WARREN — Two letters sent to Trumbull MetroParks’ executive director by companies working on the Leavittsburg Dam removal project has at least one Trumbull County commissioner concerned about who would be responsible for damages outside of the immediate area of the dam removal.

RiverReach Construction, which is managing the removal of the Leavittsburg Dam, on Feb. 25 sent a letter to Trumbull MetroParks Board Executive Director Zachary Svette outlining GPD group’s belief there are elevated risks that need to be considered in association with the removal of the dam.

The GPD Group, the design consultant for the project, found elevated risks both inside and outside of the area of the dam removal.

Patrick Rohr, project manager at RiverReach Construction, in a one-page letter recommended Trumbull County MetroParks adopt GPD’s recommendations and suggested actions for the overall success of the project.

“This just proves the points we’ve brought up,” Commissioner Denny Malloy said.

The commissioner noted the county received the letters as part of its discovery package for a court hearing about the dam removal scheduled to take place on May 19.

An injunction and a lawsuit have been filed by Warren Township trustees to stop the Trumbull County MetroParks board from taking out the dam. Trumbull County MetroPark owns the dam, and it was given the green light in December by the Ohio EPA to proceed with the demolition.

“The park board is refusing to address the things in the letter that could negatively affect things outside of the area where the dam is being removed even though the company they hired has recommended adopting the recommendation of GPD Group,” Malloy said.

GPD Group’s Feb. 24, four-page letter included risk factor concerns that are beyond of the project area, including:

• The loss of vegetation along the river bank due to post-dam pool lowering, which may cause riverbank instability.

• Normal and flood-flow water will move more swiftly through the former dam pool causing potential for increased erosive forces.

• Embankment instability and road damage.

• The lowering of water depth between zero and eight feet as a result of the dam removal.

Mathew A. Lascola, the author of GPD’s letter to Svette, made recommendations, which include implementing controlled lowering of the dam’s pool-water depth not to exceed one foot per week and to expedite implementation of bank-stabilization measures with the project area following the dam removal.

Lascola’s also noted stakeholders groups should coordinate with dam pool property owners to provide the removal schedule of the dam.

They should also provide awareness notices that indicate rivers, by their nature, move, erode banks, and flood adjacent land, which requires landowners to monitor conditions on an ongoing basis.

“Riverbank monitoring may need to be escalated following the dam removal project,” he stated in the letter.

Lascola stated the project involves limitations and elevated risks.

“It shall be noted that the prescribed assessments and design is confined to the project area bounded by the recorded environmental covenant easement,” he wrote.

Malloy questions what would happen to roads outside of the area where the dam is removed.

“They are not going to take responsibility,” he said. “We are hoping these letters will sway the court or a jury.”