White Creek Watershed Flood Vulnerability and Mitigation Assessment – final report

White Creek Watershed Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability
and Mitigation Assessment
August 23, 2016 Final Report
Prepared by:
Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC.
18 Severance Green, Suite 203
Colchester, VT 05446
in partnership with:
MSK Engineering and Design
150 Depot Street
Bennington, VT 05201

Prepared under contract to:
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, NY 12801

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
1.1 P ROJECT BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 P ROJECT OBJECTIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
2.0 WHITE CREEK WATERSHED BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………… 2
2.1 C URRENT AND HISTORICAL LAND USE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2.2 W ATERSHED GRADIENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
3.0 GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
3.1 G EOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT A PPROACH ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
3.2 G EOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
4.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
4.1 R EVIEW OF USGS R EGIONAL REGRESSIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
4.2 R EVIEW OF USGS R EGIONAL GAGES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
4.3 H YDROLOGIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. . 13
5.1 F IELD SURVEY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
5.2 MODELING DETAILS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
5.3 MODEL CALIBRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
6.0 FLOOD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES ………………………………………….. 17
6.1 U PSTREAM ALTERNATIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Evaluation of White Creek Bridge Flood Capacity …………………………………………………………………………………. 19
Alternative 1: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Blind Buck Road ……………………………………………. 21
Alternative 2: Beatty Hollow Bridge Retrofit or Replacement …………………………………………………………………. 23
Alternative 3: County Road 153 Unstable Embankment near Braymer Road ……………………………………………. 27
Alternative 4: Floodplain Reconnection Downstream (West) of Chambers Road ………………………………………. 30
Alternative 5: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Railroad Bridge #4 ………………………………………… 32
Alternative 6: County Route 153 Bridge Upstream Constriction ……………………………………………………………… 34
Alternative 7: Lowering of Railroad Bed and Removal of Culvert at Lenhardt Residence ……………………………. 35
Alternative 8: Replace Undersized Railroad Bridge #5 …………………………………………………………………………… 37
6.2 S ALEM VILLAGE ALTERNATIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. . 38
Alternative 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
Alternative 2a ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
Alternatives 3, 3a, and 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
Alternatives 5 and 6 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 43

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study

Alternative 7
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
6.3 MITIGATION PROJECT P RIORITIZATION AND POTENTIAL FUNDING ………………………………………………………………………… 46
Upstream Project Prioritization ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
Village Project Prioritization ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
7.1 N EXT STEPS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 47
7.2 P ROJECT AND P LANNING RECO MMENDATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
8.0 LITERATURE CITED …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1 Hydrologic Analysis Maps (8.5” x 11”)
Appendix 2 Tropical Storm Irene Flood Simulation Maps (11” x 17”)
Appendix 3 Village Alternatives Analysis Maps (11” x 17”)
Appendix 4 Mitigation Project Matrices (11” x 17”)
Appendix 5 White Creek Overall Flood Study Map ( 24” x 36”)

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. White Creek study area map. …………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Figure 2.1. Historic channel locations downstream of Salem Village ……………………………………………………. 3
Figure 2.2. White Creek watershed and channel slope map ……………………………………………………………….. 4
Figure 3.1. LIDAR terrain model for river valley wall delineation …………………………………………………………. 5
Figure 3.2. Geomorphic reach delineation map ………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Figure 3.3. Typical channel evolution models for F-stage and D-stage …………………………………………………. 7
Figure 3.4. Broad level stream type classification per Rosgen …………………………………………………………….. 9
Figure 5.1. Hydraulic model cross-sections through the Village of Salem ……………………………………………. 13
Figure 5.2. Ineffective flow area example for cross-section 19271 …………………………………………………….. 15
Figure 6.1. Model hydrograph illustrating the impact of floodplain encroachment ……………………………… 17
Figure 6.2 Overview of upstream project alternatives …………………………………………………………………….. 18
Figure 6.3 Bridge flood capacity for public and private crossings on White Creek ……………………………….. 20
Figure 6.4 Berms along field edge at cross-section 14897 ………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure 6.5. T.S. Irene flood depth map showing berms and floodplain east of Blind Buck Road …………….. 22
Figure 6.6. Upstream bank armoring and bridge abutment at Beatty Hollow crossing …………………………. 23
Figure 6.7. Flood elevation changes with increased bridge opening ………………………………………………….. 23
Figure 6.8. Water surface longitudinal profile through the Beatty Hollow crossing ……………………………… 24
Figure 6.9. View of Beatty Hollow bridge and downstream constriction …………………………………………….. 25
Figure 6.10. Proposed realignment for Beatty Hollow bridge ……………………………………………………………. 26
Figure 6.11. Longitudinal profile through abandoned meander near Braymer Road ……………………………. 27
Figure 6.12. Alternative 3 site location map …………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Figure 6.13. Proposed grade control locations along Route 153 ………………………………………………………… 28
Figure 6.14. Unstable bank along Route 153 and diversion weir ……………………………………………………….. 29
Figure 6.15. Alternative 4: Floodplain partially blocked by berm downstream of Chambers Road …………. 30
Figure 6.16. T.S. Irene flood depth map showing berms near Chambers Road ……………………………………. 31
Figure 6.17. Alternative 5: Berm upstream of railroad bridge #4 ………………………………………………………. 32
Figure 6.18. T.S. Irene flood depth map for floodplain near railroad bridge #4 ……………………………………. 33
Figure 6.19. Alternative 6: Laid up stone abutment upstream of Route 153 bridge ……………………………… 34
Figure 6.20. Alternative 7: Ditch leading to culvert under railbed ……………………………………………………… 35

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study

Figure 6.21. T.S. Irene flood depth map with proposed rail bed lowering
…………………………………………… 36
Figure 6.22. Alternative 8: Railroad bridge #5 …………………………………………………………………………………. 37
Figure 6.23. Map of channel, floodplain, and bridge modifications for Village alternatives …………………… 39
Figure 6.24. Berm along field edge west of Park Place ……………………………………………………………………… 40
Figure 6.25. Alternative 2: Proposed berm removal downstream of Archibald bridge …………………………. 40
Figure 6.26.Alternative 2a: Channel and water surface profile with proposed deepening ……………………. 41
Figure 6.27. Archibald bridge at capacity during the Christmas 2014 flood …………………………………………. 42
Figure 6.28. Moderate bank cut example at cross-section 8684 ……………………………………………………….. 43
Figure 6.29. Large bank cut example at cross-section 7117 ………………………………………………………………. 43
Figure 6.30. Undeveloped floodplain approaching the Archibald bridge …………………………………………….. 44
Figure 6.31. Large floodplain cut at Archibald Street including bridge and house removal ……………………. 44
Figure 6.32. Typical cross-section of channel modifications for alternatives 6 and 7 ……………………………. 45

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Land cover characteristics for the White Creek watershed …………………………………………………. 2
Table 3.1. Summary of reach geomorphic characterstics …………………………………………………………………… 8
Table 3.2 Summary of reach stream types, incision, and channel evolution ……………………………………….. 8
Table 4.1. Recurrence interval flow rates for White Creek ………………………………………………………………. 11
Table 4.2. USGS gages with similar basin characteristrics ………………………………………………………………… 11
Table 5.1. Flow estimates for selected recurrence interval floods on White Creek ……………………………… 16
Table 6.1. Summary of channel and floodplain modification from Village alternatives analysis ……………. 38

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
I
Executive Summary
White Creek Geomorphology and Historical Human Impacts  White Creek has a drainage area of approximately 23 square miles at the VT-NY border and 36
square miles in Salem Village. The agricultural and residential development patterns found in
the watershed are characteristic of typical rural watersheds in this area of Vermont and New
York. Agriculture and moderate density development are more prevalent in the New York
portion; however more than 70% of the watershed is undeveloped and classified as forest or
shrub.
 The White Creek corridor has been historically manipulated along most of its length from West
Rupert into Salem. Channel and floodplain manipulation likely started as early as the 1700’s as
agriculture expanded within the valley, and over the years has included channel straightening,
dredging, berming, and extensive floodplain encroachment from roads and railroads.
 Most of the river valley in Salem is occupied by alluvium parent material, or fine-grained soils
that have been deposited by White Creek over thousands of years. The New York portion of
White Creek is found in an unconfined valley with a low sloped valley and channel (i.e., typically
less than 0.5%). Under reference conditions in this setting we would expect a gravel-bottom,
pool-riffle channel with a moderate to high sinuosity. However due to historic channel
manipulation the resulting planform of the creek is very different from its original state, with
low sinuosity in most reaches and stream type departures observed in several reaches.
White Creek Hydrology and Hydraulics
 Estimating flood discharges for different recurrence intervals in the White Creek watershed in
Vermont and New York is challenging for several reasons:
o White Creek has never had a long term USGS gage to measure continuous discharge.
o White Creek straddles two very different landscapes: steep, mountainous terrain in
Vermont where orographic rainfall is common and annual precipitation may exceed 60
inches; lower elevation terrain in New York where annual precipitation totals are
typically less than 35 inches.
o The USGS hydrologic region where White Creek is found – Region 1 – spans a vast area
of upstate New York. The average parameter values used to develop flow regressions
across this large region may not be appropriate for the White Creek watershed. Region
2 estimates may be more appropriate for White Creek.
 Our review of the USGS regressions and gages in the region suggests that the flood flow
estimates used by NYSDOT and Washington County for evaluating the hydraulic capacity of
bridge openings likely underestimate the range of possible flows in the watershed. For example,
the value used by the State and the County for the 100-year flow at the Village of Salem has
been in the range of 3,500 to 3,700 cfs. Our analysis suggests that the range of flows for this
event likely falls between 5,000 cfs and 6,000 cfs.
 The wide river valley though the Town of Salem and the associated roads, railroad, buildings,
and bridges created a complex environment for hydraulic modeling. Extensive field verification

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
II
and survey was required to understand the flooding dynamics within the study area.
Documentation of Tropical Storm Irene damage and flooding extents collected by the Salem
Flood Study Committee was invaluable for calibrating the hydraulic model and improving the
overall accuracy of the study.
 HEC-GeoRAS and HEC-RAS 4.1 software were used to create a one-dimensional river and
floodplain hydraulics model for White Creek from the Route 153 bridge in Vermont downstream
to the confluence with Blind Buck Brook. LiDAR was used to determine elevations for most
cross-sections in the model, however all bridge openings (and upstream/downstream sections)
were field surveyed. Channel bottom elevations were checked and adjusted throughout the
study area to account for LiDAR error in channel depth.
Infrastructure Vulnerability and Flood Mitigation Alternatives  Our hydraulic analysis included an evaluation of bridge flood capacity for all 17 public and
private bridges on White Creek. 10 of the 17 bridges have limited capacity to pass only the 10-
year flood or less, indicating that most bridges on White Creek are hydraulically undersized by
county and state standards. These assessments assume “clear flow” hydraulics, i.e., t hey do not
account for sediment and debris accumulation upstream or within the bridge opening during
flood events. Therefore the capacity at bridges prone to sediment aggradation and debris
clogging is likely lower during moderate and large flood events.
 Our hydraulic analysis of the White Creek corridor indicated that there are greater opportunities
to mitigate flooding depths and extents during moderate floods, as the flooding is not nearly as
extensive in comparison to large floods (i.e., 2011 Irene flood). The moderate floods, those
which have a 10-20% chance of occurring on any given year, occur on a frequency that regularly
affects residents’ lives and property in the valley.
 We evaluated 8 project alternatives upstream of Salem Village. We began by focusing on flood
resiliency for transportation infrastructure; we explored opportunities for larger bridge
openings, roadway embankment stabilization compatible with river stability. Another focus was
on flood flow attenuation opportunities for moderate floods including berm removals to
reconnect severed floodplains, improvement of drainage beneath the rail bed to reconnect
adjacent floodplains, and riparian buffer restoration.
 We evaluated over 10 project alternatives in Salem Village, and summarized the benefits and
costs for 7 alternatives in greater detail. These alternatives included removal of berms, removal
of the Archibald Street bridge, channel widening and deepening, and floodplain restoration with
home buyouts.
Next Steps  Upstream and Village proje cts were prioritized for “near term” and “long term” benefits to
reducing flood vulnerability in Salem, providing a “roadmap” for the community to follow. We
recommend the following steps for the community to advance these projects over time:

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
III
o
Solicit input from individuals, businesses, and officials from the Towns of Salem and
Rupert at future community meetings regarding specific projects and overall project
prioritization.
o Prioritize one to two projects to pursue each year with assistance from WCDPW,
A/GFTC, and other participating groups to identify appropriate funding sources and
partners.
o Apply for one to two grants each year to advance project development and/or designs.
o Implement projects as funding allows, and monitor project success.
 To further identify and evaluate upstream floodplain restoration and reconnection
opportunities, we recommend a field-based geomorphic study and river corridor plan for the
White Creek reaches in Salem to complement similar work in the Vermont portion of the
watershed.
 River science needs to be better incorporated into future public infrastructure projects in the
watershed to ensure proper sizing and scour protection measures for bridges and roadway
stabilization measures.
 There is a need for better coordination amongst partners working in the watershed, including
the towns, A/GFTC, WCDPW, USFWS, Trout Unlimited, and Battenkill Watershed Alliance. The
need for this coordination is two-fold: 1. to ensure that habitat enhancement work (i.e., weirs)
does not increase flood vulnerability for nearby homes, farmland, and infrastructure; 2. To
ensure that public infrastructure and flood mitigation projects summarized in this report are
conducted in a way to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat and downstream water quality.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Background The White Creek flows out of steep terrain
in the Taconic Mountains of Vermont and
descends into a broad valley in New York
with a long history of agricultural land use
(see Figure 1 .1). During large floods, the
surge of floodwaters and sediment carried
by White Creek poses a hazard to
infrastructure and public safety along the
river corridor from Rupert to Salem. In the
headwaters area of Rupert, severe erosion
along roads and at critical bridge crossings
has led to costly repair work in recent floods
such as Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. As
White Creek enters the Town of Salem,
inundation hazards are prevalent,
particularly in areas where out of bank flow
occurs and is diverted around and along the
rail bed. In between the state line and the
Village of Salem, White Creek flows approximately 8 river miles along farm fields and adjacent to
Route 153 and the historic rail bed. Along this stretch, the potential for floodplains bordering White
Creek to attenuate or diminish the flood surge downstream is compromised due to historical
manipulation of the channel (i.e., berming along farm fields, channel dredging, confinement along
Route 153 and the rail bed). If these floodplain areas are enhanced and allowed to function at their
full potential, they may be critical in lowering flood risks to transportation infrastructure on the New
York side of the watershed as well as other public and private infrastructure in downstream Salem
Village.
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) hired Fitzgerald Environmental
Associates (FEA) and project partner MSK Engineering and Design (MSK) to complete a hydrologic
and hydraulic study of the White Creek watershed in Rupert, Vermont and Salem, New York for the
purpose of evaluating infrastructure flood vulnerability and potential mitigation opportunities. The
findings from this study present a “road map” for future flood mitigation efforts including the
prioritization of projects based on their benefits and costs, and recommendations for next steps.
1.2 Project Objectives Flood vulnerability and mitigation studies are most successful when conducted at the watershed
scale beginning with characterization of watershed hydrology and continuing through the evaluation
of reach geomorphology and local channel and floodplain hydraulics. The scope of this project
covered the hydrology, geomorphology, and hydraulics of the White Creek corridor as a basis for
flood resiliency planning. The primary project objectives included: Figure 1 .1 : White Creek watershed boundary and the extents of
the 2012 – 2013 White Creek/Mill Brook SGA study area and the
2016 White Creek Study.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
2

Characterize the White Creek corridor in Salem to understand the channel’s natural
geomorphic tendencies and historical context;
 Complete a defensible hydrologic and hydraulic study of the watershed to understand the
flood magnitudes and dynamics of the White Creek corridor;
 Assess flood vulnerability of transportation infrastructure and public and private property in
the Town of Salem;
 Identify and evaluate flood resiliency strategies and projects upstream of the Village of
Salem;
 Identify and evaluate flood resiliency strategies and projects in the Village of Salem;
 Develop a “roadmap ” for future flood mitigation efforts in the Town of Salem by weighing
each project’s benefits and costs.
2.0 White Creek Watershed Background
White Creek originates from steep forested headwaters within the Towns of Rupert and Sandgate in
the southwestern corner of Vermont. The mainstem of White Creek converges with Mill Brook near
the Vermont/New York state line. The channel then descends through a wide valley shared with
Route 153 and the abandoned railroad bed until reaching the Village of Salem. White Creek is a
prominent feature within the Village with several streets and numerous houses located adjacent to
the stream banks. Downstream of the Village the channel continues to flow through a wide valley
primarily occupied with corn and hay fields until it reaches the confluence with Black Creek,
approximately 3 miles downstream.
2.1 Current and Historical Land Use Land cover data based on imagery from 2011 (Homer et al., 2015) are summarized in Table 2.1. The
agricultural and residential development patterns found in the watershed are characteristic of
typical rural watersheds in this area of Vermont and New York. Agriculture and moderate density
development are more prevalent in the New York portion; however more than 70% of the
watershed is undeveloped and classified as forest or shrub. Table 2 .1: Land cover characteristics of White Creek watershed (values expressed as a percent) .
Land Cover VT Watershed (22.5 mi 2
) NY Watershed (26.1 mi 2
) Ent ire Watershed (48.6 mi 2
)
Developed 1.8 4.9 3.4
Forest 83.6 57.3 69.7
Shrub 0.6 3.9 2.4
Grassland 0.2 0.4 0.3
Pasture 12.0 21.8 17.1
Cultivated Crops 1.1 10.3 6.0
Wetland 0.7 1.3 1.1
Water 0 0.1 0.1
Historic channel manipulation is a prominent feature along White Creek, especially through the wide
agricultural valleys along the New York portion of the watershed. Channel manipulation likely
started as early as the 1700’s as agriculture expanded within the valley. Large scale channel

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
3
straightening in rural watersheds is typically associated with road and railroad construction, as well
as agricultural land uses. Analysis of historic imagery and mapping (Scott and Smith, 1853; UNH,
2012
) indicates areas where White Creek was completely relocated during the construction of the
railroad (Figure 2.1). Residential and agricultural land use along the river banks and floodplains
further restricts channel migration and floodplain accessibility. Decades of channel manipulation
cause the stream to lock in to an erosional process referred to incision or degradation. As channel
migration is limited by straightening and armoring, the channel begins to cut downward (incision)
which further reduces floodplain access. Berms were constructed in many areas along White Cree k
in response to flooding events. While these berms protect agricultural fields and buildings on the
floodplains, they reduce floodwater storage potential and increase the volume and rate of
floodwaters conveyed downstream toward the Village of Salem.

Fi gure 2.1: Historic channel locations indicate major channel manipulation during
railroad construction and development within the Village of Salem.
2.2 Watershed Gradients Channel slopes within the watershed follow the typical pattern of steep headwater reaches
gradually transitioning to moderate slopes as tributaries converge and the channel increases in size
(Figure 2.2). Channel slopes continue to decrease as the streams enter wide river valleys. As the
stream reaches the state line the channel slope drops below 1% and enters a very wide and
unconfined river valley. Channel slopes through the Village and extending down to the confluence
with Black Brook are typically under 0.5%. The transition from high/moderate slope in Vermont to
low slope in New York also signifies a shift in the types of expected flooding damage from erosion
and inundation in Vermont to predominantly inundation in New York.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
4

Figure 2.2: White Creek watershed and channel slope map.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
5
3.0 Geomorphic Assessment
A preliminary geomorphic assessment of the White Creek corridor was conducted to tie into the existing
geomorphic database and River Corridor Plan completed by FEA in Rupert in 2013 (FEA, 2013). The
existing database of geomorphic conditions ends in Rupert at Hebron Road, approximately ½ mile east
of the state line. Our assessments began downstream (west) of Salem Village at the confluence of White
Creek and Blind Buck Stream, and continued upstream to West Rupert (see Figure 3.2). In order to work
within the project time frame through the winter and spring months, we followed an abbreviated
version of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation’s Stream Geomorphic Assessment
(SGA) Phase 1 Protocols (VTDEC, 2009), as described below.
3.1 Geomorphic Assessment Approach
 The Salem portion of White Creek was delineated into 8 reaches (along approximately 8 river
miles) following VTDEC’s SGA Phase 1 protocol for reach delineation.
 Step 2 of VTDEC’s SGA protocol was populated, including valley and channel slope, watershed
drainage area, sinuosity, reference channel
geometry per Mulvihill et al. (2007),
reference stream type (Rosgen, 1994), and
reference bedform (Montgomery and
Buffington, 1997). Valley width and
confinement were generated using a
percent slope map, generated from the
LiDAR elevation data, to identify valley
walls and measure valley width (Figure
3.1). The Step 2 data is summarized in
Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
 The study area was scanned remotely
using high-resolution aerial photography
and LiDAR data to locate areas with
excessive sedimentation or lateral
movement post-Irene flood, i.e., significant
channel features such as bank erosion, large gravel deposits, debris jams, etc.
 Cross-sections cut from the HEC-RAS model at regular intervals were used to characterize
reference and existing stream type, channel evolution stage, channel geometry and
channel/floodplain connectivity, and estimate entrenchment and incision ratios. This data is
summarized in Table 3.2.
 A windshield survey was conducted to verify data generated remotely. This included
observations at access points along the Creek, such as bridge crossings and the railroad bed
adjacent the channel. Valley
Width
Figure 3.1 : LiDAR Terrain Model for
River Valley Wall Delineation.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
6

Figure 3.2: Geomorphic reach delineations along White Creek in Salem.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
7
The information collected in this assessment assist
ed with assigning a channel evolution model (CEM)
stage for each reach (Schumm, 1977). Channel evolution models provide a basis for understanding
the temporal scale of channel adjustments and departure in the context of SGA results. Both the “D”
sta ge and “F” stage CEMs (VTDEC, 2009) are helpful for explaining the channel adjustment processes
underway in the White Creek watershed. The “F” stage CEM is used to understand the process that
occurs when a stream degrades (incises) its bed. The more domina nt adjustment process for the “D”
stage channel evolution is aggradation, widening and planform change. D-stage CEM typically occurs
where grade controls prevent severe channel incision and abandonment of the adjacent floodplain.
The common stages of both CEMs are depicted in Figure 3.3 below.

Figure 3.3: Typical channel evolution models for F-stage and D-stage (VTDEC, 2009).

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
8
3.2 Geomorphic Assessment Results Table 3.1 : Summary o f reach geomorphic characteristics for the White Creek corridor in Salem, NY.
Reach Elevation River Valley River Channel
Sinuosity Drainage
Area (mi 2
) HGR Channel Width*
Valley
Width (ft) Confinement
Up
(ft) Down
(ft) Length
(ft) Slope
(%) Length
(ft) Slope
(%) VT (ft) NY (ft) Ratio
(NY) Type
Reach 1 466 455 3,712 0.30 3, 908 0.28 1.05 42.4 68.1 83.5 2,050 24.6 Very Broad
Reach 2 490 466 6,656 0.36 6,805 0.35 1.02 35.8 63.2 78.5 2,250 28.7 Very Broad
Reach 3 505 490 2,880 0.52 3,350 0.45 1.16 35.4 63.0 78.2 1,900 24.3 Very Broad
Reach 4 527 505 4,170 0.53 4,545 0.48 1.09 32.8 60.8 76.0 1,050 13.8 Very Broad
Reach 5 552 527 4,380 0.57 5,094 0.49 1.16 28.2 56.9 72.0 1,650 22.9 Very Broad
Reach 6 588 552 5,030 0.72 6,159 0.58 1.22 27.0 55.9 70.9 1,250 17.6 Very Broad
Reach 7 626 588 4,559 0.83 4,668 0.81 1.02 25.5 54.5 69 .5 1,500 21.6 Very Broad
Reach 8 691 626 6,940 0.94 7,244 0.90 1.04 23.2 52.2 67.1 1,800 26.8 Very Broad
*
Hydraulic Geometry Regressions (HGRs) for bankfull channel width estimates from Mulvihill et al. (2007) for New York and VTANR (2009) for Vermont.
Table 3.2 : Summary o f reach stream typing, incision, and channel evolution.
Reach Reference Existing
Stream
Type ᶧ Substrate Bedform ᶧ Stream
Type ᶧ Incision
Ratio CEM
Stage ᶧ
Reach 1 C Gravel Riffle – Pool C Moderate F/III
Reach 2 C Gravel Riffle – Pool C Moderate F/III
Reach 3 C Gravel Riffle – Pool F Poor F/II
Reach 4 C Gravel Riffle – Pool B Moderate F/III
Reach 5 C G ravel Riffle – Pool C Good F/IV
Reach 6 C Gravel Riffle – Pool C Good F/III
Reach 7 C Gravel Riffle – Pool F Poor F/II
Reach 8 C Gravel Riffle – Pool C /F Good F/II
ᶧ Stream types per Montgomery and Buffington (1997) and Rosgen (1994)
Channel evolution model (CEM) per Schumm (1997)

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
9
Geomorphic conclusions:
The preliminary geomorphic assessment provides a basis for understanding the river valley setting
and predicting what types of channel forms would be expected under
“reference ,” or undisturbed
conditions. This effort is useful for understanding the tendency of the White Creek corridor to
support natural river forms that may be beneficial for reducing flood vulnerability in downstream
areas such as Salem Village. Some key conclusions are outlined below.
 Most of the river valley is occupied by alluvium parent material (see Figure 3.2), or fine-grained
soils that have been deposited by White Creek over thousands of years.
 The New York portion of White Creek is found in an unconfined valley, with a low sloped valle y
and channel (i.e., typically less than 0.5%). Under reference conditions in this setting, we would
expect a gravel-bottom C or E-type channel (see Figure 3.4) with a sinuosity of 1.2 to 1.5 .
Sinuosity sometimes exceeds 1.5 in these settings. Given the high bedload supplied by the steep
mountainous headwaters in the Vermont portion of the watershed, it is likely that some reaches
of White Creek historically supported braided channel forms, particularly near the inflection
point in the valley near the state line.
 Every reach of White Creek in New York has been heavily manipulated in the past. These
manipulations include channel straightening and relocation, bank armoring, berms and levees,
clearing of riparian vegetation, channel dredging, and others. The resulting planform of White
Creek is very different from its original state, with sinuosity less than 1.2 in most reaches, and
stream type departures observed in 3 of the 7 reaches, indicating a severe departure from the
reference condition.
 Floodplain connectivity, as measured by the ability of a 2-year flood to access the adjacent
benches or low floodplain, ranged from poor to good along the corridor. Areas with the most
restricted floodplain access due to berms and levees along the channel include Reach 3
upstream of Blind Buck Road, and Reach 7 downstream of the NY Route 153 crossing.
 Channel evolution stages indicated a high bedload channel that is aggrading following the large
floods of the last 20 years; however further field observations would be required to verify these
conditions.

Figure 3.4: Broad level stream type classification per Rosgen (1996)

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
10
4 .0 Hydrologic Analysis
This section provides a summary of the hydrologic data analysis used to estimate flood flows for
different recurrence intervals in the White Creek watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
never operated a continuous gage in the watershed. Therefore, the records available to complete this
analysis include USGS regional regressions and gage records.
4.1 Review of USGS Regional Regressions We used USGS Regional Regression for three (3) regions to calculate flow rates in the White Creek
watershed at a range of recurrence intervals: 1.5-year (bankfull), 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year,
100-year, and 500-year (abbreviated as Q1.5, Q2, etc). The USGS Streamstats program enables a user
to quickly calculate flow rates at numerous locations within a watershed, based on the point location
for the watershed delineation. The Streamstats program utilizes the regional hydrologic regressio n
equation based on the location of the watershed delineation point.
White Creek in Salem, NY is located within hydrologic region 1 for New York State. Approximately half
of the 49 square mile watershed is located in Vermont, and at the state line the upstream watershed
is approximately 23 square miles. The portion of the watershed draining through the Village of Salem
is approximately 35.8 square miles. We tested the Streamstats calculations at the state line by
calculating recurrence interval flows based on a watershed drawn in NY (using Region 1 regressions)
and a watershed drawn immediately upstream using the VT regressions. This yielded results with
significantly larger flows predicted from the Vermont regression. Salem is located near the southern
boundary of NY hydrologic region 1 (see Figure 1 in Appendix 1); therefore we also calculated flows
using the regression equations for NY hydrologic region 2 (Table 4.1). Each regional calculation
utilizes a different set of calculation variables shown below:
NY Region 1: Q100 = 10,300 * (Drainage Area)0.96 * (Basin Storage + 1)-0.202 * (Annual Rainfall)1.106 *
(Basin Lag Factor + 1)-0.539 * (Basin Forested Area + 80)-1.638
NY Region 2: Q100 = 52.3 * (Drainage Area)0.9 * (Basin Storage + 5)-0.918 * (Basin Lag Factor +1)-0.461
* (Mean Annual Runoff)1.104
Vermont: Q100 = 0.251 * (Drainage Area)0.854 * (Basin Wetland Area)-0.297 * (Annual Rainfall)1.809
The rainfall and runoff estimates for the NY regressions were generated from a 1951-1980 dataset
(R andall, 1996; Lumia et al., 2006). The Vermont regressions were recently updated and utilize a
1981-2010 rainfall dataset from the PRISM Group at Oregon State University (Olson, 2014). The data
sources used for the NY Region 1 and Vermont regressions have a large difference in mean annual
rainfall estimates for the watershed draining to the VT/NY border (40.3 inches from Randall; 55.3
inches from PRISM Group). Both rainfall datasets indicate an area of increased annual rainfall in the
headwaters south of Rupert (see Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix 1); however the Randall estimate (45
inches) is much lower than the PRISM estimate (63.7 inches). This is likely due to a combination of
data quality/resolution and a well documented trend of increased annual precipitation depth in the
region in recent decades (Stager and Thill, 2010). The PRISM dataset predicts a mean annual rainfall

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
11
depth of 48.3 inches for the 35.8 mi
2
watershed draining to Salem. This value was used for regression
calculations in Salem (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Recurrence interval flow rates for White Creek at the VT/NY border and in Salem. Location
(Drainage Area) Regression Q1.5 Q2 Q10 Q25 Q50 Q100 Q500
VT – NY Border
( 23.2 mi 2
) NY (Region 1) 691 846 1,577 1,980 2,284 2,628 3,422
NY (Region 2) 845 1 ,075 2,386 3,279 4,043 4,897 7,269
VT NA 1,212 2,413 3,255 3,955 4,720 6,864
Salem Village
( 35.8 mi 2
) NY (Region 1) 1,006 1,228 2,270 2,843 3,275 3,765 4,891
NY (Region 2) 1,115 1 , 468 3 , 156 4 , 290 5 , 250 6 , 319 9 , 252
VT NA 1 , 323 2 , 533 3 , 427 4 , 129 4 , 882 6 , 976
4.2 Review of USGS Regional Gages
We compared the regression equation flow estimates to recurrence interval flows described for USGS
gaging stations in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (Lumia et al., 2006; Olson,
2014). We identified 20 USGS gaging stations that were similar to White Creek in Salem NY based on
the following characteristics: drainage area, slope, rainfall, wetlands, and basin land cover (see Figure
1 in Appendix 1). From these we selected a subset of 11 gages which best matched the White Creek
basin characteristics and are either currently operational or recently decommissioned (Table 4.2). Table
4.2: USGS gages wit h similar basin characteristics; gages selected for analysis are shown in bold.
100 -year and 2 -year fl ow rates are area -normalized as CSM (cubic feet per second per square mile) Source Stream State USGS ID Years of
Record Drainage
Area (mi 2
) Basin Slope
(ft/mi) Q2
(CSM) Q100
(CSM) Lumia et al. 2006

Salmon Cr. CT 01199050 1961 – 2014 29.4 124.8 20 152
WB S acandaga River NY 01319000 1933 – 1978 28.9 81.2 40 81
Little Hoosic River NY 01333500 1948 – 2014 56.1 60.3 35 128
Bushnellsville Cr. NY 01362197 1952 – 2012 11.4 142 31 223
Chestnut Cr. NY 01365500 1938 – 2014 20.9 88.5 57 295
Sandburg Cr. NY 01366650 19 57 – 1977 52.8 60.8 36 127
Little Delaware River NY 01422500 1938 – 2014 49.8 49.9 42 115
Trout Cr. NY 01424500 1941 – 1996 49.5 48.4 43 111
WB Neversink River NY 01434498 1938 – 2014 33.8 75.8 127 541
Neversink River NY 01435000 1938 – 2014 66.6 69.7 92 336
Little Chazy River NY 04271815 1990 – 2014 50.3 43.7 12 51
Putnam Cr. NY 04276842 1990 – 2014 51.6 80.0 25 81
Olson 2014

Ayers Br. VT 01142500 1927 – 2014 30.5 58 25 114
Ottauquechee River VT 01150900 1984 – 2014 23.3 53 43 197
Saxtons River VT 01154000 1936 – 2014 72.2 86 39 194
NB Hoosic River MA 01332000 1927 – 2011 40.9 69.2 60 306
Green River MA 01333000 1948 – 2014 42.6 67.7 35 119
Mettawee River VT 04280350 1985 – 2008 70.2 72 31 131
Little Otter Cr. VT 04282650 1990 – 2014 57.1 19 15 54
Laplatte R iver VT 04282795 1990 – 2014 44.6 47 22 92
White Creek in Salem, NY 35.8 74 —
Median value for selected gages 41 72 35 152
Predicted flow (cfs) at VT/NY Border (23.2 mi 2
) 812 3,526
Predicted flow (cfs) in Salem ( 35.8 mi 2
) 1,253 5,442

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
12
4.3 Hydrologic Analysis Summary Estimating flood discharges for different recurrence intervals in the White Creek watershed in
Vermont and New York is challenging for the following reasons:
 White Creek has never had a long term USGS gage to measure continuous discharge.
 White Creek straddles two very different landscapes: steep, mountainous terrain in Vermont
where orographic rainfall is common and annual precipitation may exceed 60 inches; lower
elevation terrain in New York where annual precipitation totals are typically less than 35
inches.
 The USGS hydrologic region where White Creek is found – Region 1 – spans a vast area of
upstate New York. The average parameter values used to developed flow regressions across
this large region may not be appropriate for the White Creek watershed. Region 2 estimates
may be more appropriate for White Creek.
Our extensive review of the USGS regressions and gages in the region suggests that the flood flow
estimates used by NYSDOT and Washington County for evaluating the hydraulic capacity of bridge
openings likely underestimate the range of possible flows in the watershed. For example, the value
used by the State and the County for the 100-year flow at the Village of Salem has been in the range
of 3,500 to 3,700 cfs. Our analysis suggests that the range of flows for this event likely falls between
5,000 cfs and 6,000 cfs. Our hydraulic analysis using a HEC-RAS model and high water marks from
Tropical Storm Irene (2011) suggests that we are within this range, as described in further detail in
the following section.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
13
5 .0 Hydraulic Analysis
The wide river valley though the Town of Salem and the associated roads, railroad, buildings, and
bridges created a complex environment for hydraulic modeling. Extensive field verification and
survey was required to understand the flooding dynamics within the study area. Documentation of
Tropical Storm Irene damage and flooding extents collected by the Salem Flood Study Committee
was invaluable for calibrating
the hydraulic model and
improving the overall accuracy
of the study.
HEC-GeoRAS and HEC-RAS 4.1
software were used to create a
one-dimensional river and
floodplain hydraulics model for
White Creek from the Route 153
bridge in Vermont downstream
to the confluence with Blind
Buck Brook. A floodplain digital
elevation model (DEM) was
created for the study area using
high-resolution LiDAR elevation
surfaces from a dataset covering
the Hudson, Hoosic, and
Deerfield basins collected by
FEMA in 2012. We converted
the DEM from meters to feet
and used it to create a
Triangulated Irregular Network
(TIN). The TIN is an alternate method for representing the elevation surface that is much easier and
faster to process for hydraulic modeling purposes.
The HEC-GeoRAS model was set up by first digitizing the stream centerline and the top of each bank.
We constructed the hydraulic model as a single reach for the 48,300 foot long study area. The next
step was to classify the land cover and the associated roughness values (Mannings N values) for the
channel and floodplain areas. Based on 2014 aerial imagery, we manually traced areas of different
land cover and assigned roughness values ranging from 0.035 (gravel bottom stream channel) to 0.08
(forest) following Chow (1959) and Arcement et al. (1989). Next, cross-sections were drawn
perpendicular to channel and floodplain flow stretching across the valley to contain all areas of
overbank flow (Figure 5.1). HEC-GeoRas allows the user to “slice” cross-sections across the floodplain
and channel and the software automatically samples the DEM to create an accurate 3D lateral profile
of the floodplain.
Figure 5.1 : Modeled cross – sections through the Village of Salem

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
14
5.1 Field Survey Field verification of important floodplain features and road crossings was completed for the entire
study area in February and March, 2016. This is very important when constructing a large hydraulic
model based on LiDAR derived DEMs which are inherently less accurate in areas of steep slope
transitions,
at bridges and along road embankments where the DEM is sometimes adjusted to reflect
the “bare earth” condition, and sometimes in areas with dense coniferous tree cover. LiDAR
technology also has limited ability to penetrate water, therefore channel bottom and channel bank
elevations in the DEM are typically less accurate than elevations along the floodplain. The LiDAR data
are processed to remove the elevation of vegetation, buildings, bridges, etc. to create a surface that
represents the “bare earth” elevation. Bridge dimensions and accurate channel and bank elevations
and dimensions are critical components for HEC-RAS modeling. For each of the 17 bridges in the
study area we surveyed upstream and downstream sections, high and low chords, spans, and
heights. A licensed surveyor from MSK collected detailed survey around all major roadway bridges
within the study area using a Sprectra Precision Epoch 50 equipped with RTK smart rover. Staff from
FEA collected additional survey for railroad and private road bridges and collected channel bottom
and bank elevation surveys using a CST-Berger® 32x SAL Automatic Level (+ 1.0mm accuracy @ 1km
run) and standard survey rods. Horizontal data such as top of bank and bridge opening dimensions
were collected using a handheld Ashtech MobileMapper™ M100 Series GPS device (sub half-meter
accuracy). Channel bottom elevations were surveyed along any HEC-RAS cross-sections that were
visible from the bridges. 5.2 Modeling Details
The output file generated from HEC-GeoRAS can be directly opened in HEC-RAS 4.1. Given the scale
of the project and the width of the cross-sections, we had to manually check each “sliced” cross-
section for accuracy and make adjustments as needed. Typical adjustments included bank station
locations and smoothing of elevations around buildings and areas of dense vegetation. Channel
bottom elevations were checked and adjusted in any areas that were field surveyed. Typical channel
bottom adjustments ranged from 0.5 to 2 feet based on canopy density and water depth. We also
plotted the channel longitudinal profile and looked for any unnatural slope changes. Channel width
and bank profile were typically very accurate based on field measurements, LiDAR floodplain
elevations were unchanged except in areas of dense development.
We included a total of 89 cross-sections in the model with added detail around bridges and
important areas for overbank flow and past flood damage. The rail bed and roads through most of
the study area create important lateral flow boundaries and were challenging to represent with a
one-dimensional model. We utilized a combination of levees to block off areas where flooding has
not been observed, and ineffective flow areas (both permanent and non-permanent ) to reduce the
volume of water that can be conveyed through an area that does flood. The latter approach was
used to reduce the volume that is conveyed in the model to best represent downslope flow
restrictions (Figure 5.2). Permanent structures (houses, barns, etc.) were digitized in ArcGIS and
added to the GeoRAS database as obstructions.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
15
5.3 Model Calibration
We created an existing conditions plan and ran a steady flow model simulation with a mixed flow
regime. The estimated discharges for different flood recurrence intervals were calculated from a
series of regional regressions and from comparison to nearby USGS gaging stations in watersheds
with similar size, slope, and rainfall (see Section 4). Flow change locations were designated at six (6)
points along White Creek to adjust flows based on upstream drainage areas (Table 5.1); the flow
change locations were generally located at tributary junctions. After generating water surface
elevations and extents we fine-tuned the model with additional levees and ineffective flow area
adjustments. The water surface elevations were calibrated to known high water marks and to
estimated inundation extents from direct flood observations, photographs,
and a series of maps and
flooding descriptions provided by the Salem Flood Study Group. Two high water marks were
surveyed near the Route 22 bridge and the Archibald Street bridge, providing valuable data for
improving the model in this critical area.

Figure 5.2: Cross – section 19271 upstream of Beatty Hollow Road where the ineffective flow
area (green hashed lines) reduces the amount of floodplain available for conveyance until the
water surface is high enough to flow over Route 153.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
16
Table 5.1 : Flow estimates for select recurrence interval floods on White Creek scaled to the drainage
area at each flow change location.
Recurrence interval flow estima tes (cfs)
Cross –
Section Drainage
Area (mi 2
) Q2 Q5 Q10 Q50 Q100 Q500
48227 16.2 632 942 1,287 2,122 2,534 3,672
44614 23.2 905 1,348 1,843 3,039 3,630 5,258
40229 27.0 1,053 1,569 2,145 3,537 4,224 6,119
27218 28.2 1,099 1,639 2,241 3,694 4,412 6,391
20698 32.8 1,279 1,906 2,606 4,297 5,131 7,434
13547 35.8 1,396 2,081 2,844 4,690 5,601 8,114

The estimated 100-year flood discharge from our hydrologic analysis (5,600 cfs), when routed through
the existing conditions model, aligns well with observed water levels and flooding extents during the
2011 Tropical Storm Irene flood on White Creek, both in the Village and upstream (see maps in
Appendix B). In addition, we ran a simulation that accounted for partial debris blockage (approximately
50%) of the Archibald Street bridge opening and channel aggradation (approximately 1-2 ft) in the
Village, based on observations provided by the Town and the Flood Study Group. The results from this
simulation indicated high water elevation agreement within 2 inches at the two high water marks in the
Village. It is reasonable to assume that Tropical Storm Irene was between a 50-year and 100-year flood
on White Creek, as a USGS review of the annual exceedance probabilities (AEP) on gages in Vermont and
New York classified the 2011 flood as a 100-year flood (or greater) in most basins in southern Vermont
(Suro
et al., 2015). We reviewed the 4 gages nearest and surrounding the White Creek watershed and
found that the average AEP exceeded the 2% flood (i.e., 50-year flood).

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
17
6.0 Flood Mitigation Alternatives Analysis and Feasibility Studies
6.1 Upstream Alternatives We used the results of our geomorphic, hydrologic, and hydraulic analyses to identify potential flood
resiliency opportunities along the White Creek corridor upstream of Salem Village. We began by
reviewing the projects highlighted in the 2012 CT Male report (CT Male, 2012) to ensure that past
work was not duplicated. The sites we evaluated represent a wide spectrum of near-term and long-
term project types. The primary focus was on flood resiliency for transportation infrastructure; we
explored opportunities for larger bridge openings, roadway embankment stabilization compatible
with river stability, and other practices highlighted in the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Standard River Principles and Practices (Schiff et al., 2015). In addition, with the objective of
ameliorating the historical impacts of channel straightening, berming, and other encroachments on
the surge of floodwaters in Salem (Figure 6.1), we explored flood flow attenuation opportunities for
moderate floods including berm removals to reconnect severed floodplains, improvement of
drainage beneath the rail bed to reconnect adjacent floodplains, and riparian buffer restoration.
Our hydraulic analysis of the White Creek corridor indicated that there are greater opportunities to
mitigate flooding depths and extents during moderate floods, as the flooding is not nearly as
extensive in comparison to large floods (i.e., 2011 Irene flood). The moderate floods, those which
have a 10-20% chance of occurring on any given year, occur on a frequency that regularly affect
residents’ lives and property. The sites we prioritized and explored in further detail are shown in
Figure 6.2 on the following page.

Figure 6.1: Model hydrograph illustrating the impact of floodplain encroachment
on the downstream flood wave (USACE, 1980).

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
18

Figure 6.2: Overview map of upstream project alternatives.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
19
Evaluation of White Creek Bridge Flood Capacity
Our upstream analysis included an evaluation of bridge flood capacity for all
17 public and private
bridges on White Creek. Using our detailed hydraulic model, we evaluated the capacity of bridges to
pass flood discharge associated with each flood frequency without increasing flooding to adjacent
properties. In some cases the water elevation associated with a flood event is estimated to be near or
above the low chord of the bridge deck without increased risk of flooding to adjacent properties (e.g.,
2-year flood for Archibald Street bridge). In these cases, this flood discharge was assumed to be the
maximum capacity of the bridge. A summary of key observations from this analysis is provided below
to go along with Figure 6.3 on the following page.
 Only 2 bridges can safely pass the estimated 100-year flood without increasing flooding to
adjacent property.
 10 of the 17 bridges have capacity to safely pass the 10-year flood or less, indicating that
most bridges on White Creek are hydraulically undersized by county and state standards.
 All railroad bridges have a capacity of the 10-year flood or less.
 There are 3 severely undersized bridges in Salem Village: Route 22, Archibald Street, and the
downstream railroad bridge (RR-1) . These constrictions aggravate the problem of sediment
aggradation in the channel by slowing floodwater velocity and causing gravel and sand
bedload to deposit through the Village, thereby increasing flood vulnerability to properties in
the Village.
 Archibald Street bridge is severely hydraulically undersized; further detailed information
about the capacity of this bridge is provided in Section 6.2.
 Railroad Bridge #5 in West Rupert, a bridge over the rail trail, is severely undersized. The
reference bankfull channel width at this crossing is 53 feet; the structure span is 23 feet and
is poorly aligned with the channel. In addition, the abutment scour protection on the south
bank further constricts the channel. This undersized bridge causes channel backwater during
large floods and contributes to overbank flow along the southeast side of the railroad tracks
(see Section page 37 for further detail about this problematic structure).
 These assessments of flood capacity assume “clear flow” hydraulics, i.e., they do not account
for sediment and debris accumulation upstream or within the bridge opening during flood
events. Therefore the capacity at bridges prone to sediment aggradation and debris clogging,
such as the Archibald Street bridge, is likely lower during moderate and large flood events.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
20

Figure 6.3: Bridge flood capacity for public and private crossings on White Creek.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
21
Alternative 1: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Blind Buck Road
Berms are found on the east and west banks along a farm field east of Route 153 and upstream of Blind Buck Road (Figures 6.4 and 6.5 ). The
berms vary between 2 to 4 feet tall and restrict access to floodplains in agricultural use along both banks. During large flood events such as Irene
in 2011, flow jumps out of bank at a bend in the stream between sections 14432 and 14897. However, the berms partially restrict access to a
large floodwater storage area under moderate flood conditions. We estimate these floodplains contain approximately 1,500,000 cubic feet of
storage, or 4% of the approximate 10-year flood volume. Reconnecting these floodplains for moderate floods would not appear to increase flood
vulnerability to improved property in the immediate vicinity, and would serve to dampen the flood wave downstream in Salem. This work would
require an estimated 1,800 cubic yards of excavation and easements from the farmer. The ability of the floodplain to slow the velocity of out of
bank flow would be significantly enhanced by taking this farmland out of production and re-establishing native woody vegetation, however this
would come at a significant loss to the farmer, perhaps beyond an amount a permanent conservation easement would reasonably cover.

Figure 6.4: Cross-section 14897 located approximately 1,000 feet upstream (east) of Blind Buck Road. Berms along edge
of field
Route 153 500 1000 1500 2000498500502504506508510512 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ fl o o d _ e xi sti n g 5 /1 0 /2 0 1 6
RS = 14897
Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q100
WS SS Mean Q10
WS SS Mean Q2
Ground
Levee
Bank Sta.05 .
0
8 .04 .
0
7 .05 .06 .
0
8

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
22

Figure 6.5: T.S. Irene flood depth map showing berms and floodplain east of Blind Buck Road. Berms along
edge of field

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
23
Alternative 2: Beatty Hollow Bridge Retrofit or Replacement
The Beatty Hollow crossing of White Creek is located at a natural pinch in the valley where bedrock ledge is found on the bounding slopes to the
east and west. Our hydraulic modeling of large floods suggests that this pinch point in the valley causes depths exceeding 12 feet upstream of
the Beatty Hollow Road bridge (see page 7 of Appendix 2). During a large flood, water has to squeeze between the valley walls and through the
current clear bridge span of 44 feet; this has caused road embankment erosion in past floods (Figure 6.6). We evaluated how a bridge span
approximating the reference bankfull width (see Figure 6.7) would change local hydraulics and potentially reduce the volume of water leaving
the channel upstream, and reduce the risk of embankment failure. Our analysis indicates that a bankfull span with the same height as the
existing structure would lower the 100-year flood elevation by 2.7 feet (Figure 6.8), thereby reducing flooding at the adjacent house to the east.
A span of this size may also help to reduce out of bank flows upstream of the railroad bridge which get trapped along the west side of Route 153
to the south a nd exacerbate flooding downstream near the Village. Channel velocity during large floods would be reduced by as much as 25%,
reducing the vulnerability of the Route 153 and Beatty Hollow Road embankments to erosion failure.
Figure 6. 6 : Looking west at upstream approach of White Creek to
Beatty Hollow Bridge. Note the embankment armor from repairs
following the 2000 flood, and the steep bedrock slope in the
background. The western abutment was moved toward Route 153 in
1999 to increase the clear span from 35 feet to 44 feet . Figure 6. 7 : Upstream face of Beatty Hollow bridge showing the existing 100 – year flood
level and proposed with the increased span to 65 feet to provide a bankfull channel.
Note that floodwaters impact the adjacent house under exist ing conditions as was
observed during the Tropical Storm Irene flood. Q10 0 EX
Q100 PR 200 300 400 500 600515520525530535540545 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) q 1 0 0_ b e a tty1 2 ) Ap ri l 2 0 _ h i g h N
RS = 18850 BR Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q100 – April20_hig hN WS SS Mean Q100 – q 100_beatty1 – April20_hig hN
– April20_hig hN
– April20_hig hN
Ground – April20_hig hN
Ineff – April20_hig hN
Bank Sta – April20_hig hN – q100_beatty1
– q100_beatty1
– q100_beatty1
Ground – q100_beatty1
Ineff – q 100_beatty1
Bank Sta – q 100_beatty1

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
24

Figure 6.8: Profile of 100-year flood in the vicinity of Beatty Hollow Road crossing. Blue line represents existing conditions profile and magenta
line represents proposed conditions profile with the span increased to 65 feet to provide a bankfull channel.

18000 19000 20000 21000510515520525530 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l 2 0 _ h i g h N 4 /2 2 /2 0 1 6 2 ) q 1 0 0 _ b e a tty1 5 /1 0 /2 0 1 6
Main Channel Distance (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
Q100 Existing
Q100 Proposed
Ground
B e attie HollowRR2A d de d p o st L iDA R b e rm on rig ht ba n kWhite Creek 1

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
25
A more immediate solution to increasing the hydraulic capacity of the bridge opening is to remove a constriction caused by riprap armor at the
downstream side of the bridge (Figure 6.9). We estimate this riprap is obstructing the downstream hydraulic opening by 10-15%. This
encroachment causes further channel constriction to approximately 35 feet. This armor does not appear to be protecting critical infrastructure;
The stone could be repositioned to create more of a stacked stone wall to protect the road pull-off while eliminating the encroachment. Figure 6. 9 : View of Beatty Hollow Bridge
opening from upstream (taken by Evan
Fitzgerald, May, 2016). Note the riprap
stone projec ting out into the channel at
the downstream end of the bridge.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
26
In the long term a realignment of the road crossing would significantly improve the hydraulic capacity of this pinch point in the valley. Figure
6.10 illustrates a possible realignment of the road intersection; this would need to be evaluated further by the County to ensure safety with
respect to traffic patterns and sight distances. The realignment would reduce the sharp bend in the channel immediately upstream of the
current bridge opening. In addition, the west bank upstream of the bridge could be lowered in elevation (hatched area) to allow for some
overbank conveyance, thereby improving the hydraulics upstream of the structure. Finally, if a more comprehensive flood resiliency project i s
considered in the future with the bridge realignment, the removal of the railroad embankment upstream (north) of the bridge may also provide
additional flood reduction benefits. Removal of the railroad embankment would allow floodwaters leaving the channel upstream of the next
upstream railroad bridge to rejoin the main channel near Beatty Hollow Road, assuming the headwater depth is reduced with a large span. This
could alleviate flooding downstream in the Village by reducing the volume of water crossing Route 153 to the west.
Figure 6.1 0 : Beatty Hollow Bridge
current alignment versus an
alternative alignment which
would improve the channel
approach and hydraulic capacity .

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
27

Alternative 3: County Road 153 Unstable Embankment near Braymer Road
This site was addressed in 2012 as part of the post-flood recovery work planned and
engineered by CT Male for the Town and Village of Salem. The purpose of the
project was to reconnect an abandoned meander to the east (Figure 6.12), which
would lead to lower flood flow velocity and erosion risk along Route 153. The
abandoned channel is currently steeper than the reconnected meander; the
reconnected meander dissipates energy over a longer run. The diversion weir at the
upstream end has likely exacerbated erosion along the Route 153 embankment
(Figure 6.14), as it has further steepened the head of an already over-steepened
channel, leading to higher flood velocities (Figure 6.11). To prevent further erosion
along the embankment, we propose bank armor in conjunction with grade control in
the channel adjacent the road either in the form of 2-3 discrete weirs or vanes
(Figure 6.13), or naturalized bed armor to raise the channel grade at or near the
adjacent meander channel.

Figure 6.1 1 : Longitudinal profile from LiDAR and field observations. Figure 6.1 2 : Site location map

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
28

Figure 6.13: Looking south along Route 153 at site of proposed grade control to prevent further downcutting and
undermining of roadway embankment. The roadway embankment would need to be armored. Stone from the
downstream diversion, which we deem unnecessary, could be repurposed for a portion of the grade control and bank
armor. Erosion along
Rt . 153 Toe of
Embankment
Diversion Weir Pr oposed Grade
Control Weirs

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
29

Figure 6.14 : Looking north (upstream) at the unstable bank. Route 153 is on the top of the slope, and the upstream
diversion weir is seen in the background.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
30
Alternative 4: Floodplain Reconnection Downstrea m (West) of Chambers Road
A berm stretches along the south bank downstream from the Chambers Road bridge and adjacent railroad bridge for approximately 900 ft,
extending beyond cross-section 22800 (Figures 6.15 and 6.16). The berm is typically 1.5ft tall and restricts access to a 5 acre floodplain in
agricultural use that is bounded by the railroad to the east. In addition, the railroad bed severs a portion of the floodplain to the east. These
combined areas represent approximately 530,000 cubic feet of floodplain storage. Reconnecting these floodplains for moderate floods would
not increase flood vulnerability to improved property in the immediate vicinity (i.e., out of bank flows would return to the channel safely without
affecting residences), and would serve to dampen the flood wave downstream in Salem. This work would require an estimated 8,600 cubic yards
of excavation and easements from the farmer. The ability of the floodplain to slow the velocity of out of bank flow would be significantly
enhanced by taking this farmland out of production and re-establishing native woody vegetation to increase floodplain roughness.

Figure 6.15 : Model cross-section 22800 downstream of Chambers Road showing a near bank berm and the railroad bed which both sever th e
channel from the floodplain in the 10-year flood. Removing both confining features would reconnect an estimated 530,000 cubic feet of
floodplain storage, which represents approximately 1% of the runoff volume in this flood event. Railroad bed Berm along edge
of field 0 2 00 4 00 6 00 8 00 1 00 0 1 20 0 1 40 0 1 60 05 305 355 405 455 505 555 60 Ge o Ra s_mod el Pla n : April_2 0 _Q 10 0 _lo w_ rou g h 4 /25 /20 1 6

S ta tio n (ft)E levation (ft) Lege nd
WS S S Mea n Q1 00
WS S S Mea n Q2 5
WS S S Mea n Q1 0
Gro u nd
L eve e
In eff
B an k Sta.0 5 .0 5 .0 4 .
0
7 .0 65

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
31

Figure 6.16: T.S. Irene flood depth map showing floodplain, berms, and railroad bed. Berm along
edge of field

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
32
Alternative 5: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Railroad Bridge #4
Berms are found along the north bank along a farm field west of the Route 153 crossing (Figures 6.17 and 6.18). The berms vary between 2 to 5
feet tall and restrict access to a large floodplain in agricultural use that is bounded by Route 153 to the west. During large flood events such as
Irene, flow jumps out of bank at a low point along the channel at Section 34583. However, the berms restrict access to a large floodwater
storage area under moderate flood conditions. We estimate this floodplain contains approximately 1,400,000 cubic feet of storage, or 4% of the
approximate 10-year flood volume. Reconnecting these floodplains for moderate floods would not appear to increase flood vulnerability to
improved property in the immediate vicinity, and would serve to dampen the flood wave downstream in Salem. This work would require an
estimated 4,000 cubic yards of excavation and easements from the farmer. The ability of the floodplain to slow the velocity of out of bank flow
would be significantly enhanced by taking this farmland out of production and re-establishing native woody vegetation.

Figure 6.17 : Model cross- section 33573 upstream of Railroad Bridge #4 showing a near bank berm which severs the channel from the floodplain.
Removing the berm would reconnect an estimated 1,400,000 cubic feet of floodplain storage. Berm along edge
of field 0 2 00 4 00 6 00 8 00 1 00 0 1 20 0 1 40 0 1 60 05 905 956 006 056 106 156 206 25 Ge o Ra s_mod el Pla n : April_2 0 _Q 10 0 _lo w_ rou g h 4 /25 /20 1 6

S ta tio n (ft)E levation (ft) Lege nd
WS S S Mea n Q1 00
WS S S Mea n Q1 0
WS S S Mea n Q2
Gro u nd
In eff
B an k Sta.0 7 .0 4 .0 7 .0 5 .0 6

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
33

Figure 6.18: T.S. Irene flood depth map showing floodplain and berms. Approx location of b erm s
along edge of field

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
34
Alternative 6: County Route 153 Bridge Upstream Constriction
An old laid up stone abutment upstream of the Route 153 bridge constricts the channel (Figure 6.19), aggravating out of bank flows and flooding
of adjacent properties to the south and east during large floods. The bridge has an estimated capacity of the 10-year flood, and the constriction
further reduces the channel capacity. The bankfull channel upstream and downstream of the bridge ranges from 30 to 35 feet, while the
constriction at the abutment is approximately 20 feet. There is good machinery access to remove the stone (approximately 90 cubic yards) from
a private gravel road west of Route 153. A temporary easement from the landowner would be needed as the stone is likely outside of the road
right- of-way. Figure 6. 19 : View of County
Route 153 Bridge opening
from upstream (taken by Evan
Fitzgerald, May, 2016). Note
the old laid up stone abutment
projecting into the channel
upstream of the bridge.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
35
Alternative 7: Lowering of Railroad Bed and Removal of Culvert at Lenhardt Residence
During large floods water is diverted out of the bank in West Rupert at the rail trail bridge and gets trapped on the east side of the rail bed.
Ponded water south of the Atwater farm cannot easily return to the White Creek channel after the floodwaters recede due to limited capacity
through a 30-inch culvert. Lowering a portion of the rail bed around the culvert will provide additional relief back to the Creek, thereby relieving
trapped floodwaters and reducing prolonged flooding of homes. Figure 6. 20 : View north along rail bed where a dit ch
crosses through a 30 – inch culvert (taken by Evan
Fitzgerald, May, 2016).

3
3
0
0 –
– i
i
n
n
c
c
h
h
R
R C
C
P
P

c
c
u
u
l
l
v
v
e
e
r
r
t
t
L
L
o
o
w
w
e
e
r
r

r
r
a
a
i
i
l
l

b
b
e
e
d
d

t
t
o
o

h
h
e
e
r
r
e
e

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
36

Figure 6.21: Map of proposed rail bed lowering to allow out of bank floodwaters from the north to return
to the White Creek floodplain and channel following recession of flood surge.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
37
Alternative 8: Replace Undersized Railroad Bridge #5
The rail trail bridge in West Rupert in severely undersized and poorly aligned, and contributes to out of bank flows during large floods.
Floodwaters get trapped on the south side of the rail bed and cannot return to the Creek. The current bridge span is 23 feet. The bridge span
should be at least 50 feet to match the channel bankfull width. In addition, riprap stone placed along the south bank along the toe of the new
abutment appea rs to have been placed for scour protection, however this further constricts the channel. Figure 6.22: View west at upstream end
of rail trail bridge in Rupert. The
confluence of White Creek and Mill
Brook is just downstream in the photo
background (taken by Evan Fitzgerald,
April , 2016).
R
R
i
i
p
p
r
r
a
a
p
p

a
a
r
r
m
m
o
o
r
r
c
c
o
o
n
n
s
s
t
t
r
r
i
i
c
c
t
t
i
i
n
n
g
g
c
c
h
h
a
a
n
n
n
n
e
e
l
l

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
38
6.2 Salem Village Alternatives We created two different HEC-RAS geometry files to model small floods (Q2-Q10) and large floods
(Q50-Q500) in the Village of Salem. Levees and ineffective flow areas specific to flood depth were
required in many areas to control flood extents across the variable topography in the very wide river
valley. The two existing geometry files were used as the basis for a series of alternatives models to
evaluate flood mitigation options .
Most of the Village-specific alternatives we considered had only minimal flood risk reduction in the
large floods (Q100) in comparison to the more frequent moderate floods (Q5 or Q10). This is due to
the simple fact that during a very large flood a significant portion of the Village along White Creek is
inundated, and there are fewer practical opportunities besides extensive property buyouts to
significantly reduce flood risk. Whereas, during the moderate floods there are greater opportunities
to mitigate the flooding depths and extents, as the flooding is not nearly as extensive. The moderate
floods, those which have a 10-20% chance of occurring on any given year, occur on a frequency that
affects residents’ lives with enough regularity that we chose to focus our efforts on mitigating these
floods.
We selected the 10-year flood, with a modeled discharge of 2,844 cfs, as the representative flood to
analyze mitigation opportunities in the Village. The alternatives analysis for the Village included six
(6) types of channel and floodplain modifications which were investigated for flood depth and
velocity reductions both independently and iteratively (Table 6.1 and Figure 6.23 ). All alternatives
were compared to the “do nothing” alternative, and the incremental flood risk reduction with each
added intervention was reviewed. A series of flood depth maps for key alternatives is provided in
Appendix 3, and each alternative is described in greater detail in the following sections. Table 6.1 : Summary of channel and floodplain modifications from Village alternatives analysis.
Alternative Remove Berms
along Field Deepen
Channel Remove
Archibald Bridge Overflow
Box Culvert Widen Channel w/
Flood Benches Create Floodplain
near Archibald
1 Do Nothing – Existing Conditions
2 X
2a X X
3 X
3a X
4 X X
5 X X X
6 X X X X
7 X X X X X

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
39

Figure 6.23: Map of channel, floodplain, and bridge modifications considered during the alternatives analysis.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
40
Alternative 2
This scenario involves the removal of berms along the south bank extending from the end of Park Place to the railroad crossing. Berm removal
will restore access to a large floodplain during small to medium sized flood events. The berms are typically 1.5-2.5 f eet tall and are continuous
except for a small break near the railroad (Figures 6.24 and 6.25). The berms total approximately 1,200ft in length and we estimate the total
berm volume to be 1,000-1,400 CY. Coordination with the owner (Woody Hill Farms) would be required. In talking with staff from the
Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District, we understand that the farmer placed these berms along the river to prevent overflow
on to the crop fields and reduce erosion. However, this has the effect of creating tailwater in small and moderate floods (Figure 6.25), before the
berms are overtopped, exacerbating flooding on the west end of the Village.

Figure 6.2 4 : Berm along fi eld edge west of Park Place. Figure 6.25 : Berm removed at XS 7117 in the model resulting in a 6 – inch
decrease in the 10 – year flood ( Q10 ) water surface elevation .

Q10 EX
Q10 PR BERM 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600466468470472474 476 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ e x 2 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ a l t2
RS = 7117 Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q10 – April_7_low_ex WS SS Mean Q10 – April_7_alt2
Ground – April_7_alt2
Levee – April_7_alt2
Bank Sta – April_7_alt2
Ground – April_7_low_ex
Levee – April_7_low_ex
Bank Sta – April_7_low_ex

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
41
Alternative 2a
This scenario involves the removal of berms along the south bank extending from the end of Park Place to the railroad crossing and deepening
the channel from the Route 22 bridge through cross-section 7117. We estimate the channel has aggraded approximately 1-2 feet of gravel and
sand through this section compared to pre-Irene conditions (Figure 6.26). This is supported by the 2005 County site plans for the construction of
the Archibald bridge, which indicate a maximum clearance of 7.5 feet at the upstream face of the bridge in 2005 in comparison to 6 feet
currently . Some minor bank shaping may be required to maintain stable bank slopes of no greater than 2H:1V as the channel bed is excavated.
We estimate that approximately 3,000-4,000 CY of material would be removed over the 2,200 foot length of channel, in addition to the berm
removal volume described in Alternative 2. Figure 6.26 : Channel deepening
to increase capacity from Route
22 to Archibald Street. The
magenta line s represent the
proposed channel bottom (solid)
and 10 – year flood profile
(dashed ) . The predicted 10 – year
surf ace water elevation does not
overtop the Archibald bridge
following channel deepening,
however flooding upstream of
the bridge is not reduced.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
42
Alternatives 3, 3a, and 4
Alternatives 3 and 4 include removing the Archibald Street bridge and the north abutment to increase channel width and capacity. The bridge is
currently a significant obstruction to flows at or above the 2-year event (Figure 6.27). Tailwater from the constricted channel increases water
surface elevation upstream to the Route 22 bridge in large events. Water surface elevations for the 10-year flood are predicted to drop 1 to 1.5
feet during moderate floods at cross-section 8062 following bridge removal. This would significantly decrease the number of vulnerable homes
along Archibald Street, Nichols Street, and Park Place during moderate storm events. Alternative 4 includes the removal of the downstream
berms and is predicted to further reduce water surface elevations during the 10-year storm by approximately 0.5 to 1ft at the west end of the
Village. Berm removal further reduces water surface elevations through the farm fields and allows the 10-year storm to pass through the
railroad bridge below the low chord. Alternative 3a does not remove the bridge and includes a 20ft wide by 5ft tall concrete box culvert installed
under Archibald Street immediately north of the bridge. Based on the hydraulic model, the box culvert will achieve the same flood water
elevation reductions as bridge removal in Alternative 3. It is important to note that bridge removal will reduce the risk debris catchment during
storms and will likely improve sediment transport. Adding a second hydraulic opening (culvert) may actually increase debris catchment risk over
the current configuration. We estimate that alternative 3a will require approximately 1,500CY of excavation to create the overflow channel
through the culvert. Additional heavy stone armoring will be recommended for the banks of the overflow channel to protect adjacent properties
and the bridge abutment. Figure 6.27 : Archibald Street bridge at capacity during
the Christmas 2014 flood which we estimated to be an
approximate 1 – year flood, based on records from
nearby USGS gages for this event . Our hydraulic model
indicates that a discharge between the 1 – year flood
estimate ( 1,250 cfs) and the 2 – year flood estimate
( 1,400 cfs) will exceed the current capacity of the
opening. This is further evidence that our model aligns
well with large and small flood hydraulics in the Village .
Photo courtesy of the Salem Flood Stud y Committee .

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
43
Alternatives 5 and 6
Alternatives 5 and 6 include berm removal, channel deepening, and bank cuts to create flood benches. The flood benches are located below the
predicted 2-year flow elevation and increase the available channel and floodplain width during the 2-year and 5-year floods from 40-70 feet to
90-120 feet. The bank cuts between Route 22 and Archibald are typically 20-40 feet wide on the north bank. A larger cut is proposed at cross-
section 7117, where the channel is currently very narrow and along the berm (Figures 6.28 and 6.29). These widths are well above the predicted
bankfull width for White Creek based on the NY Region 1 regressions, however it is important to increase available floodplain given the repeat
flood damage through the Village and the current lack of undeveloped floodplain. Bank cuts will require the removal of approximately 90 large
trees that are currently along the top of the north bank in between Route 22 and Archibald Street. The design plans will require dense plantings
of native trees and fast growing shrub species (i.e., willows) along the flood bench and the banks. We estimate that the bank cuts will require
approximately 5,500-6,500 CY of excavation in addition to the 4,000-5,000 CY described in Alternative 2a for channel deepening.
Figure 6.28 : Moderate bank cut (40ft) at cross – section 8684. The magenta
line s represents proposed channel bottom and flood profile . Figure 6. 29 : Large bank cut (45 – 50ft), channel deepening, and berm removal
at cross – section 7 117. The magenta line s represents proposed channel
bottom and flood profile . 400 600 800 1000 1200468470472474476478480482 484 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ e x 2 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ A l t5
RS = 8684 Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q5 – April_7_low_ex WS SS Mean Q5 – April_7_Alt5
– April_7_Alt5
Ground – April_7_Alt5 Levee – April_7_Alt5Ineff – April_7_Alt5
Bank Sta – April_7_Alt5 – April_7_low_ex
Ground – April_7_low_ex
Levee – April_7_low_exIneff – April_7_low_ex
Bank Sta – April_7_low_ex 800 1000 1200 1400466468470472 474 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ e x 2 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ A l t5
RS = 7117 Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q5 – April_7_low_ex WS SS Mean Q5 – April_7_Alt5 Ground – April_7_Alt5
Levee – April_7_Alt5
Bank Sta – April_7_Alt5
Ground – April_7_low_ex
Levee – April_7_low_ex
Bank Sta – April_7_low_ex

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
44
Alternative 7
Alternative 7 includes the berm removal, channel deepening, and bank cuts described in Alternative 6 with the addition of a large floodplain cut
centered on the current Archibald bridge location. The existing floodplain area along the north bank of White Creek approaching the Archibald
bridge is somewhat elevated and we predict that it is only accessed during storm events larger than the 2-year flow (Figure 6.30). Unfortunately
there is little relief between the floodplain elevation and adjacent houses, therefore floodplain access is likely associated with property damage.
The proposed floodplain cut will lower the elevation of the floodplain by approximately 2 feet and extend 90-100 from the current river bank.
This cut will require the removal of the house at 41 Archibald St and the removal of approximately 110 ft of roadway extending to the north of
the bridge (Figure 6.31). The new floodplain will be accessible at the 2-year storm and is predicted to reduce flood depths upstream to the Route
22 bridge by 0.2 to 0.6 feet compared to Alternative 6, and approximately 2 feet of flood elevation reduction compared to Alternative 1. We
estimate that Alternative 7 will require approximately 3,500-4,000 CY of excavation in addition to Alternative 6.

Figure 6.30 : Undeveloped floodplain on the north bank approaching the
Archibald bridge. The floodplain elevation is only slightly lower than
surrounding houses and the road. Figure 6.31 : Large floodplain cut at Archibald Street including removal of the bridge
and the house at 41 Archibald. The magenta line s represents proposed channel
bank cuts, channel bottom , and flood profile .
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
1800468470472474476478 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ e x 2 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ a l t7
RS = 8062 Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q10 – April_7_low_ex WS SS Mean Q10 – April_7_alt7 – April_7_alt7
– April_7_alt7
Ground – April_7_alt7 Levee – April_7_alt7
Ineff – April_7_alt7
Bank Sta – April_7_alt7 – April_7_low_ex
– April_7_low_ex
Ground – April_7_low_ex Levee – April_7_low_ex
Ineff – April_7_low_ex
Bank Sta – April_7_low_ex

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
45

Figure 6.32: Typical cross-section of Alternative 6 and 7 channel widening and deepening to lower flood levels.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
46
6.3 Mitigation Project Prioritization and Potential Funding Included in Appendix 4 are alternatives matrices summarizing the benefits, ballpark costs, estimated
implementation time frame, and permitting jurisdictions for each alternative. These tables provide a
way for the community and other stakeholders to compare each alternative and chart a path forward
to reduce flood vulnerability in Salem. Below we have used our professional judgment to prioritize
projects for near and long term implementation, with potential funding sources listed for each
alternative.
Upstream Project Prioritization Near Term Projects Potential Funding Source s
1. Unstable embankment along County Route 153 near
Br aymer Road (Alternative 3)  WCDPW
2. Improve downstream hydraulic opening at Beatty
Hollow Road Bridge (Alternative 2)  WCDPW
3. Remove Upstream Constriction at County Route 153
Bridge (Alternative 6)  WCDPW
Long Term Projects Funding Source
1. Floodplain reconnection upstream of Blind Buck
Road (Alternative 1)  FEMA; NRCS
2. Replace Beatty Hollow Road Bridge to improve
alignment and hydraulic capacity (Alternative 2)  WCDPW; FEMA
3. Floodplain reconnection upstream of Railroad
Bridge #4 (Alternative 5)  FE MA; NRCS
Village Project Prioritization
Near Term Projects Potential Funding Source s
1. Remove Archibald Street Bridge Deck and North
Abutment (Alternative 3)  WCDPW; NYDEC
2. Deepen channel through Village and develop a long –
term sediment maintenance pl an. (Alternative 2a)  FEMA; Town of Salem
3. Remove berms on south bank downstream of Salem
Village. (Alternative 2)  NRCS
Long Term Projects Funding Source
1. Bank cut on north bank in between Route 22 and
Archibald Street. (Alternative 6)  FEMA; Town of Salem
2. Bank cut and floodplain restoration on north bank in
between Route 22 and Archibald Street; Buyout of
home at 41 Archibald Street . (Alternative 7)  FEMA; Town of Salem

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
47
7 .0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The White Creek corridor has been historically manipulated along most of its length from West
Rupert into Salem, leading to increased flood vulnerability in the Village of Salem. The lack of
historical flow monitoring on White Creek and the highly modified channel and floodplain made it
challenging to estimate watershed flood hydrology and model river corridor hydraulics. We put
significant effort into the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to develop a sound basis for evaluating
flood mitigation alternatives in Salem. The hydraulic model served as a tool for this evaluation, and
can be used and refined in the future to support subsequent steps such as engineering design, grant
applications, and permitting. Below we suggest next steps for the communities in the watershed to
move this planning process forward, including project and planning recommendations.
7.1 Next Steps As part of the ongoing community discussion regarding flood resiliency planning in the White Creek
watershed, we recommend the following steps to incorporate the community’s input i nto the final
prioritization and advance the projects over time:
 Solicit input from individuals, businesses, and officials from the Towns of Salem and Rupert at
future community meetings regarding specific projects and overall project prioritization.
 Prioritize one to two projects to pursue each year with assistance from WCDPW, A/GFTC, and
other participating groups to identify appropriate funding sources and partners.
 Apply for one to two grants each year to advance project development and/or designs.
 Implement projects as funding allows, and monitor project success.
7.2 Project and Planning Recommendations  Improving hydraulic capacity at the Archibald Street crossing, either by removing the bridge
deck and north abutment or installing an overflow box culvert, should be a priority for reducing
flood vulnerability in Salem Village.
 Sediment management options for the White Creek channel in Salem Village should be explore d
in further detail in the near-term to reduce flood vulnerability in the Village. This will require
additional survey work to set benchmarks for long-term monitoring and aggradation levels that
trigger maintenance, and extensive coordination with NYDEC, USACE, and other stakeholders to
ensure impacts to aquatic habitat and downstream water quality are minimized.
 Floodplain restoration and reconnection projects upstream of the Village are a priority for
reducing flood vulnerability in the long-term. Our modeling indicates that floodplain
reconnections totaling 10% of the volume of a moderate flood (i.e., 10-year flood), could reduce
the peak discharge in Salem Village by as much as 25%. The three (3) upstream floodplain
reconnection projects we scoped in this study could cumulatively achieve this reduction over
the long-term.
 River science needs to be better incorporated into future public infrastructure projects in the
watershed to ensure proper sizing and scour protection measures for bridges and roadway
stabilization.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
48

To further identify and evaluate upstream floodplain restoration and reconnection
opportunities, we recommend a field-based geomorphic study and river corridor plan for the
White Creek reaches in Salem to complement similar work in the Vermont portion of the
watershed. This work would follow the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Protocols
referenced in this report (VTANR, 2009; VTANR, 2010).
 There is a need for better coordination amongst partners working in the watershed, including
the towns, A/GFTC, WCDPW, USFWS, Trout Unlimited, and Battenkill Watershed Alliance. The
need for this coordination is two-fold: 1. to ensure that habitat enhancement work (i.e., weirs)
does not increase flood vulnerability for nearby homes, farmland, and infrastructure; 2. To
ensure that public infrastructure and flood mitigation projects summarized in this report are
conducted in a way to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat and downstream water quality.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
49
8 .0 Literature Cited
Arcement, George J., and V. R. Schneider, 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning’s Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains. USGS Paper 2339.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
CT Male Associates, 2012. Project Work Plan for DEC/ESD Grant Application Post-Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee Restoration, White Creek, Salem, NY. Prepared for Town of Salem and Village
of Salem.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 1985. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Village of Salem, New York. Community Number 360888 B. Effective April 17, 1985.
Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC (FEA), 2013. White Creek and Mill Brook Corridor Plan, April 13, 2013. Prepared for the Bennington County Conservation District. Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham,
J.D., and Megown, K., 201
5, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the
conterminous United States
-Representing a decade of land cover change information .
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354
Lumia, Richard, Freehafer, D.A., and Smith, M.J., 2006, Magnitude and frequency of floods in New York: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006 –5112, 152 p.
Montgomery, D. R., & Buffington, J. M., 1997, Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109(5), 596-611.
Mulvihill, C.I., Filopowicz, Amy, Coleman, Arthur, and Baldigo, B P., 2007, Regionalized Equations for Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State —Hydrologic
Regions 1 and 2 in the Adirondack Region of Northern New York: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5189, 18 p., online only.
Randall, D. A. 1996. Mean Annual Runoff, Precipitation, and Evapotranspiration in the Glaciated Northeastern United States, 1951-1980. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-
395.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994, A classification of natural rivers, Catena, 22(3), 169 – 199.
Rosgen, D. L., 1996, Applied River Morphology , Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Schiff, R., E. Fitzgerald, J. MacBroom, M. Kline, and S. Jaquith, 2015. Vermont Standard River Management Principles and Practices (Vermont SRMPP): Guidance for Managing Vermont’s Rivers
Based on Channel and Floodplain Function. Prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. and Fitzgerald
Environmental Associates, LLC for and in collaboration with Vermont Rivers Program, Montpelier,
Vermont.
Schumm, S. A., 1977, The Fluvial System, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Scott, J. D. and R. P. Smith, 1853. Map of Washington County from actual Surveys by Morris Levey. Available at http://www.co.washington.ny.us/DocumentCenter/View/1526
Stager, J.C. and Thill, M. 2010. Climate change in the Champlain Basin: what natural resource managers can expect and do. Report prepared for The Nature Conservan cy

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
50
Suro, T.P., Roland, M.A., and Kiah, R.G., 2015, Flooding in the Northeastern United States, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1821, 32 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1821.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 2008. Effects of Flood Plain Encroachment on Peak Flow . USACE
Hydrologic Engineering Center. September, 1980
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 2010. HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Version 4.1. Available at: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documentation.aspx
USGS StreamStats Program for New York, 2015. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/new_york.html
UNH (University of New Hampshire), 2002. Historic USGS Maps of New England & New York. Cambridge, NY-VT Quadrangle. Available at: http://docs.unh.edu/nhtopos/Cambridge.htm
VTANR (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources), 2009, Stream Geomorphic Assessment – Phase 1 & 2 Handbook. Rapid Stream Assessment. VTANR Publication.
VTANR (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources), 2010, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources River Corridor Planning Guide. April, 2010.

APPENDIX 1:
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS MAPS

Best C om paris o n G ages

O th er S im ila r G ag es

W hit e C re e k W ate rs h e d

S ta te B ou nd ary

C ou nty B ou nd ary

N Y U SG S H yd ro lo gic R eg io ns

1

2

3

4

5

6

W hit e C re ek S tu dy H yd ro lo gic M odelin g

Fig ure 1 : U SG S H yd ro lo gic R egio ns a nd
G agin g S ta tio n C om paris o n

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

0
40
20

M ile s

D ate : J a n 1 8, 2 01 6D ra w n: J H B

Note s:-U SG S c o m pa ris o n g ag in g s ta tio n s w ere s e le cte d base d o n s e ve ra l b a sin c h a ra cte ris tic s: d ra in ag e are a, b asin s lo p e, a nn ua l p re cip it a it o n, b a sin ru n off , b asin s to ra g e, a n d la g .
µ

S ale m , N Y
White Creek Appendix 1 – Page 1 of 3

Best C om paris o n U SG S
Str e am flo w G ag es

O th er S im ila r U SG S
Str e am flo w G ag es

W hit e C re e k W ate rs h e d

S ta te B ou nd ary

C ou nty B ou nd ary

P R IS M M ea n A nnual
P re c ip it a tio n ( in ch es)

< 35 35 – 4 5 45 – 5 5 55 – 6 5 65 – 7 5 > 75

W hit e C re ek S tu dy H yd ro lo gic M odelin g

Fig ure 2 : R eg io nal A nnual P re cip it a tio n E stim ate s

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

0
50
25

M ile s

D ate : J a n 1 8, 2 01 6D ra w n: J H Bµ

Sale m , N Y

N ote s:- R ain fa ll is o p le th s a re b ase d o n a 1 95 1- 1 9 80 d ata se t d escrib ed b y R and all ( 1 9 96).- P R IS M r a in fa ll g rid d a ta is b ase d o n 1 98 1- 2 0 10 d ata se t d escrib ed b y O ls o n ( 2 0 14 ).- U SG S c o m paris o n g ag in g s ta tio ns w ere s e le cte d b a se d o n s e ve ra l b asin c h ara cte ris tic s: d ra in a ge a re a , b a sin s lo pe, a n nu al p re cip it a it o n , b asin r u no ff, b a sin s to ra ge , a nd la g.
White Creek Appendix 1 – Page 2 of 3

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_^
_

42
44
46
38
40
36
48
50
55
60
42
38
42
42
38
40
36
44
40

^
_P re cip it a tio n M onit o rin g S ta tio ns
W hit e C re e k W ate rs h e d
S ta te B ou nd ary
M ean A nnu al P re cip it a tio n I s o ple th ( in ch e s)
M ean A nnual P re cip it a tio n ( P R IS M )Hig h: 7 1 in ch es
Low : 3 8 in ch e s
W hit e C re ek S tu dy H yd ro lo gic M odelin g
Fig ure 3 : R ecu rre nce In te rv a l
R ain fa ll D ep th E stim ate s

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC 1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46 Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8 w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m
0105
M ile s
D ate : J a n 0 7, 2 01 6D ra w n: J H B
Note s:- R ain fa ll is o p le th s a re b ase d o n a 1 95 1- 1 9 80 d ata se t d escrib ed b y R and all ( 1 9 96).- P R IS M r a in fa ll g rid d a ta is b ase d o n 1 98 1- 2 0 10 d ata se t d escrib ed b y O ls o n ( 2 0 14 ).- P re cip it a tio n m onit o rin g s ta tio ns u se d to d e te rm in e r e cu rr e n ce in te rv a l r a in fa ll d ep th s fr o m N CRC /N RCS E xtr e m e P re cip it a tio n M ode lµ
S ale m , N Y
White Creek Appendix 1 – Page 3 of 3

APPENDIX 2:
TROPICAL STORM IRENE FLOOD SIMULATION MAPS

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_

Shee t 1S hee t 2

4 82 27
448 33
458 91
444 66
452 00
446 14
448 94
435 56
464 83472 64
468 96
471 22

V T R O UTE 1 53
C RO SS R D
EA ST S T
M IL L R D

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od±M ap 1 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 1 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_

Shee t 1
S hee t 3
S hee t 2
S hee t 2
4 48 33
444 66
402 29
452 00
446 14
448 94
417 43413 66
435 56
411 34
422 53
401 29
458 91
399 69

V T R O UTE 1 53
C RO SS R D

4W D R oad
C ounty R oute 1 53

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 2 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 2 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_

Shee t 3
S hee t 4S hee t 3
S hee t 2

3 65 32
371 57
379 23
395 60
376 27
374 68
390 66
386 09
399 69401 29
402 29
411 34
355 24

C ounty R oute 1 53
B lo sso m R d

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 3 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 3 of 11

^
_
^
_

Shee t 5
S hee t 4
S hee t 4
S hee t 3

3 45 83
348 26
355 24
365 32
334 16
322 77
335 73
314 36

C ounty R oute 1 53
B lo sso m R d

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 4 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 4 of 11

^
_^
_
^
_

Shee t 6
S hee t 5
S hee t 5
S hee t 4

2 98 26
322 77
314 36283 00
272 18
306 09
292 00
262 18

C ounty R oute 1 53
U nnam ed S tr e et

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 5 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 5 of 11

^
_
^
_^
_

Shee t 6
S hee t 7S hee t 6
S hee t 5

2 41 65247 75
236 56
235 98
235 41
228 00
262 18
254 46
272 18
220 82
214 07
283 00
206 98

C ounty R oute 1 53
C ham bers R d
M cK eig han L n
B ra y m er L n

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 6 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 6 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_^
_

Shee t 7
S hee t 8S hee t 7
S hee t 6

1 70 67
181 86
206 98
202 85
228 00
220 82
214 07
187 85
199 84
198 10
189 52
177 22
192 71
235 41

C ounty R oute 1 53
B eatty H oll o w R d
Bra y m er L n

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 7 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 7 of 11

^
_^
_
^
_
^
_

Shee t 9
S hee t 8
S hee t 8
S hee t 7

1 8 E . B ro ad w ay
S urv ey = 4 84.7
M odel = 4 8 4.6

1 44 32
141 36148 97
124 33
135 47132 35
161 30
170 67
129 48
177 22
181 86

E B ro ad w ay
B li n d B uck R d
County R oute 1 53

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 8 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 8 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_^
_^
_

!
!

Shee t 9
S hee t 9S hee t 1 0
S hee t 8

3 3 P ark P la ce
S urv ey=478.9
M odel= 478 .4
1 8 E . B ro ad w ay
S urv ey = 4 84.7
M odel = 4 8 4.6

8 06 2
840 4
997 2
906 7
868 4
895 2
930 1
793 1
11 1 8 6
11 085
108 26
11 300
124 33
129 48
132 35

E B ro ad w ay
N M ain S t
M ain S t
E H ig h S t
Park P l
Vale S t
A rc h ib ald S t
Sta n to n H il l R d
S M ain S t
W B ro ad w ay
R ailr o ad S t
W arre n S t
N ic h ol S t
Thom as S t
C ato S t
N orth S t
B li n d B uck R d
Bla n ch ard S t
C ary R d
W ill ia m s S t
Vin ce n t L n
A cad em y S t
U nnam ed S tr e et

Fit z g era ld
En v ir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 9 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 9 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_

!
!

Shee t 1 1
S hee t 1 0S hee t 1 1
S hee t 9S hee t 1 0

33 P ark P la ce
S urv ey=478.9
M odel= 478 .4
1 8 E . B ro ad w ay
S urv ey = 4 84.7
M odel = 4 8 4.6

8 06 2
840 4
868 4
793 1
518 5
618 8
461 5
895 2
394 0
756 1
636 2
906 7
711 7
930 1
997 2

S M ain S t
W B ro ad w ay
P ark P l
M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
C ary R d
Railr o ad S t
N ic h ol S t
Vale S t
Sta n to n H il l R d
County R oute 3 0
E B ro ad w ay
T hom as S t
Vin ce n t L n
W ill ia m s S t
Sta te R ou te 2 2
A cad em y S t
U nnam ed S tr e et

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 1 0 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 10 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_

!

Shee t 1 1
S hee t 1 0S hee t 1 1

3 3 P ark P la ce
S urv ey=478.9
M odel= 478 .4

3 3
518 5
461 5
394 0317 8
174 3

S ta te R ou te 2 2
C em ete ry R d
Bora d or W ay
C ounty R oute 3 0
S M ain S t
D riv ew ay
U nnam ed S tr e et
W B ro ad w ay
D riv ew ay
D riv ew ay

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 1 1 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 11 of 11

APPENDIX 3:
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS MAPS

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 2A ppro xim ate 10-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 2: R em ove b e rm s a lo ng fie ld e d ge
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 1 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 2 aA ppro xim ate 10-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 2a : R em ove b erm a lo ng fie ld e d ge a n d d ee pen c h ann el
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 2 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 3A ppro xim ate1 0-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 3: R em ove A rc h ib ald b rid ge
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 3 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 4A ppro xim ate1 0-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 4: R em ove b e rm s a lo ng fie ld e d ge a n d A rc h ib ald b rid ge
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 4 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 6A ppro xim ate1 0-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 6: R em ove A rc h ib ald b rid ge a n d in cre ase c h a nne l w id th a nd d e pth
06 00300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 5 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 7A ppro xim ate1 0-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 7: R em ove A rc h ib ald b rid ge, w id en a n d d ee pen c h an nel,
a nd c u t flo od b e nch es a lo n g n orth b ank
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX 4:
MITIGATION PROJECT MATRICES

White Creek Watershed, Rupert, VT & Salem, NY
Legend

Recommended Projects to Protect Infrastructure, Residences,EffectiveLimitedIneffective

and Businesses from Future Flooding

July 19, 2016

ProjectWhat is At Risk?
Reduces Flood
Risk1

10-year Flood
Level Reduction in
Village

Reduces
Erosion Risk2

Protects Businesses,
Infrastructure, and
Property

Ease of
Implementation

Implementation Cost
Range

Estimated Time for
Implementation

Permitting
Jurisdictions
Comments

Upstream Alternatives

Alternative 1: Floodplain Reconnection
Upstream (East) of Blind Buck Road

Businesses, Residences,
& County/Town
Infrastructure
●0.5 – 1ft●●Difficult
$100K-150K2-3 yearsNYDEC; USACE

Berms along both banks restrict access to floodplains on both sides of river during 10-year floods and greater. Approximately 33 acre-ft of floodplain storage could be reconnected for moderate floods. Berm removal would require excavation of approximately 1,800CY of material along the banks, with some tree removal likely. Temporary and permanent easements with farm owner would be needed.

Alternative 2: Beatty Hollow Bridge Retrofit
or Replacement; Improve downstream
hydraulic opening

Businesses, Farms,
Residences, &
County/Town
Infrastructure
●N/A●●Difficult

$500K (replacement);
$10K-$15K (improve
opening)

2-3 years
(replacement);
<1 year (improve opening) NYDEC; USACE Widening clear span to predicted bankfull width of 65 feet (from USGS regression) and realigning opening would lower flood depths during large floods by 3 feet or more, reducing risk of neaby flooding and erosion along the road embankment. A temporary solution to increasing capacity involves removing a downstream constriction caused by existing bank riprap projecting into the channel (approximately 60CY). Alternative 3: Unstable Embankment along County Road 153 near Braymer Road County Transportation Infrastructure ○N/A●●Moderate$60K-$75K 1-2 yearsNYDEC; USACE The well intentioned Irene recovery work to reconnect an abandoned meander made the Rt 153 embankment more vulnerable to erosion by increasing floodwater velocity over the upstream diversion weir. Embankment armoring and grade control with large stone (approximately 220CY) would protect the roadway during future flood events. Alternative 4: Floodplain Reconnection Downstream (West) of Chambers Road Businesses, Farms, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●0.5 – 1ft●●Difficult $250K-$300K2-3 yearsNYDEC; USACE Berms and the abandoned railroad bed east of the Creek restrict access to floodplains during 10-year floods and greater. Approximately 12 acre-ft of floodplain storage could be reconnected for moderate floods. Berm removal would require excavation of approximately 8,600CY of material, with some tree removal likely along the banks. Temporary and permanent easements with farm owner would be needed. Alternative 5: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Railroad Bridge #4 Businesses, Farms, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●0.5 – 1ft●●Difficult$150-$200K 2-3 yearsNYDEC; USACE Berms along the west bank restrict access to floodplains during 10-year floods and greater. Approximately 32 acre-ft of floodplain storage could be reconnected for moderate floods. Berm removal would require excavation of approximately 4,000CY of material along the banks, with some tree removal likely. Temporary and permanent easements with farm owner would be needed. Alternative 6: County Route 153 Bridge Upstream Constriction Businesses, Farms, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure )N/A))Easy$5K-$10K 1 yearNone An old laid up stone abutment upstream of the Rt 153 bridge constricts the channel, aggravating out of bank flows and flooding of adjacent property during large floods. There is good access to remove the stone (approximately 90CY) from a private gravel road west of Rt 153. A temporary easement from the landowner would be needed as the stone is likely outside the road ROW. Alternative 7: Lowering of Railroad Bed and Removal of 30-inch RCP at Lenhardt Residence Farms and Residences)N/A○)Moderate$15K-$20K1-2 yearsNYDEC; USACE During large floods water is diverted out of the bank in West Rupert at the rail trail bridge and gets trapped on the east side of the rail bed. Ponded water south of the Atwater farm cannot easily return to the White Creek channel after the floodwaters recede due to limited capacity through a 30-inch culvert. Lowering a portion of the rail bed around the culvert will provide additional relief back to the Creek. Alternative 8: Replace Undersized Railroad Bridge #5 Farms and Residences●N/A●●Difficult$150K-$200K2-3 years NYDEC; USACE; VTrans The rail trail bridge in West Rupert in severely undersized and poorly aligned, and contributes to out of bank flows during large floods. Floodwaters get trapped on the south side of the rail bed and cannot return to the Creek. The current bridge span is 23 feet. The bridge span should be at least 50 feet to match the channel bankfull width. ) ○ ● OBJECTIVES FEASIBILITY 1Reduces Flood Risk – The proposed project/strategy lowers the flood level.2Reduces Erosion Risk – The proposed project/strategy lessens the vulnerability of a location to erosion. White Creek Appendix 4 Page 1 of 2 White Creek Watershed, Rupert, VT & Salem, NYLegend Recommended Projects to Protect Infrastructure, Residences,EffectiveLimitedIneffective and Businesses from Future Flooding July 19, 2016 ProjectWhat is At Risk? Reduces Flood Risk1 10-year Flood Level Reduction in Village Reduces Erosion Risk2 Protects Businesses, Infrastructure, and Property Ease of Implementation Implementation Cost Range Estimated Time for Implementation Permitting Jurisdictions Comments Salem Village Alternatives Alternative 2: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ○0 – 0.5ft○○Moderate $40-50K1-2 yearsNone Project involves coordination with landowner (Woody Hill Farms) to remove berms along farm fields for approx. 1,200 linear feet. Total volume estimated to be 1,000-1,400 CY. Berms create minor tailwater in small to moderate floods and affects the western edge of the Village. Alternative 2a: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Deepen Channel Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure )0.5 – 1ft○○Moderate $50K-$80K1-2 yearsNYDEC; USACE Deepening the channel from the Route 22 bridge through cross-section 7117. Channel has aggraded approximately 1-2 feet compared to pre-Irene conditions. Some minor bank shaping may be required. We estimate that approximately 3,000-4,000 CY of material would be removed over the 2,200 foot length of channel. A sediment maintenance plan would need to be established in conjunction with state and federal agencies. This would requre additional channel survey work to establish benchmarks associated with levels of aggradation that increase flood vulnerability. Alternative 3 & 3a: Remove Archibald Street Bridge or Install an Overflow Box Culvert to North of Existing Bridge Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●1 – 1.5ft))Moderate $50K (removal); $250K-$350K (overflow culvert) 2-3 years SEQR; NYDEC; USACE For removal option, the south abutment would be left in place to accommodate a future pedestrian crossing, but the north abutment would be removed to widen the floodway. Overflow box culvert (20ft span, 5ft height) would be installed on the north bank and would require an easement from the property owner to create an overflow channel. Alternative 4: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Remove Archibald Street Bridge Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●1 – 1.5ft))Moderate $80K-$100K2-3 years SEQR; NYDEC; USACE See above comments. The combination of berm removal with bridge removal (or overflow box culvert) provides only marginal improvement over Alternative 3. Alternative 5: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Deepen Channel; Widen Channel with Flood Benches Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure )0.5 – 1ft))Difficult$250K-$350K 3-5 years SEQR; NYDEC; USACE Widening of the channel without Archibald Street bridge removal (or overflow culvert) provides only limited flood reduction, as the bridge constriction remains severe. This is not a viable alternative considering the high costs and limited benefits. Alternative 6: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Deepen Channel; Widen Channel with Flood Benches; Remove Archibald Street Bridge Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●1.5 – 2ft))Difficult$400K-$500K 3-5 years SEQR; NYDEC; USACE Easements would be required on approximately 14 properties to excavate the flood benches, primarily along the north bank in between Route 22 and Archibald Street. Many large trees lining the north bank would need to be removed. A revegetation plan would be required as part of the final design and permitting. Alternative 7: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Deepen Channel; Widen Channel with Flood Benches; Remove Archibald Street Bridge; Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●1.5 – 2ft●●Difficult$500K-$700K >5 years
SEQR; NYDEC;
USACE; FEMA

See above comments. The Fleming house (41 Archibald Street) would be bought-out and demolished to allow for the re-establishment of a floodplain on the north bank. This alternative would also reduce the 100-year flood elevations in the Village 1-1.5 feet.

OBJECTIVES

●

FEASIBILITY

)
○

1Reduces Flood Risk – The proposed project/strategy lowers the flood level.2Reduces Erosion Risk – The proposed project/strategy lessens the vulnerability of a location to erosion.
White Creek Appendix 4 Page 2 of 2

Beaver B ro o k
D ry C re ek
W hit e C re e k
B li n d B uck S tr e am
S an dg ate B ro ok
B utte rm il k F alls B ro o k
W hit e C re e k

B ogto w n R d
Sm it h R d
Prie st R d
Q uarr y R d
Sta te R oute 2 2
A ll e n L n
B lo sso m R d
County R oute 1 5 3
S co tt L ake R d
Bla c k C re e k R d
Dil lo n H ill R d
Cham bers R d
County R oute 3 0
B li n d B uck R d
Dunnig an R d
Cem ete ry R d
Coon L n
E B ro ad w ay
B eatty H ollo w R d
Bria n sk y L nP att e rs o n H ill R d
Ferg uso n L n
S M ain S t
Parq ui L n
H an ks R d
Ril e y H ill R d
Pit ts H ill L n
P ark P l
Fle m in g L n
S ta n to n H ill R d
G illi s H ill L n
B ora d or W ay
W B ro ad w ay
S ky P arlo r W ay
N M ain S t
Vale S t
Sta te H w y 2 2
N ic h ol S t
Pfiit z e R d
Cary R dRail r o ad S t

R UPER T R DW S A NDG ATE R D
W EST R D
KEN T H O LLO W R D
CRO SS R D
EA ST S T
PER KIN S H O LLO W R D
SA NDG ATE R D

R R-5
R R-4
R R-3
R R-2
C ato
R R-1
C ro ss
B lin d B uck
R t 2 2
V T 1 53
L o urie
N Y 1 53 ( S herm an B rid ge)
S herm an
A tw ate r
B ea ttie H ollo w
C ham bers
A rc h ib ald

S ale m
S andgate
H eb ro n
R up ert

V C G I

W hit e C re ek F lo o d S tu dyP ro je ct A re a M apS ale m , N Y
N ote s:

– A ll la ye rs d ow nlo aded fr o m N Y G IS C le arin gh ouse a nd t h e V erm ont C ente r fo r G eo gra phic I n fo rm atio n- B ackg ro un d I m agery is fr o m 2 01 4- C ro ss s e ctio ns w ere a naly ze d u sin g H EC -G eoR AS s o ft w are
D ra w n:
J H B, E PF
D ate :
M ay 1 0, 2 016
0
3,0 00
1,5 00
F eet
1 in ch = 1 ,5 00 f e et
M ap 1
S tu dy R each esS urfa ce W ate rsR oad sR ailr o adH is to ric R ail r o adS ta te B oundaryT o w n B oundaryW hit e C re ek W ate rs h ed
A ppro xim ate B rid ge C apacit y
2 -y e ar flo o d10-y e ar f lo od25-y e ar f lo od50-y e ar f lo od100-y e ar f lo odH EC -R AS C ro ss S ectio nsA ppro x. 1 00-y e ar F lo od E xte nt