M E M O R A N D U M

TO: File

FROM: Jason A. Stone

DATE: January 9, 2002

RE: VTrans
Pittsford-Brandon, VT - US Route 7 Upgrade Project Segment 3
NH 019-3(49)
CLD Reference No. 01-0370

Subject: Meeting with VTrans and VTANR
Culvert Types and Fish Passage at Sta. 11+912

Location: VTrans Headquarters, 6th Floor, Rm. D

ATTENDEES:

Dan Peterson VTrans LTF, Project Manager
Mike Tuttle VTrans Hydraulics Engineer
Craig Keller VTrans Structures
Chris Slesar VTrans Highway Environmental Specialist
Nelson Hoffman VTrans Transportation Environmental Coordinator
Fred Nicholson VTANR Stream Alteration Engineer
Wayne Husband CLD Engineers, Project Manager
Lisa Martin CLD Engineers, Structures
Jason Stone CLD Engineers, Environmental Specialist

MEETING NOTES

  1. MEETING PURPOSE

    2. As directed by VTrans, CLD is in the process of investigating several treatment alternatives for the box culvert located within Project Segment 3 at Sta. 11+912. Wayne Husband stated that the meeting was intended to be a working meeting to allow VTrans and VT Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) the opportunity to provide input on the alternatives contained in CLD's Draft Structure Type Study and to discuss design criteria that ANR would like to apply in this location.

  2. DRAFT STRUCTURE TYPE STUDY

Wayne briefly described the culvert treatment alternatives contained in the report. He explained that the replacement alternatives were developed based on design criteria CLD obtained through earlier field visits and coordination with VTrans and ANR. One option would be to replace the culvert with a new culvert, and another option would be to use an open-bottomed, arch structure. Wayne then described the stream impacts and reconstruction that would be associated with the reconstruction alternatives.

Fred Nicholson informed those in attendance that his agency has not determined whether providing fish passage at this location will be a requirement. Fred explained that his agency has not yet received sufficient information to make this determination. It was pointed out that to date, rehabilitation alternatives have not been fully investigated. It is not known whether the existing structure is in fact sound enough to be rehabilitated. ANR would like cores taken of the existing concrete culvert to assist with this determination. Fred stated that ANR requires more accurate and detailed cost estimates and impact information for each of the alternatives. Fred would also need to see "life-cycle" analyses that would compare the cost-effectiveness and performance of the alternatives over a 50-70 year period. VTrans directed CLD to prepare and include this information in the Structure Type Study and provide it to ANR through Dan Peterson at VTrans.

Discussion then focused on the alternatives to be considered from this point forward. The alternatives to be considered and associated design considerations and criteria are as follows:

  1. Rehabilitation and Extension of the Existing Culvert

  1. Rehabilitation, Extension and Slip-lining of the Existing Culvert

  1. Replacement of the Existing Culvert with a New Box Culvert

      1. Minimize stream alteration to the extent practicable.

  1. Replacement of the Existing Culvert with an Open Bottomed Arch

    1. 6% maximum gradient through structure.

    2. Use 8 to10-inch brook trout as the "design fish" for stream reconstruction work.

    3. Fish passage design flow is 2 fps in 20 feet.

    4. Simulate natural stream bed with appropriate materials.

    5. Foundation for arch to be 6 feet below streambed.

    6. Consider one footing instead of individual footings for each leg of arch.

    7. Install grade structures downstream or upstream with 9-inch step control, as necessary for channel stability.

    8. Minimize stream alteration to the extent practicable.

  1. New Bridge Structure

    1. 6% maximum gradient through structure.

    2. Use 8 to10-inch brook trout as the "design fish" for stream reconstruction work.

    3. Fish passage design flow is 2 fps in 20 feet.

    4. Simulate natural stream bed with appropriate materials.

    5. Install grade structures downstream or upstream with 9-inch step control, as necessary for channel stability.

    6. Minimize stream alteration to the extent practicable.

It was recognized that the alternatives that would replace the structure would require stream channel relocation or reconstruction and the implementation in-stream grade adjustment techniques, such as concrete grade control structures. Fred Nicholson stated that his agency has reconstructed streams with good success, following the guidelines set forth by Rosgen. CLD will investigate such techniques and include their costs in the cost estimates for the respective alternatives.

JAS:jm

cc:

Attendees

Lynn Saunders

C. Baird Morgan

Alan Neveau

Mike Balch

Dan Peterson

Chris Slesar

Ed Barna

Richard Baker

Greg Riley

Mark Blucher

Dolores Furnari

Dennis Benjamin

Susie Leonard

Peg Flory

Duncan Wilkie

Paul Conner

James O'Gorman

John Narowksi

Christopher Borstel

Hank Pelkey

Scott Newman

Gary Klinefelter

Alan Neveau

Frank Farnsworth

Roy Newton

Virginia Russell

Gerry Gossens

Kathleen Ryan