GIFFORD ENGINEERING

Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Services

June 10, 2020

Town of Waterford
Attn: Mr. Dom Gabriel, PE
Town Engineer
65 Broad St
Town of Waterford, NY 12188

Re: Phase I - Topographic Survey and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of Slope
Failure East of 27 Middletown Rd, Town of Waterford, NY, File No. 2027

Gentlemen:

Introduction:

At your request, this report is issued to present findings of this first phase of the geotechnical
engineering evaluation for the referenced slope failure. Services to be performed by Gifford
Engineering, GE, are outlined in our revised proposal dated May 22, 2020 and authorized by the
Town. There was a significant slope failure behind (east of) the residence located at 27
Middletown Rd. The failure occurred in the afternoon of May 3, 2020 after a period of about one
week when a crack developed with increasing vertical separation. There are two buildings which
the Town has determined are unsafe to be occupied and have ordered the residents out of the
buildings. The buildings are a garage behind the home at 27 Middletown Rd and a house at 1A
Weaver Ave. There is a residence near the bottom of the failure at 3 Middletown Rd whose
access driveway is blocked from the debris fall near the base of the landslide. My primary task is
to determine, within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, whether the two buildings can
be safely occupied.

We have discussed the failure and our scope of services during our site visits. A previous
comprehensive proposal was presented to the town. Due to a narrow time window to map the site
with GPS and aerial photogrammetry before tree leaves are fully established and conceal the
ground surface, the Town requested and approved this reduced scope of services. The reduced
scope includes; reconnaissance of the site, research, interviews with locals, topographic aerial
survey with photogrammetry, survey ground control with GPS, research to obtain pre failure
topography by LIDAR, mapping, develop critical cross sections, examination of the sections,
preliminary slope stability evaluation, and preliminary geotechnical engineering report with
recommendations. Computer aided slope stability analyses are not included because there is not
enough available subsurface knowledge until borings are completed.

Background Information:

The following information was provided by you and others familiar with the site, or research
which was performed. The site is bounded by Middletown Rd to the west, St Joseph’s Cemetery
is to the west of the road, the Champlain Canal to the east, residential neighborhoods to the north
and south, and a rail line to the south and east beyond the canal. The towpath of the canal is
situated on a berm on the west side of the canal. I walked along the towpath and was able to have
a good overview of the entire failure area.

865 Pearse Road Niskayuna, NY 12309 Tel: (518) 382-2545 giffeng@nycap.rr.com

File No. 2027 Phase I Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of Slope Failure, Waterford, NY page 2

The site was a former sand and gravel mine that began when Interstate I-787 was being built in
the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The lake was excavated during mining operations and is
reported to be 60 to 80 feet deep. Mr. and Mrs. Diviney, who reside at 3 Middletown Rd, stated
that the lake level rises and falls about 4 to 6 feet and they believe it is caused by the canal being
put into or taken out of service. Mr. Diviney also stated that the mining operations at the pond
bottom intercepted an aquifer. They purchased the mine about 25 years ago after the operators
reclaimed the land. Their driveway is covered with debris fall material.

Geology:

The surficial geology at this area is known as the Loudonville Kame Ester Complex. It is north to
south trending and was deposited as the most recent glacier was retreating and the ice sheet was
thinning. Kames and esters are primarily sand and gravel deposits that were laid down within the
ice sheet. There were streams and rivers running through the ice, carrying soil particles which
were deposited into these kames and esters. There are known to be pods of glacial till within the
deposit as well as lacustrine (lake bottom) deposits of silt and clay, which were exposed by the
landslide at this site.

When viewing the failure face from below, from the east, there are horizontal bands of what
appears to be sand and gravel throughout most of the width of the failure. However, there is grey
clay and silt situated toward the edges of the failure, north and south. This clay and silt soil that
slid toward the bottom was hard, dry to moist, and blocky in appearance. Pieces of the clay and
silt were observed, and photos taken. This deposit is common throughout much of the Hudson
River Valley. It was deposited under glacial lakes during retreat of the most recent glacier about
10,000 years ago. The clay layers would extend across the entire bottom of the lake, which the
lakes here were probably small in extent. The anomaly is that the clay and silt was only present
at the north and south edges of the landslide. There could have been a stream or river that eroded
away the varved clay in the middle or there could have been two separate lakes. The eroded
riverbed was then filled with the sand and gravel as glacial outwash and was later mined. It was
deemed unsafe to climb up into the failure area to obtain a sample of the sand and gravel for
testing.

The upper nearly vertical face of the failure is known as the scarp. The scarp is about 50 feet
high. Below that the debris field flattens out as vegetation and soil from above slid down to its
current position. The toe of the debris field covered the driveway and encroached into the pond.

The scarp was also viewed from the side yard of 1A Weaver Ave. From this closer viewpoint,
there were darker areas of the sand and gravel soils that were about midway down the scarp. The
darker areas may be wet indicating that there may have been a water table or source at that
elevation. This was unable to confirm. Borings are needed with monitoring wells installed
during phase II of the services.

Topographic Mapping:

The attached photogrammetric mapping of the failure area covers about 17 acres. There were
large targets set on the ground surface before the flight. The acreage was flown with a drone in a
preprogramed flight path with overlapping perpendicular gridded passes. The drone, piloted by
Lionel Green, PLS of Remsen, NY took photogrammetric shots. The surveyor, Azimuth
Surveying and Cartography of Burnt Hills, NY performed GPS ground control at the targets so
File No. 2027 Phase I Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of Slope Failure, Waterford, NY page 3

the two could be combined into a single topographic map. The topography was overlain on a
photo of the ground surface, termed a mosaic.

The attached preexisting topographic mapping is from LIDAR mapping that is available to the
public. The pre and post failure mapping were compared. Three topographic cross sections were
developed down through the failure area and coupled with the preexisting contour before the
failure. Cross section 1 cuts through the southeast corner of the garage and heads down through
the failure area and ends in the pond. Cross section 2 cuts through the house at 1A Weaver Ave
and heads down through the failure area to the pond. Cross section 3 shows the steepest
preexisting slope about 2.1H to 1V, Horizontal to Vertical. This section was situated
immediately south of the failure area and was developed because of its steepness. It is steeper
than the other sections in part because there is a flat parking area situated to the west of the
driveway to 3 Middletown Rd. This enlarged flat area pushes the toe of slope to the west, closer
to the crest of the slope. The reason that this area was not included in the failure may be because
of the larger trees in that area whose roots stabilized the slope.

The most critical cross section in the failure area is Section 1 which cuts through the southeast
corner of the garage and heads downhill through the debris field and into the pond. The
preexisting overall slope was inclined at about 2.6H to 1V. Section 2 which cuts through the
house was inclined at about 2.9H to 1V.

We also examined old USGS quadrangle sheets that date back as far as 1898. They showed the
topography, streets, houses, and cemeteries that existed at the time the mapping was prepared.

Geotechnical Evaluation:

The sand and gravel mine was operated until about 25 years ago. I spoke with Mr. Eric Hanson
of Hanson VanVleet, LLC a local Geological and Environmental Consultant. He informed me
that the mine was visited for field trips in the 1980’s and 90’s because of its proximity to the local
colleges. He visited the mine on several occasions and recalls a near vertical working face. He
also remembers that there was no water exiting the mine face. The water table was below the
ground surface at the floor of the mine and intersected the pond surface.

During closure of the mine, the NYS DEC would have provided guidelines. Mrs. Diviney stated
that they had to wait until the closure was complete before they could purchase the property and
build their house. She recalls the operator importing and placing 3 feet of clay. It is likely that
soil above the near vertical face was pushed down from above to flatten the slope. It is common
in the mining industry that waste soil from job sites was transported back to the mine and dumped
when purchasing new material. There may have been pods of till and silt and clay intermingled
in the mining face that were likely unsaleable. These materials were likely separated and stored
on the floor of the mine. During closure, the stockpiled soil was probably used to build out the
toe of the near vertical slope or to cover the sand and gravel to promote growth of vegetation.
Vegetation does not grow well in coarse grained sand and gravel because they are freely draining,
which limits water for the plants.

Examination of Section 1 reveals the scarp at the top is about 50 feet high. This is the beginning
of a nearly circular arc as the soil rotates with the upper part of the slope dropping and moving
laterally downhill while the lower part lifts and also moves laterally, as shown on the attached
section. A circular arc often used as the shape of the failure in computer aided slope stability
analyses.
File No. 2027 Phase I Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of Slope Failure, Waterford, NY page 4

The overall preexisting slope inclination at Section 1 was about 2.6H to 1V. This equates to an
angle of about 21 degrees from horizontal. Based on experience, sand and gravel has an angle of
repose or angle of internal friction of 30 to 32 degrees. Basic analyses of a dry slope comprised
of sand and gravel that is inclined at about 21 degrees results in a factor of safety of 1.50 and
1.63, for 30 and 32 degrees, respectively. The factor of safety, FoS, is defined as the ratio of the
summation of forces resisting motion divided by the summation of forces causing motion. By
definition, a factor of safety of 1.0 means that the slope is on the verge of failure.

A minimum factor of safety of 1.3 to 15 are commonly accepted for design of new slopes or
analyses of existing slope in geotechnical engineering practice. There must have been something
else that caused the failure after the closed mine had not experienced any known problems since
closure about 25 years ago.

There are three things that will lessen the FoS of a slope and lead to failure; add weight to the top
of slope, remove weight from the bottom of slope, or raise the elevation of the water table within
the slope. There are no reports of soil removal or addition after closure, so the failure must have
been triggered by a rising water table. Other issues could impact the stability of a slope such as
an earthquake or other vibration source. The nearby rail line would impart some vibration but in
my opinion this amount would not cause the failure. Soil borings with wells are needed to fully
understand the failure.

Rainfall quantities were obtained on the Weather Underground web site from a weather station at
the Albany International Airport. A summary is shown for the last 12 months. It should be noted
that the actual precipitation at the failure site could have varied from the recorded amounts at the
airport.

Month Mo. Precip. (in.) Diff. Over (in.) Avg Mo. Precip. (in.) Diff. Below (in.)
May 2019 3.09 3.61 0.52
June 5.00 1.21 3.79
July 4.11 4.12 0.01
August 3.91 0.45 3.46
September 2.22 3.30 1.08
October 6.81 3.13 3.68
November 3.47 0.18 3.29
December 4.52 1.59 2.93
January 2020 2.03 2.59 0.56
February 2.71 0.51 2.20
March 2.93 3.21 0.28
April 2.69 3.17 0.48
May thru 3rd 0.74 0.74 ---
Summation 44.23 7.81 39.35 2.93

The failure occurred on May 3rd and it is reported that there was movement for about a week
before. There was 0.74 inches of rain on May 1 and 2 recorded at the airport. Since May of
2019, the precipitation has exceeded average monthly total in 6 months June 2019, August,
October, November, December and February 2020. The precipitation was less than average in
May 2019, July, September, January 2020, March, and April. The total amount of precipitation
over average is 7.81 inches and the total below average is 2.93 inches, a difference of 4.88 inches.
This amounts to about 12 percent over average precipitation in the last 12 months prior to the
failure. Study of the last 25 years of precipitation data should be done to see if there were other
years that exhibit even greater overages.