alternative calls for a 30 unit motel (Figure 22) with restaurant and banquet facilities. The motel would be a terraced design looking out to the lake. Parking for the motel could handle 97 cars. The motel/restaurant would be open on a year round basis and in the summer would benefit from the tourists, and in the winter benefit from the numerous 68 MITIGATION OF ADVERSE COASTAL ENERGY 11111PACTS The beach proposal gives a direct impact to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company's Ashtabuia Plant. By providing a viable recreation alternative adjacent to CEI, the electric utility will be limited to expansion into park lands by the public use. In addition the increased number of people become a "watch dog" over CEI's emissions and outward operations. Although CEI currently has no plans for the open parcel adjacent to the park, (which is their property), its long term open space use cannot be assured. By improving the park along this area it insures the park's continued existence and limits the utilitie's expansion to land it now owns. SMORIELINE PROTECTION Shoreline protection in this area is the key to the entire recreation plan. The addition of the new beach with its pro- tecting breakwalls corrects the greatest erosion problem in the park (and yields the greatest recreation improvement on a per capita benefit basis). All options presented by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Figures 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18) would eliminate or delay the erosion process and provide a recreation option. Alternatives 2 and 3 are considered alternatives in this plan. (Figures 13 and 14) 57- FIGURE e-'>0 PAV(L(C*j t<JUTIC5 I TT-k f7 E=! @sT Ptmzle-l"(f. Lr;r 5(p t5w&C-F-5 Abe%, C-)O, r-:LCODF-D iU W(&jT4::a x 1DOC, WOODIZU We- COKV5uLTlKjcj Pir-luRE 20 rl I AL7E2-KJL\-TIVE, 17 e PI R) T 2-- CCE i FE 15 &OF-00 QZ)O m P 2,0 P05 C-7-D T@IINIL V,40C>E>Qupp lKjr-. C-C>Kl!t>[email protected] FIGURE 21 PLt\Kl IQL&LJD L\,@2f=-\ -TF Cos AL -P-K]&TIVE C- 0'7 W2 'Plzc>[email protected]) PAV(L-I -I P,6,--J L IT PZDP05tao FICURE 22 Lt-,V-@ --:A PIL&KJ &L7E2N@L-\-T-F= ID 17 Ilk Co w/BAWqUET FACILITIES 403-01 iQ(L- industries located adjacent to the park. TION VES _COM All the alternatives presented mitigate impacts to some degree. The greatest mitigation is achieved by the year round motel/restaurant combination, the 1east by the parking areas. As is the case in most of the park,mitigation is achieved by increased use leading to increased public awareness. But unlike the beach area, this area needs a reliable, con- sistant year round draw, best achieved by the motel/restaurant. The motel/restaurant not only provides for mitigation, but for cooperation. Local industries will use the meeting and banquet facilities, lending to greater affiliation be- tween the park and its competitors for space. The campground alternatives have only a seasonal draw relying on winter sports for its winter use. Although the existing campground proves that use in summer months will be effective mitigation, winter interest will be -limited. The parking areas supply very little to no direct mitigation for the park. 73 CUT ISILM111IRLS Budget cost estimates are provided on the,following table for thealternatives presented in this area. These costs represent total costs,including engineering and contingencies, and are based on 1979 cost indexes. These budget estimates are included only for use in comparison of alternatives and to help establish funding objectives. More exact estimates would have to be made for each individual project after its exact scope and design criteria have been determined. EAST UNLAND AREA COST ESTIMATH Alternate A Pavilion Replacement $ 84,000 Skating/Parking Lot (35) 55,000 Roadway 14,000 Parking Area (25) 26,000 Parking Area (56) 56,000 $ 235,000 Alternate 21 Space Slant-In Campground $ 164,000 Pavilion Replacement 84,000 S 248,000 74 Alternate C 25 Space Shamrock Campground $ 195,000 Pavilion Replacement 84,000 $ 279,000 Alternate D Motel $ 450,000 Restaurant 100,000 Parking 135,000 $ 11085,000 RECOMMENDATION For the East Inland Area the motel/restaurant alternative is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Greatest direct mitigation to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and 2. Greatest use to the Ashtabula Community, and 3. Best developes a cooperative attitude between in- dustry, community and the park. Although the alternative has the greatest cost, the miti- gation derived from this single source provides the greatest benefit. Should this alternative prove too costly, the Shamrock campground provides the next best use. This facility, however, 75 I I I does not instill cooperation and have a year round benefit. As aIresult the motel/restaurant is the most desirable. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 76 I I I I I I I I I CENTRAL INLAND AREA I I .I I i I -- I I I I ?o i i I i @l I "C's I I I 1/1, CENTRAL INLAND AREA The location of this area is graphically displayed in Figure 1 . Currently this area is being used for passive recreational uses. - Major problems in the area exist due to noise generated off Route 531. This is produced bV the large volume of truck traffic. Assumptions used for this area are: 1. Due to topographic and locational constraints this area should remain in a passive role. 2. The area is densely wooded and should remain as such. MULTIPLE USE ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives are presented, as well as the no action alternative, for this area. The first alternative calls for construction of a noise attenuation mound. This would be an earthen structure graded into the natural landscape and vegetation on top. The exact height would.take a noise study to determine. However using height maximums based on the noise producers, the structure would require a base between thirty and seventy feet wide depending on location. Alternative two calls for revegetation of the area close to the roadway. This would not eliminate noise as a mound 77 would but could reduce it from its present levels. MITIGATION OF COASTAL ENERGY IMPACTS This area, like some of the others, requires use as a requisite for mitigation. By providing a stimulating retreat-like atmosphere people will use this area to get away. The more people using the facilities,* the greater the public opinion will be to keep the park. There are no direct mitigation benefits as a result of these alternatives. COST ESTIMATES Costs for these alternatives cannot be determined without further study. A noise analysis complete with a cost/benefit analysis is required to determine actual sizes and attentuation characters. RECOMMENDATIONS For the Central Inland Area the no action alternative is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The area is functioning adequately as a transition buffer area between the road and the park, and 2. The attentuation mound would require to much area at its base, and . 3. The cursory cost/benefit ratio for the mound system appears to be uneconomically low. 78 The addition of trees to the area is recommended to further enhance this portion. Additionallv, dredging of the upper lake should be considered. Please note however, that the habitat produced in the southeast section of the upper lake should be left undisturbed as it is a benefit to wildlife. 79 I I I I I I I I I @WESTINLAND AREA I I I I I I I i I I 1 1 I I - i 1 .6. I I I z WEST INLAND, AREA The location of this area is depicted in Figure 1 Currently, this area has the following park uses: A softball diamond with bleachers, tennis courts, maintenance facilities, rest rooms, the Kiwanis Pavilion, and a new pavilion, a 11petting" zoo and a lake. In this area two major problems exist: Inadequate parking and building disrepair. Parking is currently limited to off- street only with no lots provided. Anticipated maintenance facilities in disrepair cause a visual disruption of the parks aesthetic character. A potential hillside erosion problem also exists in the zoo area. The following assumptions were used for formulation of concepts in this area: 1. A multi-use character is still desired. 2. Parking areas are needed. 3. Greater access is needed to the new pavilion. MULITIASE ALTERNATIVES Alternatives suggested for this area are generally modifi- cations of the existing facilities. The greatest improvement suggested is the' development of a paved parking area at the site of the existing turnaround. This is depicted on Figure 23 80 The proposed parking area will have a Ill car capacity providing parking for the tennis courts, softball field, Kiwanis and new pavi] ions. Additional paved p,-ii--kiiiq wil.] be provided by 90' off-street parking along First Street versus the current parallel type. These 102 spaces will serve as parking for the new pavilion and act as a scenic overlook. (Figure 25) Reconstruction of the maintenance facility is another major improvement suggested. Relocation to the lakefront lot, as described in the discussion on the East Lakefront Area, or reconstruction at the present location are considered. A proposed parking area for the 33 cars could replace the main- tenance area should relocation to the lakefront be recommended. A new softball field of the competition variety is sug- gested in Figure 24 . This would further improve the multi- use character of the area. The existing stands and back-stops can be used, but in order to gain a regulation diamond, the field must be reoriented and the stands and backstop relocated. Alternatives ranging from elimination to an eliminating project are examined for the zoo area. Animal wastes and soil released by the lack of vegetation are causing numerous problems for the lower lake. 81 FIGURE 23 W @7-5T lkjl--A.NJC) t\ZEA 15 dam -T jz-e-@ e.-Z;5 rN 7t::) -Am Yl; L'\wv &IL 1, f1l X Ey- I T "D L&x-E wout)L F-7 7-7 F- ry WOpD2@UPP IKIC-. COki:!5UL-T(KJCm.P-kAc3(uEy-2-t> FIGURE 24 <R-c--mLrivE- e- I\T I mAj1jrE1.1,d 41cc LP 67 \f@l PlaLCD FEXIIMU6 14JCQQ@ -.FJ, GUR -PAZV- izr-rt2rbnokj PL&IJ E5c,&-r aa-mg> LZA'LAC." A5,.QAZ& I - -- PENAMP- GXjt;nkjC4 BO&T 2AMP-5 AWO PZWILICAJ W00012UrP lklr-. CO6,J.5ULr1Uc. rk,@lUF_F FIGURE 25 LAKE- 5wotZE- pARt< TIOW PLAN P -TP k- _RVIATIVE B N 00 't, A PAY-"H to J- elolzd ;L pap-KINL' r C- 66 sph'-F-s PAV11-10,1 p wct V-K .5T11KA&C1 TE QTS b3 CRST ESTIMAITS Budget cost estimates are provided on the following tables for alternatives presented for this area. These costs represent total costs including engineering and contingencies and based upon 1979 cost indexes. These budget estimates are included only for use in comparison of alternatives and to help establish funding objectives. More exact estimates would have to be made for each individual project after its exact scope and design criteria have been determined. WEST INLAND AREA COST UJIMATES Alternative A Dredge Lake $ 7,000 Tennis Court Parking Area 155,000 Softball Field Replacement 2,000 Maintenance Area Replacement 268,000 Off-Street Parking Improvements 102,000 $ 534,000 85 Alternative B Dredge Lake $ 7,000 Soft Ball Field Replacement 2,000 Maintenance Area Replacement @ Beach 268,000 Off Street Parking Improvements 102,000 $ 420,000 RE COMMENDAT IONS For the West Inland Area Alternative A is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Greatest benefit to the total park concept. 2. Best location for maintenance facilities for winter operation'. 3. Provides some of needed parking. 86 ----------- ---------- :----- ---------- ;----------------- ---- ---- ---- -- ----------- -- ...... . ...... ........... .................................................................. ............ ....................... I .......... ............ .......... . ............ ............. 6h .... ...... ............ ............. .......... Scale In Feet ............ ...... ...... 0-:::::::::::: i60-':':': ':':':'6'0'0'' ............ ............. .............. ............ ............. ........................... .......... ............................ ........................... ........................... .............. .............. M. 0 ........... .......................... ............. ..... . .............. .......... ........... ..... ..... ... ... ......................... ................ ::::: .............. :::::. @- , *, * ............................. .... .... ............. .... ... ........................... ............. ....................... .............. ......... ............. ...... ............. ........... * ....................... :::::::::::r0:A=W4?F :081 ........................... ............... ........... ......................... I.................. ......................... ............. ...... ............. ............. ............... PROPOSED .................. ............................................. ........ ......... ....... 141. -SPACES .... .......... .............. I: f 1:1: 1 ]T I I 1: 1: 1:0 ................. ........... ............. .............. .......... .............. J. ........ ............. ................... ............ ........ .............. . ..................................... ............... PROPOSED. .................................................. ................. .......... .......... I........................................ ..................... ............ ...... ....M ....... ............ 904r. WOP VIU0, -::: :::::::: .... ...................... ...... ..... ............ ACCESS DRIVE ..................................... D9@@:PIQVIV-ARE4 .......... .. :::::: !: 1: jJ:!!.. k! j ...... ... . ... .... .... ........... ................ I: 1XI: [3: 1j: . ........ ... .... Ste $AM -PARKINC L .......... or eoo 267 SPACES f .......... WTS Paw SrWrlolv MAN" PL ...... Awavesm I PROPOSED AWRMC 900 AWPOSM 0/ FS 9, PA CES PAMM 459 ....... ... . ... . . . E, IST 57' SPACES PfiacCMD AARMP 900 PMK 6 6 W CES SUPERINMIU-1 PRCPWED MUSE PARKING 900 13, M SPA CES MA1W7FNAAfC9'--- SHOP w U) E 2 NO. 71; Ashtabula CountV Planning (C@ommjqsjon Dravin by: Kon Thomas '79 COMPOSITE MASTER PLAN COMPOSIT MASTER PLAN The following figures are an aerial photo of the park, taken in 1978, representing the existing condition, and a composite of the recommendation showing the plans for the future. The plan for the future blends together all the recommendations and improvements into one mitigated easy to read map. It is hoped that by the year 2000 thepark will appear as, or at least be progressing towards, the colored map provided. 89 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The following Implementation Schedule is recommended for the proposed improvements: CAPITAL RIPROVEMENIT PPOGRAM COMPLETION SCHEDULE 1930 Boat Ramp and Retaining Wall 1981 Dredge Ponds and Make Off-Street Parking Improvements. 1982 Beach 1983 Beachfront Parking Area 1984 Bathouse/Pavilion 1985 Pavilion Parking Area 1986 Marina 1987 Dredge Ponds 1988 Tennis Court Parking Area 1989 Maintenance Facility Replacement 1990 Land Aquisition West 1991 Softball Field 1992 Lodge Facility 90 INVENTORY OF COSTS The recommended projects and their estimated costs are listed below- 1. Boat Ramp Project $ 520,000 2. Lakeshore Park Marina Alternative A 4,051,000 3. Pavilion Retaining Wall 26,000 4. Pavilion Parking Area 85,000 5. Beachfront Parking Area 288,000 6. 800' Sand Beach with Breakwalls 1,925,000 7. Beach Pavilion and Bath House 500,000 8. Motel/Lodge Facility 450,000 9. Restaurant/Banquet Facility 100,000 10. Dredge Lakes (2) 7,000 11. Tennis Court Parking Area 155,000 12. Softball Field Replacement 2,000 13. Maintenance Area Replacement 268,000 14. Off-Street Parking Improvements 102,000 Total $8,479,000 91 I a I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY I I I I I I I I m A SUMMARY The final recommendation of this plan is to implement as many of the specific projects or segments of the plan as soon as the Park Commission can. An itemized project and program list for future park development is as follows: 1. The proposed boat ramp project should be completed as proposed in the design process. 2. The marina proposal "A" consisting of the breakwall/ pier, parking, boat house, etc. should be promoted and given high priority in the park plan. This 428 boat facility is needed for the park, the community and the region. 3. The U.S. Coast Guard should be approached in the case of any new marina type project for occupancy. This location appears to have physical advantages over the present site. 4. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers should be assisted in any way possible to have the new beach facility in place at the earliest possible time. The 800 foot beach is the best project size for overall park development. 5. Provisions should be taken for stabilization of the fill area behind the pavilion. A retaining wall and provisions along the breakwall are required. A picnic area atop of the fill should be developed. 6. The existing pavilion structure should have the lower tier developed for alternative uses. Provisions should be made to assure the structures continued good appearance. 7. Provisions should be made for local mass transportation in front of the pavilion. Relocation of the existing refreshment stand to the beach area is recommended. 8. A new parking area at the pavilion is required. This lot could occupy the existing dirt lot siteF however, it should be paved and lighted. 92 9. A new pavilion with bath house and refreshment facilities should be constructed in front of the new beach. 10. A lumber playground, to replace the existing playground, would have greater appeal to youngsters. The location of this facility adjacent to the pavilion and overlooking the beach would allow a parent to be "two places at once". 11. Additional parking for the new beach will be provided at the site of the existing recreational vehicle camp- ground. This lot should be paved with asphalt and lighted. This lot would service 267 cars. 12. A motel/banquet/restaurant facility is recommended. This will provide a year round use for the park. In addition it will fill a void in the community by providing banquet facilities close to the industrial area, lending a cooperative feeling among the parks neighbors. The motel will overlook the lakb and have 30 units. 13. New maintenance facilities should be built at the present location taking into account total park aesthetics unlike the present facility. 14. A new competitive softball field should be considered at the site of the existing field. 15. A new parking area at the site of the existing turnaround is recommended to serve the upper pavilions, tennis courts and softball field. The area should be paved and lighted and would serve 111 cars. 16. The parallel parking along First Street should be converted to 900 straight-in parking. It should be paved and lined and would serve 102 cars. 17. The "petting" zoo should be either relocated or redesigned to prevent erosion. 18. Both ponds in the park should be dredged. On the upper pond, however, excellent wildlife habitat has been created, that should be preserved. 19. The garbage containers should be relocated to the pavilion's lower tier. Using the storage areas adjacent to the new boat ramp, access should be easy. 93 20. The marina as proposed is a self-financing venture, if the capital can be gained. 21. The strongest mitigation against coastal energy impacts is the increased public use of the Township Park, leading to increase public opinion against its demise. The alternatives presented in this report are for increasing this public use. The recommendations, as a result, should be highly considered and as funds become available, implemented. 22. Additional vegetative cover to mitigate lack of aesthetics of adjacent land uses and structures. Completing these projects will not be an easy task for the Park Commission. The Commission will have to combine perseverence and cooperation with many public agencies and private citizens to coordinate the development effort outlined in this plan. The limited resources of the Ashtabula Township Park Commission will have to be multiplied by funds from the State of Ohio and the Federal Goverment. Concurrently, the Park Commission must go to the people of Ashtabula Township and sell them on the concept of redeveloping Lakeshore Park. Community support of the overall recreation plan as well as individual projects within the plan is of primary importance to the success of this plan. 94 I I I I I I I I I I II APPENDIX I I I I I I I I I THURSDAY@,HOVIZMNER 13,1978 in Lake utifit growth n'ter ys to ce A i- h M D! @ta;@,, @ G @ da" shtabulc,l n mum k lum P ant 'in CEI's future By BILL MEYER Regional Press Reporter Lake, Ashtabula and Geauga Counties. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Cuyahoga County is not going to grow in the future as quickly as in the past. Co.; which services Ashtabula, Lake Eventually, we're going to need more and Geauga Counties, is spending $1.5 plants in this area," Ginn said. billion in the next five years on new construction and may locate a new The construction of a Conneaut steel nuclear power plant along Lake Erie in mill by U.S. Steel could have a lot to say Ashtabula County by the mid 1990's. about whether or not Ashtabula gets a nuclear power plant, Ginn notea. Even so, CEI must contend with a Already CEI's,. "eastern district" declining growth rate in the demand for (Ashtabula, Lake and Geauga Coun- electricity, a slump which has already ties) has two nuclear reactors capable caused delays in the ambitious con- of generating 1,205,000 killowatts each struction schedule. in North Perry along with coal-fired plants in Ashtabula and Eastlake. The company is one of the biggest in interview the company is looking into CEI says its $1.5 billion construction the possibility of building yet another program is needed to keep pace with coal or nuclear power plant on land it the boom in population taking place owns, along Lake Erie in Ashtabula within the rim surrounding Cleveland. County. This year, the electric company added 10,000 new lines and is forecasting a "I really believe the growth ar6a is in jump in electricat generation from its northeast Ohio with more than 700,0W present 67,000,000 megawatt hours a customers in an area of 1,700 square year 'to more than 108,000,000 megawatt miles from Avon in Lorain County east hours a year by 1988. to the Ohio-Pennsylvania border. CEI produces about ope percent of the total The massive construction program U.S. electrical output. gets a big boost in 1979 when the company expects to shell out just under CEI now owns Al or part of slR coal- M million for different.con4truction fired generating uqits and one nuclear projects. The money is CEI's share of reactor at the Davis-Besse plant in Port $8.5 billion earmarked for 27 different Clinton, Ohio. But by 1988, CEI hopes to construction projects by the Central A I have another coal-f1red unit in Penn- Area Power Coordination Group sylvania operating and seven more (CAPCO) by 1988. nuclear reactors scattered along Lake Erie and into eastern Pennsylvania. But already, the construction program has run into problems. And that may not be all. CEI Recently, CEI and CAPCO announced President Robert Ginn confirmed in an delays of from one to two years in the See NUCLEAR, Page A-6 Nuclear construction of three nuclear power than expected peak loads since 1973, but proved method of disposing of the plants, including the two reactors at have also resulted in significantly lower nucelar waste has been found. It is Up to Perry. It was the second such delay forecasts for the future." the federal government to come up with since the plant was announced in 1971. a solution, but now, in the fourth decade Still, the company, as a member of of atomic power, they're still looking. And construction of four other the CAPCO consortium, plans. on ad- nuclear reactors in Ohio are being ding its new coal-fired plant and seven "While the problems relating to studied for similar delays by CAPCO. new reactors by the end of next decade. reprocessing and disposition of spent The construction changes will reduce The two Perry reactors costing a total fuels remain, progress is being made short-term capital outlays by about $1.2 of more than $2 billion should be dohe and we are confident that they will be billion for the five-company con- by the end of 1982 and 1984 respectively. solved,'.' the company proclaimed in its sortium, but the company warned, Two more reactors will be built at the 1977 annual report. will probably increase future capital Davis-Besse site between Cleveland costs on both coal and nuclear con- and Toledo, another nuclear reactor But whatever the eventual solution is, struction because of inflationary and will be built at the Beaver Valley plant the CEI customer, of course, will end up environmental pressures and govern- in southeastern Pennslyvania and two paying for it and all other construction ment regulation." more at the Erie Nuclear Plant site in and operational costs. Much of the Berlin Heights, west of Cleveland. expense for building nuclear plants CEI cited high construction costs, the won't be plugged into the company's difficulty in obtaining certified, skilled The nine CAPCO construction rate-making formula until construction workers at some job sites, en- projects will generate a total of work is 75 percent complete, under virorimental costs and perhaps most 8,512,000 killowatts with CEI's share of provisions called Construction Work In significantly, a leveling off of demand seven of them amounting to 1,866,WO Progress (CWIP) adopted by the Ohio from what the company had early killowatts. Nuclear power comprises General Assembly in 1976.' So, forecasted as reasons for the new the largest single component of the sometime in the mid to late 1980's, CEI delays. company's expansion program. customers should begin feeling the Company officials say nucler power is financial pinch created by the current CEI had predicted a seven percent the only viable alternative for future building boom. yearly growth in electricity useage, but electrical generation. Coal costs keep in recent months, scaled down that rising and its production is unstable, But the company is still seeking a $65 optimistic figure to four or five percent the company says, pointing to this million rate hike for next spring. The growth a year, year's two-month coal miners'strike as staff of the Public Utilities Commission The drop in demand was attributed to support for a nuclear future. of Ohio (PUCO) is preparing its report a number of factors by company energy on the rate hike request submitted in planners in a ten-year forecast Building a nuclear plant is more ex- June by CEI and should be ready with prepared in January for the Ohio pensive than building a coal-fired plant its findings by the end of this year. By Department of Energy. Demand began and getting more expensive all the February, the PUCO will hold hearings to slacken right after the 1973 Arab oil time. But CEI justified the preference on the request and it could become part embargo and the resulting stress on for the atom because of cheaper of our monthly bills by March. conservation. the forecasters said. In operating and maintenance costs it addition. bad economic times meant says will accrue over the long run. CEI Part of the rate requost inciudes people were buying fewer and fewer projects a 20 percent lower operating CWIP. CEI is asking for money to electrical appliances and spending less cost over the plant's 30-year-life when compensate it for 27 such projects on everything, including electricity. contrasted with a fossil-fueled coun- costing $71 million. Althoug@ the company still expects terpart. demand for its product to rise in the The $65 million rate hike could cost next 10 years, the 1988 peak load A big economic question mark, each residential consumer of electricity forecast (the greatest amount of however, is the unknown cost of about 10 cents a day or $36 a year, ac- electricity that will be used in any one disposing and producing nuclear fuel cording to CEL If the rate is appro,,,ed, time that year) is now expected to be elements for the power plants. The CEI's annual revenue would move from 21.2 percent lower than what CEI company is confident these expenses, $654 million to $719 million a year. figured just five years ago. enormous now, will come down as "In other words," the 1978 forecast technology advances. CEI says it must have a "fair, rate of savs, "the effects of the events of recent return" for its investors. The law years have not only resulted in lower But so far, no safe, cheap and ap- guarantees the company such a re!,lrn, A-2 but the PUCO determines how large a along Lake Erie east of its present spring, the only possible increases in rate of return is fair. generating plant. This is where any winter electricity bills would come future Ashtabula nuclear or coal-fired from fuel adjustment charges.. This decade, the rate of return plant would sit. Williams said fuel adjustment charges granted the company has almost are hard to predict because they doubled. In 1970, the company was In Lake County, CEI and CAPCO own depend on the price of coal. However,. granted a 5.31 percent rate of return by 1,060 acres at the Perry Nuclear site the company does not expect this the PUCO, In successive rate in- with other scattered parcels of land winter's charges to resemble last creases, the rate of return rose to 7.05 including the Eastlake plant site, winter's large increases. percent in 1974, 7.36 percent in 1975 and several substations and high-line right- 9.02 percent in 1976. The current rate of-ways. Overall, CEI's future in Ashtabula, hike request seeks about a 10 percent Lake and Geauga Counties is directly rate of return, according to CEI In Geauga County, CEI does not own tied to the future of the region itself. representative Cliff Williams. any land intended for development and only a small amount of land in sub- if growth continues in these three The company says the attractive rate. stations and high-line right-of-ways. counties as every planner and public of return is needed to bring in ad- official expects it to, CEI will expand ditional revenue to the company And yet, the company still payed with it, building more electric power through the sale of common stock and more than $8,265,352 in real estate taxes plants to handle the demand. It is hard. maintain the reliability of its bonds. this year in Ashtabula, Lake and to predict now what the recent trend of Geauga Counties. The biggest hunk was stumping electric growth means for the In the future, though, the company in Lake County, with $5,445,163 companys' future, but more power admits more rate hikes are inevitable. collected. Ashtabula County collected plants are in the cards regardless. We will continue to economize in $1,878,969 with Geauga County only every way possible consistent with getting $71,008 in 1978. The company once boasted of meeting our obligation to provide These figures will increase in the Cleveland as the "best location in the reliable electric service. However, in future. Williams said increasing nation." Cleveland has had its share of order to earn a fair rate of return on property taxes for all landowners, big woes recently, not the least which has common share owners' expanding and small, is inevitable. been a 16 percent decline in population capital investment while meeting this decade. Many of those people are constantly rising operating costs, it While the company is a large tax- moving to Ashtabula, Lake and Geauga appears that timely future rate relief paying neighbor, it is first and foremost Counties in the northeastern comer of will be required on a long-term basis," the supplier of reliable energy service the state. The growth is creeping CEI said in its 1977 annual report. to a population of more than 2,000,000. eastward along Lake Erie and east- Last winter, CEI customers escaped ward from 1-271 into Geauga County's CEI does return some money to the the electric cutbacks which hit other Russell, Chester and Bainbridge community, however. Because it is a areas of Ohio. The coal strike did cause Townships. company with fairly large land a great deal of worry at CEI and there The future of CEI is one of growth. holdings in the three counties east of was one brief period of voltage The big question remaining is how the Cleveland, CEI pays millions of dollars reduction, but all in all, CEI was not company can reconcile this growth with every year in real estate taxes, making severely affected by the coal shortage demand and a public more sensitive to it the largest taxpayer in Ashtabula, and harsh winter. utility rates than ever before. Even so, Lake and Geauga Counties, according the company is confident of the future. to Williams. This winter, CEI again expects to have uninterruptable service to "Despite the barriers faced by in- Some of the land is owned for even- Ashtabula, Lake and Geauga Counties. dustry in getting its job done, one tual sale to developers as industrial or overriding fact must be kept in mind. commercial land. In Ashtabula County, "We do not forsee any shortages," America's high standard of living is CEI owns about 125 acres in Ashtabula Williams said. The use of Davis-Besse's geared to energy, and electricity is an city and township. Another 3W acres of nuclear reactor at full capacity instead increasingly larger component of land is owned 'in Lake County along of the limited capacity it is now energy production. Electric generation Route 2 in Mentor. producing should help this winter, he is the key energy process of the future," added. CEI boosted in its last annual report. But the company also owns 1,500 Since CEI's proposed rate increase Being the only electricity game in acres of land in Ashtabula, mostly wouldn't become effective until next town, CEI's future look3 promising. A-3 NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14111768 1