Rutland County panel approves advancing redesign of gully project as wetland/floodplain restoration

Rutland County clean-water program staff and board members voted to advance a redesign of a previously proposed “gully” project after staff said the original conceptual design lacked sufficient hydrologic information to justify funding.

Program staff said the project as originally framed — a gully remediation — was not fundable under the program’s current funding policy because the policy only permits gully projects that are connected to developed lands. Chris (program staff) told the group “from a strict policy point of view ... the only gully type project that can be funded is a gully connected to developed lands, and this is not that. So as a gully project, it's not fundable.” He added that recasting the work as a wetlands and floodplain restoration could make it eligible for clean-water funds.

Staff and board members said the conceptual plan did not include enough information about how water moves across the parcel, how redirected flows might have produced the gully, or what phosphorus reductions a project could achieve. One staff member said the existing materials left “a lot of blanks and question marks.” Staff recommended a more complete alternatives analysis and a higher-level design (60% design) to identify the correct project type and estimate water-quality benefits and costs.

Board members discussed sequencing — addressing upstream sources of altered flow before stabilizing the gully — and cited an example where a subdivision’s detention pond had to be brought into compliance before downstream gully work could proceed. Staff noted it is not a blanket refusal to fund any gully work, but that many gullies are caused by redirected water and require larger-scale interventions to be effective and eligible for funding.

At the close of the discussion the board moved and approved advancing the project as described by staff, with members indicating they would see design alternatives at the next stage. No numeric vote tally was recorded in the transcript; the motion passed on a voice vote and the chair said the project would “move this one forward.”

The board asked staff to return with a clearer alternatives analysis, a 60% design recommendation, and a more specific phosphorus-crediting estimate before committing implementation funds.