Frag #16 -- Other (and Amplification):  This fragment is particularly interesting because of the complexity involved. In one sense, it can be seen as part of a compound predicate noun: "There weren't any woods . . . or places to go. . . ." But it can also be viewd as a compound sentence with the second subject and verb ellipsed" "There weren't any woods to go in when I got hot, *and there were* no places to go sleigh riding . . . ." Still another way of analyzing it is to consider both "woods" and "places" as appossitives for an implied "anything" --  "There wasn't anything, any woods to go in when I got hot,  no places to go sleigh riding . . . ." [What I have counted as a subject/verb agreement error, in other words, may actually imply this third version.] The complexity of the options probably explain the fragment.
     If this student were analyzing this passage, he would find the fragment and probably ask what to do about it. If I wanted to keep it simple, I would suggest attaching it to the preceding main clause, with either a comma or a dash. 

RO #63 -- Subordination: In some cases, the run-on is just the opposite of the "afterthought" fragment. In the afterthought fragment, the writer puts everything that is current in STM down on paper, followed by an ending punctuation mark. He or she then thinks of something to add, and, if the addition is not a complete sentence, we get an afterthought fragment. In some run-ons, the writer probably already knows what he or she wants to say, but the content goes beyond the writer's "comfort zone" with sentence structure, i.e., the writer is in a hurry to get it down (before forgetting it), but doesn't know how to phrase or punctuate it. Still, the writer senses that the ideas are not "separate," that there is a logical relationship between them. 
     In this case, the run-on could be attached to the preceding sentence with an "although" -- "The best thing [MAJFthat happened to me] was [RNPNwhen I was born], [RAVFalthough I don't remember to much [RNDOwhen I was little [RAVRuntil about 4 years old]] except for just small things.] I do not mean to suggest that the preceding is a good sentence; I'm suggesting that there may be a reason for the run-on.
RO #64 -- Contrast: The two main clauses imply a contrast between "big responsible boy" and "little irresponsible boy" -- "I didn't want to ride a wheelie until it was a big bike; then I wrecked it in a mud puddle."
RO #65 -- Amplification: The second clause gives details on the bike -- "I got a motorcycle when I just turned 5 -- it was a JB.50 SVSOK."
RO #66 -- Subordination: See RO #63. "I hated to live there [RAVFbecause I was allways used to living in West Virginia, [RAJFwhere the school was small] and [RAJFthe people acted different.]]" Note that this is a 25-word main clause, almost twice the writer's 12.6 average. It also has three subordinate clauses, two of which are embedded in the first.
RO #67 -- Other (possibly contrast, possibly careless): More intersting than the run-on is the "big and" in place of "bigger than." Unfortunatley, there is no way of knowing if this was a performance or a competence error. The student wrote "Then my dad was living in Virginia [RAVFso at the end of the summer I moved to Virginia]\C\and I hated it more [RAVFbecause the schools were big and the ones [RAJFI was used to]] \R\Well, the one in West Virginia was kindergarden to 12 grade." We have here a fast-moving stream of meaning, and there is much that could be said about it. Our interest, however, is the run-on, and I simply want to point out the contrast between "Virginia," the topic of the preceding clause, and "West Virginia," the topic of the clause in the run-on. A semicolon would be a possibility here.
RO #68 -- Amplification: The second clause amplifies "live" -- "That's where I live now -- I have lived there for a year and a half."