MONTPELIER — The flooding this month has washed out entire networks of unpaved roads in central Vermont, exacerbating long-term concerns of funding road maintenance in many municipalities.
Jenny Ronis, associate general counsel for the Board of Natural Resources, said that addendum 1 of Gov. Phil Scott’s Emergency Declaration temporarily loosens environmental regulation of gravel pits in order to hasten the flood recovery response.
“Activity permits for mineral extraction — which is what gravel pits are — usually have conditions that are related to operating hours, rates of extraction, and the number of truck trips that would impact people’s experiences being around those gravel pits or environmental impacts,” said Ronis. “The executive order lifted some of those restrictions,”
But Waterbury Town Manager Tom Leitz said that while the emergency declaration does allow gravel pits to increase sand and gravel production, the measure does not address the root of town leaders’ concerns.
“It’s really not hurting, but there’s no (gravel) pit in Waterbury that we’ve been able to access that we otherwise wouldn’t be able to because of the rules,” said Leitz.
Leitz said that the closure of the local sand and gravel pit in Bolton has forced the town to transport material to rebuild roads from miles away.
“It’s a big headache and expense,” said Leitz. “Never mind, all the carbon dioxide going in the air from all that extra fuel use.”
Moretown’s Road Foreman Martin Cameron said that the town is waiting on a FEMA declaration for recompensation for the bond taken out for flood recovery, but he is concerned that the federal funding may not come through.
“We need the roads back somewhat normal, but ... (the charges are) piling up: material charges, the contractor charges, the trucking charges,” said Cameron. “It’s just a little bit scary for whether or not Moretown is going to be able to recoup these costs.”
The lack of the nearby gravel pit meant that “trucking was probably the biggest choke point,” he said.
Duxbury Select Board Patrick Zachary agreed that transportation is the crux of the issue towns are facing.
“There’s plenty of gravel made in the state of Vermont for all that we need,” said Zachary. “It really ends up being the transportation costs, and it’s raising prices for everybody.”
Ernie Patnoe, director of maintenance for Vt. Agency of Transportation, said the department has had a lot of success matching trucking contractors in their network with towns to repair roads year-round, but the towns must bear the cost.
Leitz said that a priority is to buy larger trucks for the town to more efficiently move gravel, and believes that the town of Waterbury won’t have too much trouble budgeting out a few years in advance for this expense.
Fayston Select Board Chair Chuck Martel said that it is unlikely that his town could afford the cost of more trucks, on top of the expense of the culverts and emergency equipment due to the flooding that was not budgeted for in the most recent tax bill.
“I think the financial impact of (the flooding) is going to be huge on the town. We hope that we’re going to get help from FEMA and the state, but it’s a hope,” said Martel. “We are going to have a cash flow issue coming up really quickly here because the money’s going out, but nothing’s coming in.”
Recognizing the financial strain on towns last fall, Zachary gathered together representatives of Waterbury, Duxbury, Moretown, Fayston and Bolton to try to brainstorm solutions to their collective problems.
Martel got involved with the group despite Fayston having an active gravel pit for road reconstruction materials because he is wary of the future. The town is working with civil engineers on a study to determine the lifespan of the gravel pit, but Martel said these unplanned major flood events will hasten its expiration.
“We are the only one of that group that owns a gravel pit, but we knew that the lifespan was coming to an end pretty quickly. I don’t know if it’s going to be five years, 10 years, or whatever, but at some point we’re going to need gravel as well, so we joined that group and are trying to figure out what our options are,” said Martel.
The town managers first looked at permitting a gravel pit in a centralized location so that the five towns could pool resources and easily access gravel. Based on Zachary’s research, he claims that the towns would save $558,000 annually in transportation costs if a hypothetical gravel pit in South Duxbury were established.
Patnoe said that he is not aware of any way to reduce transportation costs other than sourcing materials from closer gravel pits.
“I do not have a magic solution to the cost of trucking. Trucks are expensive. They are expensive to buy, they are expensive to maintain, and they are expensive to have an operator operate them,” said Patnoe.
Ronis recommended that towns who are interested in opening another gravel pit in a more efficient locale use the online permit specialist navigator and seek out a district coordinator for a jurisdictional opinion to consider viable options that meet the permitting criteria.
However, Zachary and the other town representatives believed permitting another gravel pit or sourcing material from rivers like what was done during recovery from Tropical Storm Irene would be unlikely given the state regulations. Gravel pit sites in Waterbury and in Moretown were blocked due to conservation concerns, according to Leitz and Cameron.
Another option the group was looking into was transporting gravel by rail because the mass transport and stockpiling of gravel may be cheaper, said Zachary, but the towns’ inquiry for a federal permit has stalled.
“We’re at this point where we got suspended because everybody sees the hurdles involved,” said Zachary. “But obviously, all these floods are more strain on the gravel system.”
Reducing costs for flood recovery and road maintenance is an ongoing concern for the group, so they plan to reconvene in the fall to figure out next steps.
Editor's note: This story has been updated to correct the roles of town officials in Duxbury and Fayston.
