The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-12-13 22-040 ResolveCITY COUNCIL ACTION Council Meeting Date: Item No: Responsible Dept: Requested Action: Summary Committee Action Meeting Date: For: Against: City Manager City Solicitor Finance Director Map/Lot: Introduced for: Order Committee: Action: Staff Comments & Approvals Date: Item No: Assigned to Councilor: 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 RFA# 202106082 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements APPLICATION Please complete all fields in this application to the best of your ability and include all applicable supplemental attachments listed (see“Key Process Events” Part D)with the proposalpackage. For additional information and resources foryour application, please see “Stream Crossing Resources” on Page 9 of this RFAand utilize resources from the Department’s Stream Crossing Resources Pageand 2021 Scoring Guidance Document. I. Project Identification Name of Proposed Project Bangor –Essex Street (Town Name-Road Name) II.Applicability Please indicate the ability to demonstrate the following: XThe proposed structure to be upgraded is located on a municipal road, is not owned by a private or state entity, and is not located on a road segment classified as a “State-Aid” road. XThe proposed project includes matching funds from local or other sources. XThe proposed project is for the upgrade of a culvert,not currently a bridge as defined by the RFA. III. Stream Crossing Location 1. Municipality or Unorganized Territory where project will take Bangor place: NorthWest 2. GPS Location of crossing - Decimal degrees preferred. -68.774804 Available on Google Maps by clicking the location on the 44.859418 map 3. Culvert/crossing location Essex Street just north of Fox Hollow Name of the road on which the culvert/crossing is located and the nearest intersection. 4. Stream name at project location: Unnamed Tributary 5. “Project Stream” drains to(stream/river name): Penjajawoc Stream RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 13 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 IV. Failure Risk, Location, and Reduction in Flooding 1. Has the crossing caused flooding or overtopping of the road in the last 10 years?Yes No Flooding can occur in the winter and spring months due to the If yes, How many times? “snow curb” effect. Improvements to drainage included in this (indicate if approximate) proposal will help to mitigate this issue. 2. Does this crossing regularly become obstructed by debris or require cleaning? No Yes How often? 3. Has the crossing been damaged by flooding in the last 10 years?Yes No 4. Do you have any photos of the flooding or damage? Please provide if available.YesNo 5. Has the crossing ever partially or fully washed-out or become unsafe for traffic in No Yes the last 10 years? 6. Is the current crossing undersized?Yes No It is less than the measured bankfull width of the If yes, how was this determined and what stream. was the metric used? 7. List any dates and describe the severity of flooding/damage associated with the crossing. Include the duration of any full or partial road closures. The crossing is extremely narrow at only 27 feet. This 8. Describe any other problems or issues with the creates a pinch point in the roadway. current condition of the crossing. Include photos if available. 1-33-55-10 <1 year10+ years yearsyearsyears 9. In how many years from now do you estimate the culvert/crossing would have a complete failure, a complete collapse, or total washout? 10. How was the estimated time to failure determined? There are significant voids in the stones, which are dry stacked. The top section of the culvert is also beginning to fail. 11. Discuss any future flooding concerns regarding the existing culvert/crossing The frequency of heavy rain events seems to be increasing. These events may accelerate the deterioration of the existing structure due to it being slightly undersized. RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 14 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 V. Safety & Impact to Community 1. Would any homes, businesses, or critical infrastructure be completely cut-off from No Yes accessif the crossing were to completely fail? 2. If the culvert/crossing fails, how many Critical HomesBusinesses businesses, or other critical infrastructure Infrastructure* would be completely cut off or require a DetourCut-offDetourCut-offDetourCut-off detour? 700 1 0 0 0 (Note: see definition of “cut off” in this RFA) 3. Using the space below, discuss what impacts would occur if the culvert/crossing were to fail. For instance, are there critical public services (fire or police station, hospital, school, public works facility) or *details on critical infrastructure notedabove that would be cutoff or required to detour? The number of homes listed above include only homes that are located off of Essex Street within Bangor city limits on the outbound side of the crossing. This does not include impacts to other travelersor mutual aid services coming or going to Orono. Essex Street is an important route between Orono, Glenburn and Bangor that sees significant daily traffic. Due to the long detour route, the impacts of failure on this crossing are significant. 4. Approximately how many vehicles per day travel this road (if 2934 Factored AADT according known)?Maine DOT Public Map Viewer(see “Factored AADT” by clicking to Maine DOT Public Map Viewer on road segment) 6.25 miles 5. If an alternate route exists, what is the minimum distance to travel from one side of the crossing along a detour to access the other side of the crossing? 6. Are there any other safety concerns or community impacts regarding the existing culvert crossing? There was a fatal accident at the location of this crossing in 2019. This single vehicle crash occurred duetofreezing temperatures and ice, that may have been related to poor drainage. While not directly related to this crossing, this road needs drainage improvements that also require upgrading this crossing. The crossing is currently too short for the roadway width, and the roadway is also too low on the approaches to the crossing, which contributes to ponding. The new crossing will be of adequate length in order to widen the pavement, as well as raise the road. The design for this crossing will include grading and drainage improvementsto the roadway in the immediate vicinity ofthe crossingto reduce the frequency of ponding, especially in the winter months. Two catch basins will be installed at the low point near the crossing to allow for drainage in the winter months when the snowbanks act as a curb, and prevent sheet flow tothe ditch.Roadside grading will also be improved with a gentler slope. RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 15 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 VI. Improvement to Fish & Wildlife Habitat 2021 Municipal Stream Crossing Grants Guidance Video #2: Stream Smart Basics & Project Design NOTE: For information and potential guidance on local fisheries information, it is highly recommended that you contact your regionalInland Fisheries and Wildlife OfficeFisheries Biologist, andDepartment of Marine Resources. 1. Has this crossing been surveyed and identified on the Maine Stream Habitat Viewer? Yes No If “No” see “Alternate Maine Stream Habitat Viewer Information” worksheet at the end of application 2. What is the Maine Stream Habitat Viewer ID#? 1094 3. Have you contacted MDMR regarding this stream and crossing?No Yes If yes, please include any relevant information they provided or attach letter of support. 4. Have you contacted MDIFWregarding this stream and crossing?No Yes If yes, please include any relevant information they provided or attach letter of support. 5. Describe any reasons the crossing or the waterbody should be considered a priority for restoration, including any input from Maine DMR or Maine IF&W Biologists: This crossing was surveyed as a bridge on the Maine Stream Habitat Viewer, but it is truly an open-bottom culvert. 6. Are fish present in the stream? YesNo 7. Have any of the following species been identified within this stream by MDMR, MDIFW, USFWS, NOAA, or another reputable resource?(Presence, not modelled habitat) Wild brook trout Alewives (sea run) other diadromous (sea-run) species (list): Sea-run brook trout Blueback herring Atlantic salmon (sea-run) American eels Atlantic salmon (landlocked) Sea-run rainbow smelt 8. List the source(s) of above fish information: RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 16 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 N/A 9. Select any habitats below that have been identified by MDIFW, MDMR, Maine Stream Habitat Viewer,Beginning with Habitat Map Viewer, or other resources near or at the crossing location. State Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species (aquatic Atlantic Salmon Critical Habitat or terrestrial) within 1 mile. List: Atlantic Salmon DPS Atlantic salmon modelled habitat Type: _Rearing Habitat___________ Federal Endangered, Threatened # units: ______21.13 “100 sq m Rearing Units”______ species (aquatic or terrestrial) within Brook trout habitat 1 mile. List: Within the drainage of a state “heritage” water Within the drainage of an alewife pond Significant Vernal pools within 1 mile Other priority habitats such as Other Significant Wildlife Habitats (Tidal/Inland waterfowl, etc.) List: spawning areas, etc., List: 10. Is the crossing located on a stream or reach where other culvert/crossing No Yes upgrades have been performed within the last 5 years leading to improved fish passage? If yes, describe any additional biological, ecological, or cost-saving benefits that could result from the current project: 11. Provide other information about the design or importance of the proposed project that benefits fish and/or wildlife such as terrestrial passage, stream banks within the structure, stream simulation design, or other factors: RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 17 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 This culvert is located in the watershed of PenjajawocStream, which is classified as an Urban Impaired Stream by the Maine DEP. Any improvements in habitat and habitat connectivity will be beneficial to the stream. Incremental steps are necessary to restore the stream to one that attains Class B. We believe this culvert replacement will increase habitat connectivity, and prevent damage that would be caused by a catastrophic failure of the existing culvert. We have sized this culvert using the MDOT worksheet for hydraulic capacity. This worksheet specified a culvert that would be 8’ wide by 8’ high. This height was not practical in this situation, so we chosen a 5’ height, which roughly matches the existing “clearance” when we embed the culvert with 18 inches of streambed material. We have also chosen a 10’ width, to allow for the construction of streambanks within the structure, without taking away from the hydraulic capacity at moderate flow levels. Fish passage in the new structure will be exceptional, as well as terrestrial creature passage due to constructedbanks within the structure. The constructed streambanks will allow smaller animals to cross Essex Street safely, and without vehicle conflicts. VII. Stream Measurements and Field Work For fieldwork techniques, see: Stream Smart Field Work Video andMaine Stream Smart Road Crossing Pocket Guide . Proper field work and measurements are crucial to project success and must be completed prior to construction. Projects that have completed the fieldwork prior to applying will score higher in several areas. Average 1.2.3.4.5. Average US Upstream 1. Measured Bankfull of US & Widths (US) UndefiUndefi Width DS 6 7 7 6.66 nedned (field measured beyond culvert influence, min. of 3 Average 1.2.3.4.5. upstream and downstream Downstream DS 6.63 measurements) Widths (DS) 4 9 7 7 6 6.6 Maine Stream Habitat Viewer http://webapps2.cgis-Not measured 2. Estimated/Modelled solutions.com/MaineStreamViewer/ Bankfull width StreamStats (NOTE: measured average 5.73 feet https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ bankfull width values are the most accurate method) Other Hydraulic & Hydrologic Analysis (if performed) 3. Bankfull width used forstructure sizing6.63 4. If Bankfull width is other than average of field measurements, explain rationale: Bankfullwidth was not well defined upstream because the topography is quite flat immediately upstream. Upstream was surveyed 120 feet from the existing crossing, but measurements were taken closer to the crossing where the banks were a little better defined. Downstream was surveyed 150 feet from the crossing, with representative widths measured. The downstream channel has more slope and definition, but it is a multi-threaded channel in sections.Measurements were taken in segments where there was a single channel. RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 18 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 We have added some safety factor to our sizing measurements to accommodate the difficulties encountered with field measurements of bankfull width. 5. Does this structure experience any tidal effects? Is it expected to experience tidal action in the future? Explain. No, there is no tidal effect on this crossing. 6. Have you surveyed a longitudinal profile of the stream? (recommend 20-30 x BFW Yes up-and downstream of crossing) No 7. Based on stream longitudinal profile Upstream Slope: -0.5% measurements, whatis the stream’s slope (%)?Downstream Slope: 3.0% 8. Has a Stream Bed Substrate analysis been performed? YesNo 9. Type of analysis performed or to be performed?Visual 10. Type of stream bed material to be installed:MDOT Type D Gravel 11. Size of DS scour pool WidthLengthMax Depth N/A, No scour pool present 12. Is the crossing back-watered or impounding water upstream? Yes No 13. Is another downstream crossing potentially causing impounded water to occur at this crossing location?No Yes 14. Is the upstream or downstream habitat degraded due to this crossing’s orientation, slope, or sizing that will be corrected by the new crossing? (e.g. large scour pool, instability or stream bank erosion, significant downstream sedimentation, No Yes etc.) Explain: The area upstream of the existing crossing has very flat topography, which is naturally wet. It does appear that the existing crossingmayhold back somewater(< 1 foot)in addition to what would have been there prior to road construction.We do not plan to alter the impoundment upstream with this installation by changing elevations of the crossing, only cross sectional area.The proposedculvert will be installed flat, with no slope, in a “bathtub” configuration where it should be wet all the time. This matches the existing condition. VIII. Existing Culvert Crossing Information Structure Dimensions as Intended by MSCG Application: RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 19 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 Open Bottom Structures Closed Bottom Structures “Plan” View Stream Bed Material in Culvert/Crossing ShapeCulvert Material Culvert Closed bottom BoxCorrugated Metal Pipenone Open bottom box Smooth Metal PipePartial ConcreteContinuous Circular Open bottom archPlastic Stone Closed bottom arch (pipe arch) OvalOther: ____________________ Bridge or span How many culverts are there at this crossing?If more than 3, list 3 primary structures below Culvert Crossing Width (“W”) Culvert Clearance Culvert Length (“L”) Approximate diameter if round(from stream bed/pipe bottomunder RoadCulvert Age to highest inside point) #15.5 Feet3.5 Feet27Feet65yearsor more (#2) (#3) IIX. Proposed Crossing Structure Information NOTE: Pursuant to 32 MRSA §1254, a licensed professional engineer is required when the completed project cost estimates exceed $100,000 and does not create an undue risk to public safety or welfare. 1. Has an engineer been retained to assist with the project’s design?Yes No 2. Do you have engineered design plans and construction specifications for the No Yes replacement culvert/crossing? John Theriault, PE, PTOE,is the City Engineer for If yes, identify who designed the plans, and Bangor. Mr. Theriault will work with his staff to design when the plans were completed; or who has the crossing, as well as the related safety been retained to complete engineering plans. improvements on this project. RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 20 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 Final, stamped engineering plans & specifications 3. Indicate the level of plans attached and Site-specific plans at 90%+ Completion submitted with this application Preliminary Design Plans Conceptual Plan Plan View Sketch & Cross Section Plan View Sketch None 4. Will final plans be stamped by a Maine Licensed Engineer prior to construction? Yes No IX. Proposed Crossing Structure Design NOTE: Be sure to watch the 2021 Stream Crossing Grant Workshop Videos and other resources found in Section II:B Culvert/Crossing ShapeCulvert Material Closed bottom Box Open bottom archCorrugated Metal PipeSmooth Metal Pipe Concrete Open bottom Box Pipe arch (closed Plastic bottom arch) CircularStone Bridge or span Oval Other (describe: __________________________Other (describe): ____________________________ Proposed If proposing a bridge/span, Proposed crossing Proposed Crossing Width Crossing Length “L” what is the Crossing Height “H” (or “W” under RoadClear Span (measured Clearanceto top of abutment to abutment) footing) 10Feet3.5 Feet5 Feet56 Feet Open Bottom CrossingsClosed Bottom Crossings Yes Embedded?No Includes footings below YesNo scour potential? Depth of embedment(from inside 1.5 Feet of culvert/invert) Performance Criteria & Commitments in project design/installation The project will: X Meet Maine DOT 100-year flood criteria (for crossings with clearance <6’, include DOT X Contain stream material within structure closely worksheetwith this application) matching native stream bed as: X Be sized at least 1.2 time bankfull width of the Open, natural stream bottom OR stream as determined by field measurements (or X Embedded closed bottom with backfilled modelling, if justified) stream material X Be aligned (skewed) to match the stream X Include constructed stream banks through the X Include a longitudinal profile survey to determine structure the stream and structure’s slope X Have properly-designed and engineered footings X Longitudinal profile is compete and/or structure bottom elevation accounting for potential scour Longitudinal profile will be completed prior to design RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 21 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 X. Maine Department of Transportation Notification & Inspections See MaineDOT’s Bridge Upgrade Fact Sheetand Guidance Video #4: Maine DOT Responsibilities & Requirements For Crossings with a clear span 10 feet or greater This section is not applicablethe proposed structure is less than 10 feet in widthmeasured along the road centerline between both abutmentfaces underneath, or spring lines of arches, or has an opening of less than 80 square feet in area. NOTE: Maine DOT defines culverts and bridges differently than in the context of this RFA. 1. In determining the proposed structure’s width, was all necessary field work, including Yes No stream profile survey and multiple averaged field bankfull width measurements completed? 2. Have you made initial contact with MaineDOT Bridge Maintenance Division (207-624- 3600) to discuss the structure’s potential requirements and inform them of the town’s YesNo intention to replace the crossing with a span 10 feet or greater? If No, please indicate when you intend to contact Maine DOT Bridge Maintenance Division? For Crossings with a clear span 20 feet or greater This section is not applicable, the proposed structure is not more than 20 feet in width, measured between both abutment faces underneath, or spring lines of arches or the extreme ends of openings formultiple boxes. NOTE: Examples of design elements not recommended by MaineDOT are aluminum box culverts, precast block abutments, metal bin abutments, bridge foundations that are scour critical, bridges that do not have designed or crash tested bridge rail. See MaineDOT’s Bridge Upgrade Fact Sheetfor more information. MaineDOT recommends that bridge designs be completed by design firms found on the department’s prequalification website: Consultant Prequalification | MaineDOT 3. If the new crossing will be 20 feet or over in width, are you planning to request that the YesNo MaineDOT take responsibility for the structure? If Yes, please indicate you are aware that for MaineDOT to accept responsibility for a structure, there are additional design, safety, and other review criteria that may Yes, this is affect the final design of the structure. Meeting these criteria are the responsibility of understood the applicant. 4. Have you had the design reviewed by MaineDOT’s Bridge Maintenance Division? YesNo Important Note: For all crossings proposed to be 20 feet or greater, please refer to Maine DOT’s Bridge Design Guideand contact MaineDOT Bridge Division for requirements and limitations. XI. Project Efficiency and Avoided Costs $2,278,407 1. Size of previous year’s municipal road maintenance budget: $1,416,372 2. Amount of annual maintenance budget dedicated to non-winter maintenance: $300estimated 3. How much money has been spent on physical repairs within the last 10 years on this culvert crossing? $0 4. How much money has been spent on road closures or other costs associated with the culvert crossing? RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 22 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 5. Describe the types of expenditures made on repairs or other costs listed above. A small amount of riprap was recently placed near the inlet following a heavy rainstorm. No Yes 6. This project will likely require a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Have you contacted Army Corps regarding this project? (see Guidance Video #3) No Yes 7. Have you submitted an applicationto Army Corps of Engineers? No Yes 8. Do you already have a permit in-hand from Army Corps of Engineers? Construction is anticipated to take 2-3 weeks and will 9. What is the anticipated construction carried out by a contractor selected through a competitive duration?bidding process. Some of this duration will be to complete improvements related to the crossing upgrade. 10. If awarded, when is construction anticipated to begin Start Date:Completion Date: (month/year)? July 2023October 2023 (Keep in mind that the typical window for in-water work is July 15-October 1) 11. Provide any additional information regarding the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the project: The City of Bangor Engineering Department designsand oversees a significant amount of infrastructure improvement within the City. This includes, but is not limited to: sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement, storm sewer rehabilitation and replacement, stream restoration projects, roadway maintenance and improvements, as well as a variety of other civil projects as they come up. This experience ensures a well- thought-out design, as well as the ability to solve issues encountered during construction. This project will be designed in-house, competitively bid by local contractors, and construction will be overseen by a field engineer. 12. Provide any additional information as to why this project should be funded by a public infrastructure grant: Essex Street is a City-maintained road that acts as an important route between Bangor and the towns of Glenburn and Orono. The City believes improving safety, as well as habitat connectivity will be beneficial for the citizens and wildlife of the local area. Crash data provided to the City by Maine DOT in 2018 indicate that this section of roadway (Fox Hollow to Church Road) was a “high-crash location” in the years of 2016-2018. A summary of crashes is included with this application. We believe that safety improvements that will be included with this project will help to improve roadway conditions, and hopefully lower the crash rate in this area. XII. Alternate Maine Stream Habitat Viewer Information Complete this section if the crossing location for this proposalis not mapped on the Maine Stream Habitat Viewer This section is not applicable(the Maine Stream Habitat Viewer ID for this site is available and listed in Application Section VI) RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 23 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 If the existing culvert/crossing is NOT surveyed on Maine Stream Habitat Viewer, what is the closest Crossing ID# to the structure on this stream (same stream preferred, or stream system if not available Describe the proximity of this reference crossing to the proposal location? Upstream Crossing ID#Downstream Crossing 4. If they exist, what is the Maine Stream Habitat ID# N/A Viewer Crossing ID# for the crossings upstream N/A and downstream of the proposed upgrade? BarrierBarrier Are these considered to be a barrier to fish Partial/Potential Partial/Potential Barrier passage? Barrier Not a Barrier Not a Barrier 5. Approximate distance to the next barrier UpstreamDownstream identified by the Maine Stream Habitat Viewer? (in miles, along stream)Use a map measure tool to approximate the distance along the stream to the next crossing on a road. Yes No Maybe Does this crossing appear to be able to pass fish in its current state? Has this crossing been confirmed by a fisheries biologist or DEP staff as a barrier to fish passage? Explain. The current crossing has a natural bottom and follows Explain reasoning for fish passage stream grade.There are no streambanks within the assessment (be sure to include good photos structure that would help to pass terrestrial or amphibious with the application) animals. From the stream viewer map of the area: Use the layers to determine if the area falls within a mapped habitat. List any habitat indicated in the Fish & Wildlife Section of the Application: Use the Beginning with Habitat Maps to determine if there are any nearby endangered species or other habitats Barrier status: Discuss the project with a fisheries biologist or with DEP staff to see if the crossing would likely impede fish passage. Look for clear features such as outlet drops or perched culverts and other features that would prevent a fish from moving through the culvert. List any indications or additional information aboutthe culvert’s ability to allow fish movement. Take good photos of the crossing for your application, be sure to clearly show the inlet and outlet and inside the structure. Make sure to contact fisheries agencies to find out what information they might have about the resource, fisheries, and habitats. RFA# 202106082 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements COST & BUDGET INFORMATION RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 24 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 ApplicantOrganization’s City of Bangor, Maine Name: The requested funds may not exceed $125,000. The Department cannot fund 100% of any project; local matching funds must be included 1. Total Amount of Funds being Requested$125,000 2. Total Matching Funds Committed to Project$125,000 Source of Project Cost Estimate City Engineering Department Source(s) and types of Local City Stormwater Utility Fund Matching Funds proposed What is the status of any proposed Funds will be budgeted from the Stormwater Fund for matching funds (e.g. approved, construction in 2023. planned, committed, uncertain, etc.) Selected Budget Items 5. Total Engineering Costs$10,000 6. Permitting and Bidding$1,000 7. Erosion & sediment controls (including de- watering, stream bypass, cofferdams, $22,500 temporary and permanent stabilization measures) 8. All other items$216,500 RFA# 202106082 – 2021 Grants for Stream Crossing Infrastructure Improvements Page | 25 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 UpPspopboeHmfocvso PENJAJAWOC STREAM UpCbohpsdfoufs 3901950390Feet 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 4 9 6 7 Undefined 7 Undefined Undefined 7 7 6 1710 Essex St Legend Bankfull Width 6030060Feet 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 RFA#202106082 City of Bangor Essex Street near Fox Hollow Figure 1 View inside existing culvert looking upstream. Note the large voids between the stones which potentially create an unstable roadway and crossing structure. Figure 2 View of inlet side of culvert facing outbound. Note how the shoulder "pinches" in at the crossing. This creates an unsafe roadway for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 RFA#202106082 City of Bangor Essex Street near Fox Hollow Figure 3 View of outlet side of culvert facing outbound. Note the large void at the road level, and the leaning position of the concrete. Figure 4 View of inlet side of culvert. Note the recent placement of riprap where erosion had occurred during a recent storm. 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 RFA#202106082 City of Bangor Essex Street near Fox Hollow Figure 5 View looking upstream from inlet. Note how the topography is very flat, and the stream channel is not well defined. Figure 6 View looking downstream from outlet side of culvert. 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 RFA#202106082 City of Bangor Essex Street near Fox Hollow Figure 7 View looking downstream approximately 150 downstream of crossing. Note the multiple channels of the stream that is geomorphologically adjusting. Figure 8 View of inlet side of culvert looking dowsntream 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 22-041 DECEMBER 13, 2021 Maine Department Of Transportation - Traffic Engineering, Crash Records Section Crash Summary II - Characteristics Crashes by Year and Month Month200920102011201220132014201520162017 JANUARY00000111115 FEBRUARY00000001001 MARCH00001011104 APRIL00000100001 00100100002 MAY 01100000002 JUNE 00000010001 JULY AUGUST01000010013 SEPTEMBER10000000001 OCTOBER00001010013 NOVEMBER01000210105 DECEMBER20011030007 Total 332135933335 Report is limited to the last 10 years of data. Page 9 of 68 on 1/15/2019, 7:27 AM IN CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 13, 2021 CR 22-040 Passed CITY CLERK