Vermont Route 125 The Middlebury Gap Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan ~. " Prepared by: The Addison County Regional Commission The Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission Based upon consultation with the: Middlebury Gap Scenic Highway Corridor Steering Committee with Assistance from: DeLeuw-Cather Inc. Transportation Planners and Engineers The Office of Robert A. White Landscape Architects and Planners and Julie Campoli Hurnstone Associates Planning Consultants December, 1996 Participating members of the Middlebury Gap Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan: Douglas Anderson Emily Leeds East Middlebury Prudential Committee Ripton, VT Mr. Chester Baxter, Jr. Becky Laframboise Chair, Hancock Planning Commission Vermont Association of Snow Travelers Inc. Hancock, VT Middlebury, VT Mr. William Biedennan Anne Hoover Sky Hollow Farm Green Mountain Club Volunteer Rochester, VT Middlebury, VT San Brooks Ed Nelbach Ripton, VT Hancock, VT Bruce Burgess Zachary Osborne Bicycle Holidays Ripton, VT Middlebury, VT Mr. Jerry Perez David Callum Rochester Ranger District Vennont Fish and Wildlife Pittsford, VT Clay Poitras Planning Division - Agency of Transportation Mary Clark MontpeIierF VT Ripton Historical Society FredPutnam Tony Clark Green Mountain National Forest Moosalamoo Ecotourism Partnership Middlebury, VT & Blueberry Hill Inn Goshen, VT Richard Robson Hancock, VT Sue Collitt Ripton County Store Bill Sayre A. Johnson Lumber Co. Frank Curtis Bristol, VT Ha,.'1cock, VT Floyd Scholz Ms. Luciejane Curtis Hancock, VT HancockPlanning Commission Mr. John Seeger Ms. Evelyn Darrah Camp KHoleet Hancock Planning Commission Hancock, VT Rochester, VT Steve Sherrill Gerry Gassens Chair, ISTEA Committee State Representative Addison County Regional Planning Commission Salisbucy, VT Goshen, VT Olivia Gould Dave Smith Waltsfield, VT Catamount Trail Assodation Middlebury, VT James Hadeka CVPS ]eanTodd Middlebury, VT Ripton, VT Barbara Harding Steve Weber Addison County Chamber of Commerce Middlebury College Forester Middlebucy, VT ] onathan Wood Joyce Henderson AOT District 5 Transportation Administrator Chipman Inn Essex, VT Ripton, VT Katherine Hodgetts Hancock Property Owner Richmond, VT PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 BACKGROUND 3 HISTORY OF THE CORRIDOR 3 THE ROBERT FROST MEMORIAL DRIVE 4 HISTORY OF THE VERMONT SCENIC ROADS PROGRAM 5 THE NATIONAL AND STATE SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAMS 7 VERMONT SCENIC ROAD DESIGNATION OF ROtITE 125 7 MAINTENANCE OF THE SCENIC ROAD CORRIDOR 8 DEVELOPMENT OF A CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ROBERT FROST MEMORIAL DRIVE 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10 LAND USE 10 NATURAL RESOURCES 10 HISTORIC SITES AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 13 RECREATION ACTIVITIES IN THE CORRIDOR 15 THE HIGHWAY: VERMONT ROUTE 125 16 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND PROBLEMS 21 GROWTH IN THE TOWNS AND REGION 21 ECONOMIC CHANGE AND OPPORTUNITIES 21 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC 22 TRENDS IN FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 22 INVENTORY AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES OF THE ROADWAY 25 GENERAL R6ADSIDE MAINTENANCE PRACTICES 26 Road Surface 26 Shoulders 26 Drainage Infrastructure 26 Pull-off and parking areas 27 Guardrails 27 Roadside Vegetation Maintenance and Management 28 LOWER GORGE MM 2.8 ToMM 3.5 (MIDDLEBURY) 30 RIPTON VILLAGE CENTER THROUGH THE GORGE MM 3.5 (MIDDLEBURY) TO MM 1.6 (RIPTON) 31 RIPTON VILLAGE CENTER TO ROBERT FROST WAYSIDE MM 1.6 TO MM 3.1 (RIPTON) 32 ROBERT FROST WAYSIDE TO BREADLOAF MM 3.1 TO MM 4.05 (RIPTON) 33 UPPER PLATEAU ABOVE BREADLOAF MM 4.05 TO MM 5.7 (RIPTON) 34 MIDDLEBURY GAP PROPER MM 5.7 (RIPTON) TO MM 3.4 (HANCOCK) 35 UPPER VALLEY MM 3.4 TO 4.5 (HANCOCK) 36 LOWER VALLEY MM 4.5 TO MM 6.5 (HANCOCK) 37 VILLAGE FRINGE MM 6.5 TO 7.05 (HANCOCK) 38 HANCOCK VILLAGE MM 7.05 TO 7.25 (HANCOCK) 39 Hancock, Ripton and Middlebury, Vermont page I Middlebury Gap Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan 2 December, 1996 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 40 ACTION PLAN 42 ANTICIPATED CORRIDOR MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS 42 Routine Highway Maintenance 42 Preventative Maintenance 42 Drainage and Culvert Plan for the Gorge 42 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT RECOMMENDA TIONS 43 MANAGEMENT OF TRAFFIC SPEEDS, TRAFFIC GROWTH AND DRIVER EXPECTATIONS 44 HANCOCK VILLAGE 45 INFORMATIONAL AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE 45 IMPLEMENTATION 46 LIST OF T ABLES Table 1: Traffic Volumes on the Route 125 Corridor 17 Table 2: Truck Use on East-West Corridors near Middlebury Gap 18 Table 3: Bridges on the Route 125 Scenic Corridor 18 Table 4: Population Change 1980 to 1994 21 Hancock, Ripton and Middlebury, Vermont page u The nearly 15 mile portion of Vermont Route 125, designated as a Vermont State Scenic Road in 1980, has enjoyed a long history as an independent highway entity. The roadway was first established as a toll road to provide a link between Woodstock, located in eastern Vermont, with Middlebury, located in the Champlain Valley of weStern Vermont. Subsequent improvements and realignments resulted from the growth of the communities not only at the ends of the corridor, but also along it: East Middlebury, Ripton, and Hancock. The communities developed a heritage that was strongly influenced by the highway's presence. The first official recognition of the roadway was made in 1973 when the State recognized the locally popular common name, Robert Frost Memorial Drive (RFMD). The official naming of the roadway was the result of a locally driven initiative, and resulted in the creation of a brochure describing the highway's assets and historic association to poet Robert Frost to promote the road for tourists. When the Vermont Scenic Road law passed in 1977, the RFMD was seen as a potential candidate for designation due to its established identity, rich scenic resources, and long stretches of roadway that were bordered by public land managed by the U. S. Forest Service. The Scenic Road law required that the maintenance of the roadway features within the highway right-of-way by the Vermont Agency of Transportation 01 AOT) was to be held as nearly as possible in the conditions which existed at the time of designation. General references for roadside maintenance were addressed in the State of Vermont Transportation Board and the techniques and recommendations in the booklet, The Vermont Backroad. The Scenic Road law requires preparation of a description of the road's physical conditions, and a recording of the specific criteria responsible for designation. However, this was never completed due to a decline in funding and subsequent loss of interest in the program. Specific roadway maintenance practices were never detailed. In 1992, Federal legislation provided funds for the establishment of state scenic byway programs which are intended to link highway planning and development with economic growth, primarily through tourism and recreation by enhancing recreational, scenic, historic, and cultural qualities of the area surrounding a designated byway. The byway program was seen by many people as the opportunity to create a corridor management plan for the RFMD. The Hancock, Ripton and Middlebury, Vermont page 1 Middlebury Gap Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan 2 December, 1996 VAOT applied for and received federal funds in 1994, leading to the preparation of this Corridor Management Plan. The conflicts from attempting to maintain a scenic road without clear direction provided in a corridor management plan was realized in the summer of 1994 when the VAOT undertook "preventative maintenance" improvements of the roadway without following the procedures outlined in the Scenic Road law and maintenance guidelines developed by the State Transportation Board. Reaction to the highway improvements were mixed, many people considered the improvements necessary for the level of service and safety required by the users of the road; while others felt that the improvements were made with gross disregard to the aesthetics of the rural mountain highway and the scenic qualities the Agency is charged to protect under the provisions of the State Scenic Road law. Everyone, including the VAOT, agreed that the Agency had not followed the procedures for modifications to a scenic road that are clearly outlined in the law. The project fell under jurisdiction of the District Environmental Commission #9 (Act 250) which ultimately issued an amended Land Use Permit requiring project mitigation activities for the roadside pullouts and plantings, as well as replacement of 7,600 linear feet of steel beam guardrail with a less intrusive type. A great deal of controversy again arose from the District Commission's permit conditions requiring the guardrail replacement, raising questions about the constructive use of public funds. The process to develop a Corridor Management Plan (CMP) for the RFMD addressed a broad range of options and management decisions ranging from strict highway maintenance practices to the development of tourism opportunities and enhancement of the intrinsic qualities of the corridor. Consensus was met by the participants that the purpose of the CMP is to balance the needs of a utilitarian highway while protecting its scenic qualities. This agreement was based on the recognition that the highway serves an important role within the region as a functional highway, linking eastern and western Vermont, and comes with demands for public safety and traffic efficiency. Equally important to the participants was the appreciation and concern to protect the essential character of the roadway, described as a rustic, rural mountain highway. A drive along the corridor provides the user