2016 Final Report for Flood Resiliency Culvert Assessment and Prioritization

Prepared for: The New York State Water Resources Institute at Cornell University Prepared by: Cornell Cooperative Extension –Columbia-Greene and Dutchess County Editor: Luoma; January 17, 2017

Visiting a local culvert replacement after the Culverts Workshop

2016 forum on determining peak flow under different scenarios and identifying undersized culverts

Introduction Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE), in partnership with the NYS DEC Hudson River Estuary Program and NY Water Resources Institute is conducting the Hudson Estuary Watershed Resiliency Project (HEWRP), an ongoing educational initiative with a focus on flood resiliency. The HEWRP is designed to help communities address the complex issues of flooding in a manner that protects the natural integrity of streams in the Hudson Estuary watershed. The purpose of this effort is to provide communities with tools to enhance their understanding of stream dynamics, floodplain function and watershed planning to reduce vulnerability to floods in an era of increasing heavy precipitation events. For CCE, one facet of this overall initiative is to provide assistance and support to culvert assessment and prioritization. This was done in 2016 through the Culvert Prioritization Project. This document is a summary of the 2016 efforts for the Culvert Prioritization Project, including anticipated scopes of work, actual work flow, results, and assessment. The Contracted Scopes of Work are summarized below. The full contract Scope of Work language is included as an appendix to this document. (Appendix A) Summarized 2016 Scopes of Work CCE Columbia Greene and CCE Dutchess County (Columbia Greene lead) were tasked to develop and pilot a program with the Hudson River Estuary Program and NY Water Resources Institute for municipalities to provide direct support for those participating in the Culvert Prioritization Project. The following were the principle four elements:

x Offer one “Determining Peak Flow under Different Scenarios and Identifying Undersized

Culverts” program. Program will be targeted at communities where culvert assessments have been completed.

x Develop a workshop on how communities can advance the initiative to identify and secure funding to conduct replacement of prioritized culvert(s). This workshop will be offered to 2 communities where municipal officials have expressed strong interest in pursuing culvert replacement.

x Provide direct support to the 2 communities with an interest in implementing culvert replacement. Provide support and technical assistance to assure target communities include priority barriers in their planning and budgeting and are aware of potential funding sources.

x Continue to engage the Town of Ancram as they pursue replacement of prioritized culverts.

Each year, the Scopes of Work are divided into anticipated quarters where predominant effort will be dedicated to specific deliverables. Appendix B shows this time flow of effort divided into yearly quarters.

Outreach to Municipalities Cataloguing successes and challenges with towns.

Initially, in 2016, outreach to municipalities was conducted through a broad approach. A regional seminar was held at Columbia Greene Community College to explain the concepts of environmental benefits for culvert replacements/ right sizing and where those actions can coincide with infrastructure improvements. The team assessed interest from attendees and narrowed outreach to selected municipalities. A workshop was held for those selected municipalities to hone decisions on which culverts to target for replacement/ right sizing and to prepare for anticipated funding applications. Follow up by CCE staff was conducted with those municipalities to encourage preparedness for anticipated funding applications. The procedure, assessment and results of these elements is as follows: 1. Hold a regional seminar explaining the concepts of environmental benefits for culvert

replacements/improvements and where they can coincide with infrastructure improvements. The “Determining Peak Flow under Different Scenarios and Identifying Undersized Culverts” seminar was held May 3rd. For attendees who expressed continued interest, please see Appendix C. The survey results from the participants are within Appendix D.

Seminar positives

x Relatively well-attended for the Mid-Hudson region. (30 attendees) x Resulted in municipal representatives from 12 municipalities indicating interest. (6 municipalities

declined to sign the sheet indicating further interest (Albany, Craryville, Hudson, Stamford, Pine Plains, Cairo).

x Advantageous to have Andrew Meyer and Todd Walter presenting and available for questions. Concerns/suggestions for improvement

x Would be ideal to have more municipalities in attendance – possibly through additional smaller presentations presented by CCE and involving DEC/WRI personnel as possible.

x A better flow of presentation may be to initially discuss infrastructure concerns and financial benefits of upgrades, examples of upgrades, and then ecological benefits. This may promote ‘buy-in’ by highway personnel in particular earlier on, as their focus is often very closely tied to financial and logistic concerns and considerably less on aquatic organism concerns.

2. Assess interest from attendees and narrow outreach to select municipalities. Results

x Follow-up communication allowed us to gauge particular interest x Some municipalities were too far outside the anticipated focus of the next grants, either through location

or lack of culvert assessments and needs, and were offered some encouragement and contacts, but were not invited to participate in the next step.

x 12 municipalities were refined to four to carry through to next workshop. (Gallatin, Ancram, Taghkanic, Claverack)

x In analyzing the interests of the municipalities and the culvert assessments that had been done, municipalities around the SE corner of Columbia rose to top consideration. This interest in part was likely prompted by the culvert assessments that have been done in and around these communities combined with at least some interest in the program.

x 4 municipalities were selected (Ancram, Taghkanic, Gallatin, Claverack)

Positives x The forum allowed the opportunity for all regional municipalities to learn, express particular interest, and

to know about what is forthcoming regarding culvert improvements. x The area around SE Columbia was a likely focus area we assumed would happen, but the workshop was

important to start the process and gauge interest from a wider cross-section of municipalities. Concerns/suggestions for improvement

x We were not able to offer interested communities outside of our final area of interest much more than a follow-up communication with a culverts data package where applicable, encouragement, and retaining their contacts for later follow-up as further funding and assessments become available.

x It may be helpful to more actively retain and inform these contacts, e.g. through further follow-up phone calls/emails to ask how culverts are doing, answer questions they may have, and to inform them of opportunities even if they are not strong candidates yet. This follow-up was not done as part of this year’s work.

3. Hold workshop for select municipalities to hone concept and prepare for funding application on which

culverts to target for replacement/improvement and prepare for anticipated funding applications. Results

x Attending were Ancram, Taghkanic, and Gallatin – all nearby each other. (Claverack did not show.) CCE had anticipated two to three initially.

x Municipalities discussed the values of culvert improvements as a group and in break-out sessions. x Break-out sessions concentrated on thinking through individual cases for culvert improvements and what

rationale and information would be important for an eventual application. Positives

x Half day workshop seemed to be an acceptable amount of time for people’s schedules. x The field component added at the end was helpful to visualize and discuss ideas. x It was very productive to have an open dialogue with highway department and municipal representatives

with DEC and CCCE. Concerns/suggestions for improvement

x Possibly adjust presentation similarly to initial presentation, in that we start with more flood, financial, and design considerations, and bring ecological principles in as part of good (and potentially funded) design.

x We did not have sufficient time in the breakout session to follow through the exercise in its entirety. It’s very possible that this workshop could be two workshops – covering the training topics as a group while then doing the breakout session with individual municipal maps during a private meeting with each municipality.

x The field component for this workshop only had Ancram, CCE, and DEC representatives visit the site. We felt that this field visit was quite valuable and is often where ideas and conversation are initiated. If at all possible, future workshops should include some field visit portion to a ‘poor’ culvert and an improved or ‘good’ one.

4. Follow up with select municipalities to encourage preparation for anticipated funding applications Results

x In Q4 (and into 2017), CCE has offered follow-up, sending thanks for attending and check-ins with each municipality to see what they need help with – what’s their next step.

x 2-3 weeks from workshop, CCE checked in with attendees to offer an opportunity to work on maps, review web resources (HVNR Mapper and NAACC), and review funding opportunities.

x 1+ month from workshop, CCE offered a second check-in to see if follow-up is happening and how we may foster that.

x Ongoing efforts into 2017 include letting them know of funding opportunities we come across. x CCEDC worked with Ancram in a half-day additional one-on-one meeting to further delineate and collect

information needs for anticipated culvert improvement applications. Positives

x This type of follow-up can solidify interest and “internal expectations” within municipalities for pursuing funding and improvements.

Concerns/suggestions for improvement

x Some municipalities may need particular help fleshing out the maps with 4+ criteria; (E.g. Basic ecological criteria, emergency/priority roads, culverts that are deteriorated or recently replaced, and deteriorating roads.)

x If the municipal official doesn’t have interest and/or time, it is difficult to find a backup person to take on that role.

x Lack of concrete funding opportunities puts the urgency for preparedness back in the mind of municipal officials.

Working map from workshop on culvert prioritization

List of Materials developed for Culverts Workshop Flashdrive Contents were handed to participants of each municipality and included the below information. Handouts of evaluations, agenda, and some worksheets were offered and used at the workshop. General Agenda * Evaluation Powerpoint slides for agenda items Hudson River Focal Subwatershed map (DEC document) Economic/Financial information Culvert Structure Comparison Table * Road/Stream Crossing Economic Summary (2 page TNC document) Road/Stream Crossing Economic Analysis (70-page TNC document) Funding List for Municipalities (CCE document) * Financing Flood (10 page HREP document) Town-specific data Culvert Spreadsheet of locations and salient data (CCE prepared) Town map of culverts – Locations and rated on passability and ecological score (CCE prepared) Mapping Tools Mapping tool information (Mapper, NAACC) Culvert Workshop Resource List – Online Mapping Tools and References Action Plan Checklist for Municipalities (Revised further after feedback from Ancram) (CCE document) * Appendix F is the registrants and attendee list for the Culverts Workshop * Asterisk indicates item is included as part of Appendix G through L. CCE Recommendations for Future Projects/Directions: Forum recommendations: 1. Several participants and CCE personnel have mentioned the recommendation to put less stress on ecological data,

and more emphasis on funding, replacement examples, infrastructure, and “how to do” culvert replacements. This feedback applies to both the seminar and workshop. The ecological considerations are indeed very important to include and explain, but may be able to be offered as an ‘added benefit’ of better culvert design, and one that can also boost funding consideration as well. To state this more plainly, if there is little concern for aquatic life from our primary target audience in municipal and highway personnel, it is unlikely these events will change that mind-set drastically. But if the financial, flood prevention, maintenance, longevity, and grant-potential benefits can be made, the ecological benefits can be seen as a bonus and appreciated.

2. Future presentations could be designed around smaller local meetings in the region. (Webinars were considered but would likely not provide interest for our target audiences – let alone easy discussion.) Time face-to-face

fosters dialogue, interest, trust, and follow-through. Overall, for this year, the larger regional forum worked to bring interested municipalities to the table. As the culvert prioritization expands, more people may be reached to have 2-4 more standardized forums to assess initial interest and serve to educate municipalities about options.

Workshop recommendations: Structure 1. Restructure the workshop to front-load foremost concerns and questions by municipal highway departments

x Start with a brief introduction including the importance of barrier free streams. x Examples of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ designs, costs, capacity, issues x Funding sources, x Maps and breakout sessions with data assistance and facilitation by CCE x Web resources information

2. More time devoted to breakout sessions. Or possibly move the break-out sessions to a separate meeting one-on-

one with the municipality representatives very shortly after the second workshop. 3. More time on web tools if possible. Training could be incorporated afterwards during a follow-up meeting or later

that day on how to use the map tools after seeing how they work in the workshop. 4. A field trip to a local ecologically-friendly culvert installation as well as a poor culvert is very valuable for

participants. If possible, one should be incorporated. Regardless, several examples with pictures is helpful during the presentation. (The Ancram field trip after the workshop was informative to those in attendance, but it was very poorly attended by municipal officials other than Ancram because it wasn’t a planned component. If a field trip were integral to a workshop with examples nearby, we assume most participants would join and gain from that first-hand experience and discussion.)

5. Colleen Lutz in Ancram provides this feedback: “I think a really important point we need to solidify for towns are

the cost benefits of culverts that are properly sized and ecologically designed. Sometimes when striving to do both, the price tag is a little high, especially at the beginning during design and construction. If we can show the fiscal benefits of these designs I think we might get less backlash. I think some of the costs need to be compared over time which diminishes the initial sticker shock of that larger more substantial structure.”

Materials 1. CCE could compile pictures of municipalities’ potentially replaceable culverts. (E.g. The municipalities let us

know which ones they may be considering ahead of time, and we have visuals and data ready for them/us to review from the NAACC database.) During the workshop, with Taghkanic, this was helpful – viewing culverts from the NAACC database to confirm/verify what culvert was being discussed. It made the exercise real and immediate.

2. Paper maps for mark-up were helpful. But it may be helpful to also have computer tablets to be an instant aerial

photo or oblique angle zoom and “memory jog” to have people understand what specific culverts they are discussing, as well as zooming out to recall issues with neighbors, upstream/downstream concerns, etc.

Attendees 1. We should encourage others from the municipality to join the discussion in addition to the highway super to

incentivize and offer more help and encouragement toward action. At the very least, someone from the municipal board should be present. A CAC/CAB representative should be also sought where they exist.

2. For future workshops, we recommend contacting the counties in the area of interest. It may be possible to include

them in these discussions to understand connections that may be important for them (future improvements, problem spots, etc.) as well as for them to understand what may be happening on the municipal level. A county level presence may be an important missing component at this point. The county/town division is distinct, but this culvert/crossing data is information all sides can use for planning. It may be best to have the county involved with examining the same data at the workshop, but for the county roads over the determined area spread. They could be considered their own break-out session as well. This would be particularly helpful to understand downstream issues, as counties often oversee larger structures downstream. Attending offers the municipalities (and CCE and DEC) the opportunity to understand the county’s thoughts on certain barriers as well as being more aware of other stream stretches that may be improved very soon versus those unlikely to be improved.

3. A representative from a funding agency in addition to DEC may be very helpful for perspective (e.g. Sierra Club,

TNC, Trout Unlimited). In addition, it may be helpful to have representatives from specialized construction companies that could perform work beyond the scope of capacity of typical highway departments. This may be beneficial providing the representatives have a broad enough view of this stage of planning to provide general guidance and reality checks for considered crossings.

Coordination 1. Given vagaries of schedules, contacting the municipalities early is essential (at least three months if possible).

Coordination with highway department personnel is even more crucial, as they may plan their year early on, and event planners need to have a date to best accommodate the municipalities they most want to attend. This may be obvious, but it’s a constant consideration for workshops and seminars and for scheduling, the earlier, the better. We encountered constant scheduling constraints that pushed back event dates several times. Even to participate in monthly meeting schedules, a month ahead may not be enough of lead time, as some municipal monthly meeting agendas are set a month before.

Next Steps to take with Communities CCE recommends 1. The four communities (Ancram, Taghkanic, Gallatin, and Claverack) continue to receive follow-up and a visit by

their associated CCE contact to prepare documentation as much as feasible. x Ancram has prepared a good portion of information ready to apply for new grant opportunities, mostly

through the efforts of Colleen Lutz. x Gallatin’s Jack Gomm has expressed hesitation at embracing the concept of culvert improvements (See email

from CCECG in Appendix E). x Taghkanic has been slow to respond, and Claverack has offered no response to post-workshop outreach.

2. As funding opportunities become available, also initiate contact with the target communities to encourage

establishing a contact person(s) to prepare the grant application, and help them establish timelines for further preparation now that a funding source is identified.

3. Maintain contact with all seminar attendees – particularly those who expressed interest from the seminar. A

personally directed email with some updates and an iterated thank you (even though the seminar was much earlier) will go a long way toward maintaining interest and contacts.

4. Further refinements have been posited in the 2017 work plan, such as initially focusing on particular problem

crossings and building focus areas from interested parties/municipalities in that vicinity. (Specifics of the 2017 Scope of Work are not addressed in this report.)

END List of Appendices (first .pdf includes) List of Appendices Appendix A: Contract Scope of Work for CCE for 2016 Appendix B: Time Flow of Effort by Quarter Appendix C: “Determining Peak Flow” municipalities at the seminar that indicated further interest Appendix D: Survey results from “Determining Peak Flow” seminar Appendix E: Town of Gallatin concerns (second .pdf includes items from Culverts Workshop) List of Appendices Appendix F: Agenda Appendix G: Registrants Appendix H: Culvert Structure Comparison Table Appendix I: Funding List for Municipalities Appendix J: Checklist for Municipalities

Culverts Assessment Final Report for 2016 - First Appendix Document List of Appendices (first .pdf includes) List of Appendices Appendix A: Contract Scope of Work for CCE for 2016 Appendix B: Time Flow of Effort by Quarter Appendix C: “Determining Peak Flow” municipalities at the seminar that indicated further interest Appendix D: Survey results from “Determining Peak Flow” seminar Appendix E: Town of Gallatin concerns (second .pdf includes items from Culverts Workshop) List of Appendices Appendix F: Agenda Appendix G: Registrants Appendix H: Culvert Structure Comparison Table Appendix I: Funding List for Municipalities Appendix J: Checklist for Municipalities

Appendix A: Contract Scope of Work for CCE for 2016 Contract Language from 2016 Scopes of Work: CCE Columbia Greene Scope

x Work with CCE Dutchess, the Hudson River Estuary Program and NY Water Resources Institute to develop and pilot a program that provides direct support to municipalities that have participated in the Culvert Prioritization Program and expressed interest in replacing culverts.

o Together with CCE Dutchess, offer one “Determining Peak Flow under Different Scenarios and Identifying Undersized Culverts” program in Greene or Southern Columbia. Program will be targeted at communities where culvert assessments have been completed.

o Work with CCE Dutchess and the Hudson River Estuary Program to develop a workshop on how communities can advance the initiative to identify and secure funding to conduct replacement of prioritized culvert(s). This workshop will be offered to 2 communities (one in Greene and one in Columbia) where municipal officials have expressed strong interest in pursuing culvert replacement.

o Provide direct support to the 2 communities with an interest in implementing culvert replacement. Dutchess CCE will work with a Southern Columbia municipality and CCE-CG will work with a municipality in the Catskill Creek watershed. Provide support and technical assistance to assure target communities include priority barriers in their planning and budgeting. Provide support and information on potential funding sources available for replacement of prioritized culverts.

x Work with CCE Dutchess to continue engagement with the Town of Ancram as they pursue replacement of prioritize culverts, with the intention of developing a case study on their success during the 2017 calendar year.

CCE Dutchess County Scope x Work with CCE Columbia-Greene, the Hudson River Estuary Program and NY Water Resources

Institute to develop and pilot a program that provides direct support to municipalities that have participated in the Culvert Prioritization Program and expressed interest in replacing culverts.

o Together with CCE Columbia-Greene, offer one “Determining Peak Flow under Different Scenarios and Identifying Undersized Culverts” program. The program will be held in Greene County or in Southern Columbia County. The program will be targeted at communities where culvert assessments have been completed.

o Work with CCE Columbia-Greene and the Hudson River Estuary Program to develop one workshop on how communities can advance the initiative to identify and secure funding to conduct replacement of prioritized culvert(s). This workshop will be offered to 2 communities (one from Greene and one from southern Columbia) where municipal officials have expressed strong interest in pursuing culvert replacement.

o Provide direct support to the 2 communities (identified in the previous bullet – CCE Columbia - Greene will focus on 1 of the communities and CCE Dutchess will focus on the other) with an interest in implementing culvert replacement. Provide support and technical assistance to assure target communities include priority barriers in their planning and budgeting. Provide support and information on potential funding sources available for replacement of prioritized culverts.

x Work with CCE Columbia-Greene to continue engagement with the Town of Ancram as they pursue replacement of prioritize culverts, with the intention of developing a case study on their success during the 2017 calendar year.

Appendix B: Time Flow of Effort by Quarter CG = CCE Columbia Greene DC = CCE Dutchess County

Anticipated Efforts Actual Efforts (Qtly report info) Notes / Discussion Q1

x Begin planning the Culverts Assessment and Prioritization programs, including: o Discussions with CCE regional team and

Andrew Meyer on the approach for this effort and roles & responsibilities

o Identify munis to target outreach o Secure a date/location for the “Determining

Peak Flow Under Different Scenarios and Identifying Undersized Culverts” program

o Draft an outline for the workshop on how communities can advance the culverts initiative and secure funding for culvert replacement � Possibly schedule date and location for this

workshop as well x Remain in contact with the Town of Ancram and

monitor progress on their culvert replacement initiative

CG & DC x Finalized Scope of Work for 2016 x Discussion of plan for year x Completed 2015 Q4 and final reports x Secured a date for initial forum CG x Chaired two meetings x Municipal outreach to culvert prioritization communities in

Albany, Columbia, Greene, and Rensselaer Counties x Maintained contact with Town of Ancram related to culvert

replacement initiative DC x Participated in meetings x Identified area municipalities for outreach

Though we decided on a basic outline for the workshop to follow the forum, details were not pursued, as it seemed most of the needs for the second forum would depend on the participating municipalities.

Q2

x Continue work on the Culverts Assessment and Prioritization programs, including: o Hold “Determining Peak Flow Under

Different Scenarios and Identifying Undersized Culverts” program

o Finalize the agenda for the workshop on how communities can advance the culverts initiative and secure funding for culvert replacement � Schedule date and location for this

workshop if not done in the 1st quarter � Begin drafting and/or organizing relevant

materials for the workshop

CG & DC x Held forum “Determining Peak Flow under Different Scenarios

and Identifying Undersized Culverts” program May 3rd at Columbia-Greene Community College with Andrew Meyer and Prof. Todd Walter presenting

x Analyzed and ranked municipalities with assessments that signed up for follow up to identify communities to target for workshop

x Provided outreach to target municipalities, and those that indicated interest in additional assistance

x Began planning workshop and researched assessment data available in target communities.

CG x Chaired 4 meetings x Identified 3 communities to target for workshop and follow-up

assistance

Agenda for 2nd workshop was begun, but was mostly developed and finalized in Q3. 12 different municipalities signed up for additional information, though not everyone in attendance did. Results of survey from forum are included as an addendum in this report. 2nd workshop date took considerable time to coordinate after identifying targeted municipalities given vagaries in schedules. It seems mid-fall is best for highway personnel.

x Remain in contact with the Town of Ancram and monitor progress on their culvert replacement initiative

x Remaining in contact with the Town of Ancram related to culvert replacement initiative.

DC - Outreach out to interested communities

Q3 x Continue work on the Culverts Assessment and

Prioritization programs, including: o Provide direct support to the identified

municipality with interest in implementing culvert replacement

o Address questions and interest generated by Determining Peak Flow workshop offered in second quarter.

x Remain in contact with the Town of Ancram and monitor progress on their culvert replacement initiative

CG & DC x Prepared for and presented Culverts Workshop in Ancram in

conjunction with DEC on Sept 28th to assist municipalities in considering culvert upgrades and preparing for grant opportunities. (Ancram, Gallatin and Taghkanic)

x Researched content and resources to be covered during workshop. x Develop new content and materials for workshop, including

refined excel data sheets, refined localized maps, funding source list with descriptions and culvert information checklist.

x Began development of final report to include summary and analysis of community engagement activities with recommendations for the future.

CG x Chaired 6 meetings for 2016 culvert prioritization and funding

workshop planning and development, which included presentations and group breakout sessions.

x Compiled resource information on thumb drives provided to participating communities.

x Remaining in contact with the Town of Ancram related to ongoing culvert replacement initiative and visited replacement project site (near complete).

Workshop presented to 3 municipalities with 1 no-show. Ancram was not a ‘new’ community, but was one of the three. A single centrally-located workshop was considered most efficient for the municipalities involved, especially given the close proximity of attendees.

Q4 x Continue work on the Culverts Assessment and

Prioritization programs, including: o Continue to provide direct support to the

identified municipality with interest in implementing culvert replacement

o Provide a summary of the pilot efforts and recommendations on how to make the program better and whether it should be repeated

CG & DC x Prepared and reviewed 2016 summary report for project. CG x Chaired debrief call to review Sept 28 workshop. Follow up with Gallatin and Claverack DC x Follow-up with Ancram and Taghkanic

If there is not a defined grant for municipal officials to consider, municipalities often have difficulty justifying the time it takes to begin preparations (or incentivizing preparation) for nebulous or unknown funding opportunities. Having specific options and details on upcoming grant opportunities is very helpful.

Appendix C: “Determining Peak Flow” municipalities at the seminar that indicated further interest

Name Municipality County

Randy Bashwinger T. of Berne Albany Brad Grant V. of Voorheesville Albany Walt Keller T. of Harpersfield/V. of Stamford Delaware Michael N. Pirrone T. of Athens Greene James Miller/Colleen Lutz T. of Ancram Columbia Joyce Thompson T. of Taghkanic Columbia Jack Gomm T. of Gallatin Columbia Mark Gaylord T. of Greenport Columbia Louis LaMont T. of Claverack Columbia Andrew Aubin T. of Livingston/V. of Rhinebeck Columbia/Dutchess Terry Williams T. of Greeneville Greene Bill Gregory T. of Copake Columbia (Crawford & Assoc.) T. of Livingston Columbia

Appendix D: Survey results from “Determining Peak Flow” seminar

May forum: synopsized evaluation results are as follows from 26 respondents:

1. Knowledge how culverts cause problems for munis/communities & aquatic organisms (1-5) BEFORE AFTER Total 3.6 Total 4.5 2. How to identify undersized culverts BEFORE AFTER Total 3.4 Total 4.2 3. How to use information from culvert assessments BEFORE AFTER Total 2.8 Total 4.4 4. What resources are available to address potential and existing hazards of undersized culverts BEFORE AFTER Total 2.8 Total 4.4 5. Long term verses short term economics of culvert infrastructure BEFORE AFTER Total 3.1 Total 4.3 Attending were:

Highway Department 11 42% County / State Agency 4 15% Planning Board 5 19% Engineering Firm 4 15% Town Board 3 12% CAB/CAC 1 4% Zoning Board 4 15% Other 1 4% September workshop notes from participants included: - Discuss flow capacity (including types of culverts) more in-depth; - Discuss funding more in-depth; - Less aquatic barrier biology; - More focus on concerns of highway personnel (fiscal/logistics).

Appendix E: Town of Gallatin Concerns CCE Columbia-Greene follow up with The Town of Gallatin

CCE Columbia-Greene sent a follow up email to Jack Gomm, town of Gallatin Highway Supervisor, 3 weeks after the workshop. Jack’s reply stated that he felt the town of Gallatin does not have ‘a location that will meet our qualifications and benefit the taxpayers.’ He referenced the Ancram culvert replacement and felt that the cost would have been lower if a larger pipe was put in by the town as his focus is on reducing flood impacts as opposed to increasing aquatic connectivity. Mr. Gomm remains focused on one culvert with a capacity issue but is not a barrier for aquatic passability. CCE-CG staff engaged Collen Lutz, from the town of Ancram, who has offered her assistance in working with Mr. Gomm and sharing her experiences from Ancram’s prioritization process. CCE staff is currently monitoring available funding that may be compatible with Mr. Gomm’s wants and needs. Concurrently, CCE-CG has continued to evaluate assessed culverts in the Town of Gallatin with hopes to identify additional opportunities to engage the town. The town was made aware of these efforts during the final weeks of the year.

Culverts Assessment Final Report for 2016 - Second Appendix Document List of Appendices (second .pdf includes items from Culverts Workshop) List of Appendices Appendix F: Agenda Appendix G: Registrants Appendix H: Culvert Structure Comparison Table Appendix I: Funding List for Municipalities Appendix J: Checklist for Municipalities

Appendix F: Culverts Workshop Registration

Name Municipality Job Title/ Department Email Phone Attended Colleen Lutz (yes) Ancram CAC Colleen.Lutz@dec.ny.gov Art Bassin (yes) Ancram Town Supervisor abassin@aol.com Jim Miller (ten yes) Ancram Highway Supervisor junkyarddog4567@yahoo.com Joyce Thompson (yes) Taghkanic Town Council joyce.thompson721@gmail.com 518-851-3487 George Hotaling (yes) Taghkanic Highway Super taghkanichighway@outlook.com 518-851-7806 Eric Tyree Taghkanic Town Supervisor eriktyree@yahoo.com 917-664-2699 Anna Kadish Taghkanic CAC larandoc@gmail.com Jack Gomm Gallatin Highway gallatinhwy@gmail.com Fraser Patterson Gallatin Councilman jmrxtra1@fairpoint.net John Reilly Gallatin Town Supervisor gallatinsuper@icloud.com Louis Lamont (yes, possible plus one) Claverack Highway Supervisor lamont@mhcable.com 518-851-7533

Christian Kaare RoeJan Watershed Association kaare@nysite.com

Michael Hamilton (tentative) Columbia EMC

(Also founding member of RoeJan watershed group) homeworkarch@msn.com

Jamie Purinton (tentative) RoeJan group Mike Jastremski LHCCD mj.lhccd@gmail.com Steve Nack CCSWD steve.nack@ccswcd.org

Andrew Meyer HREP Megan Lung HREP Sean Carroll CCEDC Jeff Luoma CCEDC Elizabeth LoGiudice CCECG Audrey Kropp CCECG Tracey Testo CCECG

Appendix G: Agenda for Culverts Workshop

Culvert Workshop September 28, 2016 8:30am – 12:30pm

Cornell Cooperative Extension – Columbia Greene, Cornell Cooperative Extension – Dutchess Hudson River Estuary Program (NYSDEC, NYS Water Resources Institute)

Agenda 8:30-8:45 – Introduction (Audrey) 8:45-9:15 – Overview Andrew to recap and update NAACC and WRI (Andrew) Mike Jastremski (5 min) 9:15-10:00 – General review of NAACC database (Tracey) 10:00-10:10 – Break 10:10-10:40 – Online mapping tools power point (Sean) Columbia County Parcel Viewer HV NR Mapper WRI site and map Google Earth 10:40-11:40 – Breakout sessions (All team) Prioritize culverts, review maps regarding streams, landmarks, bridges, critical services. Use data requested of municipalities to initiate prioritization. Checklist/fillable form for municipalities. Show data on spreadsheets Break (5-10 mins) 11:40-11:50 – New Culvert Design Standards (Audrey) 11:50-12:05 - Funding sources (Jeff) 12:05-12:20 – Case Study: Ancram talking about experience and funding 12:20-12:30 – Discussion and Questions, Evaluation Soon after 12:30 – Visit newly installed culvert nearby for those able to join

Appendix H: Culvert Structure Comparison Table Comparison of Crossing Structures Maine Stream-Smart Crossings Workshop Crossing Structure Type

Material Cost Life Span (years)

Advantages Disadvantages

Bridge A Steel-reinforced concrete abutments (poured in-place) and decking on steel I-beam stringers

$$$ 50-75 Natural bottom, durability, snow-plowable

High cost

Bridge B Waste-block concrete abutments with steel I-beam stringers and timber deck (possibly paved or alternate decking)

$ 50-75; timber redeck 5-10

Natural bottom, low cost; simplicity

Limited abutment height; snow plowing limited

Bridge C (3-Sided Box Culvert)

Steel-reinforced concrete, galvanized steel or aluminum

$$ 50-75 Natural bottom, simplicity Weight of concrete structures can limit installation options

Open Bottom Arch Galvanized Steel, aluminum, steel-reinforced concrete

$$ 50-75 Natural bottom, ease of transport, can be low profile

Care must be taken to install and protect footings, assembly required for metal plate structures

Embedded Box Culvert Steel-reinforced concrete $$ 50-75 Natural bottom if spans stream; variety of configurations

Must span stream and be set below stream elevation to avoid outlet perch

Embedded Pipe Arch Galvanized steel, steel-reinforced concrete

$ - $$ 20-75 Natural bottom if spans stream; wide for given volume; low cost of steel

Steel short life span; not for use with ledge

Embedded Round Pipe Galvanized steel, plastic, steel-reinforced concrete

$ 20-75 Natural bottom if spans stream; lowest cost

Limited to smaller sizes; not for use with ledge

Round Pipe (at stream grade)

Galvanized steel, plastic, steel-reinforced concrete

$ 20-75 May allow fish passage over time if spans stream; lowest cost

Rarely adequate for fish passage at less than stream width (develops outlet perch); limited to smaller sizes

Appendix I: Funding List for Municipalities September 28, 2016 Culverts Workshop CCE-CG, CCE-DC 2016-09-01

FUNDING LIST for municipalities These pages provide brief overviews of funding sources that MAY be available in 2017 or upcoming years. Specifics can and will change. Many of these opportunities are accessed through the New York State Grants Gateway: grantsreform.ny.gov/ Register early. Start the process now if you are not already in the system! For federal grants, www.grants.gov is typically the place to start. They offer a similar gateway for many opportunities.

Keep in mind: Some of these applications may not involve that much more than permitting applications. Funding sources explicated further in this document

Grant/Funding Source ESTIMATED fund amounts Applications due Hudson River Estuary Program

$10k-$750k over two years ($246k to New Paltz in 2015 for culvert improvements)

TBD for 2017

Climate Smart Communities $100k - $2M TBD for 2017 (Last year was end of July)

WQIP (Water Quality Improvement Project Program)

$50k - $200k TBD for 2017

Trout Unlimited – Embrace a Stream (EAS)

Avg $3.3k Contact EAS rep by April. Draft by May. Final application July

The Nature Conservancy ($5k-$50k) Other assistance may be possible.

None currently

Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV)

$50k TBD for 2017 (Last year was September)

Bridge NY Culverts $100k - $1M Unknown FEMA grants Variable – Est $20k - $500k Typically March-June Dept of State - Local Waterfront Revitalization grants

Variable ($17M for 2016) For 2016, was late July

Other potential sources of funding/assistance Funding/assistance source Funding info Links Hudson Valley Regional Council

May be able to offer education and technical support

Home page http://hudsonvalleyregionalcouncil.org/

Hudson River Valley Greenway - Greenway Communities Grant Program. Funds from New York State.

$5k-$10k for local land use plans (might include protection of scenic roads, natural resources, and site plans) Joint municipal applicants may be considered for >$10k. 50% match

Home page http://www.hudsongreenway.ny.gov/home.aspx Greenways Communities Grant Program http://www.hudsongreenway.ny.gov/GrantFunding/CommunityGrants.aspx

US Gov’t grants – E.g. Environmental Protection Agency

Variable. Large searchable database Go through www.grants.gov

Dept. of Interior – Fish & Wildlife

Variable. Might have endangered animal and sport fish habitat funding.

https://www.fws.gov/grants/programs.html

Environmental Protection Fund

$10k-$70k for wider efforts that might include culvert improvements. (Grant for Lake George included culvert improvement)

http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/92815.html

DEC - Trees for Tribs Possible help to replant around new construction

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/77710.html

USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

<$450k. Financial help for conservation practices - for agricultural producers and owners of non-industrial private forestland.

Yearly http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/

American Rivers May have appropriate opportunities https://www.americanrivers.org/region/northeast/

NOAA (e.g. Open Rivers initiative)

Closed for this year. $6M to fund dam removal and barriers for migratory species such as sturgeon, shad, river herring, striped bass, American eel. (Plus community vitality, public safety, and economic growth)

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/funding/ori.html

Dept of the Interior May be able to fund landowners or various conservation groups for river improvements

Again, best accessed through www.grants.gov

USGS Long shot but may find a compatible grant, especially in conjunction with a study.

Best accessed through www.grants.gov

US Army Corps of Engineers

Occasionally have relevant grant oportunities Best accessed through www.grants.gov

Other potential funding/in-kind sources Hudson River Estuary Program - Financing Waterfront Resilience 10-page resource list (handout) https://wri.cals.cornell.edu/sites/wri.cals.cornell.edu/files/shared/documents/2016_FinancingFlood.pdf Especially to meet a match, there are sometimes opportunities in surprising places. A specific ask to a business, institution, or person may result in assistance. Creative thinking and using all your connections helps. Here are ideas. - Grantsmanship Center website for New York: https://www.tgci.com/funding-sources/newyork Links to: Top Grantmaking Foundations in New York https://www.tgci.com/funding-sources/NY/top Corporate Giving Programs in New York https://www.tgci.com/funding-sources/NY/corporate - NYS Chapter of the Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership is an organization to help with considering amalgamating resources http://www.ny-cwrp.org/ - Local/regional businesses (financial, home & garden). A seemingly unrelated business may have a vested interest if they use the road or benefit from the area improved, or even if they may be able to advertise their name as having helped (not necessarily on site). - Local/regional philanthropies, trusts, land trusts, environmental groups – even created ad hoc for a specific project. - Local/regional centers of education or research: Colleges/universities, Cary Institute, etc. Notes

Grant/Funding Source: Hudson River Estuary Program Funds through NYDEC Est. Award Range 2015 range = $10,500 - $750,000 over two years Match Requirements 25% match ($25k match for $75k grant = $100k) State or federal funding not eligible for match Criteria - Hudson River Estuary geographic range (most all of Columbia, majority of Greene) - Municipalities and 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporations - Projects must conserve and restore aquatic habitat connectivity for Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). - All applicants apply through the Grants Gateway (https://grantsgateway.ny.gov) - No Indirect or administrative salaries paid - Dam removal, restoration of perched culverts to grade, establishing culverts to natural stream bottom, right-sizing bridges and culverts. - Conserve and restore habitat for migratory fish in tributary streams of the estuary. - Support the restoration of free-flowing waters to benefit water quality, stream habitat and aquatic connectivity in tributaries of the estuary. - Help communities with existing and projected impacts of localized flooding along tributaries of the Estuary. - Conserve for future generations the rich diversity of plants, animals and habitats of the Hudson River estuary ecosystem. Links 2015 Grant info (28 pp) available through CCE-CG or CCE-DC, also included in your thumb drive! DEC Grant Applications information webpage http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/grants.html Hudson RiverNet Newsletter for grant opportunities http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/76018.html Grants Program & Funding Opps for the Hudson River Estuary http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5091.html Hudson River Estuary Program – Main DEC website http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4920.html Notes

Grant/Funding Source: Climate Smart Communities grant program Funds through NYSDEC Est. Award Range FY 2016- $10.5m in grants: $100k to $2M Did not pay salaries or expenses of elected officials, fund raising, taxes et.al, or ZEV (electric car) costs. (CSC certification grants $24k-$100k for climate change adaption planning, which possibly could include stream/road crossing assessment) Match Requirements Local match of 50%. Match includes salary and fringe, contractual, travel equipment and more. No state or Federal funds. Land acquisition as match. Criteria - Community must take the Climate Smart Communities Pledge. - For 2016, funding was available for implementation projects that advance a variety of climate adaptation and mitigation actions, including among other things: - Measures such as right-sizing of bridges and culverts, reducing surge, or stormwater capacity management for flood risk reduction. - Use of natural resources and nature-based processes (green infrastructure) to decrease vulnerability to climate change. (culvert/bridge improvements might also fall here.) - Strategic relocation of vulnerable municipal facilities or infrastructure and/or installation of measures to reduce climate risks. - Projects to conserve or restore floodplains or to allow migration of tidal marsh systems as sea level rises. Links Apply through the Consolidated Funding Application site https://apps.cio.ny.gov/apps/cfa/ Climate Smart Communities Webinar schedule http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/86246.html Climate Smart Communities Resources and Services http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/76910.html Notes

Grant/Funding Source: Water Quality Improvement Project program (WQIP) Funds through NYSDEC’s Regional Economic Development Council (REDC) initiative and/or NYSDEC Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) Est. Award Range Est. $50-$200k Application for Round 13 is closed. $25.9 million was available statewide. 2015 awards included: Culvert barrier alleviated (Chautauqua S&WCD) $81k Failing culvert replacement with aquatic passability, including training (Cortland) $131k Culvert replacement for aquatic passability (Warren S&WCD) $68k Undersized and failing culvert to aquatic passability. (Delaware S&WCD) $182k Also: Multiple storm sewer and wastewater projects $178k - $2.5m Stabilizing road ditches (Cayuga County S&WCD) $210k Dam removal in Fall Kill Creek for fish passage (Hyde Park) $150 Multiple streambank stabilization/channel restoration projects $40k-$763k Match Requirements 75% of aquatic habitat restoration projects funded. Criteria - The grant is limited to Municipalities, Municipal corporations, Soil & Water Conservation Districts, and Not-for-profit Corporations. - The WQIP program is a competitive, reimbursement grant program that uses New York State Environmental Protection Funds for projects that reduce polluted runoff, improve water quality and restore habitat in New York's waterbodies. The program funds: Nonagricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control (NPS) Municipal Wastewater Treatment (WWT) Aquatic Habitat Restoration (AHR) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Links WQIP program – main DEC page http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/4774.html Must apply through Grants Gateway: https://grantsgateway.ny.gov/ Round 12 award list http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/wqiprnd12awardlist.pdf Notes

Grant/Funding Source: TROUT UNLIMITED – Embrace a Stream (EAS) Funds through Trout Unlimited awarding funds to TU chapters and councils for coldwater fisheries conservation Est. Award Range FY 2015-16, 26 grants with average award $3.3k Nationwide application Match Requirements Unknown. “EAS is a matching grant program administered by TU” Criteria - Projects for 2016 include several streambank restorations, a fish passage, and a creek reconnection. - Award to be announced in Sept 2017. April 15 is deadline to inform your regional EAS representative to notify intent to submit. - Your EAS rep for Columbia County = Vince DuBois Links TU Embrace-A-Stream http://www.tu.org/conservation/watershed-restoration-home-rivers-initiative/embrace-a-stream Facebook link for more current updates: https://www.facebook.com/EmbraceAStream/ Notes

Grant/Funding Source: The Nature Conservancy Funds through private and government grant funding Est. Award Range $800k for Adirondacks for stream crossings. Match Requirements Unknown Criteria - Currently focused in Adirondacks (Lake Champlain basin and Ausable River watershed. 5 culvert projects in Ausable watershed). - May have Columbia County options in the future. - May be able to help in particular with computer modeling, field assessments, culvert upgrades, engineering designs, etc. Links TNC NY website http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/climate-energy/new-york-culvert-inventory.xml Notes

Grant/Funding Source: Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) Funds through US Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Fish Habitat Action Plan Est. Award Range FY 2017 Maximum = $50k per year. (How competitive Match Requirements 50% cost-share regionally (may be different per project). 1:1 Match sources can be Federal and non-Federal, In-kind or cash. Criteria - 2017 applications were due Sept. 16,, 2016 - These groups can apply, or join forces in applying: Federal Agency, State Agency, Local Government, Local Conservation Group, Conservation Group (National), Native American Tribe, Private Landowners, Corporations - Projects on private property require a Wildlife Cooperative Extension Agreement or something similar that spans at least 10 years. - Restore and conserve habitat necessary to support healthy and productive populations of wild brook trout. A. Protect and maintain intact and healthy aquatic systems, B. Prevent further degradation of fish habitats that have been adversely affected, C. Reverse declines in the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats to improve the overall health of fish and other aquatic organisms, and D. Increase the quality and quantity of fish habitats that support a broad natural diversity of fish and other aquatic species. - Maps show higher priority area in Greene and Ulster, no high-priority areas in Columbia and Dutchess, but may be able to make a case for initial barriers coming up from Hudson River. Links Main webpage http://easternbrooktrout.org/ Description with links to application form and instructions and all else. http://easternbrooktrout.org/news/announcements-inbox/fy-2017-project-funding-opportunity Guidelines for use of funds = https://www.fws.gov/policy/717fw1.html Application Form = http://easternbrooktrout.org/funding-opportunities/2017-ebtjv-fws-nfhp-project-funding-opportunity/ebtjv-fws-nfhap-2017-project-application-form/view Fish & Wildlife Service Sponsoring Office to contact/coordinate with: Central New England Complex 103 East Plumtree Road Sunderland, MA 01375 (413) 548-8002 Notes

Grant/Funding Source: Bridge NY Funds through NYSDOT. UNKNOWN if to be continued in future years. Est. Award Range FY 2017-18 $19.5M for Hudson Valley Bridges: $5M max, paid at 95% of costs Culverts: $100k-$1M, paid at 100% of authorized costs Match Requirements 50% cost share regionally (may be different per project). 1:1 Match sources can be Federal and non-Federal, In-kind or cash. Criteria - The BRIDGE NY program provides enhanced assistance for local governments to rehabilitate and replace bridges and culverts. Particular emphasis will be provided for projects that address poor structural conditions; mitigate weight restrictions or detours; facilitate economic development or increase competitiveness; and/or reduce the risk of flooding. - Applicants include any city, county, town, village or other political subdivision, including tribal governments and public benefit corporations, authorized to receive and administer State and federal transportation funding. - (2017-18 applications were due Sept. 9,, 2016) - Bridges in part assessed for hydraulic vulnerability. - Culverts also assessed higher if they are overtopped or vulnerable to failure. Other consideration is if the culvert is near the end of its useful life, and the importance of the crossing to a transportation network (traffic volumes, detour options, nearby businesses and critical facilities.) - New culvert should have at least a 50 year service life. - Structures assessed for water capacity and not really aquatic connectivity for stream animals. - Columbia County is “Region 8” for NYSDOT Links Main page https://www.dot.ny.gov/BRIDGENY Notice of Funding Available https://www.dot.ny.gov/bridgeny/repository/Notice-of-Funding-Availability.doc Relatively simple Excel file for culverts application https://www.dot.ny.gov/BRIDGENY/repository/Bridge%20NY%20for%20Culverts.xlsm Notes

Grant/Funding Source: FEMA Funds through Federal sources Est. Award Range Varies. Est $20k to $500k ($25k for local mitigation plans.) Match Requirements Criteria - Crossing improvements could be considered a Hazard Mitigation Project if they reduce disaster losses. A municipality would be a sub-applicant to NY State. Individual homeowners typically apply through the local government. The three programs are: - HMGP - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for long-term hazard mitigation planning and projects following a Presidential major disaster declaration. Application would happen as soon as possible after a disaster to take advantage of reconstruction opportunities. - PDM - Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. The goal is to reduce overall risk to the population and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on Federal funding in future disasters. This program awards planning and project grants and provides opportunities for raising public awareness about reducing future losses before disaster strikes. - FMA – Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program. $25k for local mitigation planning for areas impacted by flood. Otherwise, pertains to areas that experience flood damage on structures. Links Hazard Mitigation Grant Program https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program https://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-grant-program Notes

Grant/Funding Source: DOS (Dept of State) Local Waterfront Revitalization grants Est. Award Range $17M available for 2016. Unknown future amounts. Match Requirements 50% reimbursed to munis located along NY coasts or designated inland waterways. Criteria - Established for munis located along NY coasts or designated inland waterways. - Roeliff Jansen Kill and Claverack Creek are designated inland waterways. - Help to prepare or implement a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. - Redeveloping hamlets, downtowns and urban waterfront areas. - Planning or constructing land and water-based trails. - Preparing or implementing a watershed revitalization plan. - Preparing or implementing a community resilience strategy or updating a LWRP to incorporate a resilience strategy. Links Overview of Local Waterfront Revitalization Program http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/lwrp.html#lwrpcommunities List of designated waterbodies and waterways http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/pdf/WaterwaysList.pdf List of municipalities who have created a LWRP plan (1987-2014) http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/WFRevitalization/LWRP_status.html Hudson River Estuary Program - Financing Waterfront Resilience 10-page resource list https://wri.cals.cornell.edu/sites/wri.cals.cornell.edu/files/shared/documents/2016_FinancingFlood.pdf Notes

Grant/Funding Source: USDA - Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Funds through USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Est. Award Range Variable Match Requirements: Variable Criteria - Financial help for conservation practices - for agricultural producers and owners of non-industrial private forestland. - Road / stream crossing improvements may qualify within contexts of larger agriculture or natural resource management benefits. Links Overview of the NRCS Financial Assistance Programs http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ Specifically, the Conservation Stewardship Program for developing wildlife habitat may apply to streambank stabilization efforts in conjunction with improvements. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/csp/ Notes

Grant/Funding Source: ________________________________ Funds through Est. Award Range Match Requirements: Criteria Links Notes

Grant/Funding Source: ________________________________ Funds through Est. Award Range Match Requirements: Criteria Links Notes

Appendix J: Checklist for Municipalities Modified copy for 2017 exists to address small errors, improve flow and include hyperlinks. Checklist for Municipalities to Prepare for Funding Opportunities Standard information needed for applications to help answer questions like: Is the project ready to go? Will it have a meaningful impact on the identified problem? Are the costs necessary and logical? Culvert ID: Funding Source:

Topics Town Answers/Notes

Gene

ral Municipality

Primary contact person(s)

Watershed management plans? (local or regional)

Culv

ert/

Road

-spe

cific

Who owns the road/crossing? (Does the municipality have permission to work there?)

Owners upstream/downstream? Parcel Mapper

Road crossing/ location description NAACC

GPS coordinates NAACC

NAACC score

Current structural condition Local records, NAACC

Recorded damages to road and structure Local

Flooding history Local, any disaster declarations?

Community/municipality primarily served by the crossing Local

Data on traffic density available or needed? Highway dept.?

Stre

am Tributary/stream name (if any)

State Stream classification Hudson Valley Natural Resource Mapper

Name of HUC 12 watershed Hudson Valley Natural Resource Mapper

Floo

ding

RP (Return Period) [statistical year flood this structure can pass, e.g. 100-year flood] WRI

Is the location in a FEMA floodplain? Columbia County Parcel Mapper

Future flooding model from 2050? WRI

Ecol

ogic

al HREP combined rank

WRI

Located in important area for rare plants or animals? HVNR mapper

Located within significant natural community? HVNR mapper

Water quality: Is this an impaired stream? (ask Andrew about this data)

Local land use, zoned uses Local

Where does this location’s watershed fall in regards to HREP priority streams? (Rated 1 thru 20) NAACC website (not on database): NAACC Watershed Prioritization map

State Stream Standard (Is this a trout stream/spawning stream?) HVNR Mapper

Is this in or near a DEC-regulated/NWI wetland? HVNR Mapper

Other significant biodiversity or habitat data?

Is this a biologically important barrier? HVNR Mapper

Road

/Cul

vert

impr

ovem

ents

Designs for improved structure: Describe repairs/improvements needed

Improved safety and mobility? (Improving a sidewalk, sight lines, etc.)

Describe in detail the improvement of route access needs for critical services, other needs for route, etc.

Surveys of structure: Does it exist? If not, who would do it?

How does the improvement fit within zoning and/or comprehensive plan? (If the town doesn’t have a plan, can the grant be used to develop one in part?)

Permits needed/anticipated Trish Gabriel – DEC Permitting staff trish.gabriel@dec.ny.gov

Estimated and itemized structure costs: Engineering costs Local/Engineering Firm

Equipment / Materials Local/Hwy dept

Personnel costs Local/Hwy dept

Road rebuild costs Local/Hwy dept

Cost/Benefit analysis Local

Other municipal offices involved and contacted (Planning, Highway, Zoning, etc.) Local

Are there other properties/structures nearby that will benefit? Local

Environmental Justice Community? Does the project improve an area with underserved communities? (may be relevant to some applications) Local

Possible Matching funds/ resources/contributions for services? List groups that may be interested. Local knowledge

Stak

ehol

ders

/Par

tner

s: P

oten

tial l

ette

rs o

f sup

port

Town officials

Adjacent landowners affected

Regional fisheries biologists

Regulators (DEC, Army Corps of Engineers, Soil & Water)

NRCS

Local environmental groups

Local Conservation Advisory Committee

Columbia County Environmental Management Council Michael Hamilton

Watershed Groups

Other Potential Partners?