town of springfield road erosion report...

Town of Springfield Road Erosion Report 2016

Completed by Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and the Town of Springfield

Fieldwork completed September – October 2016 Report last revised December 7, 2016

Funded by Vermont Better Backroads Program, Vermont Transportation Planning Initiative (TPI)

and Town of Springfield

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 2 About this Inventory and report ............................................................................................................................. 3 Act 64 (Vermont Clean Water Act) and the Municipal Roads General Permit ....................................................... 3 Summary of major road erosion sites ..................................................................................................................... 4 Budget for projects with estimated Costs ........................................................................................................... 5

Useful contacts and info for projects ...................................................................................................................... 7 Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Erosion Site Descriptions ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Site A – Clark Development Culvert Outlet Erosion ............................................................................................ 8 Site B – Carley road Bank Stabilization near Culvert Discharge ......................................................................... 13 Site C – Spoonerville road Next to Stream ........................................................................................................ 19 Site D ‐ Perley Gordon ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Site E ‐ Piper Road …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28 Site F ‐ Walnut Hill Rd ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31 Site G ‐ Seavers Brook Rd ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 36 Site H ‐ Pleasant Valley Rd at Lovell Rd ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41 Site J ‐ Pleasant Valley Rd near Rockingham Townline ……………………………………………………………………………….. 45 Site K ‐ Middle Road ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53 Site L ‐ French Meadow Rd at Spoonerville and Elm ………………………………………………………………………………….. 58 Site M ‐ Massey Road ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 63 Site N ‐ Old Chester Road ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67 Site P ‐ Cutler Road ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 71 Site Q ‐ Mile Hill Road …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 74 Site R ‐ Mile Hill Road …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 79

Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………… 83 Appendix A – 2016 Road Erosion Inventory Map Appendix B – 2016 Road Erosion Inventory Summary Appendix C – 2016 Springfield Bridge and Culvert Inventory Map Appendix D – Culverts that may need replacement according to 2016 inventory Appendix E – Hydrologically Connected Road Segments Map for Springfield Appendix F – Road Erosion Risk Ranking Map for Springfield Appendix G – Watershed Sizes as Guidance in Stream Alteration Regulations Appendix H Funding Sources Matrix

Town of Springfield Road Erosion Report 2016 – Last revised 12/07/2016

ABOUT THIS INVENTORY AND REPORT

Springfield is a medium sized town of 9,373 residents (2010 US Census) in Windsor County, Vermont. It is in the Connecticut River Valley and includes part of the Williams and Black River Watersheds, as well as smaller tributaries into the Connecticut River. The town crew maintains 126 miles of roadway, 34 bridges and 841 culverts and small bridges. The town is very hilly, although there are some flatter sections. The town has a variety of materials under the roads which affect how they function, including glacial till, sandy soils, and clay. The town has not experienced as many severe flooding events as neighboring towns in recent years partially because they have the North Springfield dam to regulate water flowing through the Black River watershed, and because they have not received as severe volumes of rainfall over short periods of time. That said, some areas of town are prone to road damage – such as Pleasant Valley Road – and others are at risk if high volumes of rainfall fell on the town. The road inventory identifies places which are particularly prone or at risk. This report was completed in conjunction with a Bridge and Culvert Inventory Update for the Town of Springfield. The inventory work was completed in summer and fall 2016 by Chris Yurek (Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission) and Justin Smith (Town Road Crew). All sites in this report were visited by Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC) and John Johnson (Town Road Foreman) on November 9, 2016. On October 27, 2016, the highest priority and most complex erosion sites were visited by:

‐ SWCRPC: Katharine Otto (Regional Planner), Chris Yurek (ECO AmeriCorps) ‐ Town of Springfield: Jeff Strong (Public Works Director), John Johnson (Road Foreman) ‐ VT Agency of Natural Resources: Jim Ryan (Municipal Roads General Permit Staff), Scott Jensen (Stream

Alteration Engineer) ‐ VTrans District 2: Marc Pickering (Project Manager), Meghan Brunk (District Tech)

The inventory and report was funded by the Vermont Better Backroads Program, Vermont Transportation Planning Initiative (TPI) and Town of Springfield. This report focuses on the major road erosion sites that were identified in these inventories. For further information about other sites:

2016 Town of Springfield Bridge and Culvert Inventory – Available online at www.vtculverts.org. Also available from Town Garage and Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission. See Appendix C for summary map.

ACT 64 (VERMONT CLEAN WATER ACT) AND THE MUNICIPAL ROADS GENERAL PERMIT

As of July 8, 2016 we have the following guidance regarding Act 64 of 20151:

Act 64, the Vermont Clean Water Act, requires the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) (part of the Agency of Natural Resources) to develop a draft Municipal Roads General Permit (MRGP) to address road‐related runoff impacting waterways. Towns will begin applying for coverage under the permit in summer of 2018 (proposed). As part of the development of the MRGP, new municipal road practice standards will be developed.

Since the guidance is still voluntary and likely to change, this inventory and report does not fully use the guidance. A map of the potentially hydrologically connected road segments is included in Appendix E. Some

1Municipal Road Inventory and Evaluation Interim Guidance. 2016 Field Season. Last Updated July 7, 2016. Emailed by Jim Ryan, July 7, 2016


inventory questions from the guidance have been included into the field inventories, but not all. The assessment of roadways also was not done with 100 meter segments. Instead every mile of roadway had a road condition inventory which included flagging potential sites for the road erosion inventory. Then these potential sites were revisited and inventoried, and “sites” covered the know extent of the issue. Future updates of this erosion inventory will likely need to fully comply with guidance provided by ANR. For more information about the Municipal Roads General Permit see http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/stormwater/permit‐information‐applications‐fees/municipal‐roads‐program

SUMMARY OF MAJOR ROAD EROSION SITES

The process for choosing the “major erosion sites” included:

1. Review all sites in 2012 Town Erosion Inventory (see Appendix A Map and Appendix B Summary) 2. Compare the draft Road Inventory to the following data

a. ANR’s Hydrologically Connected Road Segments data released in 20162 (see Appendix E Map) b. ANR’s Road Erosion Risk Ranking data released in 20143 (see Appendix F Map) c. Town Bridge and Culvert Inventory (see Appendix C Map).

3. Visit any sites where one of the following was identified: a. High or medium erosion issue was identified in Town Road Inventory; or b. A town roadway or structure related project identified in the 2015 Mill Brook River Corridor

Plan4. c. Any additional sites flagged during Step 2

4. Write up summary for any major erosion sites identified through the fieldwork. Note: Not all sites identified in stage 3 were considered major. “Non‐major” sites include those where relatively simple grading and ditching could make significant strides in addressing the issues.

5. Revise the road inventory as needed following the additional fieldwork to reflect some of the comments about future work needed to address roadway needs of non‐major erosion sites.

Note: The Town has a significant number of culverts and bridges of poor condition, or with identified erosion issues. Replacement costs were not calculated for these structures as it was unknown what size of structure would be needed without visiting each site. For the purpose of this inventory, the 196 culverts that need attention are listed in Appendix D and are considered part of the 2016 inventory. Before repairs or replacement each structure should be assessed for waterway adequacy, as well as existing water quality and erosion issues that may be addressed. According to the Springfield Town Highway Standards, new and replacement culverts must be designed:

In accordance with the VTrans Hydraulics Manual;

In the case or perennial streams, conform to the statewide Stream Alteration standards; and,

Must have a minimum culvert diameter of 18 inches.

2In 2016 ANR released preliminary data about “Hydrologically connected road segments” as related to the Act 64 (Vermont Clean Water Act) Municipal Roads General Permit. http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/stormwater/permit‐information‐applications‐fees/municipal‐roads‐program and http://gis.vtanr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ca438cfa73ef47b7b044b9b22045fc9b_164 3In 2014 Stone Environmental developed a Road Erosion Risk Ranking protocol and data for unpaved town and private roads in Vermont. In 2016 ANR slightly revised this ranking to include paved roads and remove private roads. For more information see http://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/vgisdata/layers_anr/metadata/TransRoad_EROSIONRISK.txt and http://gis.vtanr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ca438cfa73ef47b7b044b9b22045fc9b_164 4River Corridor Plan for Mill Brook in Windsor, West Windsor and Reading, Vermont. May 29, 2015. Prepared by Fitzgerald Environmental Associates for SWCRPC http://swcrpc.org/wp‐content/uploads/2015/06/2015‐05‐29_SWCRPC_Mill_RCP‐compressed2.pdf


Site ID

Project Name/ Location

Quick Description Priority Estimated Total Cost

Other notes

A Clark Development Culvert outlet erosion Urgent $13,800

B Carley Rd Bank destabilization near culvert discharge

High $3,600

C Spoonerville Rd Next to Stream Low $9,700

D Perley Gordon Rd Culvert outlet erosion Low $1,200 Complete as part of general maintenance

E Piper Rd Slope Medium $2,000

F Walnut Hill Rd Next to Stream High $5,100

G Seavers Brook Rd Roadway subsiding Medium $57,700 Need to find grant source if possible

H Pleasant Valley Rd at Lovell Rd

Next to Stream Medium $1,500

J Pleasant Valley Rd near Rockingham Townline

Next to Stream High $33,200 Section 2

$38,300 All sections except section 2

K Middle Rd Unstable bank and ditches

Medium $19,900

L French Meadow Rd at Spoonerville and Elm

Water on roadway High $5,900

M Massey Rd at Grover St

Unstable bank Low Unknown

N Old Chester Rd Culvert outlet erosion Medium $2,700

P Cutler Rd Sediment in ditch Medium $0 Issue originates from VTrans ROW

Q Mile Hill Rd above Baskevich Rd

Sediment issue High $3,500 Construction of projects at same time may reduce costs R

Mile Hill Rd below Baskevich Rd

Ponding issue Low $3,500

TOTAL $201,600

BUDGET FOR PROJECTS WITH ESTIMATED COSTS

The town has only budgeted for “Construction” costs. Scoping and engineering costs are not included. Some cost estimates were completed by VTrans District 2 on 11/4/2016. The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning. For more information about potential funding sources, see appendix H – Funding matrix.


Site ID

Project Name/ Location Estimated Total Cost

Estimated Budget Year

Potential Funding Sources

Town Funds or in‐kind match

Grant Funds

A Clark Development $13,800 2017 Town Funds

$13,800 $0

B Carley Rd $3,600 2018 Better Roads

$720 $2,880

C Spoonerville Rd $9,700 2021 Better Roads

$1,940 $7,760

D Perley Gordon Rd $1,200 2018 Town Funds

$1,200 $0

E Piper Rd $2,000 2021 Town Funds

$2,000 $0

F Walnut Hill Rd $5,100 2017 Better Roads

$1,020 $4,080

G Seavers Brook Rd $57,700 Unknown Unknown $57,700 $0

H Pleasant Valley Rd at Lovell Rd $1,500 2021 Town Funds

$1,500 $0

J Pleasant Valley Rd near Rockingham Townline

$33,200 2020 Better Roads

$6,640 $26,560


$7,660 $30,640

K Middle Rd $19,900 2018 Better Roads

$3,980 $15,920

L French Meadow Rd at Spoonerville and Elm


$1,180 $4,720

M Massey Rd at Grover St Unknown Unknown Unknown

N Old Chester Rd $2,700 2021 Better Roads

$540 $2,160

P Cutler Rd $0 N/A

Q Mile Hill Rd above Baskevich Rd $3,500 2020 Better Roads

$700 $2,800

R Mile Hill Rd below Baskevich Rd $3,500 2020 Better Roads

$700 $2,800

$201,600 $101,280 $100,320

Budget Year Projects number

Town Funds Grant Funds

Total Cost

2017 A, F, L $16,000 $8,800 $24,800

2018 B, D, K $5,900 $18,800 $24,700

2019 J1 $7,660 $30,640 $38,300

2020 J2, Q, R $8,040 $32,160 $40,200

2021 C, E, H, N $5,980 $9,920 $15,900

Unknown G $57,700 $0 $57,700

Total Cost 2017 ‐ 2021 $43,580 $100,320 $143,900


USEFUL CONTACTS AND INFO FOR PROJECTS

VTrans District 2 o Marc Pickering – District Project Manager. [email protected] 802‐251‐2002 o Meghan Brunck – District Tech. [email protected] 802‐251‐2004

ANR River Management Engineer – Scott Jensen. [email protected] 802‐490‐6962

Army Corp of Engineers ‐ Unknown

Project Dig Safe for identifying buried cable or utilities – 1‐888‐DIG‐SAFE

VTrans Hydraulics o Study Request – Go to

http://apps.vtrans.vermont.gov/HydraulicsStudyRequest/HydraulicStudyRequest.aspx o Hydraulics Manual (due to be updated soon) ‐

http://vtransengineering.vermont.gov/sites/aot_program_development/files/documents/environmental/EnviroHydraulicsManual1998.pdf

Vermont Better Backroads Program o For technical assistance contact Alan May. [email protected] 802‐828‐4585 o Better Backroads Manual http://vtransengineering.vermont.gov/bureaus/mab/better‐back‐

roads

Vermont Local Roads Program o For technical assistance go to http://vermontlocalroads.org/assistance o Variety of trainings and resources at http://vermontlocalroads.org/

Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control 2006 ‐ http://www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater/htm/documents/sw_vt_standards_and_specifications_2006_updated_2_20_2008.pdf

Town of Springfield Road and Bridge Standards 2013 (using 2013 State model)

Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission – Katharine Otto – Transportation Planner [email protected] 802‐674‐9201

ANR Road Erosion Risk Map. Available online from http://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/anra5/ (Appendix F of this report)

Funding Sources Matrix created by SWCRPC (Appendix H of this report)

Watershed Sizes as Guidance in Stream Alteration Regulations (from http://www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov/rivers/htm/rv_management.htm) (Appendix G of this report)

ABBREVIATIONS

Act 64 Act 64 of 2015, the Vermont Clean Water Act ANR VT Agency of Natural Resources DEC VT Department of Environmental Conservation HCRS Hydrologically Connected Road Segments (first released in 2016) MRGP Municipal Roads General Permit TH Town Highway RERR Road Erosion Risk Ranking (first released in 2014 and revised in 2016) ROW Right of Way SWCRPC Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission


EROSION SITE DESCRIPTIONS

SITE A – CLARK DEVELOPMENT CULVERT OUTLET EROSION

Road Name: Clark Residential Development (Clark St) TH Number: TH‐730 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.33542 W 72.52171 Road Characteristics: Paved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Urgent Site Map

Site Visits

September 2016 – Chris Yurek (SWCRPC) and Justin Smith (Springfield)

November 9, 2016 – Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), and John Johnson (Springfield) Description of problem Severe gully erosion is forming below the discharge end of a perched culvert which is fed by two catch basins in the Clark Development area. Sediment deposition is observable as much as 75 feet from the gully. There is a small stream located downhill in relation to the gully, however it appears eroded sediment is settling out prior to reaching the stream.


Other things to consider Yes No Unknown Comments

Water quality problem? X Unlikely but possible during heavy precipitation events.

Erosion problem? X

Waterbody affected? X

ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X No Measured Risk

Further Engineering needed? X

Need cost estimates? X

VTrans Hydraulics Study needed? X

ANR Stream Alteration Permit needed?

X

Army Corp permission needed? X

MRGP Potentially Hydrologically Connected Road Segment?

X Not identified in 2016 GIS analysis by ANR

Proposed solution fully within Town ROW?

X

Do any of the following issues potentially contribute to the erosion issue?

Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X

Ditches non‐existent X

Ditched not stoned or grass lined X

Town culvert less than 18” X

Town culvert not hydrologically big enough X

Town culvert does not have header X

Town culvert end treatment X

Town culvert is not stabilized with stone apron, splash pad, etc. X

Driveway/private culvert issue X

Gully erosion X

Road drainage not filtered before entering waterbody X

Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions The Town of Springfield plans to hire Gurney Brothers to stabilize the gully, which will involve the following:

Remove fence and bush for access.

Furnish and place Type II & Type III ledge.

Extend pipe down the slope with rip/rap around the outfall.

Furnish and place 6” of screened loam over the area we disturb.

Seed and mulch areas we disturb.

Reinstall the bush and fence. Gurney Brothers does not plan on accessing the site beside the driveway. They have spoken with the landowner but have not received an answer to date. If they need to utilize the asphalt for access they will likely need to replace the driveway, which is not included in the quote.


Cost Estimates The August 2016 quote from Guerney Brothers was $13,800. The project costs will increase significantly if the project waits too long and the bank is completely destabilized. The Town will likely have to fund the project without grant assistance since the project is urgent, it is outside the ROW and does not directly affect a waterway at this time.


Site Photographs Top and Bottom: Gully at culvert outlet


Top Left and Right: Second catch basin at inlet. Middle Left: First catch basin at the end of the paving crack, just before the lawn.

Middle Right: Large expanse of lawn over culvert Bottom Right: Looking up very slight hill of road.


SITE B – CARLEY ROAD BANK STABILIZATION NEAR CULVERT DISCHARGE

Road Name: Carley Road TH Number: TH‐772 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.32363 W 72.50192 Road Characteristics: Paved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: High Site Map

Site Visits

‐ September 2016 – Chris Yurek (SWCRPC) and Justin Smith (Springfield) ‐ 10/27/2016 – Katharine Otto (SWCPRC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), Jeff Strong (Springfield), John Johnson

(Springfield), Jim Ryan (ANR), Scott Jensen (ANR), Marc Pickering (VTrans District), and Meghan Brunk (VTrans District)


Description of problem A moderate sized gully is forming below the discharge end of a perched culvert on Lockwood Ave (discharge end of a closed drainage system). This gully was rip‐rapped for stabilization; however the stone (4 inch) was of inadequate size and is failing. Eroded sediment from the gully is feeding into a second downhill culvert which travels under Carley Road and direct discharges into a stream. The banks and ditch on the opposite side of the road from the stream are eroding and washing. Most of this eroded sediment is also feeding into the direct discharge culvert. Moderate stream bank erosion is occurring which may present a minor river‐road conflict.



Water quality problem? X

Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Low Risk



VTrans Hydraulics Study needed? X Carley Road culvert does not need to be replaced. Lockwood Ave culvert/ pipe from closed drainage system may need a study to calculate the drainage area when it is replaced.


X Scott Jensen stated there is no need for a permit during the 10/27 site visit.



X Identified in 2016 GIS analysis by ANR


X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X









Gully erosion X


Stream bank X


Proposed Solutions ‐ The gully should be stabilized using large rap‐rap stone (2ft minus) and large stone should be chinked in

using smaller granular material. This section is approximately 20ft high and 8‐10 feet wide. ‐ A partially undermined tree near the discharge end of the Lockwood Ave pipe/ culvert should be

removed. ‐ The receiving drainage area should be delineated for the uphill culvert (runoff received by closed

residential drainage system) which will inform adequate sizing needs. The culvert may have to be replaced.

‐ A concrete header should be installed on the inlet of the Carley Road drainage culvert which receives water from the uphill closed drainage system and from the short length of ditch next to Carley Road. This would reduce erosion and degradation of the road shoulder.

‐ The toe of the unstable banks along the roadway should be stabilized using a stacked waste block wall and the banks should be seeded and mulched above the stacked wall using a hydro‐seeder.

‐ The road‐side ditching on both the north and south sides of the direct discharge drainage culvert should be deepened, widened and hydro‐seeded to avoid ditch erosion and subsequent sediment deposition (drainage culvert receives eroded sediment and straight‐pipes it to the stream). There is approximately 300ft of ditching.

An alternative solution discussed was installing an elbow in the Lockwood Ave pipe/ culvert, then burying the culvert in the slope, and having it feed directly into the Carley Road culvert. The October field visit group decided this option would not work as well as the preferred solution because culverts with bends are difficult to maintain. There are no current plans to replace the Lockwood Ave pipe/ culvert, but when it is a study to calculate the drainage area may be needed. Replacing it with an 18 inch culvert would not affected drainage of the Carley Road Culvert below. Cost Estimates Completed by VTrans District 2 on 11/4/2016. The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning.

Item Unit of Measurement

Unit Cost Length Width Depth Volume Cost

Stone Fill, Type II Cubic Yards $43.80 10 8 3 8.9 $389.33

Granular Borrow Cubic Yards $31.42 10 8 1 3.0 $93.10

Stone Fill, Type IV Cubic Yards $42.24 10 4 8 11.9 $500.62

Concrete, High Performance, Class B Cubic Yards $589.12 2.0 $1,178.24

Structural Steel, Level I Pounds $1.32 376.0 $496.32

Ditch Cleaning & Shaping Linear Feet $3.25 300 300.0 $975.00

TOTAL COST $3,632.61


Site Photographs Top: Major bank erosion on 20ft high bank between Meadow Drive and Carley Road. Culvert under Carley

Road is marked by the wooden stick. The pipe under Meadow Drive is just to the left at the top of the bank. Meadow Drive Height of drainage pipe and undermined tree Height of Carley Road Depth of existing ditch and culvert under Carley Road

Bottom: Culvert under Carley Road discharging directly into the stream.


Top: Minor bank erosion along Carley Road just uphill (north) from culvert Bottom: Carley Road. Minor bank erosion on left. Adequately vegetated and armored shoulder on the right side between road and stream for sediment filtration.


SITE C – SPOONERVILLE ROAD NEXT TO STREAM

Road Name: Spoonerville Road TH Number: TH‐5 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.31428 W 72.53955 Road Characteristics: Unpaved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Low Site Map

Site Visits



Description of problem Several segments along a roughly 355 foot stretch of Spoonerville Road (road approx 20 ft wide) are relatively unstable and in conflict with a stream. The road is approximately 8ft above the stream in this section. There is a moderately sized accessible floodplain bench on the opposite side of the stream along the upper reach of the segment. This floodplain helps reduce the stream’s erosive force which would otherwise further eat away the banks and undermine the road during high‐flow events. A portion of the segment has a large berm built


between the road and the stream. This berm restricts sheet flow and channelizes road runoff below the berm, resulting in further road shoulder and streambank erosion (rilling) and sediment deposition. Much of this 355 foot segment (roughly 50% or more) is stable and will not require stabilization measures, thus only spot fixes will be required.



Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Moderate and Low Risk

Further Engineering needed? X Depends on the solution chosen




X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X


Ditches not stoned or grass lined X







Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions To solve the existing issues at the site:

‐ During routine grading operations, slope the road away from the stream so runoff is received by the ditch on the opposite side of the road to reduce surface erosion.

‐ Increase the size of the ditch and stone line it. ‐ Remove or create breaches in the berm to enhance sheet flow capacity. ‐ Stabilize the bank toe where necessary with 4’ waste blocks and back it with 2ft minus stone all the way

up to the road surface to reduce surface erosion. ‐ Armor the road shoulder in less stable sections so that sediment can filter out before it reaches the

stream. Seed and mulch remaining road shoulder to provide additional stability


If the site destabilizes (eg during high water event), this section should include: ‐ Remove remaining trees ‐ Move roadway further from the stream and grade the banks back to a stable 1:2 slope. Use rip‐rap

stone to spot fix the areas which remain unstable. Slope the road away from the stream to feed the ditch on the opposite side of the road.

‐ Part of the embankment (approximately 50‐75ft) will need a retaining wall due to the almost vertical slope.

‐ Install guard rail where trees have been removed for roadway user safety. Cost Estimates Completed by VTrans District 2 on 11/4/2016. The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning.



Stone Fill, Type IV* Cubic Yards $42.24 75 4 8 88.9 $3,754.67

Ditch Cleaning & Shaping Linear Feet $3.25 375 375.0 $1,218.75

Common Excavation Cubic Yards $10.71 15 3 2 3.3 $35.70

Stone Fill, Type II Cubic Yards $43.80 75 4 3 33.3 $1,460.00

Removing Medium Trees Each $458.43 7 7.0 $3,209.01


* Used as approximate cost for the 4ft waste blocks.

Potential Funding Sources The project could be eligible for a Better Roads Grant. If the bank destabilizes and a retaining wall is needed, that portion of the project could be eligible for a VTrans Structures Grant.


Site Photographs Top: Looking south along roadway. Stream is on the left at the base of this relatively stable section of slope. Bottom left: Vertical Stream Bank


Top: Berm that either needs to be removed or breached in sections. Bottom: Section that is likely to destabilize faster due to lack of trees.


SITE D – PERLEY GORDON RD CULVERT OUTLET EROSION

Road Name: Perley Gordon Road TH Number: TH‐68 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.27048 W 72.44860 Road Characteristics: Paved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Low Site Map

Site Visits



Description of problem Moderate‐severe gully is forming below the discharge end of perched culvert which is fed by a drop inlet on Perley Gordon Road. Eroded sediment from the gully is feeding into the main stem of the Black River, which is located approximately 12 feet from the culvert discharge. Predominantly sandy soils are likely the primary cause of erosion as these soils are highly mobile and erodible.


The culvert discharges outside of the ROW, but the land is owned by the Town.



Erosion problem? X







X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X









Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions Reshape gully and backfill with 12 inch minus and type 2 stone. Existing culvert is 15 inch diameter steel corrugated of 60ft length and is in good condition. When the Town needs to replace the culvert it should be increased in size to at least 18 inches. Cost Estimates Completed by VTrans District 2 on 11/4/2016. The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning.





Granular Borrow Cubic Yards $31.42 10 10 1 3.7 $116.37

TOTAL COST $895.04

John Johnson (Town Road Foreman) estimates it would cost $1,200 for the Town Highway Crew to complete the work – therefore this cost is included in the Budget.


Site Photographs Top: Culvert as seen from the roadway. Bottom: Gully at the outlet of the culvert.


SITE E – PIPER RD SLOPE

Road Name: Piper Road TH Number: TH‐752 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.33174 W 72.51269 Road Characteristics: Unpaved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Medium Site Map

Site Visits September 2016 – Chris Yurek (SWCRPC) and Justin Smith (Springfield) November 9, 2016 – Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), and John Johnson (Springfield) Description of problem Since the 2012 Town Erosion Inventory, a significant amount of the unstable slope has been stabilized with 7 inch minus (approximately 60 of the 70ft). Unfortunately some ongoing erosion still persists below the lower end of the rip‐rap job. The road is nearly all banked towards the rip‐rapped side of the road so the majority of the impervious runoff drains down the slope.




Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X





X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X









Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions

In the short term, a 6‐8 foot wide turnout should be installed on the uphill side of the rip‐rap job to divert runoff down the bank. A hot mix swale would be divert water over the bank to where the stone would be. The turnout should be stabilized with stone. Below the turnout a 6‐8 foot segment of slope should be covered with Type 1 (1 foot) stone for the 40ft height of the bank.

If the issue persists, extend the rip‐rap on the downhill side an additional ten feet wide segment of slope using Type I (1 foot) stone. The slope is approximately 30ft high in this segment.

In the long term (within the next 10 years), reconstruct the road with an adequate crown to divert roughly 50% of the runoff to the opposite side of the into the road‐side ditch.

Cost Estimates According to John Johnson (Town Road Foreman) the project would cost approximately $2,000. That would include use of a backhoe, 2 trucks, 2 flaggers for traffic control, and hot mix.


Site Photographs

Top Left: Looking up section that has been stabilized Top Right: Section where turn out should be added Middle Right: Section where turn out should be added Bottom: Arrow shows area where slope is starting to destabilize


SITE F – WALNUT HILL RD NEXT TO STREAM

Road Name: Walnut Hill Road TH Number: TH‐784 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: Primary Section ‐ N 43.31595 W 72.50142 to N 43.31633 W 72.50003 Secondary Section ‐ N 43.31662 W 72.49944 to N 43.31672 W 72.49924 Road Characteristics: Unpaved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: High Site Map

Site Visits


November 9, 2016 – Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), and John Johnson (Springfield) Description of problem The edge of this road segment typically washes out annually were it directly abuts the stream. All of the runoff is collected by Culvert 1, which then travels underground with no filtration capacity before feeding into Culvert 2 on Orchard Lane, which then direct discharges to the Black River. Primary Segment (starts at Culvert ID – Orchard Ln ‐ 1):

400 feet in length


6 foot high banks between the roadway and stream for the entire length

6 foot high banks on the opposite side of the stream except for a 30 foot long segment were the issue extends 20 feet above the streambed

Secondary Segment:

55 feet in length

6 foot high banks on both sides of the stream



Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Moderate Risk





X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X









Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions The road could be closed down, however this would cut off access to the Gurney Brothers pit, forcing industrial traffic into a residential neighborhood, so fixing the roadway and stream banks is the preferred alternative. Site would need a stream alteration permit. Proposed solution currently involves using 1 foot stone (type 1) rip‐rap both sides of the stream (both primary and secondary segments) to reduce erosion.


Cost Estimates The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning.

Section Item Unit of Measurement


Primary Stone, Type I Cubic Yards $43.80 400 6 1 88.9 $3,893.33

Stone, Type I Cubic Yards $43.80 30 20 1 22.2 $973.33

Secondary Stone, Type I Cubic Yards $43.80 55 3 1 6.1 $267.67



Site Photographs

Top: Primary Section where there is stream bank erosion next to Walnut Hill Rd Bottom Left: Standing in stream bed (dried up due to very dry year). People are standing at the road edge. Bottom Right: Standing in stream bed (dried up due to very dry year). Light grey line shows road surface where not covered by leaves.


Top: Primary Section ‐ Unstable bank on stream side away from road reaching about 20ft height.

Bottom: Secondary section where bank is unstable next to the road


SITE G – SEAVERS BROOK ROAD ROADWAY SUBSIDING

Road Name: Seavers Brook Road TH Number: TH‐122 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.27615 W 72.46924 Road Characteristics: Paved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Medium Site Map

Site Visits



Description of problem A 92 foot segment of Seavers Brook Road runs along a very steep valley brook and is beginning to show signs that it may collapse into the steep bank. The side of the road that runs along the valley wall is beginning to slump and the guardrails are very visibly leaning. Culvert 4 is completely buried so does not drain the ditch on the other side. The existing roadway is 18ft in width.




Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Medium Risk

Further Engineering needed? X According to the District, engineering was not needed on a similar project on Dover Road in Newfane.




X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X









Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions While the main issue is 92ft long, approximately 120ft of roadway should be addressed so the road is fully stabilized.

‐ Using an excavator, reach down into the valley wall as far as possible in order to create a bench below the area which is currently slumping. Stack 4 ft waste blocks on the bench, extending up as far as the previous roadway elevation with a little extra height so that the new road can slope away from the valley.

‐ Rebuild the road on top of the waste blocks. Slope the road away from the steep valley to divert runoff into the roadside ditch. Enlarge and stone line the ditch to enhance the volume of runoff it can receive.

‐ Replace existing culvert of unknown diameter with at least 2ft diameter culvert at 2ft depth if possible (ledge may not allow it).

A similar project was completed in Newfane on Dover Road.


Cost Estimates Completed by VTrans District 2 on 11/4/2016. The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning.



24" Corrugate Polyethylene Pipe (CPEP) Plastic Culvert Linear Feet $75.26 30 30.0 $2,257.80

Common Excavation Cubic Yards $10.71 120 25 12 1333.3 $14,280.00

Stone Fill, Type IV* Cubic Yards $42.24 120 8 8 284.4 $12,014.93

Stone Fill, Type II Cubic Yards $43.80 120 17 4 302.2 $13,237.33

Remove and Reset Guardrail Linear Feet $7.14 120 120.0 $856.80

Bituminous Concrete Pavement Ton $111.87 120 10 5 37.0 $4,141.43

Granular Borrow Cubic Yards $31.42 120 25 3 333.3 $10,473.33

Geotextile Under Stone Fill Square Yards $2.32 120 15 200.0 $464.00

Ditch Cleaning & Shaping Linear Feet $3.25 120 120.0 $390.00





Site Photographs Top: Roadway and guardrail collapsing into very steep and tall gully. Looking northbound along roadway from center of project. Bottom: Looking southbound along roadway from middle of the project.


Top: Culvert 4 entrance is completely blocked. Bottom: Looking down very steep slope just at the edge of the roadway.


SITE H – PLEASANT VALLEY AT LOVELL ROAD NEXT TO STREAM

Road Name: Pleasant Valley Road TH Number: TH‐78 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.24289 W 72.53523 Road Characteristics: Unpaved and uncurbed Watershed: Williams River Priority Rank: Medium Site Map

Site Visits



Description of problem A small stream which runs along Pleasant Valley Road is forced to make an abrupt curve (meander) where Lovell Road meets Pleasant Valley Road. The stream runs relatively parallel to Lovell Road, and then turns the sharp corner to run relatively parallel to Pleasant Valley Road. On its more natural course the stream would probably travel across the roadway to the other side of Pleasant Valley Road. Moderate undercutting is taking place along the outside of the stream bend which may threaten the roadway during or immediately following


extreme precipitation events. This segment of road was lost during Tropical Storm Irene, but has only been washed out twice in the past 30 years. This section of roadway has adequate vegetation between roadway and stream so water quality impacts are not a concern in this area with the exception of the ongoing streambank erosion. Culvert 1 on Lovell Road has evidence of erosion at the discharge end and should be stabilized.



Erosion problem? X







X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X







Town culvert is not stabilized with stone apron, splash pad, etc. X Culvert 1 on Lovell Rd needs attention


Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions Roughly 35‐40 feet of streambank along the outside of the meander bend should be stabilized along the toe using 2 foot waste blocks in order to mitigate undercutting toward the roadway. The stream bank is approximately 6ft below the road at this section but only the bottom 4ft needs armoring. Culvert 1 on Lovell Road should either be extended or a stone apron should be installed around the discharge to address the water quality issue.


The town could install a culvert under Pleasant Valley Road which could carry water under the roadway to a secondary channel during high flow events to avoid road washouts. This culvert, however, likely would not prevent the worst road washouts and may also be infeasible given the existing elevation of the roadway. Unless conditions significantly change, the town will not likely pursue this option. Cost Estimates Completed by VTrans District 2 on 11/4/2016. The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning.




TOTAL COST $778.67

The cost for the Lovell Road Culvert stone apron would be minimal – just a few cubic yards of Type 1 stone. John Johnson (Town Road Foreman) estimates it would cost $1,500 for the Town Highway Crew to complete the work – therefore this cost is included in the Budget. Potential Funding Sources If the site destabilizes significantly so the project costs increase, the following funding sources could be useful.

VTrans Better Roads Program

VT ANR Ecosystem Restoration Program

Some hazard mitigation related funds could be relevant when they are available


Site Photographs

Top left: Looking upstream from Pleasant Valley Road onto Lovell Road Top right: Good vegetation to filter road runoff between stream and Pleasant Valley Road. Person in stream next to undercutting stream bank. Bottom: Stream bank being undercut.


SITE J – PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD NEAR ROCKINGHAM TOWNLINE NEXT TO STREAM

Road Name: Pleasant Valley Road TH Number: TH‐78 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: Start ‐ N 43.23682 W 72.53949 End ‐ N 43.23944 W 72.53876 Road Characteristics: Unpaved and uncurbed Watershed: Williams River Priority Rank: High Site Map

Site Visits



Description of problem An approximately 0.5 mile long segment of Pleasant Valley Road currently runs along a roughly 15‐25’ tall vertical bank which is showing signs of failure (leaning or fallen trees, leaning utility poles, raw banks, etc). Runoff from the roadway is causing erosion (rilling) along the road shoulder and down the embankment. Eroded sediment is entering a brook (sediment deposition) resulting in water quality impairment. Segments of


roadway may be undercut or washed out during future flood events if stabilization measures are not implemented.



Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Medium Risk





X During the 10/27 site visit, Scott Jensen stated that the need for a stream alt permit was borderline, but suggested one should likely be in place prior to beginning work.





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X









Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions Roadway should be sloped away from the embankment so runoff is diverted into the eastern ditch on the opposite side of the road to avoid rill erosion. The vertical bank should be armored using 2 foot stone waste blocks. At times these waste blocks may need to extend from the road surface all the way down to the stream channel (bank toe); at other times only portions of the bank require stabilization. See next page for table with more information about individual subsections.


Individual sections – Issues and solutions

Section

Length (ft) Bank

Height (ft) Cumulative Length (ft)

Section From To Stable/ Unstable Min Max Issue Solution description

from beg.

from end

1 0ft (Big tree) 132 ft (Telephone pole 132) Unstable 132 12 25

Steep bank with soft surface. Top of road is unstable with some road material ending up next to stream.

Use 2ft stone to armor the bank to a depth of 4ft. Key in the base of the slope. Add additional material on western side of road so new crown of road directs majority of water to eastern side ditch. Deepen and line ditch (stone or vegetative as needed) on east side to accommodate additional runoff. 132 2,474

Stable section

132 ft (Telephone pole 132)

544ft (Telephone pole opposite Austin Road and Culvert 35) Stable 412 N/A N/A 544 2,342

2

544ft (Telephone pole opposite Austin Road and Culvert 35)

885ft (101 ft south of Telephone pole 138) Unstable 341 15 25

Budget for stabilizing the entire height. Remove poor trees 885 1,930

Stable section

885ft (101 ft south of Telephone pole 138)

986ft (Telephone pole 138) Stable 101 N/A N/A 986 1,589

3 986ft (Telephone pole 138)

1078ft (Culvert 33)

Mostly stable 92 N/A N/A Seed shoulder 1,078 1,488

4 1078ft (Culvert 33)

1187ft (Culvert 32) Unstable 109 15 20

Replace culvert 33 at beginning of section. Stabilize entire height of slope 1,187 1,396

5 1187ft (Culvert 32) 1247ft Unstable 60 15 15

Stabilize entire height of slope 1,247 1,287


Section

Length (ft) Bank

Height (ft) Cumulative Length (ft)

Section From To Stable/ Unstable Min Max Issue Solution description

from beg.

from end

6 1247ft 1360ft Unstable 113 15 15 Only top half of slope needs stabilizing (not as steep as sections D and E)

1,360 1,227

7 1360ft 2097ft (Telephone pole 35.6 and Culvert 30)

Mostly stable

737 N/A N/A Mostly stable but culvert needs apron

Put apron on culvert 29 (560ft south of TP 35.6)

2,097 1,114

Stable section

2097ft (Telephone pole 35.6 and Culvert 30)

2279ft Stable 182 N/A N/A 2,279 377

8 2279ft 2382ft Unstable 103 8 10

Road stabilization ‐ the roadway is eroding at the edge of the river

2,382 195

9 2382ft 2474ft (Telephone pole)

Unstable 92 8 10

Stream bank stabilization ‐ the river is causing erosion of the roadway. Section is currently temporarily stabilized with pieces of old sidewalk.

Key in the bottom of the slope for approximately 4ft of slope (ie 1 keyed in and 1 on top), then one layer of riprap from the top of the slope. USe

2,474 92

Total0.47 miles

Total unstable 950 ft

Total mostly stable 829 ft

Total stable 695 ft


Coordinates for the starting and stopping points Label (Feet from beginning) Notes Latitude Longitude

0 A ‐ Big Tree 43.236819 ‐72.53949

132 B ‐ Telephone Pole 132 43.23717 ‐72.53941

544 C ‐ Austin Road 43.238276 ‐72.53917

885 D ‐ 101ft south of Telephone Pole 138 43.239169 ‐72.53882

986 E ‐ Telephone Pole 138 43.239439 ‐72.53876

1078 F ‐ Culvert 33 43.239679 ‐72.53868

1187 G ‐ Culvert 32 43.239978 ‐72.53849

1247 H 43.240128 ‐72.53840

1360 I 43.240403 ‐72.53823

2097 J ‐ Telephone pole 35.6 43.242145 ‐72.53717

2279 K 43.242231 ‐72.53650

2382 L 43.242319 ‐72.53615

2474 M ‐ Telephone pole 43.242442 ‐72.53586

Cost Estimates Completed by VTrans District 2 on 11/4/2016. The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning.

Subsection Item Unit of Measurement


1 Stone Fill, Type II Cubic Yards $43.80 132 4 3 58.7 $2,569.60

1 Ditch Cleaning & Shaping Linear Feet $3.25 132 132.0 $429.00


4 & 5 Stone Fill, Type II Cubic Yards $43.80 170 20 3 377.8 $16,546.67

4



8 & 9 Stone Fill, Type IV* Cubic Yards $42.24 200 4 8 237.0 $10,012.44

8 & 9 Stone Fill, Type II Cubic Yards $43.80 200 2 4 59.3 $2,595.56



Potential Funding Sources


VT ANR Ecosystem Restoration Program

VTrans Structures Grant (for retaining wall) If applying for Better Roads Grant Funds, the project could be split into the two sections (maximum grant award of $40,000 per application for stream bank projects) – All sections except section 2 ($38,328.73) and Section 2 ($33,190.67).


Site Photographs

Top left: Section of destabilized bank from below Top right: Section of destabilized bank from above Bottom left: Section of destabilized bank from above Bottom right: Section of bank with less severe angle so stabilization is only needed for top half of the slope (not full height of slope like other examples on this page)


Top: Unstable banks with some vegetation in August Bottom left: Ditch on opposite side of road from unstable slope Bottom right: Stable slope that just needs a seeded shoulder.


Section J9 – Stream bank

Top left: Downstream end of where stream is destabilizing the road (Section J9). Stream bank is temporarily armored with slabs of old concrete sidewalk. Top right: Old concrete sidewalk armoring the stream bank from stream erosion Bottom left: Upstream end of where stream is destabilizing the road – on a stream curve Bottom right: The entire section (92ft) where the stream is destabilizing the road.


SITE K – MIDDLE ROAD UNSTABLE BANK AND DITCHES

Road Name: Middle Road TH Number: TH‐114 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.26888 W 72.49136 Road Characteristics: Unpaved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Medium Site Map

Site Visits



Description of problem Major ditch and bank erosion is occurring along a fairly extensive segment of Middle Road. Tree roots are heavily exposed and trees may threaten road and utility wires if they fall. Predominately sandy soils (characterized largely by a lack of stability) are likely a significant factor causing this erosion, coupled with inadequate ditch size, lack of stone lining in ditch, and too few drainage culverts.


The site has considerable constraints given the narrow ROW where the existing road edge appears to be at the ROW line (ie the road centerline is not at the center of the ROW width). The road is also narrow with a 20ft width and very narrow ditches.


Water quality problem? X Consensus not reached at 10/27 site visit

Erosion problem? X

Waterbody affected? X Consensus not reached at 10/27 site visit






X



X Not identified in 2016 GIS analysis by ANR


X Road shoulder right on the edge of the ROW; solutions will likely need private landowner permission


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X


Ditches not stoned or grass lined X Ditch is inadequate in size and isnot stone or grass lined.







Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions The preferred solution for the site (least complex and most cost effective) includes:

Create a stone lined ditch on the western side of the road where possible given the tight ROW boundaries (there appears to be a stone wall very close to the existing tree line) (approximately 300ft long).

Break through the berm on the western side of the road to create regular turnouts for excess road runoff to quickly drain from the road into existing forested land. Contact owner of Parcel 10‐1‐52 since additional runoff would be directed onto his land (mainly the existing forest, and maybe part of a wet pasture).

The existing on‐site drainage culvert just above the site (Culvert ???) should be upsized from 15” to 18” with a stone apron and/or footer added at the outlet.


Roughly 300 linear feet of moderate gradient ditching on the east side of the road should be deepened, widened (if possible given very narrow ROW available) and stone lined.

Along the project length 2 ‐ 3 additional drainage culverts and/or turnouts should be installed with new culverts to be installed approximately every 150‐200ft. 18 inch diameter culverts should be of adequate size given that they would only transport water accumulated from a maximum of 200ft of ditch.

On the eastern side of the road, any unstable trees should be removed to eliminate threats to infrastructure and the unstable sandy banks should be stabilized using rip‐rap, grubbing material and vegetation. The base of the slope may need to be stabilized using waste blocks

If the landowner of Parcel 10‐1‐52 is not willing to allow turnouts to divert runoff to his land, the town may have to pursue the far more expensive and complicated fix of the eastern slope. This would involve removing all the trees on the slope back to the stone wall property line (edge of ROW) and then build a retaining wall. Engineering would probably be needed to estimate the cost. Cost Estimates Completed by VTrans District 2 on 11/4/2016. The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating and the FEMA cost estimate for ditch cleaning.



Ditch Cleaning & Shaping Linear Feet $3.25 600 600.0 $1,950.00

Stone, Type I Cubic Yards $43.80 600 5 1 11.1 $4,866.67


Removing Medium Trees Each $458.43 10 10.0 $4,584.30

Stone Fill, Type IV Cubic Yards $42.24 30 4 8 35.6 $1,501.87


Potential Funding Sources:



Site Photographs Top: Unstable sandy bank on eastern side of road. Stone wall can be clearly seen on top of slope.

Bottom: Looking down road (southbound) on lower portion of site where there is very little ditch on either side of the 20ft wide roadway. Berm on right of photo (west side of road) should be broken in places to create cutouts for road drainage.


Top: Looking down hill (southbound) to site from middle of site. Left (west) side bank needs stabilizing), right (east) side needs berm breached.

Bottom left: Looking up hill (northbound) from middle of site. Existing culvert is outlet is next to the silver car on the left. Berm on left (east) side of road in the foreground needs to be breached. Bottom right: Existing culvert that needs to be increased in size and an end treatment installed.


SITE L – FRENCH MEADOW RD AT SPOONERVILLE AND ELM WATER ON ROADWAY

Road Name: French Meadow Road TH Number: TH‐8 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.32589 W 72.52774 Road Characteristics: Paved and Uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: High Site Map

Site Visits


November 9, 2016 – Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC) and John Johnson (Springfield) Description of problem Runoff is traveling down approximately 170 feet of steep slope without a ditch along French Meadow Road. Most of the time the runoff travels directly along the road surface, generating excessive volume and erosive force. Ditch erosion is occurring along Elm Street and a minor gully is forming on residential property which is undermining a large tree.




Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Low Risk on French Meadow Rd, Moderate Risk on Spoonerville Rd





X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X

Ditches non‐existent X No ditch on west side of road








Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions Elm Street is set to be repaved either 2017 or 2018. This project should correspond to the repaving project.

Install approximately 170 feet of stone lined ditch on west side of French Meadow Road from Culvert 1 to near the intersection

Stone line approximately 170 feet of ditch on the east side of French Meadow Road from Culvert 1 until it meets to the ditch on the east side of Elm St.

Install an 18 inch diameter, 60 foot long culvert under French Meadow Road at the intersection with Elm and Spoonerville. This will divert runoff to the eastern side of Elm Street to mitigate residential property erosion.

The ditch on the east side of Elm Street should be enlarged and stone lined so it is equipped to handle the additional volume of runoff. Diverting the runoff to the eastern side of Elm Street should remediate any potential water quality concerns.


Cost Estimates Estimate completed by Town of Springfield.

Labor Rate # Hours Total (Rate x Hours)

Backhoe Operator $22.36 24 $536.64

Truck Driver $20.64 24 $495.36

Two laborers on ground $19.05 48 $914.40

Two people doing traffic control $16.22 48 $778.56

Labor Total $2,724.96

Equipment Rate # Hours Total (Rate x Hours)

Backhoe $43.75 24 $1,050.00

Truck $42.25 24 $1,014.00

Equipment Total $2,064.00

Materials Rate Amount Total (Rate x Amount)

Type I Stone (yards) $18.00 25 $450.00

18 inch plastic culvert $10.33 60 $619.80

Materials Total $1,069.80

Miscellaneous Rate Amount Total (Rate x Amount)

None

Miscellaneous Total $0.00

Grand Total $5,858.76


Site Photographs

Top Left and Right: Erosion on Elm St as runoff from French Meadow Road travels on the road surface. Bottom: Looking down French Meadow Road from Culvert 1 to Elm St.


Top Left and Right: Existing ditch on east side of Elm St as it meets the ditch on the east side of French Meadow Road. Bottom: Looking up hill of French Meadow Road from just below culvert 1. (Culvert 1 is next to the sign).


SITE M – MASSEY ROAD AT GROVER RD UNSTABLE BANK

Road Name: Massey Road TH Number: TH‐104 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.26723 W 72.49858 Road Characteristics: Paved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Low Site Map

Site Visits


November 9, 2016 – Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), and John Johnson (Springfield) Description of problem An unstable, fairly vertical slope along Massey Road is eroding. If it fails, trees will threaten the roadway and utility wires. Additionally, the slope creates an issue of motor vehicle safety as it restricts motorist ability to see around the bend in the road. Site currently needs the ditch cleaned out every other year to keep water in ditch.




Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X X Low Risk





X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X









Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions Remove trees from the edge of the vertical embankment (many are already dead) to allow for grading of the slope back to a stable 2:1 slope. This will require removing all the trees which are located within approximately 15 feet of the edge of the embankment. Cost Estimates Cost will be estimated when project becomes a higher priority as costs would depend upon equipment available at the town highway garage and experience of operators – if town crew could not complete the work it would be considerably more expensive for a contractor to complete the work.


Site Photographs

Top: Unstable bank on inside corner of the curve Bottom: Existing ditch line at the base the slope


Top: Unstable bank goes from yellow marker backwards around the corner. Bottom: Unstable bank


SITE N – OLD CHESTER ROAD CULVERT OUTLET EROSION

Road Name: Old Chester Road TH Number: TH‐338 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.29982 W 72.49504 Road Characteristics: Paved and Uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Medium (primarily due to proximity to class 1 roadway and potential impact if destabilizes) Site Map

Site Visits


November 8, 2016 – Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), and John Johnson (Springfield) Description of problem A moderate gully is forming below the discharge end of a perched culvert. The culvert runs under VT‐11/ Chester Road (Class 1 Town Highway) and likely captures runoff from two catch basins at the base of a steep hill on Park Street. A drainage culvert which would typically capture this runoff and convey it under Old Chester Road is plugged, and a portion of the road shoulder on Old Chester Road is beginning to erode as a result. When this lower culvert is functioning properly it is a direct discharge to a stream and is perched resulting in erosion below the discharge end.




Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Low and Moderate Risk





X Needed for replacement of Old Chester Road culvert





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X









Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions

Excavate a “V‐shaped” ditch in the bank below the discharge end of the VT‐11/ Chester Road culvert and stabilize the ditch with 1 foot stone. The bank is about 20‐25ft high and the stabilization would be needed for about 8ft width

Unplug and replace the Old Chester Road culvert which drains under Old Chester Road and direct discharges into the stream. The replacement culvert should be shorter than the existing one and the discharge end should be stabilized to mitigate erosion.

A short elbow may be needed at the discharge end of the VT‐11/ Chester Road culvert in order to stop air flowing directly into the culvert so that ice does not form as fast in the culvert.

The Town did not want to join the outlet of the VT‐11/ Chester Road culvert to the inlet of the Old Chester Road culvert because culverts with bends do not flow as well and are hard to maintain.


Cost Estimates The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating .

Item Unit of Measurement Unit Cost Length Width Depth Volume Cost




Other useful information

Above: Information about the section of VT‐11 just above the Old Chester Road Site, including location of two drop inlets. Source: Springfield Project Layout Sheet. Sheet 108 of 309. VTrans Project Name: Chester‐Springfield‐Rockingham‐Windsor. VTrans Project Number: STP 2952(1). Plot Date: 2/2/2015


Site Photographs

Top left: Bank which is destabilizing. VT‐11/ Chester Road runs at the top and Old Chester Road is at the bottom Top right: Gully beginning to form at the base of the slope where the culvert discharges Bottom left: Erosion at base of the slope where the culvert discharges Bottom right: Existing culvert under Old Chester Road that discharges into the stream.


SITE P – CUTLER ROAD SEDIMENT IN DITCH

Road Name: Cutler Road TH Number: TH‐9 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: N 43.29202 W 72.52150 Road Characteristics: Paved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Medium Site Map

Site Visits


November 9, 2016 – Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), and John Johnson (Springfield) Description of problem A state maintained dirt parking area along Route 11 drains its runoff into a small paved swale which conveys runoff into a ditch along Cutler Road. This runoff is sediment laden. A drainage culvert captures this runoff, carries it under the Cutler Road, and direct discharges it into a stream (several Brook Trout were observed in the stream during the November 9 site visit). Much of the sediment from the parking area settles out in the ditch along Cutler Road prior to discharge into the stream; however a substantial volume of sediment is still reaching the brook.




Erosion problem? X







X





X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X








Driveway/private culvert issue X Parking area is not town maintained

Gully erosion X

Road drainage not filtered before entering waterbody X More from parking area than road

Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions As this parking area on VT‐11 is State maintained, VTrans should take measures to divert runoff away from the paved swale, perhaps diverting it to a sediment filtration pond to avoid deposition in the receiving surface waters (or whatever method is deemed appropriate). If VTrans addresses the issue on their land and problems persist, the Town is prepared to take measures to resolve the issue. Cost Estimates Unknown since VTrans issue.


Site Photographs

Top Left: Sediment in Cutler Road ditch Top Right: Sediment travelling along VT‐11 from parking area to corner of Cutler Road Middle Right: Sediment travelling around the corner Bottom Left: Corner from below Bottom Right: Sediment deposited in stream.


SITE Q – MILE HILL ROAD ABOVE BASKEVICH SEDIMENT ISSUE

Road Name: Mile Hill Road TH Number: TH‐42 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: Beginning (and add culvert) ‐ N 43.32164 W 72.46296 Add Culvert approximately around – N 43.31996 W 72.46760 End ‐ N 43.31930 W 72.46933 Road Characteristics: Unpaved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: High Site Map

Site Visits


November 9, 2016 – Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), and John Johnson (Springfield) Description of problem An almost 2,000 foot section Mile Hill Road is experiencing road washouts, ditch erosion, and massive sediment deposition to a stream. Insufficient culverts along the roadway are likely contributing to this issue – the ditch on the south side of the road carries a large volume of runoff which, coupled with a steep gradient, leads to extensive ditch erosion and subsequent sediment deposition. There is considerable sediment feeding into the stream just downstream of Culvert 3/ Town Short 20.


The roadway section at the top of this “site” experiences regular washouts (approximately twice a year) during heavy rain events.


Water quality problem? X Massive sediment deposition

Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Segments are all either low or moderate risk





X



X X Identified in 2016 GIS analysis by ANR. Some sections are connected, others are not.


X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X




Town culvert not hydrologically big enough X Not enough culverts





Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions Given the very limited traffic along Mile Hill Road and that this road could potentially be closed if needed, the Town does not wish to put too much effort into this site. A very narrow roadway also does not make stone lining the entire 1,900 section of roadway feasible (24ft outside bank to outside bank, 19ft shoulder to shoulder, and just 16ft for the travel way).

Installation of two culverts (depicted on site map) should help to resolve this issue. o The culvert on the corner at the top of the site should be 18 inch diameter if the road can be

built up around it. If not, the ledge may prevent installation of a culvert larger than 15 inch diameter. This culvert would divert water from the last turn out at a culvert 250ft above it.


o The culvert in the middle of the site should be 18 inch diameter and would be located next to an old log landing which is a significant source of runoff from the adjacent hillside. This would then allow only 500ft of roadway to drain down towards the stream at the bottom of the site.

If this does not fully resolve the issue, stone lining the ditches may be an additional option to settle out additional sediment and reduce erosion.

Completing the project at the same time as Site R could reduce costs due to close proximity and similar scopes of work. Cost Estimates The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating .


Two 30ft long 18" Corrugate Polyethylene Pipe (CPEP) Plastic Culvert Linear Feet $58.46 60 60.0 $3,507.60


Completing the project at the same time as Site R could reduce costs due to close proximity and similar scopes of work.


Site Photographs Top: Narrow and constrained roadway (24 feet between the embankments) of Mill Hill Road Bottom: Bottom section of the south side ditch as it pulls away from the road to enter the stream. Significant sediment deposition in ditch.


Top: Sediment deposition into the stream where the ditch enters next to the outlet of an in‐stream culvert. Bottom: Sediment deposition on the other side of the road.


SITE R – MILE HILL ROAD BELOW BASKEVICH PONDING ISSUE

Road Name: Mile Hill Road TH Number: TH‐42 TH Class: 3 GPS coordinates: Beginning ‐ N 43.31920 W 72.47008 Add Culvert approximately around – N 43.31897 W 72.47086 Add Culvert approximately around – N 43.31816 W 72.47295 End ‐ N 43.31695 W 72.47481 Road Characteristics: Unpaved and uncurbed Watershed: Black River Priority Rank: Low Site Map

Site Visits


November 9, 2016 – Katharine Otto (SWCRPC), Chris Yurek (SWCRPC), and John Johnson (Springfield)


Description of problem A 1,500 foot section Mile Hill Road is experiencing ponding next to the roadway and some erosion of the roadway when the ponding fills the area available. Insufficient culverts along the roadway are likely contributing to this issue.



Erosion problem? X


ANR Road Erosion Risk rankings? X Segments are all either low or moderate risk





X



X X Identified in 2016 GIS analysis by ANR. Some sections are connection, others are not.


X


Yes No Comments

Grader berm X

Roadway crown X




Town culvert not hydrologically big enough X Not enough culverts





Gully erosion X


Stream bank X

Proposed Solutions

Installation of two culverts (depicted on site map) should help to resolve the ponding issues. Both culverts can probably be 18 inches and would serve to drain areas that have ponding, and allow water to filter out over large areas rather than channeling down the ditch to more concentrated areas near the stream.

If this does not fully resolve the issue, stone lining the ditches may be an additional option to settle out additional sediment and reduce erosion.

Completing the project at the same time as Site Q could reduce costs due to close proximity and similar scopes of work.


Cost Estimates The cost estimates “in‐place costs” ie the total cost for material, equipment and labor combined. It does not include costs for mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. For this cost estimate they used the 2 year English average from http://vtrans.vermont.gov/cost‐estimating .


Two 30ft long 18" Corrugate Polyethylene Pipe (CPEP) Plastic Culvert Linear Feet $58.46 60 60.0 $3,507.60


Completing the project at the same time as Site Q could reduce costs due to close proximity and similar scopes of work.


Site Photographs Top: Water ponds in area on north side of road, and this water sometimes overtops the roadway. Bottom: Area on south side of road where water could filter and dissipate if a culvert was added to connect the two sides of the roadway.

town of springfield road erosion report...

Documents