Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Study

Scoping Report Dickenson Street Improvements

June 20, 2011

______Communities working together to meet Chittenden County’s transportation needs

110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, Vermont 05404 T 802-660-4071 F 802-660-4079 www.ccmpo.org [email protected]

The preparation of this document was financed jointly by the eighteen municipalities in Chittenden County and the Chittenden County Transportation Authority; the Vermont Agency of Transportation; and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.

Submitted by:

55 Green Mountain Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 864-0223

CCMPO Board

Marc Landry, Colchester – Chair; Andy Montroll, Burlington – Vice Chair Jim Dudley, Shelburne – Secretary-Treasurer

Gerard Mullen, Bolton Philip Gingrow, St. George Jim Donovan, Charlotte Sandra Dooley, South Burlington Jeff Carr, Essex Steve Owen, Underhill John Lajza, Essex Junction Suzanne Blanchard, Westford Andrea Morgante, Hinesburg George Gerecke, Williston Richard Moulton, Huntington Michael O’Brien, Winooski Tim Nulty, Jericho Brian Searles, Vermont Agency of Lori Donna, Milton Transportation Erik Fillkorn, Richmond

CCMPO Staff

Michele Boomhower, Executive Director Daryl Benoit, Transportation Planner Christine Forde, Sr. Transportation Planner Bryan Davis, Transportation Planner Peter Keating, Sr. Transportation Planner Jason Charest, Transportation Planning Engineer David Roberts, Sr. Transportation Planning Bernadette Ferenc, Business Manager Engineer Janet Botula, Administrative Assistant Eleni Churchill, Sr. Transportation Planning Engineer

Project Committee

Todd Odit, Town of Jericho David J. DeBaie, Stantec Seth Jensen, Town of Jericho Christine Forde, CCMPO Gregory A. Edwards, Stantec

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report i

Contents

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Project Area and Background 2

3.0 Existing Conditions 4

3.1 Public Issues and Concerns...... 4 3.2 Traffic Conditions / Analysis ...... 4 3.2.1 Existing Traffic Circulation ...... 6 3.2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 6 3.2.3 Existing Capacity Analysis ...... 7 3.2.4 Existing Signal Warrants Analysis ...... 8 3.3 Pedestrian / Bicycle Facilities ...... 8 3.4 Crash History ...... 8 3.5 Natural Resources ...... 10 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 10 Wetlands ...... 10 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 10 Agricultural Land ...... 10 3.6 Land and Conservation Fund Sites ...... 11 3.7 Hazardous Material Sites ...... 11 3.8 Historic Sites and Structures ...... 11 3.9 Archeological Sites ...... 11

4.0 Project Purpose and Need 12

4.1 Project Purpose ...... 12 4.2 Project Needs ...... 12

5.0 Future Conditions 13

5.1 Planned Development ...... 13 5.2 Future Traffic Conditions ...... 13 5.3 Planned Development Trip Generation ...... 14 5.4 Planned Development Trip Distribution ...... 15 5.5 No Build Alternatives ...... 16 5.5.1 No Build Alternatives Capacity Analysis ...... 16 5.6 Build Alternatives ...... 17 5.6.1 Build Alternatives Capacity Analysis ...... 18 5.6.1 Analysis Findings ...... 19

6.0 Intersection Alternatives 21

6.1 Design Criteria ...... 21 6.2 Alternatives Considered ...... 22 6.3 Build A: Two-way Dickenson with Signal at VT 15 ...... 22 6.4 Build B: Two-way Dickenson Street with No Signal at VT 15 ...... 24 ii Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

6.6 Evaluation Matrix ...... 24 6.7 Public Informational Meetings ...... 25 6.8 Preferred Alternative ...... 26

Appendix A: Traffic Data / Analysis

Appendix B: Existing Resources

Appendix C: Project Committee and Public Input

Appendix D: Dickenson Street / Steam Mill Road Intersection Options

Appendix E: Opinion of Costs

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report iii

Figure List

Figure 1- Project Area Plan ...... 3

iv Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

Table List

Table 1 Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 6 Table 2 Standard Ranges of Delay for each Level of Service Designation ...... 7 Table 3 Existing Capacity Analysis Results ...... 8 Table 4 Crash Summary ...... 9 Table 5 Development North of Dickenson Street ...... 13 Table 6 Total Development Trips during AM Peak Hour ...... 15 Table 7 Total Development Trips during PM Peak Hour ...... 15 Table 8 Trip Distribution ...... 16 Table 9 No Build Capacity Analysis Results ...... 17 Table 10 No Build with Signal at Steam Mill Road - Capacity Analysis Results ...... 17 Table 11 Two-Way Dickenson Street with Traffic Signal at VT 15 - Build Capacity Analysis Results ...... 18 Table 12 Two-Way Dickenson Street without Traffic Signal at VT 15 - Build Capacity Analysis Results ...... 18 Table 13 One-Way Westbound Dickenson Street - Build Capacity Analysis Results ...... 19

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report v

1.0 Introduction

The Dickenson Street Improvement Scoping Report was developed to update and expand the previous study efforts to divert traffic from Steam Mill Road1 and the Steam Mill Road/VT 15 intersection while considering future development by providing improvements to Dickenson Street. This report was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for the Town of Jericho and the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO). The purpose of this scoping report is to develop and evaluate alternative improvements to Dickenson Street. The scoping process included soliciting public input, working with a project committee, and seeking endorsement of a preferred alternative. This report contains the following sections: • Project Area and Background • Existing Conditions • Future Conditions • Project Purpose and Need • Alternatives

1 Steam Mill Road was the former name of the road between VT15 and the Dickenson Street/River Road Intersection. It is now called River Road. For ease of understanding, this segment is referred to as Steam Mill Road in this report.

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 1

2.0 Project Area and Background

The Dickenson Street study area is located along the northern edge of the Town of Jericho in an area associated with the developed village area of Underhill Flats. The area includes the triangular roadway network of VT 15, Dickenson Street, and Steam Mill Road. See the Figure 1 – The Project Area Plan. This area contains two schools and a library along Steam Mill Road and a gas/convenience store at the VT 15 / Steam Mill Road intersection. The remaining development is primarily residential except for the large parcel on the north side of Dickenson Street. This is labeled “Villenneuve Property” on the Project Area Plan. This former industrial property is currently pursuing approvals and permits for commercial development. VT 15 is a minor arterial with approximately 9,500 vehicles per day (vpd). It serves as an east to west connection, a commuter route from central Vermont to the Greater Burlington area. Steam Mill Road and River Road combine to form a rural collector with approximately 4,500 vpd. They serve as connection to VT 15 for residents east of VT 15. Dickenson Street is currently one-way from VT 15, easterly towards River Road, where it forms a T-intersection with a stop condition. There are approximately 100 vpd that use Dickenson Street. Over the years, as development has occurred and traffic increased, the Town of Jericho has investigated improvements to the VT 15/Steam Mill Road intersection. Due to the intersection’s geometry, increasing delays on the Steam Mill Road approach, and safety concerns, the Town conducted a study of intersection alternatives in 2001. Due to the intersection’s significant reconstruction cost and limited funding, minor improvements to the intersection’s geometry and pedestrian facilities were made. These improvements included realignment of the Steam Mill Road approach, a right turn lane, and some sidewalks. The intersection safety was improved, but delays continued on the Steam Mill Road approach. As the Town has developed the long term planning for this area of town and as traffic has increased, there has been an interest in diverting traffic from Steam Mill Road and the school facilities by making Dickenson a two-way street and realigning the Dickenson Street/River Road intersection to promote through traffic. This improvement was the subject of a 2007 Alternatives Analysis. This analysis focused on the traffic performance and indicated much of the traffic would be diverted from Steam Mill Road and did not provide a detailed evaluation of impacts or cost for alternatives. This report provides an update of the traffic analysis, as well as compares the results with and without the Sawmill Planned Unit Development (PUD) and provides a more detailed evaluation of impacts and costs.

2 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

Figure 1- Project Area Plan

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 3

3.0 Existing Conditions

3.1 Public Issues and Concerns

Public issues and concerns regarding this project area were solicited as part of two previous studies. These studies included the 2001 Steam Mill Road / VT 15 Intersection Study and the 2007 Dickenson Street Alternatives Analysis. Based on discussions with Town staff, school officials, and the public during the current and past studies, the following area issues and concerns with this area were identified. • There are routinely queues and delays at the VT 15/Steam Mill Road intersection in the AM peak. The greatest delay is commonly from 7:15 to 7:30 am prior to the 7:30 – 8:00 am student arrival time. • The traffic volume on VT 15 provides few gaps and makes it difficult to turn left from Steam Mill Road. • Some traffic is diverted from Steam Mill Road to Park Street so as to avoid the VT 15 / Steam Mill Road intersection. • Due to limited facilities and vehicle speeds, pedestrian and bicycle safety is a concern. • Buses have difficulty turning at the VT 15 / Steam Mill Road intersection.

3.2 Traffic Conditions / Analysis

The Dickenson Street study area encompasses VT 15 to the west, Steam Mill Road and River Road to the south and east, and Park Street to the north and east. VT 15 is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial Highway. Steam Mill Road / River Road are Rural Major Collector Roadways and intersect VT 15. Dickenson Street and Park Street are Rural Local Streets that intersect VT 15 and River Road. The Project Existing Conditions Plan is on the following page. School and commuter traffic share both the local and arterial roads. VT 15, Steam Mill Road / River Road and Park Street form a triangle. Traffic to/from the south on VT 15 to/from the area east of Dickenson Street generally travels on Steam Mill Road and River Road. Traffic to/ from the north on VT 15 to this same area east of Dickenson Street generally uses Park Street. Dickenson Street is a 1-way eastbound roadway providing access to a former sawmill and three residences. Existing traffic on Dickenson Street is very light. Dickenson Street primarily serves traffic originating or destined for Dickenson Street

4 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report E SAWMILL

DG PUD I O VILLENEUVE

BR . M VILLENEUVE RD IVER A R

C KOLB DICKENSON ST. VILLENEUVE OAD R CLASS: COLLECTOR WAY POSTED SPEED: 25 MPH CE RA ROADWAY WIDTH: 16 FT AADT: 100 vpd ONE WAY: EASTBOUND

ETLAND ST. W ON ENS N DICK GAUTHIER ET AL PUTZIER

CHITTENDEN SCHOOL

C DISTRICT I

AGN

TORTOLANO T

MCCLURE STEAM MILL ROAD CLASS: RURAL COLLECTOR POSTED SPEED: 25 MPH ROADWAY WIDTH: 24 FT LAVALLEE AADT: 4700 vpd VT ROUTE 15 CLASS: MINOR ARTERIAL POSTED SPEED: 35 MPH BOOTH ROADWAY WIDTH: 28-30 FT BROWN'S RIVER AADT: 9500 vpd (NORTH SMR) MIDDLE SCHOOL AADT: 13,500 VPD (NORTH SMR) COLLINS

EXISTING ISSUES:

OAD LEMNAH R - STEAM MILL ROAD DELAYS LL ACCESS TO VT 15 I HUBBARD M - RESTRICTED BUS TURNS AT M VT15/STEAM MILL RD. A E T S - UNPROTECTED CROSS WALKS ON HORIZONTAL CURVE ON STEAM MILL ROAD.

- LIMITED ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT

DEBORAH RAWSON MEMORIAL LIBRARY

UNDER HILL ID SCHOOL EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN LEGEND DICKENSON ST. IMPROVEMENTS SIDEWALK JERICHO, VT

VT15/STEAM MILL ROAD X-WALK 0 50 100 CRASHES: (2005-2009):1

X TAX PARCELS

E SCALE JOLLEY O T MOBIL SS AERIAL UTILITY E 1"=100' 03/ 01/ 2011

3.2.1 Existing Traffic Circulation VT 15 carries heavy commuter traffic during the peak hours. During morning and evening commuter periods, Steam Mill Road drivers turning left onto VT 15 experience significant delay. During the morning peak period, commuter traffic and school related traffic associated with the Underhill I.D. Elementary School and Brown’s River Middle School on Steam Mill Road combine to create the daily peak local road demand for access onto VT15. These combined demands have further resulted in diversion of traffic from Steam Mill Road to Park Street. At the Steam Mill Road intersection with VT 15, school traffic and commuters “cross paths” during the morning peak hour. Unaided by a traffic signal, drivers turning left onto VT 15 move aggressively to the edge of the VT 15 travelway in order to make the turn when gaps appear in the VT 15 traffic. At this same time, schoolbound vehicles are attempting to turn left onto Steam Mill Road. These conflicting turning movements combine with acute intersection geometry which reduces the sight distance when making left turns onto VT 15 and increases the angle of the turn beyond 90 degrees for left turns from VT 15 into Steam Mill Road. The difficult turn into Steam Mill Road results in diversion of traffic onto Park Street. Occasional use of one way eastbound Dickenson Street also occurs. The absence of pavement on Dickenson Street may reduce that route’s attractiveness. Pedestrians and a school crossing of River Road just east of its intersection with Dickenson Street and Steam Mill Road are also part of the existing traffic circulation. This crosswalk is particularly active during the morning school arrival period / morning commuter period as well as the afternoon school dismissal period which occurs prior to the evening commuter period. This crosswalk serves an existing sidewalk along the north side of River Road east of the intersection and a crosswalk on the north side of Steam Mill Road in the proximity of the school.

3.2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes on these area roads based on traffic counts conducted in late May and early June of 2010 are summarized in Table 1. On VT 15, daily traffic volumes are significantly higher south of Steam Mill Road than north of that intersection. Steam Mill Road carries about half of the volume of VT 15 that is north of Steam Mill Road and Park Street carries less than half of the daily volume of Steam Mill Road. The morning peak hour occurs from 7:00 to 8:00 AM on VT 15. The evening peak hour occurs between 5:00 and 6:00 PM. Dickenson Street volume is all eastbound.

Table 1 Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak PM Peak ADT Roadway Location Hour Hour (vpd) (vph) (vph) North of Steam Mill Road 9,500 900 830 VT 15 South of Steam Mill Road 13,500 1160 1230 Steam Mill Road East of VT 15 4,700 410 440 River Road East of Dickenson Street 4,000 460 420 Park Street East of VT 15 2,000 300 120 Dickenson Street East of VT 15 100 10 10

6 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

3.2.3 Existing Capacity Analysis The VT 15 intersections with Steam Mill Road and Park Street were analyzed under morning and evening peak hour operations. Stantec applied Synchro 7.02 analysis software which is based on standard analysis methods stated in the Highway Capacity Manual3 (HCM). Driver delay is the principle measure of the capacity analysis. Level of Service is the conventional approach to assessing the measured delay. Level of Service applies to both unsignalized and signalized intersections, although they are very different operationally. In particular, an unsignalized intersection Level of Service designation relates only to the minor street drivers attempting access the major road and drivers turning left from the major road. At unsignalized intersections the availability of adequate gaps in the traffic stream on the major street limits the capacity for vehicle movements to and from the minor approach. Through traffic on the major street actually experiences effectively no delay. At a signalized intersection, movements on all approaches are delayed as the traffic signal alternately allows each approach to have the right of way; therefore, all movements are included in the calculation of the average delay and overall intersection level of service. Levels of Service are denoted by a letter grade ranging from A through F that corresponds to ranges of average vehicle delay. The separate sets of levels of service in terms of average delay for unsignalized and signalized or police officer controlled intersections is presented in Table 2. VTrans LOS Policy for two-way stop controlled intersections, that is no control on the major roadway, is to maintain a LOS “D,” or better, for side roads with volumes exceeding 100 vehicles / hour for a single lane approach, or 150 vehicles / hour for a two lane approach. No LOS criteria are in effect for volumes less than these.

Table 2 Standard Ranges of Delay for each Level of Service Designation

Unsignalized Intersections Signalized

(Stop Controlled) Intersections Level of Service Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) A < 10.0 < 10.0 B > 10.0 and < 15.0 > 10.0 and < 20.0 C > 15.0 and < 25.0 > 20.0 and < 35.0 D > 25.0 and < 35.0 > 35.0 and < 55.0 E > 35.0 and < 50.0 > 55.0 and < 80.0 F > 50.0 > 80.0

As indicated in Table 3, under morning peak hour conditions there are very long delays on the Steam Mill Road approach to VT 15. That delay has resulted in a diversion of some traffic to Park Street where delay is not as long during the morning peak but does exceed the LOS F delay threshold. During the evening, the delay at Steam Mill Road is less but still exceeds 50 seconds (LOS F). There is no apparent diversion to Park Street; the delay at Park Street is estimated to be 14 seconds (LOS B) for vehicles turning onto VT 15 during the peak hour. There is no measurable delay to traffic on VT15.

2 Synchro Version 7.0, Traffic ware, Albany ,CA 3 Highway Capacity Manual 2000, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2003 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 7

Table 3 Existing Capacity Analysis Results

VT 15 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay LOS LOS Approach (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 151 105 F 16 14 B Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 203 236 F 141 107 F Synchro 7 software provides comparative estimates of very long delay.

3.2.4 Existing Signal Warrants Analysis As described above the existing intersection operation at Steam Mill Road exceeds the VTrans policy on delay at unsignalized intersections. For the purposes of this project the warrants for traffic signal control as prescribed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were reviewed and applied to the existing volume conditions. This review entailed examining the hourly volumes on VT 15 and on Steam Mill Road through the day. Traffic counts conducted on Thursday May 27, 2010 were the basis for this review. The summary sheet showing the hourly volumes in comparison to the hourly warrant thresholds is provided in the appendix. The conclusion of this review is that the intersection of Steam Mill Road and VT 15 warrants a traffic signal as the hourly threshold for Warrant 1Ac is exceeded for the required 8 hours of the day. Sight distance, that is the extent that a driver can see and be seen when entering a roadway, is a critical safety measure. Higher speeds require greater sight distance as the driver must gage the time available to enter the roadway and the approaching driver must gage his ability to stop. Where there are obstacles reducing sight distance, the ability to make those judgments is reduced. At the Steam Mill Road and VT 15 intersection there is a building on the northeast corner of the intersection that blocks the view of drivers entering VT 15. This is particularly true when the driver looks from the stop line and to remedy this situation drivers will simply pull closer to the travel way. That movement closer to the travelway can obstruct vehicles turning into Steam Mill Road.

3.3 Pedestrian / Bicycle Facilities

As seen on the Existing Conditions Plan, sidewalks parallel VT 15 on the west side and Steam Mill Road on the east side in the project area. There are no marked crosswalks presently on VT 15. There are marked crosswalks at the Dickenson Street/Steam Mill Road/River Road Intersection. These serve school children for the adjacent Brown’s River Middle School and ID School. There are no sidewalks on Dickenson Street. All roads have a shoulder of 3 feet or less and offer little safety for bicycles.

3.4 Crash History

Crash data was obtained from the VTrans crash records for the most recent five-year period (2005 through 2009). This data was examined to identify any crashes at the study area intersections and possible sources of those crashes. Over the five-year period, the records indicate that one crash occurred on VT 15 at Steam Mill Road and one occurred on VT 15 at Dickenson Street. It should be noted that incidents involving minor damage are not reported to the state.

8 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

As shown on Table 4: on VT 15 just north of Steam Mill Road, a crash occurred on May 28, 2007 at 11:22 PM. That crash is described as a sideswipe with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. And, on VT 15 at Dickenson Street, a crash occurred on May 23, 2005 at 5:20 PM. That crash is described as a rear end crash resulting from following too closely. A person was injured. Crash rates per million vehicles entering the intersection are typically calculated to consider the significance of the number of crashes with respect to the number of vehicles that travel through the intersection. Where one crash occurred over a five year period it is intuitive that these single crashes are not statistically significant. The critical crash rate which is a statewide average is 0.675 crashes per million vehicle- miles for this type of roadway. The actual crash rate is simply the ratio of crashes to the volume of existing traffic. Where the ratio of the actual to critical crash rates exceed 1.0 there is statistical significance. On Route 15 at Steam Mill Road, the actual to critical crash rate ratio is 0.032 which is far less than 1.0. On Route 15 at Dickenson Street the actual to critical crash rate ratio is 0.43 which is also far less than 1.0.

Table 4 Crash Summary Steam Mill Road VT 15 Total VT Between Dickenson Steam Between Dickenson 15 St / River Mill St Rd Rd 2005 1 1 2006 0 2007 1 1 2008 0 2009 0 Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Angle 0 Single Vehicle 0 Rear End 1 1 Head On 0 Sideswipe 1 1 Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Property 1 1 Damage Only Personal Injury 1 1 Fatality 0 Total Crashes 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Daily Traffic 14,200 9,500 Rates Act. - - - 0.039 - 0.058 Crit. - - - 1.235 - 1.348 Act/Crit - - - 0.032 - 0.043

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 9

3.5 Natural Resources

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Stantec identified no RTE plant or animal species during the November 16, 2010 site visit. According to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) Environmental Interest Locator database (http://maps.vermont.gov/imf/sites/ANR_NATRESViewer/jsp/launch.jsp; accessed November 17, 2010), there are no RTE species mapped within the study area. Because the narrow study area corridor adjacent to the roadway has been disturbed by road construction and housing development, it is unlikely that any RTE plant or animal species occur within the study area.

Wetlands According to the ANR database, there are no wetlands mapped within the study area. However, based on our site investigation, one wetland was identified within the study area during the November 16, 2010 site visit. The approximate boundaries of this wetland are shown on the “Existing Conditions Plan”, page 5. This palustrine emergent wetland is located south of River Road and north of the maintained playing fields of Browns River Middle School. The wetland is dominated by narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and common reed (Phragmites australis), with areas of goldenrod (Solidago sp.), common rush (Juncus effusus), and redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea) also present (see Photos 3 and 4). Although this wetland is not shown on the ANR maps, it would likely be considered a Class II wetland based on the updated Vermont Wetland Rules (2010). Therefore, any impacts to this wetland would require authorization from ANR under a Vermont Wetland Permit. Similarly, any impacts would also require authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Projects with less than 3,000 square feet of wetland impact may qualify for a Category 1 (Non-reporting) General Permit (GP) and be authorized under the GP without notifying the Corps. Wetland impacts greater than 3,000 square feet require an application to and authorization from the Corps.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Development within the study area includes roads, driveways, maintained lawns, and school playing fields. The undeveloped portion includes a narrow corridor between the playing fields and River Road. The area provides limited habitat for common species such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and squirrel (S. carolinensis), as well as for birds such as black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).

10 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

Eldridge soils in the western portion of the wetland, and Enosburg and Whately soils in the eastern portion of the wetland. The Enosburg and Whately soils are considered hydric. All of these soils have local agricultural significance. However, based on the history of land use and development, it is unlikely that any agricultural use would take place within the narrow undeveloped portion of the study area.

3.6 Land and Conservation Fund Sites

No LWCF sites in the project area are listed in the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources list.

3.7 Hazardous Material Sites

The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources hazardous material site list included no sites in the project area.

3.8 Historic Sites and Structures

A historic preservation assessment was prepared and is included in the appendix. Based on the field review and literature research, there are no historic districts in the project area. Some of the adjacent homes on the west side of VT Route 15 are nineteenth century, are listed on the Vermont State Register and are considered eligible for the National Register. If the proposed alternative affects these structures, mitigation measures may have to be considered.

3.9 Archeological Sites

An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) was completed and is included in the appendix. Based on the ARA, the project area has moderate sensitivity for the presence of pre-contact sites due to its level terrain, glacial outwash landforms and proximity to a stream. There has been some development in the project area that has disturbed certain areas. Although construction will remain primarily within the highway right-of- way, some areas of archeological sensitivity are within the right-of-way and may require archeological investigation. These areas are shown in the ARA.

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 11

4.0 Project Purpose and Need

Through working with the project committee, Stantec field observations and previous reports, the following project purpose and need statement was developed.

4.1 Project Purpose

• Improve westbound auto and bus access to VT 15 • Improve eastbound school bus access to schools • Improve pedestrian routes to schools • Improve PUD access and circulation • Reduce traffic conflicts with school operations on Steam Mill Road

4.2 Project Needs

• Morning and evening peak period delays for Steam Mill Road traffic accessing VT 15 are so great, they result in a diversion from Steam Mill Road to Park Street. • Proposed PUD development will increase demand for left turns onto VT 15 and add to the delay which currently exceeds LOS F. • School buses and motorists have limited sight distance which is less than desirable when turning left onto VT 15 from Steam Mill Road. • School buses have difficulty turning left from VT 15 to Steam Mill Road due to the acute angle of the intersection and the presence of vehicles entering VT 15 that creep beyond the stopline to gain additional sight distance. • The existing pedestrian crossing of River Road is situated on a curve which restricts sight distance. • The proposed Sawmill PUD includes a retail element on the northeast corner of VT 15/Dickenson Street which will be better served by a two-way Dickenson Street.

12 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

5.0 Future Conditions

5.1 Planned Development

Consideration of future conditions is a necessary planning step when considering the improvement of Dickenson Street. Future conditions, conditions in the year 2025, include estimates of general growth of the existing traffic conditions and specific development which may vary the existing circulation pattern. Future conditions in the Dickenson Street project area includes general regional growth not pertaining to any particular source and local growth relating to specific planned developments. Stantec estimated the general background growth in the region by employing estimates published by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). Estimates of local growth have been developed through discussions with the Jericho Planning Department. The only sufficiently advanced planned development in the area is the property abutting the north side of Dickenson Road. Given its proximity, the development has significant influence on the traffic circulation on Dickenson Street. Land development on the north side of Dickenson Street has been proposed to the town of Jericho on four lots. The proposed development will include future internal streets and access points onto VT 15, Dickenson Street, and River Road. The land use and planned access are presented in Table 4. As shown in the table, the Lot 2 restaurant plan has been approved by the town but no ACT 250 approvals have been obtained. Upon Town approval of the plan, the lot and restaurant use were sold to another concern. For the purposes of this study it is considered separate from the remaining development as it is not part of the current Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Table 5 Development North of Dickenson Street Part of Saw Lot Planned Use Access Mill PUD? 1 Residential VT 15 , River Road Yes 2 Restaurant VT 15 No 3 Retail VT 15 and Dickenson Street Yes 4 Rehab Gym/ Medical Offices River Road Yes

5.2 Future Traffic Conditions

The Sawmill PUD is expected to be built out over an extended period of time. It is estimated that the build out may require 15 years. In considering a future road improvement it is also consistent with good planning to identify a future planning year. Therefore for the purposes of this study a year 2025 future year was considered.

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 13

Essentially two 2025 traffic conditions have been examined for this study. They are conditions without and with the Sawmill PUD. The future traffic conditions without the Sawmill PUD include a 6,000 square foot restaurant and one percent annual background growth. One percent annual growth is conservative when compared to VTrans statewide estimate for primary and secondary roads which is roughly one half percent per year. The condition with the Sawmill PUD includes the trips generated by the entire development added to the 2025 condition without the Sawmill PUD. This scoping study relates specifically to alternative improvements to Dickenson Street. For traffic analysis purposes, there are three 2025 Build alternatives. These are: • Build A : Two-way Dickenson Street with traffic signal control at VT 15 • Build B : Two-way Dickenson Street without a traffic signal at VT 15 • Build C : One-way westbound Dickenson Street without a traffic signal at VT 15 All three Build alternatives have been analyzed to provide comparative traffic benefits. In addition the study includes a No Build and Build comparison. The No Build alternatives include no improvements to Dickenson Street. There are two 2025 No Build alternatives. These are: • No Build A – One-way eastbound Dickenson Street and no other improvements • No Build B – One-way eastbound Dickenson Street and traffic signal control at Steam Mill Road The Build and No Build alternatives provide the basis for comparison of benefits with and without improvements to Dickenson Street in the year 2025. All of the Build and No Build alternatives have been analyzed with and without the Sawmill PUD, therefore providing a measure of the changed operation with the Sawmill PUD.

5.3 Planned Development Trip Generation

New trips generated by the proposed PUD and the restaurant were estimated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The retail land use trip generation estimates include two parts: new trips and pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are not new trips to the area roadways but rather these are trips by vehicles already traveling on roadways adjacent to the development. Pass-by trips are characterized as a trip made to an adjacent development on impulse and not a specific trip to that development. A driver who is driving by for another purpose turns off and back onto the adjacent street to continue an original trip. The trip generation assumptions and ITE trip rates were applied to the specific development program. This provided the expected trips generated by the proposed development during peak hours on the adjacent roadways. Peak hours were identified by the counts conducted in June 2010 by the CCMPO as 7:00 to 8:00 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM. The complete trip generation estimates including the new trips and the passby trips are presented in Tables A1 and A2 provided in the appendix. Total trips for the development are presented below in Tables 6 and 7. During the morning peak hour, 320 total trips are expected to be generated by the PUD; during the evening peak hour, 489 total trips are expected.

14 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

Table 6 Total Development Trips during AM Peak Hour ITE Land Trip Generation Rates Total Trips/ Hour Use LOT Description Code Size % In % Out Total In Out Total Single Family 1 Homes 210 74 du 25 75 0.84 16 46 62 Senior Housing 251 37 du 35 65 0.97 13 23 36 2 Restaurant 932 6 ksf 52 48 11.52 36 33 69 Convenience Store / Gas Station 853 4 ksf 50 50 43.90 88 88 176 3 Hardware / Paint 13.4 Store 816 ksf 50 50 1.08 7 7 14 Gym / Fitness 23.4 4 Center/MOB 492 ksf * * * 18* 21* 39* Planned Unit Development AM Peak Hour Totals 142 185 327 Notes: Total trips include both passby trips and new trips. PUD does not include Lot 2. MOB- Medical Office Building. du-dwelling unit. ksf-1,000 square feet. *Provided by Trudell Consulting Engineers

Table 7 Total Development Trips during PM Peak Hour ITE Land Trip Generation Rates Total Trips/ Hour Use LOT Description Code Size % In % Out Total In Out Total Single Family 1 Homes 210 74 du 63 37 1.08 51 29 80 Senior Housing 251 37 du 61 39 0.57 13 8 21 2 Restaurant 932 6 ksf 59 41 11.15 40 27 67 Convenience Store / Gas Station 853 4 ksf 50 50 59.69 120 119 239 3 Hardware / Paint 13.4 Store 816 ksf 47 53 4.84 31 34 65 Gym / Fitness 23.4 4 Center/ MOB 492 ksf * * * 50* 38* 88* Planned Unit Development PM Peak Hour Totals 265 228 493 Notes: Total trips include both passby trips and new trips. PUD does not include Lot 2. MOB-Medical Office Building. du – dwelling unit. ksf -1,000 square feet. * Provided by Trudell Consulting Engineers The previously approved restaurant which is not part of the PUD is expected to generate 69 morning peak hour trips and 67 evening peak hour trips.

5.4 Planned Development Trip Distribution

Distribution of the planned development trips was estimated based on the existing and anticipated future traffic patterns in the area. Residential trips during the peak hours largely reflect the home – work trip. Work trip destinations were generally identified using the 2000 census data (2010 data was not available). The restaurant trip distribution reflects traffic passing the site and the location of homes within the greater

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 15

area surrounding the immediate project area. All retail trips are part passby and part related to home origins. The rehab gym complex trip distribution is based on home origins. Table 9 summarizes the assumed development trip distribution.

Table 8 Trip Distribution Lot Planned use Passby New Trip Distribution Percentage Percent VT 15 VT 15 River Raceway Site School North South Road Road 1 Residential- 12% 78% 10% Single Family Residential- 14% 86% Senior Housing 2 Restaurant 43% 3% 11% 19% 21% 3% 3 Retail AM 63% 14% 12% 7% 2% 2% PM 55% 17% 15% 9% 2% 2% 4 Rehab Gym 37% 33% 20% 5% 5%

The trip distribution assumptions were applied to the development building program and considering the future streets of the PUD. In addition, a driveway to Lot 3 was assumed on Dickenson Street. Figures illustrating these trips on the area roadway networks are provided in the appendix.

5.5 No Build Alternatives

As described previously, the No Build alternatives do not include any improvements to Dickenson Street and there are two No Build Alternatives. One includes the signalization of Steam Mill Road; the other is simply the existing condition without the traffic signal. The No Build alternatives were analyzed under 2025 AM and PM peak hour volume conditions with and without the Sawmill PUD development. The analysis involves a normalization process whereby the delays to left turns onto VT15 are essentially balanced between the options for that left turn. The adjusted volumes include morning peak hour commuters and school traffic that currently divert from Steam Mill Road to Park Street. The post analysis volumes for each condition are provided in the appendix.

5.5.1 No Build Alternatives Capacity Analysis The analysis of each condition is initiated with a distribution of existing volumes. This includes the AM diversion to Park Street and the distribution of new trips in accordance with the distribution percentages above. The analysis is iterative and continues until there is a relative normalization of the reported delays. For example if the initial loading indicates that delays to left turns onto VT 15 would be significantly less via the new signal on VT 15 at Steam Mill Road, then the volume would be reassigned to Steam Mill Road until the delays indicate no benefit would be gained by further diversion. This delay normalization process provides an indication of the potential normalization but it is approximate. There is no guarantee that drivers will migrate to the traffic signal, rather some drivers may have a bias whereby they simply avoid traffic signals.

16 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

The analysis assumes drivers will avoid the longer distance and or travel time if it results in less delay. The No Build capacity analysis is summarized in Tables 9 and 10. The presented results provide just the critical movement, ie. “lefts onto VT 15”, for a focused comparison. Full results are in the Appendix.

Table 9 No Build Capacity Analysis Results No Build - AM Peak Hour VT 15 w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay LOS LOS Approach (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 208 458 F 238 660 F Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 208 545 F 212 752 F No Build - PM Peak Hour VT 15 w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay LOS LOS Approach (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 100 41 E 140 154 F Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 86 125 F 78 186 F Synchro 7 software provides comparative estimates of very long delay.

Table 10 No Build with Signal at Steam Mill Road - Capacity Analysis Results No Build - AM Peak Hour VT 15 w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay LOS LOS Approach (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 20 14 B 20 14 B Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 396 23 C 421 28 D No Build - PM Peak Hour VT 15 w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay LOS LOS Approach (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 20 17 C 20 18 C Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 166 32 D 198 34 D Synchro 7 software provides comparative estimates of very long delay.

5.6 Build Alternatives

As stated previously this scoping study relates specifically to alternative improvements to Dickenson Street. There are three 2025 Build alternatives that have been analyzed with and without the Sawmill PUD. These are: • Build A: Two-way Dickenson Street with traffic signal control at VT 15; • Build B: Two-way Dickenson Street without a traffic signal at VT 15; • Build C: One-way westbound Dickenson Street without a traffic signal at VT 15.

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 17

5.6.1 Build Alternatives Capacity Analysis

Table 11 Two-Way Dickenson Street with Traffic Signal at VT 15 - Build Capacity Analysis Results Build A: Two-Way Dickenson St w/ Traffic Signal - AM Peak Hour w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay Approach LOS LOS (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 20 14 B 20 14 B Dickenson Street left onto VT15 379 21 C 433 22 C Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 17 73 E 17 116 F Stopped at Steam Mill Rd 366 17 C 384 23 C River Road Build A: Two-Way Dickenson St w/ Traffic Signal - PM Peak Hour w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay Approach LOS LOS (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 20 17 B 20 18 B Dickenson Street left onto VT15 146 15 B 201 16 B Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 20 44 D 20 61 E Stopped at Steam Mill Rd 370 11 B 422 12 B River Road Synchro 7 software provides comparative estimates of very long delay.

Table 12 Two-Way Dickenson Street without Traffic Signal at VT 15 - Build Capacity Analysis Results Build B: Two-Way Dickenson Street w/o Traffic Signal - AM Peak Hour w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay Approach LOS LOS (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 118 105 F 118 140 F Dickenson Street left onto VT15 221 171 F 270 361 F Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 77 127 F 82 230 F Stopped at Steam Mill Rd 316 13 B 341 16 C River Road Build B: Two-Way Dickenson Street w/o Traffic Signal - PM Peak Hour w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay Approach LOS LOS (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 20 17 C 20 18 C Dickenson Street left onto VT15 121 35 D 176 96 F Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 45 57 F 45 85 F Stopped at Steam Mill Rd 370 11 B 422 12 B River Road Synchro 7 software provides comparative estimates of very long delay.

18 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

Table 13 One-Way Westbound Dickenson Street - Build Capacity Analysis Results Build C: One-Way Westbound Dickenson Street - AM Peak Hour VT 15 w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay LOS LOS Approach (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 94 59 E 118 165 F Dickenson Street left onto VT15 245 130 F 272 234 F Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 77 157 F 77 264 F Right onto Steam Mill Rd 320 14 B 361 16 C River Road Build C: One-Way Westbound Dickenson Street - PM Peak Hour VT 15 w/o PUD w/ PUD Intersection/ Movement Volume Delay Volume Delay LOS LOS Approach (veh) (sec) (veh) (sec) Park Street left onto VT15 20 17 C 20 18 C Dickenson Street left onto VT15 121 36 E 190 102 F Steam Mill Rd left onto VT15 45 58 F 45 120 F Right onto Steam Mill Rd 372 11 B 458 12 B River Road Synchro 7 software provides comparative estimates of very long delay.

5.6.1 Analysis Findings Analysis findings including the movements identified in the Build Analysis and other findings are listed below: 1. With a signal at 2-way Dickenson Street, there would be acceptable Level of Service for all but a few remaining vehicles turning left from Steam Mill Road. 2. A signal at Dickenson Street would be warranted for 7 of 8 required hours in 2010. (MUTCD Warrant IBC). 3. Without a signal at 2-way Dickenson Street, in year 2030 delay at Steam Mill Road could be reduced to less than 2010 but not acceptable LOS. 4. Without a signal as one-way westbound, year 2030 delay at Steam Mill Road would be reduced to less than existing but not acceptable LOS. 5. Northbound right turns from VT 15 onto Steam Mill Road are expected to continue. AM peak hour traffic is mostly school related. PM peak hour traffic occurs after school dismissal. Delays due to proposed realignment and STOP control at SMR/Dickenson/River Road intersection will not exceed additional travel time via Dickenson Street. A northbound right turn lane on VT 15 at Dickenson Street therefore not required. 6. Southbound left turns from VT 15: Some left turns onto Park Street (10-20 vehicles during AM peak hour) are likely diverted to improve the Dickenson Street. Some left turns onto Steam Mill Road are potentially diverted to the improved Dickenson Street. Volume of southbound left turns on VT 15 and volume of opposing northbound movements on VT 15 do not warrant a southbound left turn lane.

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 19

7. Right turns from Dickenson Street onto VT 15: Minor right turn volume is expected for the future signal operation but to allow a pedestrian phase during the westbound left turn movement, a short right turn lane is recommended.

20 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

6.0 Intersection Alternatives

6.1 Design Criteria

Based on pertinent standards and references, applicable design criteria are tabulated below. These references include: • Vermont State Standard for the Design of Transportation Construction, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation on Freeways, Roads and Streets (VSS) • A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO) Parameter VT 15 Dickenson Steam Mill / Reference Street River Road Functional Classification Rural Minor Rural Rural Arterial Collector Collector AADT (2010) 9,000 vpd 3,000 vpd 4,500 vpd Design Vehicle WB-62 WB-62 WB-62 Posted Speed 35 mph 25 mph 25 mph Design Speed 40 mph 30 mph 30 mph Stopping Sight Distance 300 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. VSS Sect. 3.4.1; 5.4.1 Corner Sight Distance 440 ft. 330 ft. 330 ft. VSS Sect. 3.4.2; 5.4.2 Travel Lane Width Minimum 10 ft. 9 ft. 9 ft. VSS Sect. 3.5; 5.5 Existing 11 ft. N/A 11 ft. Proposed 11 ft. 11 ft. 11 ft. Shoulder Width (Shared use) Existing 2-4 ft. N/A Minimum w/ Bicycles 4 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. VSS Sect. 3.14, 5.1.4 Proposed N/A 3 ft. 3 ft. Clear Zone With Vertical Curb 1.5 ft. 1.5 ft. 1.5 ft. VSS Sect. 3.9; 5.9 Without Vertical Curb 14-16 ft. 12-14 ft. 12-14 ft. VSS Sect. 3.9; 5.9 Horizontal Alignment @ emax = 0.04 573 ft. 302 ft. 302 ft. AASHTO, Table III-8 @ sensitive resources 302 ft. 130 ft. 130 ft. AASHTO, Table III-8 (DS-10 mph) @ intersection approach 225 ft. 120 ft. 120 ft. AASHTO, Table III-8 (DS-15 mph) & III-7 @ reverse crown N/A 2,292 ft. 2,292 ft. AASHTO, Table III-8 & III-7 @ normal crown N/A 3,820 ft. 3,820 ft. AASHTO, Table III-8 & III-7

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 21

6.2 Alternatives Considered

Based on the results of the traffic analysis and discussions of the project committee, the two alternatives that warranted a full evaluation were Build A: Two way Dickenson Street with a traffic signal control at VT 15; and Build B: Two-way Dickenson Street without a traffic signal at VT 15. The alternative Build C: One-way westbound Dickenson Street without a traffic signal of VT 15 was discarded from full evaluation due to its limited traffic benefits, limited in meeting the project’s purpose and need and limited cost reduction when compared to a two-way alternative. The limited cost reduction is due to the one way roadway width only being reduced from a 28 foot wide two-way width to 20-foot wide one-way width. The project committee also discussed the analyzed no build alternative of signalizing the VT 15 / Steam Mill Road intersection. This no build alternative was discarded from further evaluation due to the existing intersection skew, the difficulty for turning buses, the limited sight distance, and it does not reduce traffic conflicts with school operations. A full evaluation of this alternative is described in the 2001 scoping report.

6.3 Build A: Two-way Dickenson with Signal at VT 15

This alternative includes reconstructing Dickenson Street, reconfiguring the Dickenson Street / Steam Mill Road / River Road intersection and adding a signal at VT 15. The proposed alignment maintains the existing southern edge of Dickenson and widens primarily on the north side. The alternative plan is shown on the following page. This alternative has the following features and impacts: • Provides a roadway section with 11 foot travel lanes, 3 foot shoulders and 5 foot sidewalk on the north side. • Adds a traffic signal at VT 15/Dickenson Street including a crosswalk and pedestrian phase for crossing VT 15 and connecting the VT 15 sidewalk to Dickenson Street and the school beyond. • Maintains the existing VT 15 lane geometry of signal lane approaches to the VT 15/Dickenson Street. • Provides a left and right turn lane on the Dickenson Street approach to VT 15. • Provides a LOS C for Dickenson Street traffic turning left onto VT 15 in the 2025 AM peak. • Reconfigures the Dickenson Street / Steam Mill Road / River Road intersection to reflect the projected traffic volumes. Dickenson Street is aligned with River Road, facilitating the primary east-west-through movement, and Steam Mill Road T’s into Dickenson Street / River Road with a stop condition. • All approaches to the Dickenson / Steam Mill Road / River Road intersection are proposed to be a signal lane as suggested by the traffic volumes. This minimizes the width of pedestrian crossings and impacts to adjacent properties. • Provides a crosswalk connecting the Dickenson Street / River Road northside sidewalk to the Steam Mill Road east side sidewalk and connecting to the school.

22 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

There are options for alignment of the Steam Mill Road approach to Dickenson Street / River Road. These are shown in Appendix D. In order to minimize impact to the Gauthier property on the south west corner the approach alignment have shifted eastward and the corresponding future development access is shifted as well. Based on discussions with the property owner, there was not a concern with aligning the intersection as shown on the alternative plan. The property owner pointed out that historically the intersection had a similar alignment.

6.4 Build B: Two-way Dickenson Street with No Signal at VT 15

This alternative is identical to Build A alternative but does not include a signal at VT Route 15. As indicated in the traffic analysis, this provides for some diversion of traffic from Steam Mill Road / VT 15 intersection. This traffic diversion and the traffic volumes still result in a LOS F for left turning traffic on VT 15 at both Steam Mill Road and Dickenson Street. This alternative does provide a lower total cost and maintains mobility on VT 15.

6.6 Evaluation Matrix

The table below summarizes the evaluation and comparison of alternatives:

Alternative Evaluation Matrix ITEM Build A Build B Project Costs Construction Costs (estimated) $900,000 $770,000 Preliminary Engineering (15%) $135,000 $115,000 ROW Costs (estimated) -- -- Construction Engineering (10%) $90,000 $77,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,125,000 $962,000 Performance Overall LOS – VT 15/Dickenson St. B F Critical Approach East East LOS C F Maintenance Signal Yes No Snow Removal Some additional Some additional Safety Design speed 35 35 Sight distance (corner) Min. 400 Provided >440’ >440’ School Bus Improved Improved Pedestrian crossing Protected Unprotected Bicycles Similar Similar Impacts Environmental Minor Minor Adjacent properties 1 1 Driveways relocated 0 0

24 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report

Alternative Evaluation Matrix ITEM Build A Build B Utilities 1 pole relocation 1 pole relocation Purpose and Need Improved access to VT 15 Yes Some Improved bus access to school Yes Yes Improved pedestrian routes to Yes Some school Improved PUD access and Yes Yes circulation Permits ACT 250 No No NEPA Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion 401 Water quality Yes Yes 404 COE Wetlands No No WD – ANR Wetlands No No Stream alteration No No Stormwater Discharge Possible Possible Archaeology – Phase IB Possible Possible Section 106 / Historic No No NEPDES CGP CGP

6.7 Public Informational Meetings

On March 21, 2011, the Town of Jericho held a noticed public meeting to present the project and solicit comments. Stantec presented the information in the draft scoping report, dated March 21, 2011 including existing conditions, project purpose and need and the alternatives. The public generally supported the Alternative B: Two Way Dickenson Street with no signal at VT Route 15. The following are some comments recorded: 1. The magnitude of the cost to reconstructing Dickenson Street was a concern and the town may need to consider an incremental approach to construct the project. 2. The resulting speed of vehicles on the improved Dickenson Street was a concern and measures to calm traffic should be included. It was pointed out the shoulders for bikes, the adjacent sidewalk, and lighting promote slower speeds and the design of the area’s development can also promote slower speeds. 3. Accommodating pedestrians and school children was a concern. While some thought the project adequately addressed pedestrians others were concerned with an unprotected crossing at Dickenson Street for school children. 4. One participant suggested focusing the traffic on Dickenson Street by restricting through traffic on Steam Mill Road. It was pointed out that by continuing to allow through traffic on Steam Mill Road, it disperses the traffic among more streets and contributes to many of the intersections not requiring additional turn lanes and thus improving pedestrian crossing safety. 5. Another participant questioned why a roundabout was not proposed at the VT 15/Dickenson Street intersection. Given the cost, potential impacts, and the limited traffic operations benefits a roundabout was not investigated.

Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report 25

6. It was mentioned the town is investigating alternatives to construct these improvements including establishing a tax increment financing (TIF) district. Subsequent to the public meeting the town also received written and oral comments. These are included in Appendix C.

6.8 Preferred Alternative

On April 7, 2011, the town selectboard met and endorsed the alternative Build B: Two- way Dickenson Street with no signal at VT 15. This was based on the input received and it was understood a traffic signal may eventually be installed once the Dickenson Street and VT 15 volumes grow to the point it is warranted. As this project moves forward, close coordination with the area’s planned development will be needed. Some additional details to consider, as pointed out by the public, include: • Narrow the travel lanes on Dickenson Street to 10 feet. • Widening the green strip between the roadway and sidewalk and provide street trees. • Provide on-street parking that is compatible with development. • Consider a phased implementation that would initially make Dickenson one- way with limited improvements. As requested, Stantec developed the concept and cost estimate to initially construct Dickenson Street as one-way westbound. The concept is shown on the following page. As shown on the typical section, cost is minimized by limiting the paved width to 14 feet with 2 foot gravel shoulders, having minimal construction at the intersections, and constructing a gravel surfaced path for pedestrians. This construction would complement the ultimate two-way construction and contribute to its cost. The opinion of cost for its construction is $160,000 and a breakdown is included in the Appendix.

26 Dickenson Street Improvements Scoping Report CL E N GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL SHOULDER SHOULDER WALKWAY DG (2 ft) TRAVEL LANE (2 ft) I VILLEJO VENTURES, LLC (6 ft) (8 ft) (14 ft)

M O 4" BIT. CONC.

T A 12" GRAVEL

I C

GHLYON JERICHO, LLC AGN 33

M SLOPE VARIES SLOPE VARIES

DICKENSON ST. ONE-WAY NOT TO SCALE

VILLENEUVE SAWMILL PUD

KOLB RD. VILLENEUVE ER VILLENEUVE RIV

2 +5 17

17+00 +00 16

FUTURE DRIVE

T. 00 S 15+ NSON ICKE NEW WALKWAY D 00 14+

00 13+

WETLAND 00 PUTZIER 12+

11+00

10+00

30 GAUTHIER ET AL

CHITTENDEN SCHOOL DISTRICT

+ ANO

29 L O T R LAVALLEE

O OAD T R

LL I

15 MCCLURE M

T M V A TE S

+ D R

28 A BB

HU ONE WAY PLAN COLLINS X 0 30 60 DICKENSON ST. IMPROVEMENTS E JERICHO, VT BOOTH SCALE O SS SCALE 1"=60' 05/ 31/ 2011 T E APPENDIX A Traffic Data / Analysis

Appendix

Traffic Count Data

Crash Data

Trip Generation / Distribution Data

Volume Networks and Capacity Analysis

Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis

Traffic Count Data

Crash Data

Page: 1 Vermont Agency of Transportation Date: 09/08/2010 General Yearly Summaries - Crash Listing: State Highways and All Federal Aid Highway Systems From 01/01/05 To 12/31/09 General Yearly Summaries Information

Reporting Number Number Agency/ Mile Date Of Of Road * Number Town Marker MM/DD/YY Time Weather Contributing Circumstances Direction Of Collision Injuries Fatalities Direction Group

Route: VT-15 0417/14162-06 Jericho 3.14 11/01/2006 14:20 Cloudy Followed too closely, No improper driving Rear End 0 0 E SH 0417/14964-07 Jericho 3.14 11/17/2007 09:45 Clear No improper driving, Failed to yield right of way Left Turn and Thru, Broadside v<-- 0 0 E SH 0417/4744-07 Jericho 3.15 04/01/2007 14:00 Clear Failed to yield right of way, No improper driving No Turns, Thru moves only, Broadside ^< 0 0 E SH 0417/16130-05 Jericho 3.19 11/20/2005 18:28 Cloudy Failed to yield right of way, Made an improper Right Turn and Thru, Broadside ^<-- 0 0 N SH turn, No improper driving 0417/461-05 Jericho 3.22 01/03/2005 23:45 Cloudy Failure to keep in proper lane or running off Single Vehicle Crash 0 0 E SH road VTVSP0100/08A10 Jericho 3.22 04/02/2008 14:30 Clear No improper driving, Failure to keep in proper Opp Direction Sideswipe 2 0 SH 1669 lane or running off road, Unknown VTVSP0100/09A10 Jericho 3.22 06/10/2009 20:41 Clear Failed to yield right of way, Made an improper Left Turn and Thru, Angle Broadside -->v-- 0 0 SH 2410 turn, No improper driving 0417/8411-07 Jericho 3.25 05/18/2007 23:22 Cloudy Swerving or avoiding due to wind, slippery Opp Direction Sideswipe 0 0 E SH surface, vehicle, object, non-motorist in roadway etc, Failure to keep in proper lane or running off road, No improper driving 0417/7385-05 Jericho 3.4 05/23/2005 17:20 Rain Followed too closely, Exceeded authorized Rear End 1 0 SH speed limit, No improper driving 0417/4768-07 Jericho 3.45 03/24/2007 15:24 Cloudy Followed too closely, No improper driving Rear End 0 0 E SH 0417/3502-07 Jericho 3.47 02/19/2007 07:37 Clear Failed to yield right of way, No improper driving No Turns, Thru moves only, Broadside ^< 0 0 W SH VTVSP0100/08A10 Jericho 3.64 11/10/2008 02:59 Rain Failure to keep in proper lane or running off Single Vehicle Crash 0 0 W SH 5059 road 0417/12684-05 Jericho 3.65 08/27/2005 19:04 Clear No improper driving Opp Direction Sideswipe 1 0 SH

Note: THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCOVERY OR ADMISSION UNDER 23 U.S.C 409.

*Crash occurred prior to the last Highway Improvement Project. This data should not be used in a crash analysis. UNK indicates the Mile Marker is Unknown.

Trip Generation / Distribution Data

AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION

ITE Land Trip Generation Rates Total Trips/ Hour Pass-By Trips/ Hour New Trips/ Hour Use % % LOT Description Code Size In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 1 Single Family Homes 210 74 du 25 75 0.84 16 46 62 na na na 16 46 62 Senior Housing 251 37 du 35 65 0.97 13 23 36 na na na 13 23 36 2 Restaurant 932 6 ksf 52 48 11.52 36 33 69 15 15 30 21 18 39 3 Convenience Store / Gas Station 853 4 ksf 50 50 43.90 88 88 176 58 58 116 30 30 60 Hardware / 13.4 Paint Store 816 ksf 50 50 1.08 7 7 14 2 2 4 5 5 10 4 Gym / Fitness 23.4 Center 492 ksf 45 55 1.38 15 17 32 na na na 15 17 32 Medical – 5.28 Dental Office 770 ksf 79 21 2.30 6 1 7 na na na 6 1 7 Planned Unit Development AM Peak Hour Totals 139 181 320 75 75 150 85 122 207 Notes: 1. Na = not available. 2. Lot 2 not included in PUD. 3. Senior Housing assumed 50 percent density increment. 4. ITE LUC 210 – Fitted Curve Trip Estimate AM Peak Hour: T = 0.70 (X) + 9.74 per ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition 5. ITE LUC 251 – Fitted Curve Trip Estimate AM Peak Hour: T = 0.17 (X) + 29.95 per ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition 6. ITE LUC 932 – Average Pass-By trip rate / AM Peak Hour = na; use 43% (PM Peak Hour) per ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 7. ITE LUC 853 – Average Pass-By trip rate / AM Peak Hour = 66% per ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 8. ITE LUC 816 – Average Pass-By trip rate / AM Peak Hour = na; use 26% (PM Peak Hour) per ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 9. ITE LUC 770 - Complementing Peak hour trips as submitted to ACT 250 per Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc September 17, 2010 memo.

PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION

ITE Land Trip Generation Rates Total Trips/ Hour Pass-By Trips/ Hour New Trips/ Hour Use % % LOT Description Code Size In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 1 Single Family Homes 210 74 du 63 37 1.08 51 29 80 na na na 51 29 80 Senior Housing 251 37 du 61 39 0.57 13 8 21 na na na 13 8 21 2 Restaurant 932 6 ksf 59 41 11.15 40 27 67 17 11 28 26 13 39 3 Convenience Store / Gas Station 853 4 ksf 50 50 59.69 120 119 239 76 76 152 44 43 87 Hardware / 13.4 Paint Store 816 ksf 47 53 4.84 31 34 65 8 8 16 23 26 49 4 Gym / Fitness 23.4 Center 492 ksf 57 43 3.59 48 36 84 na na na 48 36 84 Medical – 5.28 Dental Office 720 ksf 27 73 3.46 1 3 4 na na na 1 3 4 Planned Unit Development PM Peak Hour Totals 263 226 489 84 85 169 180 145 325 Notes: 1. Na = not available. 2. Lot 2 not included in PUD. 3. Senior Housing assumed 50 percent density increment. 4. ITE LUC 210 – Fitted Curve Trip Estimate Ln (T) = 0.90 Ln (X) + 0.51 per ITE Trip Generation 8Th Edition. 5. ITE LUC 251 – Fitted Curve Trip Estimate Ln (T) = 0.75 Ln (X) + 0.35 per ITE Trip Generation 8Th Edition. 6. ITE LUC 492 – Fitted Curve Trip Estimate Ln (T) = 0.95 Ln (X) + 1.43 per ITE Trip Generation 8Th Edition. 7. ITE LUC 932 – Average Pass-By trip rate / PM Peak Hour = 43% per ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 8. ITE LUC 853 – Average Pass-By trip rate / PM Peak Hour = 63% per ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 9. ITE LUC 816 – Average Pass-By trip rate / PM Peak Hour = 26% per ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 10. ITE LUC 720 – Complementing Peak hour trips as submitted to ACT 250 per Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc September 17, 2010 memo.

Volume Networks and Capacity Analysis

Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis

Dickenson Street Study ‐ Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis STANTEC 1/10/2011 VT 15 at Steam Mill Road ( River Road) Jericho, VT Start Time Thursday 5/27/2010 Major Minor NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume Volume AM 5:00 AM 5:00 6:00 153 596 6:00 749 135 7:00 18 176 170 32 606 59 7:00 1061 297 8:00 25 154 90 4 353 40 8:00 666 181 9:00 16 123 52 5 234 27 9:00 457 111 10:00 15 132 73 4 187 21 10:00 432 81 11:00 22 149 74 5 211 29 11:00 490 92 PM 12:00 38 171 84 2 176 19 PM 12:00 490 69 1:00 35 201 107 3 163 16 1:00 525 71 2:00 42 220 168 11 187 22 2:00 650 144 3:00 56 369 166 9 240 19 3:00 859 130 4:00 46 478 210 3 210 25 4:00 972 113 5:00 50 505 281 7 275 30 5:00 1148 122 6:00 33 375 173 4 204 14 6:00 803 85 7:00 7:00 0

Park Street @ VT15 Steam Mill Rd @ VT15 Combined Approaches @ VT15 Adjusted Signal Warrant Conclusion Start Time Tues 6/15/2010 Start Time Thurs 5/27/2010 Start Time (‐20) Warrant 1Ac met WB left WB left WB left WB left AM 5:00 AM 5:00 AM 5:00 Signal Warrants 6:00 6:00 155 6:00 155 135 8 HR A8 HR B 7:007:00 147 51 7:007:00 170 6 77:00:00 317 57 297 MajorMajor MiMinornor MajorMajor MiMinornor 8:00 59 23 8:00 142 6 8:00 201 29 181 (a) 100% 500 150 750 75 9:00 21 24 9:00 110 2 9:00 131 26 111 10:00 22 26 10:00 79 3 10:00 101 29 81 (b) 80% 400 120 600 60 11:00 22 24 11:00 90 5 11:00 112 29 92 PM 12:00 10 31 PM 12:00 79 2 PM 12:00 89 33 69 ( c ) 70% 350 105 525 53 1:00 17 17 1:00 74 6 1:00 91 23 71 Isolated Community Pop < 10K 2:00 26 48 2:00 138 13 2:00 164 61 144 3:00 26 46 3:00 124 10 3:00 150 56 130 Average Weekday Volume Check 4:00 20 51 4:00 113 7 4:00 133 58 113 Based on P6D040 US 7 Colchester 5:00 15 35 5:00 127 7 5:00 142 42 122 MAWDT to AAWDT 6:00 8 33 6:00 97 2 6:00 105 35 85 May 1.02 > 1.00 OK 7:00 7:00 7:00 June 1.03 > 1.00 OK

155 SB per ATR Adjusted ( ‐20) relates to non diverted volume Dickenson Street Study ‐ Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis STANTEC 1/10/2011 VT 15 at Dickenson Street, Jericho, VT Start Time Thursday 5/27/2010 Major Minor NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume Volume AM 5:00 AM 5:00 6:00 153 596 6:00 749 105 7:00 176 697 7:00 873 277 8:00 154 397 8:00 551 181 9:00 123 266 9:00 389 105 10:00 132 212 10:00 344 73 11:00 149 245 11:00 394 77 PM 12:00 171 297 PM 12:00 468 71 1:00 201 182 1:00 383 51 2:00 220 220 2:00 440 96 3:00 369 268 3:00 637 93 4:00 478 238 4:00 716 96 5:00 505 312 5:00 817 103 6:00 375 222 6:00 597 87 7:00 7:00

Total School Exits onto SMR Steam Mill Rd @ VT15 Diversion to Sig at Dickenson Signal Warrant Conclusion Start Time 1‐Jun‐10 Start Time Thurs 5/27/2010 Start Time Warrant 1Bc not met (7 of 8 hr) left right WB left right WB left right AM 5:00 AM 5:00 AM 5:00 Signal Warrants 6:00 6:00 155 6:00 105 8 HR A8 HR B 7:007:00 105 126 7:007:00 170 6 77:00:00 277* MajorMajor MiMinornor MajorMajor MiMinornor 8:00 41 18 8:00 142 6 8:00 181* (a) 100% 500 150 750 75 9:00 9 3 9:00 110 2 9:00 105 10:00 16 5 10:00 79 3 10:00 73 (b) 80% 400 120 600 60 11:00 13 13 11:00 90 5 11:00 77 PM 12:00 8 5 PM 12:00 79 2 PM 12:00 71 ( c ) 70% 350 105 525 53 1:00 23 10 1:00 74 6 1:00 51 Isolated Community Pop < 10K 2:00 89 42 2:00 138 13 2:00 96 3:00 62 34 3:00 124 10 3:00 93 Average Weekday Volume Check 4:00 34 31 4:00 113 7 4:00 96 Based on P6D040 US 7 Colchester 5:00 47 31 5:00 127 7 5:00 103 MAWDT to AAWDT 6:00 20 12 6:00 97 2 6:00 87 May 1.02 > 1.00 OK 7:00 7:00 7:00 June 1.03 > 1.00 OK

155 SB per ATR Diversion to Dickenson St. includes 50% of left turns exiting School during off peak hours, AM peak hour traffic currently diverted to Park St (*), and all traffic unrelated to school and library during all hours of day.

APPENDIX B Existing Resources

Memo

To: David DeBaie From: Polly Harris South Burlington, VT South Burlington, VT File: Dickinson St Date: November 17, 2010 195310475

Reference: Dickinson Street Natural Resources Summary

As requested, on November 16, 2010, Stantec Consulting (Stantec) evaluated the regulated natural resources present within the Dickinson Street study area in Jericho, Vermont. This area is being evaluated as part of a scoping study for traffic solutions near the intersections of Dickinson Street, River Road, and Steam Mill Road in Jericho. The study area for natural resource identification is shown in yellow on the attached figure (see Dickinson St Plan). Specifically, Stantec identified and characterized observable rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and agricultural land within the study area. Wetland boundaries under state and federal jurisdiction were determined using the technical criteria described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Following is a summary of our findings.

General Site Description

The study area adjacent to Dickinson Street, River Road, and Steam Mill Road is developed with a sawmill, a large industrial garage, homes, and schools. Maintained lawns, telephone poles, driveways, and drainage features are also present within the study area (see Photos 1 and 2).

Natural Resource Review Summary

RTE Species Stantec identified no RTE plant or animal species during the November 16, 2010 site visit. According to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) Environmental Interest Locator database (http://maps.vermont.gov/imf/sites/ANR_NATRESViewer/jsp/launch.jsp; accessed November 17, 2010), there are no RTE species mapped within the study area. Because the narrow study area corridor adjacent to the roadway has been disturbed by road construction and housing development, it is unlikely that any RTE plant or animal species occur within the study area.

Wetlands According to the ANR database, there are no wetlands mapped within the study area. One area of hydric soils is shown to the southeast of the study area (see Dickinson St Plan). However, based on our site investigation, one wetland was identified within the study area during the November 16, 2010 site visit. The approximate boundaries of this wetland are shown on the attached figure (CITE).

This palustrine emergent wetland is located south of River Road and north of the maintained playing fields of Browns River Middle School. The wetland is dominated narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and common reed (Phragmites

lrs v:\1953\active\195310475\transportation\field_data\dickinson st nat resource summary.docx November 17, 2010 David DeBaie Page 2 of 4

Reference: Dickinson St Natural Resources Summary

australis), with areas of goldenrod (Solidago sp.), common rush (Juncus effusus), and redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea) also present (see Photos 3 and 4).

Although this wetland is not shown on the ANR maps, it would likely be considered a Class II wetland based on the updated Vermont Wetland Rules (2010). Therefore, any impacts to this wetland would require authorization from ANR under a Vermont Wetland Permit. Similarly, any impacts would also require authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Projects with less than 3,000 square feet of wetland impact may qualify for a Category 1 (Non-reporting) General Permit (GP) and be authorized under the GP without notifying the Corps. Wetland impacts greater than 3,000 square feet require an application to and authorization from the Corps.

Agricultural Land The study area is not used for agriculture. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/), the soil types mapped for the study area corridor include Stetson gravelly fine sandy loam along Dickinson Street, Belgrade and Eldridge soils in the western portion of the wetland, and Enosburg and Whately soils in the eastern portion of the wetland. The Enosburg and Whately soils are considered hydric. All of these soils have local agricultural significance. However, based on the history of land use and development, it is unlikely that any agricultural use would take place within the narrow undeveloped portion of the study area.

Summary

One wetland was identified within the study area. This is a palustrine emergent wetland associated with a drainage. Any wetland impacts resulting from this project would require authorization from ANR and the US Army Corps of Engineers. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.

Polly Harris Project Manager | Wetland Scientist [email protected]

Attachment: Dickinson St Plan

Dickinson St Wetland Sketch

November 17, 2010 David DeBaie Page 3 of 4

Reference: Dickinson St Natural Resources Summary

Dickinson Street Natural Resources Summary Photographs

Photo 1. View of Dickinson Street, looking east. 11/16/10

Photo 2. A drainage ditch is present along the south side of Dickinson Street. This is not a jurisdictional wetland. 11/16/10

November 17, 2010 David DeBaie Page 4 of 4

Reference: Dickinson St Natural Resources Summary

Photo 3. A palustrine emergent wetland is located on the south side of River Road. 11/16/10

Photo 4. The wetland is located between River Road and the school playing fields. 11/16/10

ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Dickinson Street Upgrade Project

Dickinson Street Town of Jericho Chittenden County, Vermont

HAA # V548-11

Submitted to: Stantec 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403

Prepared by: Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc.

PO Box 81 Putney, Vermont 05346 p +1 802 387 6020 f +1 802 387 8524 e [email protected]

www.hartgen.com

An ACRA Member Firm www.acra-crm.org

February 2011 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

ABSTRACT In November 2010, Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. (HAA) was contracted by Stantec Engineering to complete an archeological and historical architecture resource assessment for the proposed Dickinson Street Upgrade project in the Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont. Thomas R. Jamison served as the project director, Walter R. Wheeler developed the architectural review and Bruce B. Sterling provided the graphics. The project was required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The lead agency for the project is the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) in conjunction with the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO).

The project proposes to redesign the roadway so that Dickinson Street, a one-way dirt road will become the main access between Vermont Route 15 and River Road, reducing traffic in front of the middle school and library. The area of potential effects (APE) encompasses approximately 4.5 acres (1.82 ha) along Dickinson Street, VT Route 15, Steam Mill Road and River Road. A site visit on November 29, 2010 examined the project area for areas of archeological sensitivity, disturbance and historical architectural and structural features. Several areas of archeological potential were identified along the edges of the APE. Recommendations are provided concerning the archeologically sensitive areas and adjacent historical structures. These recommendations include avoidance of effects, if possible, or Phase IB archeological reconnaissance survey if avoidance is not possible. There are no concerns with respect to proposed impacts as presented in preliminary project plans upon standing historic resources.

UTM coordinates for the project APE in VT State Plane NAD 1983 are: NW 464375.6m, 224573.2m SW 464366.9m, 224495.9m NE 464665.8m, 224584.8m SE 464668.7m, 224552.8m

ii Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

TABLE of CONTENTS

Management Summary and Recommendations...... 1 Introduction...... 1 Project Information...... 1 Project Location...... 1 Description of the Area of Potential Effects (APE)...... 1 Research Design...... 1 Environmental Background...... 5 Present Land Use and Current Conditions...... 5 Soils ...... 5 Bedrock Geology ...... 5 Physiography and Hydrology...... 5 Documentary Research...... 6 Archeological Sites...... 6 State and National Register ...... 6 Previous Surveys ...... 7 Historical Map Review...... 7 Map-Documented and Existing Structures ...... 13 Architectural Discussion and Recommendations...... 13 Sidewalks and curbs...... 13 Retaining walls...... 13 Exterior Stairs, Historic Fences, Historic Trees ...... 16 Archeological Sensitivity Assessment...... 16 Precontact Archeological Sensitivity...... 16 Historic Archeological Sensitivity ...... 17 Archeological Potential ...... 17 Recommendations ...... 18 Bibliography...... 19

APPENDIX I: VT ArcheoMap APPENDIX II: VDHP Environmental Predictive Model

Map List

Map 1. Project Location (USGS 1948/1980)………………………………………………………………...2 Map 2. Existing Conditions Plan (Stantec 2011)…………………………………………………………….3 Map 3. Conceptual Plan (Stantec 2011)……………………………………………………………………...4 Map 4. Project Area in 1857 (Walling)………………………………………………………………………8 Map 5. Project Area in 1869 (Beers)………………………………………………………………………...9 Map 6. Project Area in 1916 (Wilbur)……………………………………………………………………...10 Map 7. Project Area in 1927 (USGS)………………………………………………………………………11 Map 8. Project Area in 1948 (USGS)………………………………………………………………………12

Photograph List

Photo 1. Riverside Greek Revival Complex (SR 0409-66), Structure 1. View to the west/northwest...... 14 Photo 2. Riverside Greek Revival Complex (SR 0409-66), Structure 2. View to the west/northwest...... 14 Photo 3. Riverside Greek Revival Complex (SR 0409-66), Structure 3. View to the west/northwest...... 15

ii Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Photo 4. Existing asphalt sidewalk typical of the project area. East end of the APE with the ...... 15 Photo 5. Terrace at edge of River Road, area of precontact archeological potential...... 16 Photo 6. West end of Dickinson Street. Note level lawn on the right, considered archeologically sensitive. View to the east...... 17 Photo 7. The east end of Dickinson Street. Note lawn on the right, considered archeologically sensitive and the drainage ditch on the left. View to the west...... 18

Table List

Table 1. Soils in Project Area (USDA 2010) ...... 5 Table 2. VAI Archeological Sites in the Project Vicinity ...... 6 Table 3. NRE Properties and Inventoried Buildings within or Adjacent to the Project Area...... 6 Table 4. Summary of map-documented and existing structures within the Project Area/APE...... 13

iii Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

ARCHEOLOGICAL and HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE ASSESSMENT

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The archeological and historical architecture assessment for the Dickinson Street Upgrade project identified several areas of archeological sensitivity along the edges of the project area of potential effects (APE). Avoidance of these areas is preferred. Avoidance might be accomplished through redesign of the sidewalk portion of the conceptual plan. If the sensitive areas can not be avoided, Phase IB archeological reconnaissance survey is recommended. Such a survey would consist of the excavation of shovel tests in the sensitive areas that will be affected.

INTRODUCTION Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. (HAA, Inc.) was retained by Stantec to conduct an archeological and historical resource assessment for the proposed Dickinson Street Upgrade project located on Dickinson Street between Vermont Route 15 and River Road in the Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont (Map 1). The lead agency for this project is the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). This review and assessment was conducted to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The investigation was conducted according to the Vermont State Historic Preservation Office’s Guidelines for Conducting Archeology in Vermont (2002).

PROJECT INFORMATION A site visit was conducted by Thomas R. Jamison on November 29, 2010 to observe and photograph existing conditions within the project area. The information gathered during the site visit is included in the relevant sections of the report.

Project Location The project area is located along a section of dirt road known as Dickinson Street that extends between Vermont Route 15 on the west and River Road on the east (Map 2). The project is proposed to upgrade Dickinson Street into the main route between Route 15 and River Road, as opposed to the current primary alignment along Steam Mill Road.

Description of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) The APE includes all portions of the property that will be directly or indirectly altered by the proposed undertaking. The project is currently in a conceptual planning stage, so the boundaries of the APE are approximate. The APE, as depicted on Map 3, encompasses approximately 4.5 acres (1.82 ha).

RESEARCH DESIGN The project objectives are to identify archeological and historical resources that may be affected by the project. This report discusses areas of archeological sensitivity based on environmental factors, known site information and historical information for the project APE and the general vicinity as appropriate. In addition, historical architectural properties in the project area are discussed.

1 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

2 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The environment of an area is significant for determining the sensitivity of the project area for archeological resources. Precontact and historic groups often favored level, well-drained areas near wetlands and waterways. The earliest residents may have camped at the edges of glacial landforms recently released from glacial ice. Therefore, topography, proximity to wetlands, and soils are examined to determine if there are landforms in the project area that are more likely to contain archeological resources. In addition, bedrock formations may contain chert or other resources that may have been quarried by precontact groups. Soil conditions can provide a clue to past climatic conditions, as well as changes in local hydrology.

Present Land Use and Current Conditions The project area is currently characterized by a few residences, two industrial buildings and the nearby Brown’s River Middle School. Dickinson Road is a lightly used dirt road with two houses and an industrial property along it. The south side, and part of the north side, of the road is lined with deciduous and a few evergreen trees. Most of the alignment is fairly level. However, at the west end of the APE the level of VT Route 15 is slightly raised above the adjacent house lots to the west. At the east end of Dickinson Street the topography slopes down to the south and a drainage ditch is located along the south side of the road. East of Dickinson Street, River Road continues to the east along the edge of a terrace that overlooks the school property.

Soils Soil surveys provide a general characterization of the types and depths of soils that are found in an area, providing details of landform formation and soil characteristics. This information is an important factor in determining the appropriate methodology if and when a field study is recommended and where testing should be conducted. The soil type also informs the degree of artifact visibility and likely recovery rates. For example, artifacts are more visible and more easily recovered in sand than in stiff glacial clay, which will not pass through a screen easily. According to the USDA, most of the project APE is within an area of glacial outwash soils. However, the eastern end of the APE is located at the edge of glacial lacustrine soils (USDA 2010). The surficial geology of the area has been mapped as glacial lake soils at the edge of alluvial soils (Conally 1965). In either case, the project location at the intersection of these two landforms suggests potential for precontact occupation along this border.

Table 1. Soils in Project Area (USDA 2010) Name and symbol Texture Slope Drainage Landform Belgrade and Eldridge soils, 0 to SaLo 0-3% Moderately well Gently sloping glacial 3% slopes (BiA) drained lacustrine deposits Stetson gravelly fine sandy loam, 0 SaLo 0-5% Well drained Gently sloping glacial outwash to 5% slopes (StA) Key: Texture: Co-Coarse, Fi-Fine, Gv-Gravel(ly), Lo-Loam, Sa-Sand, Si-Silt, Vy-Very

Bedrock Geology The bedrock is the Underhill Formation, characterized as schist with some granular white quartz (Doll et al. 1961). This formation was not an important resource for the raw material for stone tools made by precontact populations. The Underhill Formation and local glacial drift may have provided material for expedient tools.

Physiography and Hydrology The project area is generally level with a gradual slope down to the southeast. The APE is located in a broad valley between the Brown’s River located behind the school to the southeast and The Creek to the northwest, approximately 274 meters (900 ft) in either direction.

5 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH

Archeological Sites Previously reported archeological sites provide an overview of both the types of sites that may be present in the project area and relation of sites throughout the surrounding region. The presence of few reported sites, however, may result from a lack of previous systematic survey and does not necessarily indicate a decreased archeological sensitivity within the project area. An examination of the archeological site files at the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP) determined that there are no reported archeological sites within a one mile (1.6 km) radius of the project area. However, there are several sites in the general project vicinity. The Brown’s River Petroglyph Site (VT-CH- 236) is located 2.6 miles (4.1 km) west of the project area along the Brown’s River and is thought to be of precontact origin. Approximately 4.6 miles (7.4 km) to the southwest are three precontact sites (VT-CH-975, VT-CH-976, VT-CH-977) found at the Wingate project area in Jericho (Dillon 2011). Several additional precontact sites are reported further downstream along the Brown’s River (Thomas et al. 2005). Historic archeological sites have been reported in several areas in Underhill Center and to the north. They all date from the early 19th century into the 20th century. In addition, the University of Vermont identified numerous historic archeological sites at the Ethan Allen Firing Range in Bolton, Jericho and Underhill located approximately five kilometers (3.1 mi) east of the project area (Thomas et al. 2005).

Table 2. VAI Archeological Sites in the Project Vicinity VAI Site No. Site Identifier Description Proximity to Project Area VT-CH-236 Brown’s River Precontact carving 2.6 mi to W Petroglyph VT-CH-437 Phillips/Cash Site 19th-century cellar hole 2.5 mi to E VT-CH-438 Gibson Barn Site Prob. 19th-century foundation 3.1 mi to E/NE VT-CH-447 19th-century barn foundation 3.4 mi to E/NE VT-CH-472 Prob. Early 19th-century cabin cellar 3.0 mi to N hole VT-CH-726 Hanaford Site c. 1840 saw and grist mill site 2.2 mi to E/SE VT-CH-727 Bicknell Site Early 20th-century residence 2.2 mi to E/SE VT-CH-728 Powell Site Late 19th-century residence 2.2 mi to E/SE State and National Register A search of the files at VDHP identified two properties listed on the State Register of Historic Places (SR) located in the project vicinity. Both are considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRE). No properties currently listed on the National Register are located within or adjacent to the project area. Directly adjacent to the western end of the APE is the Riverside Greek Revival Complex, a cluster of three Greek Revival style houses (No. 1, 2, and 3 from south to north) all constructed between c.1835 and 1857, possibly by the same local carpenter (Cramer 1978a; Walling 1857). Located approximately 213 meters (700 ft) to the west of the project APE is the Zina Brown Farm (named on the SR form as the Lina Brown Farm), which is also listed on the State Register. This farmstead is identified as c. 1800 on the SR form, but may date to c. 1820. It includes a center passage two story brick house with attached kitchen and outbuildings (Cramer 1978b). It was the home of Zina Brown, grandson of one of the first settlers of Jericho and is well outside the project APE.

Table 3. NRE Properties and Inventoried Buildings within or Adjacent to the Project Area SR Number Property Name Status Description Location and Proximity to Project Area 0409-65 Zina Brown Farm SRL/NRE c. 1820 Federal brick house Approximately 700 ft to and associated outbuildings the E 0409-66 Riverside Greek Revival SRL/NRE Three c. 1835 to 1857 Greek Directly adjacent to the Complex (1, 2, 3) Revival houses W end of the APE

6 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Previous Surveys Few archeological or historic preservation surveys have been conducted in the project vicinity. The closest is the survey conducted for the Ethan Allen Firing Range of the Vermont National Guard located southeast of the project area (Thomas et al. 2005). The large area of the firing range covers portions of Jericho, Underhill and Bolton. The survey identified numerous 19th-century farmstead and small industrial archeological sites that retain intact foundations and other associated deposits. Many of these sites had standing structures on them in the early 20th century that were removed when the firing range was established in the 1940s. A large number of the farmsteads and homesteads contain foundation remains and cellar holes, and have been designated as archeological sites.

HISTORICAL MAP REVIEW Historical maps of the project area depict many structures that were once in the area, some of them still standing. The 1857 Walling map of the project vicinity shows that Dickinson Street was not in existence at the time (Map 4). The three houses at the west end of Dickinson Street are present, labeled P. Atwater, J. H. Bostwick and I. C. Bostwick, from south to north. Dickinson Street first appears on the Beers Atlas map of 1869 (Map 5). It is labeled Mansfield Street, encompassing what is currently known as River Road. No structures are shown along the APE aside from the three houses at the west end. The label of the southern- most house is unclear. The central one is labeled W. Page and the northern I. C. Bostwick. Map 6 comes from the History of Jericho published in 1916 (Hayden et al. 1916). Dickinson Street is labeled cross road, not a formal name. The map depicts a variety of structures and features in the project vicinity that are labeled with numbers. The author lists names and functions associated with each structure. The three houses along the west end of the APE (No. 36 to 38 on the map) have from south to north the following names associated with them: No. 36 – Simeon Parmalee, E. S. Whitcomb, Jr. and Ella J. Whitcomb; No. 37 – J. H. Bostwick, Samuel Hale and Mrs. M. C. Hale; No. 38 – Isaac Clark Bostwick and Clark Graves. Across Route 15 is No. 33 associated with Herbert Chapin, Erwin White and R. H. Metcalf. Along Dickinson Street are two structures, one labeled 67 ½ is associated with L. H. Chapin and Reuben Dickinson. To the east, at the end of Dickinson Street is the “Steam mill owned by Whitcomb & Day, D. W. Knight, H. B. Howard”, labeled No. 14. This is the first map to depict the Burlington and Lamoille Railroad that first opened in 1876. It passes directly adjacent to the Chapin/Dickinson house. Few of the names on Map 6 correspond to any of the names seen on the earlier historic maps. The author simply states they are names associated with each property from various times. The historic USGS quadrangles, Maps 7 and 8, also depict the railroad passing through the APE with varied representation of structures in the area. The 1927 quadrangle seems to be missing the Chapin/Dickinson house and the mill operation to the east, although they seem to appear on the 1948 quadrangle. All of these maps depict the Zina Brown farmstead located east of the APE. Map 6 has the names Luther Brown, Rufus Brown and Frank S. Jackson associated with that property.

7 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

8 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

9 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

10 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

11 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

12 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Map-Documented and Existing Structures Each past or current structure within the project area is assigned a unique structure number. Map- documented structures—those structures that are no longer standing and are depicted on one or more maps—are distinguished using the abbreviation “MDS”. With one exception, all of the structures shown on the maps are standing structures. One, the Chapin/Dickinson house that appears on Map 6, has been replaced by the current house on the site (no. 6).

Table 4. Summary of map-documented and existing structures within the Project Area/APE

Structure # Description Map 4 Map 4 (1857) Map 5 (1869) Map 6 (1916) Map 7 (1927) Map 8 (1948) Extant (1983) 1 SR 0409-66 – 1 x x x x x x 2 SR 0409-66 – 2 x x x x x x 3 SR 0409-66 – 3 x x x x x x 4 House at SE corner of Rte 15 and x x x x Dickinson Street 5 Industrial building at NE corner of ? Rte 15 and Dickinson Street 6 House at site of Chapin/Dickinson x (MDS) x x House 7 House E of industrial building (#5) x 8 Industrial building at E end of APE x ? x x

ARCHITECTURAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The project area is generally characterized as consisting of a mixture of single family wood-frame dwellings constructed during the period from 1870 to 1948 (Structures 4, 6 and 7), with the later addition of several light industrial structures. Two industrial buildings (Structures 5 and 8), both of which appear to retain components constructed during the first quarter of the 20th century as well as late in that same century, are located within the project area. None of these structures retain sufficient integrity to warrant consideration for inclusion on the National Register. The project area is not located within an historic district. However, three dwellings listed on the Vermont State Register as the “Riverside Greek Revival Complex” and dating to the middle decades of the 19th century are located at the west end of the project area (Photos 1, 2 and 3; Structures 1-3). None of the proposed project alternatives will result in an adverse effect on these resources.

Sidewalks and curbs There are no known historic sidewalks or curbs located within the Dickinson Street project area. There are asphalt sidewalks on the western end of the project area on the west side of VT Route 15, in the vicinity of the three Vermont State register listed houses. An asphalt sidewalk extends along the north side of River Road to its intersection with Dickinson Street and Steam Mill Road, where it crosses to the south side of Steam Mill Road until it joins with VT Route 15 (Map 2). All are comprised of narrow asphalt paths without associated curbing (Photo 4). The project currently anticipates the provision of concrete sidewalks and curbing along the new alignments separated from the roadway by a grass strip. There are no adverse effects anticipated with respect to this part of the project.

Retaining walls There are no retaining walls within the project area. No retaining walls are anticipated in the proposed work scope. 13 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Photo 1. Riverside Greek Revival Complex (SR 0409-66), Structure 1. View to the west/northwest.

Photo 2. Riverside Greek Revival Complex (SR 0409-66), Structure 2. View to the west/northwest.

14 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Photo 3. Riverside Greek Revival Complex (SR 0409-66), Structure 3. View to the west/northwest.

Photo 4. Existing asphalt sidewalk typical of the project area. East end of the APE with the Zina Brown Farm (SR 0409-65) and Mount Mansfield in the distance. View to the east.

15 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Exterior Stairs, Historic Fences, Historic Trees No stairs, fences, historic street furniture or historic trees will be impacted by the proposed project. No new stairs, fences or street furniture are proposed.

ARCHEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

Precontact Archeological Sensitivity The potential for precontact archeological sites to be within the project APE is moderate. The Vermont ArcheoMap GIS system identifies two or three environmental factors present in the project area, proximity to a wetland (to the northwest), presence of glacial outwash landforms and presence of level terrain (Appendix I). Completion of the VDHP Environmental Predictive Model provides a score of 40, where 32 or above is considered archeologically sensitive (Appendix II). This score is based on the project area being near the Brown’s River flood plain, on glacial outwash and glacial lake soils and on a natural travel corridor between the Brown’s River and Creek drainages. Disturbance was not considered in this score since disturbance in the area is focused on the existing roadway and undisturbed areas along the road are those considered archeologically sensitive. The presence of precontact archeological sites located downstream from the project area, and general experience with regional archeology, suggests the potential for precontact sites to be located in undisturbed portions of the project APE. In particular, the location of the APE at the edge of a glacial outwash terrace is considered a location that may have been inviting to Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic occupants of the area (Photo 5). Later populations may have also found the location important for crossing between the Brown’s River and The Creek drainages.

Photo 5. Terrace at edge of River Road, area of precontact archeological potential. View to the west.

16 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Historic Archeological Sensitivity Historical archeological sensitivity in the project APE is considered moderate to low. Although there has been settlement in the project vicinity since the late 18th century, most of the project APE outside of the existing roadway is restricted to narrow areas along the road in front of late 19- to middle 20th-century structures. A study commissioned by VTrans identified such road side spaces at the front of house lots as having low sensitivity for historic archeological deposits (Borstel 2005). However, in this case, Dickinson Street was not in existence until sometime between 1857 and 1869, in which case the APE may have had a different orientation to structures in the area, extending behind and to the side of early farmsteads. There may have been other activities going on in the APE related to agriculture or other uses that do not appear on the early maps. The route of the Burlington and Lamoille Rail Road passed through the middle of the APE in 1876 and has since been removed. Surface inspection of the former alignment at the APE did not identify any railroad related features.

ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL The archeological potential of the project APE is considered low to moderate. Several sections of the APE are undisturbed and may retain intact archeological deposits related to precontact and/or early historic occupation of the area (Photos 6 and 7). Underground utility disturbance, in the form of gas and water lines, appears to be limited to areas along Route 15 at the west end of the APE. Some storm drainage features have disturbed portions of the eastern end of the APE (Photo 7).

Photo 6. West end of Dickinson Street. Note level lawn on the right, considered archeologically sensitive. View to the east.

17 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

Photo 7. The east end of Dickinson Street. Note lawn on the right, considered archeologically sensitive and the drainage ditch on the left. View to the west.

RECOMMENDATIONS If the areas identified as archeologically sensitive on Map 3 cannot be avoided, they should be subjected to Phase IB archeological reconnaissance survey. Such a survey would consist of the excavation of shovel tests at 10 meter (33 ft) intervals in single transects. Hartgen will provide a work scope and cost estimate on request. There are no concerns with respect to proposed impacts as presented in preliminary project plans upon standing historic resources.

18 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beers, Fredrick W. 1869 Atlas of Chittenden County, Vermont. F.W. Beers & Co., New York. Borstel, Christopher L. 2005 Historic Front Yards and Transportation Archaeology in Vermont: Retrospect and Prospect (draft). On file at VTrans, Montpelier. Conally, G. G. 1965 Draft Surficial Geology Map. Annotated 1927 Mount Mansfield USGS 15’ quadrangle. On CD provided by Vermont Geological Survey, Waterbury, Vermont. Cramer, Adele 1978a Zina Brown Farm (0409-65) State Historic Sites & Structures Survey, Individual Structure Form. Completed April 7, 1978. On file at VDHP, Montpelier. 1978b Riverside Greek Revival Complex (0409-66) State Historic Sites & Structures Survey, Individual Structure Form. Completed April 8, 1978. On file at VDHP, Montpelier. Dillon, Scott 2011 personal communication, at VDHP on January 7, 2011. Doll, Charles G., Wallace M. Cady, James B. Thompson, Jr. and Marland P. Billings 1961 Centennial Geologic Map of Vermont. State of Vermont Geological Survey, Waterbury, Vermont. Hayden, Chauncey H., Luther C. Stevens, LaFayette Wilbur and Rev. S. H. Barnum (editors) 1916 The History of Jericho, Vermont. Jericho Town Celebration of 1913 Historical Committee. Thomas, Peter A., Prudence Doherty, Robert Florentin, Kathleen Kenny and Geoffrey Mandel 2005 Cultural Resources Inventory and Management Plan for the Vermont Army National Guard Ethan Allen Firing Range, Bolton, Jericho and Underhill, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Report No. 316. On file at VDHP, Montpelier. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2010 Web Soil Survey 2.0, National Cooperative Soil Survey, accessed on November 22, 2010 at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/United States Geological Survey (USGS). United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1927 Mount Mansfield 15’ Topographic Quadrangle, Vermont. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1948 Mount Mansfield 15’ Topographic Quadrangle, Vermont. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1948/1980 Underhill 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle, Vermont. USGS, Reston, Virginia. Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP) 2002 Vermont State Historic Preservation Office’s Guidelines for Conducting Archeology in Vermont. VDHP, Montpelier, Vermont. Walling, H. F. 1857 Map of Chittenden County, Vermont. Baker and Tilden, Publishers, New York.

Wilbur, L. F. 1916 Map of Riverside. In: Hayden et al., The History of Jericho, Vermont. Jericho Town Celebration of 1913 Historical Committee

19 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

APPENDIX I: Vermont ArcheoMap

Scale: 1:8,919 Legend www.historicvermont.org

44-31-30 N 44-31-20 N 44-31-10 N 44-31-0 N 44-30-50 N 72-56-20 W 72-56-20 W Map center: 464475, 224441 Notes: 72-56-40 W 72-56-40 W 780 m. 72-57-0 W 72-57-0 W 520 Dickinson Street Upgrade Project Upgrade Street Dickinson 260

72-57-20 W 72-57-20 W

44-30-50 N 44-30-50 44-31-0 N 44-31-0 44-31-10 N 44-31-10 44-31-20 N 44-31-20 44-31-30 N 44-31-30 0 This Map is provided by the VT Division for Historic Preservation. The Vermont ArcheoMap is a GIS-based mapping and information system that allows users to view and better understand potential locations of Pre-Contact Native American quality archeological sites in Vermont. Maps are to be used for display or preliminary planning purposes only. Data are not survey and, therefore, are not to be used as a basis for legal decisions. These original sources vary in scale and accuracy which determines the relative map accuracy of the digital data layers. For more information, go to http://www.historicvermont.org. Dickinson Street Upgrade Project, Town of Jericho, Chittenden County, Vermont Archeological and Historical Architectural Resource Assessment

APPENDIX II: VDHP Environmental Predictive Model

Vermont Division for Historic Preservation DHP# Archeological Resources Assessment Form Organization & Recorder: HAA. INC./T. Jamison Date: Feb. 1, 2011

Envronmental Predictive Model ArcheoMapTool GIS Model Field Inspection Comments Assigned Variable Proximity Value Variable Score A. Rivers and Streams (Existing or relict) 1) Proximity to Rivers and Permanent 0–90 m 12 Layer 1: Proximity to Rivers and Streams 90-180 m 6 Permanent Streams (0-180 m) 0–90 m 12 2) Proximity to Intermittent Streams - 90-180 m 6 3) Proximity to Permanent River/Stream 0–90 m 8 Layer 6: Proximity to River/Stream Confluences 90-180 m 4 Confluences (0-180 m) 4) Proximity to Intermittent Stream 0–90 m 12 - Confluences 90-180 m 6 0–90 m 8 Layer 7: Proximity to Waterfalls 5) Proximity to Waterfalls 90-180 m 4 (0-180 m) 0–90 m 8 Layer 5: Proximity to Heads of 6) Proximity to Heads of Drainages 90-180 m 4 Permanent Drainages (0-300 m) 0–90 m 8 4 Layer 10: Floodplain Soils 7) Major Floodplain - Alluvial Terrace 90-180 m 4 Presence 32 Layer 1: Proximity to Rivers and 8) Knoll or Swamp Island Permanent Streams (0-180 m)

32 Layer 2: Proximity to 9) Stable Riverine Island Waterbodies (0-180 m) B. Lakes and Ponds 0–90 m 12 Layer 2: Proximity to 10) Proximity to Pond or Lake 90-180 m 6 Waterbodies (0-180 m) 0–90 m 12 Layer 4: Proximity to Stream- 11) Proximity to Stream-Waterbody 90-180 m 6 Waterbody Confluences (0-180 m) Confluences 12) Lake Coves, Peninsulas, and 0–90 m 12 Layer 2: Proximity to Bayheads 90-180 m 6 Waterbodies (0-180 m) C. Wetlands 0–90 m 12 Layer 3: Proximity to Wetlands (0- 13) Proximity to Wetlands* 90-180 m 6 180 m)

Archeological Resources Form Page 1 of 3 Revised 10/09/2006 Envronmental Predictive Model ArcheoMapTool GIS Model Field Inspection Comments Assigned Variable Proximity Value Variable Score Layer 3: Proximity to Wetlands (0- 14) Knoll or Swamp Island 32 180 m) D) Valley edge and Glacial Landforms See Landmarks (Info Layers) 15) High Elevated Landform (e.g. Knoll 12 and Catchment layers (Water- Top, Ridge Crest, Promontory) related Layers) 16) Valley Edge Features (e.g. Kame 12 Layer 9 Glacial Outwash and 12 Outwash Terrace) Kame Terrace Soils Layer 9 Glacial Outwash and 17) Marine/Lake Delta Complexes 12 Kame Terrace Soils Presence 18) Champlain Sea or Glacial Lake 12 Layer 8: Paleo Lake Soils 12 Shore Line** Proximity (0-180 m) E. Other Environmental Factors 19) Caves and Rockshelters 32 - 12 See Landmarks (Info Layers) 20) Natural Travel Corridors (e.g. 12 and catchment layers (Water- Drainage Divides) related Layers) 0–90 m 8 21) Existing or Relict Springs - 90–180 m 4

0–90 m 8 See Soils with "M" parent 22) Potential or Apparent Prehistoric material (Under Construction) 90–180 m Quarry for Lithic Material Procurement 4 23) Special Environmental or Natural 0–180 m 32 - Area~ F. Other High Sensitivity Layers See VAI layer (Under 24) High Likelihood of Burials 32 Construction) 25) High Recorded Archeological Site See VAI layer (Under 32 Density Construction) 26) High likelihood of containing See VAI layer (Under significant site based on recorded or 32 Construction) archival data or oral tradition

Archeological Resources Form Page 2 of 3 Revised 10/09/2006 Envronmental Predictive Model ArcheoMapTool GIS Model Field Inspection Comments Assigned Variable Proximity Value Variable Score G. Negative Factors 27) Excessive (>15%) or Steep See Slope Layer (Info Layers -32 Erosional (>20%) Slopes folder) See Land Use ND Building 28) Previously Disturbed Land*** -32 Footprint Layers (Info Layers folder) 40 Total Score:

** remains incompletely mapped; digital layer includes paleo lakes and wetlands based on soils data *** as evaluated by a qualified archeological professional or engineer based on coring, earlier as-built plans, or obvious surface evidence (such as a gravel pit) ~such as Milton acquifer, mountain top, etc. (historic or prehistoric sacred or traditional site locations, other prehistoric site types) *Environmental predictive model limits wetlands to those > one acre in size; ArchSensMap

Archeological Resources Form Page 3 of 3 Revised 10/09/2006

APPENDIX C Project Committee and Public Input

Meeting Notes

Dickinson Street Study Draft Analysis Meeting

Date/Time: September 13, 2010 10:00AM Place: Jericho Town Offices Next Meeting: Attendees: Todd Odit Jericho Town Administrator Seth Jensen Jericho Town Planner Jason Charest CCMPO Coordinator David Villeneuve Property Owner Jeremy Matosky Trudell Consulting Engineers David DeBaie Stantec File: 195310475 Distribution: Attendees Christine Forde CCMPO David Roberts CCMPO Greg Edwards Stantec

Item: 1. David DeBaie (DD) presented the draft summary of the analysis dated 09/10/2010.

a. DD -The scope of the analysis was essentially to study a specific improvement plan including:

• All - Way Stop intersection of Dickinson Street/Steam Mill Road/ River Street and a Future Street serving the site;

• Dickinson Street as a 2-Way street;

• Traffic Signal Control at Dickinson Street / VT 15.

b. DD - The report findings indicate:

• The All – Way Stop would involve stopping the major flows through the intersection which is contrary to the guidance of the MUTCD.

• Dickinson Street EB will be little used.

• Traffic signal warrants are likely not met at Dickinson St without restrictions on Steam Mill Road that would force traffic to Dickinson St.

djd v:\1953\active\195310475\transportation\correspondence\dickinson st draft analysis meeting.docx September 13, 2010 10:00AM Dickinson Street Study Draft Analysis Meeting Page 2 of 4

c. DD- A stepped approach to improvements would include:

• Step 1 - reconfiguration of the Steam Mill Road / River Road / Dickinson Street intersection to accommodate through traffic flow from River Road to VT 15 via Dickinson Street.

• Step 2 – reconstruction of Dickinson Street as 2-Way or 1-Way WB ( 1- Way WB was deduced from the analysis and not specifically studied).

• Step 3 – construction of a traffic signal at Dickinson Street or Steam Mill Road when warranted.

2. Subsequent discussion included the following:

a. DD - A traffic signal at Steam Mill Road was not specifically studied. In reviewing the warrants for a traffic signal, Stantec notes that the existing volumes at Steam Mill Road meet signal warrant thresholds for Warrant 1Ac. It was also noted that the additional traffic attracted by a signal at this location may interfere with school arrivals and circulation during the morning peak hour.

b. DD - Warrants for a traffic signal at Dickinson Street would depend on the diversion from Steam Mill Road. During the middle of the day, less delay at Steam Mill Road for traffic turning onto VT 15 would reduce the diversion to Dickinson Street and reduce the potential for warranting a traffic signal. Greater use by PUD generated traffic rather than the future street onto VT 15 north of Dickinson St may possibly provide sufficient demand for the signal warrant.

c. Jeremy Matosky (JM) -The proposed gym is under ACT 250 review and mitigation is conditioned for its approval. The mitigation must address the LOS F accessing VT 15. Act 250 District office and Vtrans have stated that the project proponent must provide the needed mitigation. Mitigation of LOS F at unsignalized intersections is problematic.

d. David Villeneuve (DV) - The future plan for Dickinson Street should be 2- Way.

e. DV- The conclusions of the Town planning charettes call for separating commuter traffic and school traffic.

f. DV – Separating commuter and school traffic should involve use of Eastbound Dickinson Street.

g. JM – Management measures restricting traffic on Steam Mill Road or a physical barrier may be needed to force commuter traffic to Dickinson Street.

h. JM - The present traffic accessing VT 15 during the peak hours can be September 13, 2010 10:00AM Dickinson Street Study Draft Analysis Meeting Page 3 of 4

generally characterized as commuter or school traffic. Existing Level of Service is LOS F. Future traffic would add the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) traffic.

i. DD – Through traffic cannot be expected to be diverted from Steam Mill Road without restrictions. Those use restrictions were assumed to be unacceptable to the school / library traffic flow. No study was done assuming right turns into Steam Mill Road from VT 15 diverted to Dickinson Street due to a physical or regulatory restriction.

j. DD – Analysis of a scenario with forced diversion from Steam Mill Road would involve additional scope. To verify that such a scenario is feasible and acceptable to the school department, there should be a meeting with their operations people to determine if a restriction on the use of Dickinson Street would be acceptable. Knowing their bus and drop off operations would be critical in understanding the school’s needs.

k. J M – We have looked at Dickinson Street as a 2-Way and have prepared concept plans based on survey and estimated the associated cost. The plan does not accommodate the design vehicle for right turns from Dickinson Street to Steam Mill Road.

l. DD- The plan and survey would be useful for the Design (Conceptual) portion of the Stantec contract. Stantec would review turning vehicle accommodation and the cost difference between a 1-Way roadway and a 2-Way Dickinson Street.

m. Seth Jensen (SJ) – Reconfiguring the River Road / Steam Mill Road / Dickinson Street intersection to allow westbound traffic on Dickinson Street would be the simplest way to provide traffic mitigation for the proposed gym that could meet ACT 250 / Vtrans requirements. Some improvements would be needed on Dickinson St.

n. JM – Reconfiguring the intersection and improving Dickinson Street was discussed with ACT 250.

o. Todd Odit (TO) – That may have been discussed but it was not actually proposed as mitigation.

p. DV- We did not want to say the town would agree to the improvements without the town’s commitment.

q. DV – Dickinson St should be 2-way.

r. TO – The town would be interested in knowing the cost difference between the 1-Way and 2-Way Dickinson Street.

3. Stantec to coordinate with CCMPO and town regarding scope to enable additional analysis based on the input from the school department on possible restrictive September 13, 2010 10:00AM Dickinson Street Study Draft Analysis Meeting Page 4 of 4

measures on Steam Mill Road.

4. Stantec to coordinate with Town and CCMPO regarding a meeting with the school department.

5. A follow up meeting could be expected within 1-2 months which would be sufficient time to amend the contract, meet with the school department obtain the needed data from them, prepare and document the additional analysis and identify the elements of an improvement plan that would meet the needs of the schools / library, commuters and the PUD.

The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately.

STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.

David DeBaie, PE, PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer [email protected]

Attachment: Meeting Notes

Dickinson Street Study Meeting with Schools

Date/Time: October 13, 2010 8:00AM Place: Brown’s River Middle School Next Meeting: Attendees: Nancy Guyette Brown’s River Middle School Principal Cindy Mackin Underhill I.D. Grade School Principal Bob Magee School Bus System Manager Christine Forde Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Org. Seth Jensen Jericho Town Planner David DeBaie Stantec (Writer) File: 195310475 Distribution: Attendees Todd Odit Jericho Town Administrator Greg Edwards Stantec

Item: Observation of school driveways

1. David DeBaie (DD), Christine Forde (CF) and Seth Jensen ( SJ) met before the meeting at 7:30 AM and observed the traffic entering and exiting the school from/ to Steam Mill Road as well as the queuing back from VT 15.

2. The queue back from VT 15 did not encroach on the nearest School / Library driveway.

3. The Library was not open during the school arrival period.

4. The flow of school buses, autos, and pedestrians was constant during the 7:30 to 8:00 AM period but there was no significant congestion at the Steam Mill Road and school driveway intersections.

Discussion at meeting

1. Nancy Guyette (NG) and Cindy Mackin (CM) mentioned that the school addresses are River Street not Steam Mill Road.

2. NG and CM and Bob Magee (BM) said that traffic on “Steam Mill Road” can be congested as traffic will back up from VT 15. Usually that occurs between 7:15 and 7:30 which is before the 7:30 to 8:00 AM student arrival time.

lrs v:\1953\active\195310475\transportation\report\appendices\dickinson st meeting with schools.docx October 13, 2010 8:00AM Dickinson Street Study Meeting with Schools Page 2 of 2

3. NG, CM, BM stated that afternoon circulation is more difficult than morning circulation but this is due to parking space shortage rather than other traffic on “Steam Mill Road”.

4. The entry driveway to the school loop is also used by library patrons as an exit driveway. Those library exiting movements can complicate the entering movements by buses during the afternoon. (There is no library traffic during the morning school arrival period (7:30 - 8:00 AM).

5. BM noted that improvements to the “Steam Mill Road” / VT 15 intersection reduced the speed of traffic turning right from VT 15 but the channelization reduced the roadway width which made bus turning more difficult. ( Particularly if buses are coming and going).

6. BM noted that before Dickinson Street was reconfigured at its intersection with Steam Mill Road / River Road, buses used Dickenson Street to access the school. The present configuration does not accommodate turning buses.

7. If Dickinson Street allowed westbound movement to VT 15, buses would be routed there rather than “Steam Mill Road” because the sight distance would be significantly better. Currently, buses are routed to Park Street to turn left onto VT 15.

8. If a barrier was placed on “Steam Mill Road” between the school driveways blocking eastbound through traffic, NG and CM suggest:

• Parents would complain;

• Signing would be necessary but a real challenge;

• Drivers would divert to the school loop upon recognizing that eastbound through traffic is not allowed.

9. CM pointed out that signing will be important if drivers are to be directed to some other route. ( Vtrans directional signs and Internet Website directions would be included.)

The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately.

Meeting Notes

Project Review Meeting Dickenson Street Improvements / FILE 195310475

Date/Time: January 11, 2011 10:00 AM Place: Jericho Town Office Next Meeting: February 1, 2011 -- 1:00 PM Attendees: Todd Odit, Seth Jensen -- Town of Jericho Christine Forde -- CCMPO David Villeneuve Greg Edwards, David DeBaie -- Stantec Distribution: All Attendees

Item: Action: 1. Meeting Purpose: Review status of scoping efforts, solicit input and discuss next steps and schedule. 2. Existing Conditions Plan: Seth will provide the property Town of Jericho owner names and Stantec will add to the plan. 3. Dickenson Street Improvements: a. Westbound River Road left turn lane at Steam Mill Road:

David Villeneuve indicated it would make sense to provide a left turn lane and indicated accommodating it if

it extended into his property was not a concern.

b. Horizontal Alignment: David Villeneuve suggested we review the alignment developed by Trudell. He indicated

if needed, impacts to some of the trees and existing house and lot on the north side was not a concern to Stantec him. Stantec will look at the need to adjust the alignment. The alignment will allow for a future 5’ sidewalk on the south side, in addition to the one proposed on the north side.

c. Sawmill Road / Dickenson Street / River Road Intersection: It was pointed out there may be a potential issue with impacts to the Langlois property on the Stantec southwest corner. To avoid this, Stantec will provide an alternative layout for this intersection which shifts to the east.

d. Dickenson Street one way westbound: Based on the traffic analysis, the limited construction cost savings, and not meeting all the purpose and need items, this

lrs v:\1953\active\195310475\transportation\meetings\project review mtg 01-11-11.docx January 11, 2011 10:00 AM Project Review Meeting Page 2 of 2

alternative will be discarded from further evaluation, but will be mentioned in the report.

4. Public Meeting: It is desired to have the public meeting be part of the selectboard meeting. The next available regular meeting is after town meeting on March 17th. Todd will confirm this date. 5. Project Committee Meeting: A meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2011 at 1pm at Jericho Town offices. The alternatives and draft scoping report will be discussed. The meeting adjourned at 11:30am.

The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately.

STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.

Gregory A. Edwards, PE Principal [email protected]

lrs v:\1953\active\195310475\transportation\meetings\project review mtg 01-11-11.docx Public Meeting Notice

Alternatives Presentation Meeting

Dickenson Street Improvements Jericho, Vermont

Monday, March 21, 2011 OPEN HOUSE: 6:30 pm PRESENTATION: 7:00 pm Town Offices 67 VT Route 15 Jericho, Vermont 05465

The Town of Jericho is sponsoring a public meeting to discuss solutions to address existing safety, circulation, intersection delay, and pedestrian issues in the area of Dickenson Street.

The purpose of this public meeting is to present the results of the scoping process, hear your ideas and concerns, and answer your questions. This information and input will be used to determine the preferred alternative. Prior to the presentation, there will be an open house to discuss the project with any interested parties.

We look forward to hearing from you.

If you are unable to attend and have comments or questions, you can contact Greg Edwards, Project Manager, at Stantec Consulting Services Inc., 55 Green Mountain Drive, South Burlington, VT 05403 or [email protected].

Copies of the Draft Scoping Report are available for viewing at the:

• Jericho Town Manager's Office at 67 VT Route 15, Jericho, VT

Information about this project can also be found on the Town website at www.jerichovt.gov

V:\1953\active\195310475\transportation\Meetings\Alternatives Presentation\Alternative Presentation Meeting Notice.doc

APPENDIX D Dickenson Street / Steam Mill Road Intersection Options

AGN

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS

RD. R +00 RIVE 18

00 17+

. ST +00 ON 16 ENS DICK 00 15+

00 14+

WETLAND

OAD R

LL I M

M A TE S

LEGEND

EXISTING PAVEMENT X-WALK TAX PARCELS SIDEWALK ROADWAY GREEN STRIP DICKENSON / RIVER RD. 0 30 60 INTERSECTION OPTION 1 SCALE JERICHO, VT SCALE 1"=60' 01/ 28/ 2011 N

AGN

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS

00 .18+ R RD RIVE 00 17+

T. 00 S 16+ SON KEN OPTIONAL SLIP RAMP DIC CHANNELIZATION ISLAND 00 15+

00 14+ WETLAND

OAD R

LL I M LEGEND

M EXISTING PAVEMENT A X-WALK TE TAX PARCELS S SIDEWALK ROADWAY GREEN STRIP DICKENSON / RIVER RD. 0 30 60 INTERSECTION OPTION 2 SCALE JERICHO, VT SCALE 1"=60' 01/ 27/ 2011

APPENDIX E Opinion of Costs

Quantity/Cost Summary Jericho

Initials Date 55 Green Mountain Drive Dickenson Street Calc'd By: GAE 2/22/2011 South Burlington, VT 05403 Checked By: .. Tel: (802) 864-0223 Improvements Revised By: Alternative A Alternative B Fax: (802) 864-0223 Checked By: Signal at Dickenson No signal at Dickenson

Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity $ Quantity $ 201.10 Clearing And Grubbing, including Individual Trees and Stumps Acre $5,000.00 0.6$ 3,000 0.6$ 3,000 201.15 Removing Medium Trees EACH $250.00 2$ 500 2$ 500 203.15 Common Excavation CY $12.00 4500$ 54,000 4500$ 54,000 203.16 Solid Rock Excavation CY $20.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 203.28 Excavation of Surfaces and Pavements CY $20.00 70 $ 1,400 70 $ 1,400 210.10 Cold Planing - Bituminous Pavement SY $4.50 720 $ 3,242 720 $ 3,242 301.35 Subbase of Dense Graded Crushed Stone CY $30.00 4000$ 120,000 4000$ 120,000 404.65 Emulsified Asphalt CWT $90.00 10 $ 867 10 $ 867 490.30 Bituminous Concrete Pavement TONS $85.00 1300$ 110,477 1300$ 110,477 601.091 18" CPEP LF $50.00 1400$ 70,000 1400$ 70,000 601.092 24" CPEP LF $60.00 60 $ 3,600 60 $ 3,600 604.18 Precast Reinforced Concrete Drop Inlet w/CI Grate EACH $2,500.00 10 $ 24,000 10 $ 24,000 604.20 Precast Reinforced Concrete Catch Basin w/CI Grate EACH $3,000.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 604.40 Changing Elevation of DI's, CB's or MH's EACH $700.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 605.20 6" Underdrain LF $15.00 1740$ 26,100 1740$ 26,100 616.20 Granite Slope Edging LF $35.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 616.27 Cast in Place Concrete Curb LF $25.00 1980$ 49,500 1980$ 49,500 618.10 Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, 5 Inch SY $50.00 350$ 17,511 350 $ 17,511 618.15 Bituminous Concrete Sidewalk TON $120.00 30 $ 3,604 30 $ 3,604 618.30 Detectable Warning Surface SF $50.00 34 $ 1,700 34 $ 1,700 621.90 Temporary Traffic Barrier LF $10.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 625.10 Sleeves for Utilities LF $35.00 80 $ 2,800 80 $ 2,800 628.35 PVC Sewer Pipe LF $75.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 629.20 Adjust Elevation of Valve Box EACH $160.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 629.27 Gate Valve with Valve Box EACH $3,000.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 629.29 Relocate Hydrant EACH $2,400.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 630.10 Uniformed Traffic Officers HRS $50.00 80 $ 4,000 80 $ 4,000 630.15 Flaggers HRS $25.00 160 $ 4,000 160 $ 4,000 631.10 Field Office, Engineers LS $10,000.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 631.11 Field Office, Soils and Materials LS $5,000.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 631.16 Testing Equipment, Concrete LS $1,000.00 1 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 631.17 Testing Equipment, Bituminous LS $600.00 1 $ 600 1 $ 600 635.11 Mobilization/Demobilization LS $20,000.00 1 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 641.10 Traffic Control LS $10,000.00 1 $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 641.15 Portable Changeable Message Sign EACH $7,000.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 646.400 Durable 4 inch White Line LF $0.90 2600 $ 2,340 2600 $ 2,340 646. 410 Durable 4 inch Yellow Line LF $0. 90 2200 $ 1,980 2200 $ 1,980 646.480 Durable 24" Stop Bar LF $5.00 130 $ 650 130 $ 650 646.490 Durable Letter or Symbol EACH $80.00 16 $ 1,280 16 $ 1,280 646.500 Durable Crosswalk Marking LF $70.00 80 $ 5,600 80 $ 5,600 646.600 Temporary 4 inch White Line LF $0.20 2600 $ 520 2600 $ 520 646.610 Temporary 4 inch Yellow Line LF $0.20 2200 $ 440 2200 $ 440 649.11 Geotextile for Roadbed Separator SY $2.00 4000 $ 8,000 4000 $ 8,000 651.15 Seed LBS $8.00 40 $ 319 40 $ 319 651.18 Fertilizer LBS $4.00 120 $ 481 120 $ 481 651.35 Topsoil CY $30.00 300 $ 9,010 300 $ 9,010 652.10 EPSC Plan LS $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 652.2 Monitoring EPSC Plan HRS $70.00 80 $ 5,600 80 $ 5,600 653.2 Temporary Erosion Matting SY $3.00 2300 $ 6,900 2300 $ 6,900 653.40 Inlet Protection Device, Type I EACH $180.00 10 $ 1,800 10 $ 1,800 653.55 Project Demarcation Fence LF $1.20 2100 $ 2,520 2100 $ 2,520 675.2 Traffic Signs, Type A SF $20.00 200 $ 4,000 200 $ 4,000 675.21 Traffic Signs, Type B SF $30.00 0 -$ 0 -$ 675.301 Flanged Channel Sign Post LBS $10.00 750 $ 7,500 750 $ 7,500 675.5 Removing Signs EACH $30.00 2 $ 60 2 $ 60 678.15 Traffic Control Signal System EACH $150,000.00 1$ 150,000 0 -$ 678.2?? Vehicle Video Detector EA $500.00 2 $ 1,000 2 $ 1,000 678.23 Wired Conduit LF $9.00 1900$ 17,100 1900$ 17,100 678.25 Pull Box, Standard EACH $1,200.00 8 $ 9,600 8 $ 9,600 679.21 Light Pole Base EACH $600.00 10 $ 6,000 10 $ 6,000 679.45 Light Pole EACH $1,800.00 10 $ 18,000 10 $ 18,000 679.50 Luminaire EACH $1,500.00 10 $ 15,000 10 $ 15,000 900.62 Special Provision (Trees) EACH $300.00 16 $ 4,800 16 $ 4,800 900.62 Special Provision (Stormwater Facility) EACH $5,000.00 1 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000

Sub Total $ 820,399 $ 670,399 Contengencies ( 10%) $ 82,040 $ 100,560

Total Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $ 902,439 $ 770,959

Engneering and Design (15%) $ 135,366 $ 115,644 Constructon Engineering (10%) $ 90,244 $ 77,096 ROW (assume donations or minimal)

Project Total $ 1,128,049 $ 963,699

V:\1953\active\195310475\transportation\report\Dickenson Street Quantity Calculations.xls Quantity/Cost Summary Jericho

Initials Date 55 Green Mountain Drive Dickenson Street Calc'd By: GAE 2/22/2011 South Burlington, VT 05403 Checked By: .. Tel: (802) 864-0223 Improvements Revised By: GAE 5/15/2011 Fax: (802) 864-0223 Checked By: Dickenson St One Way

Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity $ 201.10 Clearing And Grubbing, including Individual Trees and Stumps Acre $5,000.00 0.3 $1,500.00 201.15 Removing Medium Trees EACH $250.00 203.15 Common Excavation CY $12.00 1100 $13,200 203.16 Solid Rock Excavation CY $20.00 203.28 Excavation of Surfaces and Pavements CY $20.00 210.10 Cold Planing - Bituminous Pavement SY $4.50 301.35 Subbase of Dense Graded Crushed Stone CY $30.00 800 $24,000 404.65 Emulsified Asphalt CWT $90.00 2 $180 490.30 Bituminous Concrete Pavement TONS $85.00 270 $22,950 601.091 18" CPEP LF $50.00 601.092 24" CPEP LF $60.00 60 $3,600 604.18 Precast Reinforced Concrete Drop Inlet w/CI Grate EACH $2,500.00 604.20 Precast Reinforced Concrete Catch Basin w/CI Grate EACH $3,000.00 2 $6,000 604.40 Changing Elevation of DI's, CB's or MH's EACH $700.00 605.20 6" Underdrain LF $15.00 616.20 Granite Slope Edging LF $35.00 616.27 Cast in Place Concrete Curb LF $25.00 618.10 Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, 5 Inch SY $50.00 618.15 Bituminous Concrete Sidewalk TON $120.00 618.30 Detectable Warning Surface SF $50.00 621.90 Temporary Traffic Barrier LF $10.00 625.10 Sleeves for Utilities LF $35.00 628.35 PVC Sewer Pipe LF $75.00 629.20 Adjust Elevation of Valve Box EACH $160.00 629.27 Gate Valve with Valve Box EACH $3,000.00 629.29 Relocate Hydrant EACH $2,400.00 630.10 Uniformed Traffic Officers HRS $50.00 20 $1,000 630.15 Flaggers HRS $25.00 40 $1,000 631.10 Field Office, Engineers LS $10,000.00 631.11 Field Office, Soils and Materials LS $5,000.00 631.16 Testing Equipment, Concrete LS $1,000.00 631.17 Testing Equipment, Bituminous LS $600.00 0 635.11 Mobilization/Demobilization LS $20,000.00 0.3 $6,000 641.10 Traffic Control LS $10,000.00 0.4 $4,000 641.15 Portable Changeable Message Sign EACH $7,000.00 646.400 Durable 4 inch White Line LF $0.90 646. 410 Durable 4 inch Yellow Line LF $0. 90 1830 $1, 647 646.480 Durable 24" Stop Bar LF $5.00 14 $70 646.490 Durable Letter or Symbol EACH $80.00 646.500 Durable Crosswalk Marking LF $70.00 646.600 Temporary 4 inch White Line LF $0.20 800 $160 646.610 Temporary 4 inch Yellow Line LF $0.20 800 $160 649.11 Geotextile for Roadbed Separator SY $2.00 773 $1,547 651.15 Seed LBS $8.00 40 $320 651.18 Fertilizer LBS $4.00 120 $480 651.35 Topsoil CY $30.00 400 $12,000 652.10 EPSC Plan LS $3,000.00 1 $3,000 652.2 Monitoring EPSC Plan HRS $70.00 20 $1,400 653.2 Temporary Erosion Matting SY $3.00 1,067 $3,200 653.40 Inlet Protection Device, Type I EACH $180.00 2 $360 653.55 Project Demarcation Fence LF $1.20 1200 $1,440 675.2 Traffic Signs, Type A SF $20.00 100 $2,000 675.21 Traffic Signs, Type B SF $30.00 $0 675.301 Flanged Channel Sign Post LBS $10.00 400 $4,000 675.5 Removing Signs EACH $30.00 678.15 Traffic Control Signal System EACH $150,000.00 678.2?? Vehicle Video Detector EA $500.00 678.23 Wired Conduit LF $9.00 678.25 Pull Box, Standard EACH $1,200.00 679.21 Light Pole Base EACH $600.00 679.45 Light Pole EACH $1,800.00 679.50 Luminaire EACH $1,500.00 900.62 Special Provision (Trees) EACH $300.00 7 $2,100 900.62 Special Provision (Stormwater Facility) EACH $5,000.00

Sub Total $ 117,314 Contengencies ( 10%) $ 11,731

Total Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $ 129,045

Engineering and Design (15%) $ 19,357 Construction Engineering (10%) $ 12,905 ROW (assume donations or minimal)

Project Total $ 161,306

V:\1953\active\195310475\transportation\report\Dickenson Street Quantity Calculations.xls