NHDES Wetlands Permit Application - New Hampshire · 2016-12-30 · NHDES Wetlands Permit...

NHDES Wetlands Permit Application

Bridge #089/099 Rehabilitation (24497) NH 18 Over Lafayette Brook Franconia, New Hampshire

PREPARED FOR New Hampshire Department of Transportation PO Box 483, 7 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03302-0483

PREPARED BY VHB 2 Bedford Farms Drive Suite 200 Bedford, NH 03110 603.391.3900

December 2016

\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Wetlands Permit Application Form

USACE PGP – Appendix B ‐ Secondary Impacts Checklist

Review Criteria Administrative Rule [Env‐Wt 302.04(a)]

Application Narrative

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Site Description and Existing Conditions ......................................................... 1

3.0 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................. 2

4.0 Impact Analysis and Best Management Practices ........................................... 3

5.0 Natural Resource Descriptions .......................................................................... 4

6.0 Stream Crossings (Env‐Wt 900) ......................................................................... 8

Figures

Figure 1 ........................................................................... USGS Project Location Map

Figure 2 ................................................................................. Wetland Resources Map

Figure 3 ............................................................................... Wildlife Action Plan Map

Figure 4 ................................................................................................ Watershed Map

Appendices

Appendix A ........................................................................ Bridge Inspection Report

Appendix B ............................................................ Representative Site Photographs

Appendix C .............................................................................................. Project Plans

Appendix D ........................................................... Stream Geomorphic Assessment

Appendix E .......................................................... FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map

Appendix F .......................................... Natural Resource Agency Correspondence

Appendix G............... NLEB Project Submittal Form and Bridge Inspection Form

\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx



[email protected] or (603) 271-2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095

www.des.nh.gov Permit Application – Revised 6/20/2016 - Valid until 12/31/2016 Page 1 of 5

NHDES-W-06-012

WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION Water Division/ Wetlands Bureau

Land Resources Management Check the status of your application: www.des.nh.gov/onestop

RSA/Rule: RSA 482-A/ Env-Wt 100-900

Administrative

Use Only

Administrative

Use Only

Administrative

Use Only

File No.:

Check No.:

Amount:

Initials:

1. REVIEW TIME: Indicate your Review Time below. To determine review time, refer to Guidance Document A for instructions.

Standard Review (Minimum, Minor or Major Impact) Expedited Review (Minimum Impact only)

2. MITIGATION REQUIREMENT: If mitigation is required a Mitigation-Pre Application meeting must occur prior to submitting this Wetlands Permit Application. To determine if Mitigation is Required, please refer to the Determine if Mitigation is Required Frequently Asked Question. Mitigation Pre-Application Meeting Date: Month: 8 Day: 19 Year: 2015 N/A - Mitigation is not required (NHDOT Natural Resource Agency Coordination Meeting)

3. PROJECT LOCATION: Separate wetland permit applications must be submitted for each municipality that wetland impacts occur within.

ADDRESS: NH 18 (Profile Road) over Lafayette Brook TOWN/CITY: Franconia

TAX MAP: N/A BLOCK: N/A LOT: N/A UNIT: N/A

USGS TOPO MAP WATERBODY NAME: Lafayette Brook NA STREAM WATERSHED SIZE: 4,750 acres NA

LOCATION COORDINATES (If known): 969,477.149; 621,594.538 Latitude/Longitude UTM State Plane

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a brief description of the project outlining the scope of work. Attach additional sheets as needed to provide a detailed explanation of your project. DO NOT reply “See Attached" in the space provided below.

The NH Department of Transportation (NHDOT) proposes to rehabilitate Bridge #089/099 located approximately 2 miles west of Exit 36 along NH 18 (Profile Road), immediately adjacent to the intersection with NH 141 (Butterhill Road). The bridge was added to the NHDOT Red List in 2010 based on the findings of an inspection that year which found deficient superstructure conditions. Additionally, concrete corings and a detailed inspection of the bridge was conducted in the spring of 2014.These inspections found the superstructure in poor condition, the deck in poor condition, and the substructure in good condition. The proposed action consists of replacing the bridge superstructure, while retaining the existing abutments and wingwalls with modifications to the upper railing sections. The existing width of the bridge deck would be maintained, but the superstructure would be slightly shallower such that the hydraulic clearance would be improved. The rehabilitation would maintain an open bottom with the same slope, geometry, and substrate, and the rehabilitated structure would pass the 100-year flood with about 1.0 feet of freeboard at the lowest location. In addition, approach rail would be added to improve safety for traffic along Profile Road. To complete the project, NHDOT proposes to dredge and fill 647 sq. ft. (177 lin. ft.) in the bed and banks of Lafayette Brook to restore rip-rap slope stabilization adjacent to Bridge #089/099 and dredge and fill approximately 156 sq. ft. (54 lin. ft.) adjacent to an unnamed pond for the installation of minor drainage improvements along the roadway edge. Additionally, temporary impacts of approximately 1,096 sq. ft. (241 lin. ft.) in the bed and banks of Lafayette Brook to install temporary water diversion structures during construction. Refer to the attached Application Narrative, Figures, and Appendices for additional information.

5. SHORELINE FRONTAGE:

NA This does not have shoreline frontage. SHORELINE FRONTAGE:

Shoreline frontage is calculated by determining the average of the distances of the actual natural navigable shoreline frontage and a straight line drawn between the property lines, both of which are measured at the normal high water line.



6. RELATED NHDES LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT: Please indicate if any of the following permit applications are required and, if required, the status of the application. To determine if other Land Resources Management Permits are required, refer to the Land Resources Management Web Page.

Permit Type Permit Required File Number Permit Application Status

Alteration of Terrain Permit Per RSA 485-A:17 Individual Sewerage Disposal per RSA 485-A:2 Subdivision Approval Per RSA 485-A Shoreland Permit Per RSA 483-B

YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

_____ _____ _____ _____

APPROVED PENDING DENIED APPROVED PENDING DENIED APPROVED PENDING DENIED APPROVED PENDING DENIED

7. NATURAL HERITAGE BUREAU & DESIGNATED RIVERS: See the Instructions & Required Attachments document for instructions to complete a & b below.

a. Natural Heritage Bureau File ID: NHB NHB16-2899.

b. Designated River the project is in ¼ miles of: ; and date a copy of the application was sent to the Local River Management Advisory Committee: Month: Day: Year:

N/A

8. APPLICANT INFORMATION (Desired permit holder)

LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, M.I.: Robert Landry, PE

TRUST / COMPANY NAME: New Hampshire Department of Transportation MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 483, 7 Hazen Drive

TOWN/CITY: Concord STATE: NH ZIP CODE: 03302-0483

EMAIL or FAX: [email protected] PHONE: (603) 271-2731

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION: By initialing here: , I hereby authorize NHDES to communicate all matters relative to this application electronically 9. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (If different than applicant)

LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, M.I.:

TRUST / COMPANY NAME: MAILING ADDRESS:

TOWN/CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE:

EMAIL or FAX: PHONE:

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION: By initialing here , I hereby authorize NHDES to communicate all matters relative to this application electronically 10. AUTHORIZED AGENT INFORMATION

LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, M.I.: Peter Walker COMPANY NAME: VHB

MAILING ADDRESS: 2 Bedford Farms Drive, Suite 200

TOWN/CITY: Bedford STATE: NH ZIP CODE: 03110-6532

EMAIL or FAX: [email protected] PHONE: 603-391-3900

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION: By initialing here , I hereby authorize NHDES to communicate all matters relative to this application electronically



11. PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE: See the Instructions & Required Attachments document for clarification of the below statements

By signing the application, I am certifying that:

1. I authorize the applicant and/or agent indicated on this form to act in my behalf in the processing of this application, and to furnish upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.

2. I have reviewed and submitted information & attachments outlined in the Instructions and Required Attachment document.

3. All abutters have been identified in accordance with RSA 482-A:3, I and Env-Wt 100-900. 4. I have read and provided the required information outlined in Env-Wt 302.04 for the applicable project type. 5. I have read and understand Env-Wt 302.03 and have chosen the least impacting alternative. 6. Any structure that I am proposing to repair/replace was either previously permitted by the Wetlands Bureau or would be considered

grandfathered per Env-Wt 101.47. 7. I have submitted a Request for Project Review (RPR) Form (www.nh.gov/nhdhr/review) to the NH State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) at the NH Division of Historical Resources to identify the presence of historical/ archeological resources while coordinating with the lead federal agency for NHPA 106 compliance.

8. I authorize NHDES and the municipal conservation commission to inspect the site of the proposed project. 9. I have reviewed the information being submitted and that to the best of my knowledge the information is true and accurate. 10. I understand that the willful submission of falsified or misrepresented information to the New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services is a criminal act, which may result in legal action.

Property Owner Signature

Print name legibly

/ / Date



MUNICIPAL SIGNATURES

12. CONSERVATION COMMISSION SIGNATURE

The signature below certifies that the municipal conservation commission has reviewed this application, and: 1. Waives its right to intervene per RSA 482-A:11; 2. Believes that the application and submitted plans accurately represent the proposed project; and 3. Has no objection to permitting the proposed work.

Print name legibly Date

DIRECTIONS FOR CONSERVATION COMMISSION

1. Expedited review ONLY requires that the conservation commission’s signature is obtained in the space above.

2. Expedited review requires the Conservation Commission signature be obtained prior to the submittal of the original application to the Town/City Clerk for signature.

3. The Conservation Commission may refuse to sign. If the Conservation Commission does not sign this statement for any reason, the application is not eligible for expedited review and the application will reviewed in the standard review time frame.

13. TOWN / CITY CLERK SIGNATURE

As required by Chapter 482-A:3 (amended 2014), I hereby certify that the applicant has filed four application forms, four detailed plans, and four USGS location maps with the town/city indicated below.

Town/City Clerk Signature Print name legibly Town/City Date

DIRECTIONS FOR TOWN/CITY CLERK:

Per RSA 482-A:3,I

1. For applications where "Expedited Review" is checked on page 1, if the Conservation Commission signature is not present, NHDES will accept the permit application, but it will NOT receive the expedited review time.

2. IMMEDIATELY sign the original application form and four copies in the signature space provided above;

3. Return the signed original application form and attachments to the applicant so that the applicant may submit the application form and attachments to NHDES by mail or hand delivery.

4. IMMEDIATELY distribute a copy of the application with one complete set of attachments to each of the following bodies: the municipal Conservation Commission, the local governing body (Board of Selectmen or Town/City Council), and the Planning Board; and

5. Retain one copy of the application form and one complete set of attachments and make them reasonably accessible for public review.

DIRECTIONS FOR APPLICANT:

1. Submit the single, original permit application form bearing the signature of the Town/ City Clerk, additional materials, and the application fee to NHDES by mail or hand delivery.



14. IMPACT AREA: For each jurisdictional area that will be/has been impacted, provide square feet and, if applicable, linear feet of impact Permanent: impacts that will remain after the project is complete. Temporary: impacts not intended to remain (and will be restored to pre-construction conditions) after the project is complete.

JURISDICTIONAL AREA PERMANENT

Sq. Ft. / Lin. Ft. TEMPORARY

Sq. Ft. / Lin. Ft.

Forested wetland ATF ATF

Scrub-shrub wetland ATF ATF

Emergent wetland ATF ATF

Wet meadow ATF ATF

Intermittent stream ATF ATF

Perennial Stream / River 32 / 32 ATF 395 / 105 ATF

Lake / Pond / ATF / ATF

Bank - Intermittent stream / ATF / ATF

Bank - Perennial stream / River 615 / 145 ATF 701 / 136 ATF

Bank - Lake / Pond 156 / 54 ATF / ATF

Tidal water / ATF / ATF

Salt marsh ATF ATF

Sand dune ATF ATF

Prime wetland ATF ATF

Prime wetland buffer ATF ATF

Undeveloped Tidal Buffer Zone (TBZ) ATF ATF

Previously-developed upland in TBZ ATF ATF

Docking - Lake / Pond ATF ATF

Docking - River ATF ATF

Docking - Tidal Water ATF ATF

TOTAL 803 / 231 1,096 / 241

15. APPLICATION FEE: See the Instructions & Required Attachments document for further instruction

Minimum Impact Fee: Flat fee of $ 200 Minor or Major Impact Fee: Calculate using the below table below

Permanent and Temporary (non-docking) 1,899 sq. ft. X $0.20 = $ 379.80

Temporary (seasonal) docking structure: sq. ft. X $1.00 = $

Permanent docking structure: sq. ft. X $2.00 = $

Projects proposing shoreline structures (including docks) add $200 = $

Total = $ 379.90

The Application Fee is the above calculated Total or $200, whichever is greater = $ 379.80


USACE PGP – Appendix B – Secondary Impacts Checklist

USACE PGP – Appendix B

Secondary Impacts Checklist

NH PGP – Appendix B August 2012 2

New Hampshire Programmatic General Permit (PGP) Appendix B - Corps Secondary Impacts Checklist

(for inland wetland/waterway fill projects in New Hampshire)

1. Attach any explanations to this checklist. Lack of information could delay a Corps permit determination.2. All references to “work” include all work associated with the project construction and operation. Workincludes filling, clearing, flooding, draining, excavation, dozing, stumping, etc. 3. See PGP, GC 5, regarding single and complete projects.4. Contact the Corps at (978) 318-8832 with any questions.1. Impaired Waters Yes No 1.1 Will any work occur within 1 mile upstream in the watershed of an impaired water? See http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/section401/impaired_waters.htm to determine if there is an impaired water in the vicinity of your work area.* 2. Wetlands Yes No 2.1 Are there are streams, brooks, rivers, ponds, or lakes within 200 feet of any proposed work? 2.2 Are there proposed impacts to SAS, shellfish beds, special wetlands and vernal pools (see PGP, GC 26 and Appendix A)? Applicants may obtain information from the NH Department of Resources and Economic Development Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) website, www.nhnaturalheritage.org, specifically the book Natural Community Systems of New Hampshire. 2.3 If wetland crossings are proposed, are they adequately designed to maintain hydrology, sediment transport & wildlife passage? 2.4 Would the project remove part or all of a riparian buffer? (Riparian buffers are lands adjacent to streams where vegetation is strongly influenced by the presence of water. They are often thin lines of vegetation containing native grasses, flowers, shrubs and/or trees that line the stream banks. They are also called vegetated buffer zones.) 2.5 The overall project site is more than 40 acres. 2.6 What is the size of the existing impervious surface area? 2.7 What is the size of the proposed impervious surface area? 2.8 What is the % of the impervious area (new and existing) to the overall project site? 3. Wildlife Yes No 3.1 Has the NHB determined that there are known occurrences of rare species, exemplary natural communities, Federal and State threatened and endangered species and habitat, in the vicinity of the proposed project? (All projects require a NHB determination.) 3.2 Would work occur in any area identified as either “Highest Ranked Habitat in N.H.” or “Highest Ranked Habitat in Ecological Region”? (These areas are colored magenta and green, respectively, on NH Fish and Game’s map, “2010 Highest Ranked Wildlife Habitat by Ecological Condition.”) Map information can be found at: • PDF: www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Wildlife_Plan/highest_ranking_habitat.htm.• Data Mapper: www.granit.unh.edu.• GIS: www.granit.unh.edu/data/downloadfreedata/category/databycategory.html.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

N/A

21,500 sq. ft.21,500 sq. ft.

http://www.dred.state.nh.us/divisions/forestandlands/bureaus/naturalheritage�

http://www.nhdfl.org/library/pdf/Finalsystemsreport.pdf�

http://www.nhdfl.org/library/pdf/Finalsystemsreport.pdf�

http://www.granit.unh.edu/�

http://www.granit.unh.edu/data/downloadfreedata/category/databycategory.html�

lgjones

Typewritten Text

1

lgjones

Typewritten Text

2

lgjones

Typewritten Text

3

NH PGP – Appendix B August 2012 3

3.3 Would the project impact more than 20 acres of an undeveloped land block (upland, wetland/waterway) on the entire project site and/or on an adjoining property(s)? 3.4 Does the project propose more than a 10-lot residential subdivision, or a commercial or industrial development? 3.5 Are stream crossings designed in accordance with the PGP, GC 21? 4. Flooding/Floodplain Values Yes No 4.1 Is the proposed project within the 100-year floodplain of an adjacent river or stream? 4.2 If 4.1 is yes, will compensatory flood storage be provided if the project results in a loss of flood storage? 5. Historic/Archaeological ResourcesFor a minor or major impact project - a copy of the Request for Project Review (RPR) Form (www.nh.gov/nhdhr/review) shall be sent to the NH Division of Historical Resources as required on Page 5 of the PGP***Although this checklist utilizes state information, its submittal to the Corps is a Federal requirement.** If project is not within Federal jurisdiction, coordination with NH DHR is not required under Federal law.. `

X

X

X

X

X

X

1. The proposed project work occurs along Bridge #089/099 which carries NH Route 18 over Lafayette Brook, as well as within the banksand bed of Lafayette Brook. Further information regarding the location of the proposed work can be found in the Project Plans in Appendix C.

2. The proposed wetland crossing will be in compliance with the standards outlined in the NH Stream Crossing Guidelines (May 2009)document by the University of New Hampshire, with the exception of the existing width of the structure. Further information can be found in Section 6.0 of the NHDES Wetlands Permit Application.

3. A search for the occurrence of rare plant, anmial, or natural communities within the vicinity of the project area was completed using theNH Natural Heritage Bureau's (NHNHB) DataCheck took. The report dated September 20, 2016 identified no recorded occurrences for sensitive species or natural communities near the project area. The proposed project was also reviewed for the presence of federally-listed or proposed, threatened, or endangered species, designated critical habitat, or other natural resources of concern through the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Information Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System. Results dated September 20, 2016 indicated Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) and Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) may occur within the vicinity of the project. Since the project is limited to the bridge structure, with a small amount of impact to the bank along Butterhill Road and no tree clearing proposed, no impacts to Canada Lynx are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. In accordance with the procedures contained in the FHWA/FRA Range-wide Programmatic Informational Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat, a Project Submittal Form was completed in order to document the finding that no bat presence was found within or around the bridge.

4. Existing bridge abutments are to be retained. The new superstructure provides additional freeboard to the design flood event. Theexisting opening is adequate and accomodates the bankfull condition of Lafayette Brook.

5. Floodplain impacts are limited to the riprap slope stabilization to mitigate and remedy erosion at the four quadrants of the bridge and a portion of the bank along Butterhill Road. There would be no change in grading within the floodplain and the existing hydraulic opening would be maintained, therefore compensatory flood storage is nto warranted.

6. An RPR was submitted to the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources (NHDHR) on July 23, 2014. As a result of the RPR andinventory form submitted to NHDHR, Bridge #089/099 has been found eligible for listing. A coordination meeting with NHDHR, NHDOT, and FHWA was held on June 11, 2015, where it was determined that there would be an adverse effect to Bridge #089/099 since the deficiencies found within the bridge do not allow for the bridge's preservation due to safety concerns. It was also determined that there would be no adverse effect on Lovetts Inn (National Register-listed) or the Lovetts Inn property (National Register-eligible) since the visual impact of the rehabilitated bridge will be sympathetic and there would be no long-term impacts to the inn from the planned construction. Appropriate mitigation of impacts to historic resources have been outlined in the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the proposed project, signed by NHDOT, FHWA, and NHDHR.

http://www.nh.gov/nhdhr/review�

lgjones

Typewritten Text

4

lgjones

Typewritten Text

6

lgjones

Typewritten Text

5


Review Criteria – Administrative Rule Env-Wt 302.04(a)

Review Criteria

Administrative Rule Env‐Wt 302.04(a)


www.des.nh.gov

Wetlands Permit Application Attachment A – Revised 01/2017 Page 1 of 6

NHDES-W-06-013

WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION – ATTACHMENT A MINOR AND MAJOR - 20 QUESTIONS

Water Division/ Wetlands Bureau/ Land Resources Management Check the Status of your application: www.des.nh.gov/onestop

RSA/ Rule: RSA 482-A, Env-Wt 100-900

Env-Wt 302.04 Requirements for Application Evaluation - For any major or minor project, the applicant shall demonstrate by plan and example that the following factors have been considered in the project’s design in assessing the impact of the proposed project to areas and environments under the department’s jurisdiction. Respond with statements demonstrating: 1. The need for the proposed impact.

The need for the project is documented in previous reports produced by NHDOT who have inspected the bridge. The bridge was added to the NHDOT Red List in 2010 based on findings of an inspection that year which found deficient superstructure conditions. The 2015 NHDOT inspection report indicated a Federal Sufficiency rating of 39% with a status of “structurally deficient.” The superstructure was found to be in poor condition, the deck in poor condition, and the substructure in good condition.

Additionally, concrete corings of the deck and abutments were obtained in April 2014, and a detailed inspection of the bridge was conducted on May 8, 2014 to identify condition deficiencies in the exposed stone facing, mortar, and concrete. This inspection and testing confirmed that the deck and superstructure are in poor condition and that the abutments are in good condition. A Type-Span-Location (TSL) Report was developed by VHB in March 2015, which evaluated the need for the proposed project and developed several alternatives including the selected alternative of rehabilitation.

2. That the alternative proposed by the applicant is the one with the least impact to wetlands or surface waters on site.

Three alternatives were developed to address the structural deficiencies identified. The following is a brief description of the three alternatives considered to address the deficiencies.

Option 1 – Bridge Rehabilitation: This option would use the existing abutments and wingwalls with modifications to the upper sections, which minimizes environmental impacts. The existing roadway width of the bridge would be maintained at 24 feet.

Option 2 – Bridge Rehabilitation with Widening: This option would retain the existing abutments and wingwalls, but would involve abutment widening and new wingwalls on the west side of the bridge to increase the roadway width to 32 feet. The bridge width would be significantly wider than the existing approach roadway and require substantial approach roadway reconstruction, increasing the length of the project. The horizontal alignment of Profile Road would shift approximately 5 feet west (downstream) to accommodate construction phase clearance.

Option 3 – Complete Replacement: This option would completely remove and replace the existing bridge. This option was determined to be unnecessary, but was considered for comparison purposes. The bridge was determined eligible for the National Register on September 10, 2014, therefore components of the bridge should be retained if deemed prudent and practical.

Option 1, Bridge Rehabilitation, is the selected alternative, which is the most cost effective alternative and has the shortest construction duration. This option also reduces project impacts by replacing the superstructure while maintaining the existing wingwalls and abutments. The overall bridge length is approximately 56 feet with a clear span of approximately 52 feet (matching existing).


www.des.nh.gov


3. The type and classification of the wetlands involved.

A delineation of wetlands and surface waters within the project area was performed on June 5, 2014 by Kristopher Wilkes, CWS #288, and these data have been incorporated into the project base plan. Wetlands in the project area include:

Lafayette Brook (R3RB2H): The top-of-bank along the southern and northern bank of Lafayette Brook was delineated within the project area, approximately 250 feet upstream of the bridge and 550 feet downstream of the bridge. Within the project limits, Lafayette Brook is classified as a Riverine Upper Perennial Rock Bottom Rubble Permanently Flooded (R3RB2H) stream. Temporary and permanent impacts to the bed and banks of Lafayette Brook are required to complete the bridge rehabilitation.

Unnamed Pond (PUB2H) and Fringe Wetland (PEM1E): One wetland located south of the bridge would be impacted by road improvements associated with the rehabilitation of the bridge. This wetland contains a small man-made pond (known locally as Lovetts Inn Pond) located along the eastern side of Profile Road to the south of the bridge. Top-of-bank was delineated along this resource. The Lovetts Inn Pond is classified as a Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Sand Permanently Flooded (PUB2H) wetland. A small wetland, classified as a Palustrine Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded/Saturated (PEM1E), borders the pond’s edge to the east of the pond. A small portion of this wetland will be impacted to reconstruct an existing non-functioning drainage ditch along NH 18 (Profile Road).

Forested Wetland (PFO1C): During the wetland delineation conducted in June 2014 an additional wetland, classified as a Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded (PFO1C) wetland, was identified in the forest just north of the construction work associated with this project. This wetland will not be impacted by the proposed road improvements or rehabilitation of the bridge. No other wetlands or waterbodies are located directly adjacent to the proposed project.

Refer to the Application Narrative for additional discussion regarding impacts to these wetland resources.

4. The relationship of the proposed wetlands to be impacted relative to nearby wetlands and surface waters.

Wetlands located within the vicinity of the proposed project include Lafayette Brook and wetlands that drain toward Lafayette Brook, such as the Lovetts Inn Pond. Lafayette Brook drains north toward Black Brook, which empties into Gale River, approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the bridge.

5. The rarity of the wetland, surface water, sand dunes, or tidal buffer zone area.

Neither Lafayette Brook nor the adjacent wetlands near the proposed project are considered rare or unusual, nor were they found to exhibit rare, threatened, or endangered plant species (refer to Question 7, below). Plant species observed were characteristic of the surrounding forested and roadside landscape.

6. The surface area of the wetlands that will be impacted.

Impacts to wetlands have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable through careful project design; the selected alternative (bridge rehabilitation) is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.

Permanent impacts along the bank and bed of Lafayette Brook are proposed as a result of the reconstruction of a riprap slope adjacent to the bridge abutments, as well the reconstruction of a section of riprap slope along the northern embankment of the brook along Butterhill Road. Total proposed permanent impacts to Lafayette Brook are approximately 615 sq. ft. (145 lin. ft.) of bank impact and 32 sq. ft. (32 lin. ft.) of bed impacts.

In addition, approximately 156 sq. ft. (54 lin. ft.) of permanent impacts are proposed to occur adjacent to Lovetts Inn Pond to the south of the bridge. These impacts are necessary to re-establish a drainage channel that is currently filled with sediment. Temporary impacts within the bank and bed of Lafayette Brook include the installation of water diversion structures within the brook around the bridge abutments in order to access the underside of the bridge to conduct the rehabilitation work. Total temporary impacts associated with this work would include approximately 701 sq. ft. (136 lin. ft.) of temporary bank impacts and 395 sq. ft. (105 lin. ft.) of temporary bed impacts. The water diversion structures would be installed on either side of the brook around the abutments, allowing the brook to continue to flow within its channel (refer to Appendix C, Wetland Plans). Areas within the water diversion structures will allow construction workers access to the bridge without exposure to the currents of the brook. Dewatering behind the water diversion structure is not anticipated. Placement of riprap will be accomplished within the water diversion structures from equipment positioned beyond the top of the bank.


www.des.nh.gov


7. The impact on plants, fish and wildlife including, but not limited to: a. Rare, special concern species; b. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species; c. Species at the extremities of their ranges; d. Migratory fish and wildlife; e. Exemplary natural communities identified by the DRED-NHB; and f. Vernal pools.

A search for the occurrence of rare plant, animal, or natural communities within the vicinity of the project area was completed using the NH Natural Heritage Bureau’s (NHNHB) DataCheck tool. The report dated September 20, 2016 identified no recorded occurrences for sensitive species or natural communities near the project area (refer to Appendix F).

The proposed project was also reviewed for the presence of federally-listed or proposed, threatened, or endangered species, designated critical habitat, or other natural resources of concern through the US Fish and Wildlife Services’ Information Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System. Results dated September 20, 2016 indicated Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) may occur within the vicinity of the project (refer to Appendix F).

Since the project is limited to the bridge structure, with a small amount of impact to the bank of Butterhill Road and no tree clearing proposed, no impacts to Canada lynx are anticipated as a result of the project.

With regard to potential impacts to the northern long-eared bat (NLEB), there are no known hibernacula within ¼ mile of the project site, nor are there any known maternal roost trees within 150 feet. Furthermore, no mature trees would be removed as a result of the project.

8. The impact of the proposed project on public commerce, navigation and recreation.

During construction the bridge is expected to be closed for approximately 2 months. Traffic will use a 6.3 mile detour for the duration of the bridge rehabilitation. This detour is necessary because the existing bridge width is too narrow to accommodate phased construction. Additionally, there is insufficient area for a temporary bridge without impacts to abutting properties and wetlands.

This detour has the potential to impact the Lovetts Inn business, as Lovetts Inn is located directly to the south of the bridge. NHDOT has been in communication with Lovetts Inn and the local community to determine what time of year would be the least impacting to the public for the bridge closure and construction.

There are no navigable waters within the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore public navigation would not be affected by the proposed project.

9. The extent to which a project interferes with the aesthetic interests of the general public. For example, where an applicant proposes the construction of a retaining wall on the bank of a lake, the applicant shall be required to indicate the type of material to be used and the effect of the construction of the wall on the view of other users of the lake.

Since Bridge #089/099 over Lafayette Brook is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the superstructure of the bridge is required to retain the existing character of the bridge including the look of a fieldstone and split stone facing using concrete and faux-stone, and designed so as to have the appearance of an arched bridge, as it is currently designed. The aesthetic requirements of the bridge are outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) developed for the project among the NHDOT, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the NH State Historic Preservation Officer (NHSHPO), signed on April 8, 2016.


www.des.nh.gov


10. The extent to which a project interferes with or obstructs public rights of passage or access. For example, where the applicant proposes to construct a dock in a narrow channel, the applicant shall be required to document the extent to which the dock would block or interfere with the passage through this area.

There would be no permanent impacts on public rites of passage or access. As described previously in Question 8, the only impact on public access during construction would be the redirection of traffic through a 6.3 mile detour for the duration of the bridge rehabilitation.

The rehabilitation of the bridge improves rites of passage and access in the long term by providing a safe bridge for vehicular use, as well as preventing the need to post the bridge for vehicular load limits should the condition of the bridge worsen.

11. The impact upon abutting owners pursuant to RSA 482-A:11, II. For example, if an applicant is proposing to rip-rap a stream, the applicant shall be required to document the effect of such work on upstream and downstream abutting properties.

The proposed bridge rehabilitation would ensure continued safe travel along NH 18 across Lafayette Brook in the long-term, with short-term impacts related to the bridge closure and detour during construction (see Question 8). NHDOT is working with the local community to determine the best time of year to complete the work and would notify abutting properties well in advance of the start of construction. Riprap repair areas are limited to the bridge and a short section of bank repair along Butterhill Road. These areas are within the existing State of New Hampshire Right-of-Way.

12. The benefit of a project to the health, safety, and well being of the general public.

The proposed project would improve the long-term safety of Bridge #089/099 over Lafayette Brook. This bridge is located on a NHDOT maintained road that is used by local traffic as well as visitors to the Cannon Mountain Ski Area and other local attractions. This bridge is currently on the NHDOT Red List and is in need of repairs in order to maintain the currently regular flow of traffic and occasional large vehicles.

13. The impact of a proposed project on quantity or quality of surface and ground water. For example, where an applicant proposes to fill wetlands the applicant shall be required to document the impact of the proposed fill on the amount of drainage entering the site versus the amount of drainage exiting the site and the difference in the quality of water entering and exiting the site.

No negative impacts to the quality or quantity of surface and ground water are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The bridge is located within a wellhead protection area (see Figure 5), however impacts to the aquifer are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project work. Temporary water quality best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to protect water quality during construction.


www.des.nh.gov


14. The potential of a proposed project to cause or increase flooding, erosion, or sedimentation.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Grafton County, the project area is located within the 100-year floodplain of Lafayette Brook (refer to Appendix E). The project is not anticipated to cause or increase flooding, erosion, or sedimentation since the proposed rehabilitation of the bridge would be hydrologically beneficial to Lafayette Brook and would maintain the existing hydrologic flow of the brook through the bridge. During the construction phase of the project, temporary BMPs would be implemented to reduce the amount of erosion or sedimentation that may occur as a result of construction work.

Project work includes stabilizing the bank of Lafayette Brook along Butterhill Road in order to address an existing erosion problem. Appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls would be implemented prior to work on the shoulder of Butterhill Road. These measures include the installation of temporary erosion controls such as a silt fence and/or compost or mulch socks. Additionally, water diversion structures would be installed where bank repairs and stabilization measures are proposed to minimize impacts to Lafayette Brook. Areas of exposed soil would be kept to a minimum and permanent vegetative cover or other forms of stabilization would be established as soon as practical.

15. The extent to which a project that is located in surface waters reflects or redirects current or wave energy which might cause damage or hazards.

The proposed project would not change the alignment of the existing flow path of the brook. The proposed project plans include the installation of water diversion structures around each of the bridge abutments in order to allow access to the bridge for rehabilitation. Erosion and turbidity control measures and the water diversion structures would be installed prior to the beginning of construction and would be used through the duration of the project to protect the water quality of Lafayette Brook during construction. The existing bridge abutments will remain intact, and no new rip-rap is proposed to be installed within the bridge crossing. All rip-rap placement is limited to the outside of the hydraulic opening of the bridge.

16. The cumulative impact that would result if all parties owning or abutting a portion of the affected wetland or wetland complex were also permitted alterations to the wetland proportional to the extent of their property rights. For example, an applicant who owns only a portion of a wetland shall document the applicant’s percentage of ownership of that wetland and the percentage of that ownership that would be impacted.

Many brooks, streams, and rivers run through this area of Franconia, New Hampshire. Approximately 450 feet north of the bridge carrying NH 18 over Lafayette Brook is another bridge that carries NH 18 over Black Brook. Further north within the town center of Franconia, NH 18 crosses and then runs alongside Gale River, with several roads connecting to NH 18 crossing Gale River as well. These bridges must be regularly maintained by NHDOT to ensure the safety of traffic along these roads. The rehabilitation of Bridge #089/099 will be designed to reduce impacts to wetland resources to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore the project is not expected to result in greater impacts than those that already exist.

17. The impact of the proposed project on the values and functions of the total wetland or wetland complex.

The proposed project is anticipated to have no measurable negative impacts on the functions and values of Lafayette Brook, including fish, wildlife habitat, or aesthetic values. The permanent impacts proposed along the bank and bed of the brook would stabilize the existing erosion and scour problems occurring within the vicinity of the bridge structure, therefore providing a long-term positive impact on the brook’s functions and values. The proposed stabilization of the banks of Lafayette Brook would improve the water quality of the brook and the aesthetic appearance of the banks of the brook.

Additionally, the proposed impacts to Lovetts Inn Pond along the shoulder of NH 18 to the south of the bridge are not anticipated to have any measurable impacts on the functions and values of the pond. The pond is located along the edge of NH 18 and has been subject to previous disturbances due to its proximity to the road.


www.des.nh.gov


18. The impact upon the value of the sites included in the latest published edition of the National Register of Natural Landmarks, or sites eligible for such publication.

The nearest National Natural Landmark to the proposed project is Franconia Notch, approximately 4 miles away. No impacts to Franconia Notch are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The bridge rehabilitation would improve the local transportation available around the Town of Franconia, thus improving accessibility to the Franconia Notch area.

19. The impact upon the value of areas named in acts of congress or presidential proclamations as national rivers, national wilderness areas, national lakeshores, and such areas as may be established under federal, state, or municipal laws for similar and related purposes such as estuarine and marine sanctuaries.

There would be no impact to these national resources as none of them are located within the project area. The nearest named national resource area to the proposed project is the White Mountain National Forest, located approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site. The bridge improvements will provide long-term benefits to the White Mountain National Forest by providing transportation along local routes within and around tourist attractions within the Franconia Notch area to nearby towns such as Franconia and Sugar Hill that provide tourist accommodations. Travel along NH 18 provides an alternative route to traveling along I-93 to these areas.

20. The degree to which a project redirects water from one watershed to another.

No water would be redirected from one watershed to another under the proposed project design. Existing drainage patterns would be maintained.

Additional comments




1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Site Description and Existing Conditions ......................................................... 1

3.0 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................. 2

4.0 Impact Analysis, Mitigation and Best Management Practices ....................... 3

5.0 Natural Resource Descriptions .......................................................................... 4

6.0 Stream Crossings (Env‐Wt 900) ......................................................................... 8


Application Narrative - 1


1.0 Introduction

On behalf of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (“NHDOT” or “the

Applicant”), this Wetlands Permit Application was prepared by VHB pursuant to the

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) Chapter 482‐A, Fill and

Dredge in Wetlands, and Wetland Bureau Code of Administrative Rules, Chapters

Env‐Wt 100 through Env‐Wt 900.

2.0 Site Description and Existing Conditions

Bridge #089/099 is located approximately 2 miles west of Exit 36 along NH 18 (Profile

Road) and is immediately adjacent to the intersection with NH 141 (Butterhill Road).

Refer to Figure 1 for the USGS Locus Map. The existing bridge was constructed circa

1932. The bridge has a clear span of 52 feet with a skew of 45 degrees.

The superstructure consists of four concrete tee beams with a 9 ½” deck slab. The two

interior beams are 36” deep and 27” wide. The exterior beams are located at the

fascia and vary in depth from 36” at mid‐span to 60” at abutments to resemble an

arch. The bridge rail is a 36” high concrete parapet with brush curb that extends

along the top of the u‐back wingwalls. The exterior face is flush with the exterior

beams and wingwalls. The curb‐to‐curb width is approximately 24’ with an out‐to‐

out width of 28’‐10”.

The substructure consists of concrete gravity‐type abutments and wingwalls with

spread footing foundations. Pilasters at the ends of the abutments flank the

superstructure. The southern pilasters extend to the top of the bridge rail, while the

northern pilasters are shorter and do not extend to the top of the bridge rail. All

exposed elements, except the face of abutments under the bridge, are clad with stone.

Bridge #089/033 spans Lafayette Brook, a high gradient perennial stream whose

headwaters include Echo Lake and the northwestern slope of the Franconia Range.

The estimated channel slope is about 3% in the vicinity of the bridge. The channel

consists of large boulders and cobbles, with an average bed size of about 1 foot in

diameter. Lafayette Brook joins Beaver Brook about ¼ mile downstream (north) of

the bridge and eventually merges with Gale River further north. The banks of the

channel are well defined and relatively steep with some embankment erosion at the

four quadrants of the bridge and upstream of the bridge along Butterhill Road.



Missing or displaced riprap has contributed to sloughing and erosion that extends

from the bridge to approximately 80’ upstream.

3.0 Proposed Project Description

The need for the project is documented in previous reports produced by NHDOT

who have inspected the bridge. The bridge was added to the NHDOT Red List in

2010 based on the findings of an inspection that year which found deficient

superstructure conditions. The NHDOT inspection report from November 2015

indicated a Federal Sufficiency rating of 39% with a status of “structurally deficient.”

The superstructure was found to be in poor condition, the deck in poor condition,

and the substructure in good condition.

Concrete corings of the deck and abutments were obtained in April 2014, and a

detailed inspection of the bridge was conducted by VHB on May 8, 2014 to identify

condition deficiencies in the exposed stone facing, mortar, and concrete. This

inspection and testing confirmed that the deck and superstructure are in poor

condition and that the abutments are in good condition. Refer to Appendix A, Bridge

Inspection Report, and Appendix B, Representative Site Photographs, for additional

information documenting the deficient condition of the bridge.

The proposed project consists of replacing the bridge superstructure, while retaining

the existing abutments and wingwalls with modifications to the upper railing

sections. The existing width of the bridge deck would be maintained, but the

superstructure would be slightly shallower such that the hydraulic opening would

be improved. The rehabilitation would maintain an open bottom with the same

slope, geometry, and substrate, and the rehabilitated structure would pass the 100‐

year flood with about 1.0 feet of freeboard at the lowest location.

Proposed bridge features include:

24’ (curb‐to‐curb) width and 29’‐2” +/‐ out‐to‐out width

Four 48”x33” box beams at 7’‐4” spacing with 3’‐5” deck overhangs

Concrete deck slab

39” high precast concrete bridge rail with architectural treatment.

In addition, an approach rail would be added to improve safety for traffic along

Profile Road.

The roadside shoulder and shallow swale along the easterly side of Profile Road will

be re‐established to direct runoff away from the Lovetts Inn Pond. Other runoff will

drain away from the road and along the embankments, allowing some infiltration

into the ground before it reaches the brook. In addition, several utility poles located

near the bridge will likely be replaced to avoid interference during construction.



During construction, traffic will be redirected via a 6.3 mile detour along state roads

and the Interstate. This detour is necessary because the existing bridge width is too

narrow to accommodate phased construction. Additionally, there is insufficient area

for a temporary bridge without significant impacts to abutting properties and

wetlands. Since the width of the bridge is unchanged, only minor impacts to

jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated as a result of the project work.

4.0 Impact Analysis, Mitigation and Best Management Practices

To complete the project, NHDOT proposes to dredge and fill 647 sq. ft. (177 lin. ft.) in

the bed and banks of Lafayette Brook to restore rip‐rap slope stabilization adjacent to

Bridge #089/099 and dredge and fill approximately 156 sq. ft. (54 lin. ft.) adjacent to

an unnamed pond for the installation of minor drainage improvements along the

roadway edge. Additionally, temporary impacts of approximately 1,096 sq. ft. (241

lin. ft.) in the bed and banks of Lafayette Brook to install water diversion structures

during construction. Refer Appendix C for the Wetland Plans and Wetland Impact

Summary Table.

A summary of the proposed impacts include:

1. Roadway swale restoration adjacent to the pond near the bridge

2. Installation of riprap at the four quadrants of the bridge

3. Slope stabilization with riprap along the northern bank of Lafayette Brook at

Butterhill Road

4. Temporary installation of water diversion structures along abutments and

bank repair areas

4.1 Proposed Permanent Impacts

Proposed work consists of re‐shaping a shallow ditch or swale at the roadside edge

along the Lovetts Inn Pond that terminates at the brook. Under the current

conditions, runoff from the road is directed toward the Lovetts Inn Pond wetland

and accumulates along the edge of pavement. The swale grading will divert runoff

from the road and away from the pond, where it will continue north along the

roadside edge and behind the guardrail. After shaping the ditch, turf will be re‐

established. Approximately 156 sq. ft. (54 lin. ft.) of permanent non‐wetland (bank) is

associated with this work.

The project also includes riprap repair and slope stabilization at the four quadrants

of the bridge and along the north bank of Lafayette Brook along Butterhill Road. The

existing slopes at the corners of the bridge are over‐steepened and require

stabilization to ensure they remain intact during and following construction.



Additionally, the existing riprap along the north bank of Lafayette Brook at Butterhill

Road is failing and causing erosion and sloughing of the embankment.

Approximately 32 sq. ft. (32 lin. ft.) of permanent wetland (bed) impacts and 615 sq.

ft. (145 lin. ft.) of permanent non‐wetland (bank) is associated with this work.

4.2 Proposed Temporary Impacts

To complete the bridge rehabilitation and the slope stabilization, temporary impacts

in the bed and along the banks of Lafayette Brook is required to install water

diversion structures during construction. These diversion structures, will allow the

brook to continue to flow under the bridge. Areas within the water diversion

structures will allow construction workers access to the bridge without exposure to

the currents of the brook. Placement of riprap will be accomplished within the water

diversion structures from equipment positioned beyond the top of bank.

Approximately 395 sq. ft. (105 lin. ft.) of temporary bed impact and 701 sq. ft. (136 lin.

ft.) of temporary bank impact is associated with this work.

4.3 Mitigation and Best Management Practices

No compensatory mitigation is necessary for the proposed project since the

permanent wetland impacts are limited to the repair of an existing riprap slope. This

understanding was confirmed during discussions at the August 19, 2015 NHDOT

Natural Resource Agency Coordination Meeting with Lori Sommer and Gino

Infascelli. (See Appendix F for meeting minutes.)

While no project‐specific compensatory mitigation is proposed, Best Management

Practices (BMPs) will be applied, including erosion and turbidity control measures

which will be installed prior to construction and will be maintained throughout the

duration of construction to protect the water quality of Lafayette Brook and nearby

pond and wetlands. Water diversion structures will minimize any turbid discharge

to Lafayette Brook. Refer to the Wetland Plans in Appendix C for further

information.

5.0 Natural Resource Descriptions

A delineation of wetlands and surface waters within the project area was performed

on June 5, 2014 by Kristopher Wilkes, NH CWS #288, and these data have been

incorporated into the project base plan (refer to Figure 2, Wetland Resources).



5.1 Lafayette Brook

Top‐of‐bank along the southern and northern bank of Lafayette Brook was

delineated within the project area, extending approximately 100 feet upstream of the

bridge and 550 feet downstream of the bridge. This reach of Lafayette Brook varies in

width from approximately 15 to 30 feet and consists of cobble and boulder substrate.

The banks are well‐defined and fairly steep with several areas of erosion present as

the brook traverses through the project area. Within the project limits, Lafayette

Brook is classified as Riverine Upper Perennial Rock Bottom Rubble Permanently

Flooded (R3RB2H) stream.

A Stream Geomorphic Assessment of the reach of Lafayette Brook within the area of

the bridge was conducted by VHB on July 28, 2016. This assessment evaluated the

condition of the stream within 200 feet upstream and 200 feet downstream of the

bridge. Lafayette Brook approaches the bridge structure at a naturally straight angle,

and is bordered on either side by a deciduous or mixed deciduous and coniferous

forest. Boulders (10.1 – 160 inches) are the dominant bed material present within the

stream. Additional features of Lafayette Brook around the bridge structure include:

Bank stabilization: Rip‐rap is placed along a portion of the northern bank

approximately 150 feet upstream from the bridge. A stone clad retaining wall

is located along the northern bank approximately 200 feet downstream of the

bridge.

Bank erosion: Moderate erosion along the northern and bank failure and

significant scour present along southern bank upstream of the bridge.

Downstream from the bridge along the southern bank is low to moderate

erosion, and low erosion along the northern bank.

Sediment deposits: Sediment deposits were noted along the channel near

the southern bank. A point bar was located approximately 100 feet

downstream of the bridge inside a meander bend along the northern bank of

the brook.

Stream bank scour: Some stream bank scour was noted approximately 100

feet downstream of the bridge abutments.

The data and pictures from the Stream Geomorphic Assessment are available in

Appendix D.

5.2 Lovetts Inn Pond

A small man‐made pond (Lovetts Inn Pond) is located along the eastern side of

Profile Road to the south of the bridge. The pond is classified as a Palustrine

Unconsolidated Bottom Sand Permanently Flooded (PUB2H) wetland. Top‐of‐bank

was delineated along this resource. The pond banks are fairly well‐defined along the

north, west, and south side of the pond, but less defined along the pond’s eastern

side where a small wetland borders the pond’s edge. The wetland is classified as a



Palustrine Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded/Saturated (PEM1E) wetland. An

intermittent stream channel (potentially man‐made) which appears to originate from

Lafayette Brook flows from east to west through this wetland before it outlets into

the pond. The channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and consists of accumulated

sand and gravel. The channel was dry at the time of delineation.

The centerline of a drainage ditch, originating at an old concrete dam spill‐way

located along the northern side of Lovetts Inn Pond and which outlets to Lafayette

Brook, was delineated during the course of the environmental field survey. This

ditch is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and is made up of cobble and gravel. The

ditch was dry at the time of delineation.

5.3 Adjacent Wetland

Lastly, a small wetland was delineated within the forested area north of the

construction limits of this project. The wetland’s western boundary abuts the eastern

shoulder of Profile Road. The wetland outlets under Profile Road via an 18‐inch

corrugated metal pipe to Lafayette Brook. The wetland is classified as a Palustrine

Forested Broad‐leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded (PFO1C) wetland. No impacts

to this wetland are proposed or anticipated.

5.4 Floodplains and Floodways

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) produced for Grafton County, the project area is located

within the 100‐year floodplain of Lafayette Brook (refer to Appendix E). No negative

impacts to floodplains are anticipated as a result of the proposed project work since

the proposed rehabilitation of the bridge will be hydrologically beneficial to

Lafayette Brook and will maintain the existing hydrologic flow of Lafayette Brook

through the bridge. During the construction phase of the project, temporary BMPs

would be implemented to reduce the amount of erosion or sedimentation that may

occur as a result of construction work.

Project work includes stabilizing the bank of Lafayette Brook along Butterhill Road to

address an existing erosion problem. Appropriate erosion and sedimentation

controls would be implemented prior to work on the shoulder of Butterhill Road.

These measurements may include the temporary installation of erosion controls such

as a silt fence and/or compost or mulch socks. Additionally a water diversion

structure would be installed where construction is proposed along the bank to

minimize impacts to Lafayette Brook. Areas of exposed soil would be kept to a

minimum and permanent vegetative cover or other forms of stabilization would be

established as soon as practical.



Additional information is provided in Section 6.0 regarding New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Science (NHDES) rules relative to stream crossings

(Env‐Wt 900), which will ensure that there are no substantial impacts to the

floodplain.

5.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

A search for the occurrence of rare plant, animal, or natural communities within the

vicinity of the project area was completed using the NH Natural Heritage Bureau’s

(NHNHB) DataCheck tool. The report dated September 20, 2016 identified no

recorded occurrences for sensitive species or natural communities near the project

area (refer to Appendix F). No further consultation with this agency is necessary.

The proposed project was also reviewed for the presence of federally‐listed or

proposed, threatened or endangered species, designated critical habitat or other

natural resources of concern through the US Fish and Wildlife Services’ Information

Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System. Results dated September 20, 2016

indicated Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) and Northern Long‐eared Bat (Myotis

septentrionalis) may occur within the vicinity of the project (refer to Appendix F).

Since the project is limited to the bridge structure, with a small amount of impact to

the bank of Lafayette Brook along Butterhill Road and no tree clearing proposed, no

impacts to Canada Lynx are anticipated as a result of the project.

With regard to potential impacts to Northern long‐eared bats (NLEB), there are no

known hibernacula within ¼ mile of the project site, nor are there any known

maternal roost trees within 150 feet. Furthermore, it should be noted that no mature

trees would be removed as a result of the project, and a desktop review of photos of

the outside and underside of the bridge shows no evidence of the presence of bats or

suitable bat habitat around or underneath the bridge (refer to Appendix B,

Representative Site Photographs). Therefore no impacts to the NLEB are anticipated

to occur as a result of bridge rehabilitation. In accordance with the procedures

contained in the FHWA/FRA Range‐wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for Indiana

Bat and Northern Long‐eared Bat, May 29, 2015, a Project Submittal Form was

completed in order to document this finding (see Appendix G, NLEB Project

Submittal Form).

The New Hampshire Fish and Game’s (NHF&G) Wildlife Action Plan was also

reviewed (Figure 3). The project area is not located within areas designated by

NHF&G as “Tier 1 – Highest Ranked Habitat in NH,” “Tier 2 – Highest Ranked

Habitat in Biological Region,” or “Tier 3 – Supporting Landscapes.”



6.0 Stream Crossings (Env-Wt 900)

The rehabilitation of Bridge #089/099 along NH 18 over Lafayette Brook must

address the stream crossing standards as outlined in the New Hampshire

Administrative Rule Env‐Wt 900. Under these rules, stream crossings are classified as

Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 based on the location of the project. This site meets the

requirements of a Tier 3 classification as defined by Env‐Wt 904.04(a): a tier 3 stream

crossing shall be a crossing located on a watercourse where the contributing

watershed is 640 acres or greater.

The required Tier 3 stream crossing design criteria are provided below in italics.

Responses on how the proposed crossing meets each requirement are provided

below the pertinent regulations.

Env‐Wt 904.04 Tier 3 Stream Crossings.

(a) Subject to (b), below, a tier 3 stream crossing shall be a crossing located: (1) On a watercourse where the contributing watershed is 640 acres or

greater;

(2) Within a designated river corridor; (3) On a watercourse that is listed on the surface water assessment 305(b)

report in effect at the time of application as not attaining surface water

quality standards for aquatic life based on one or more of the following:

a. Benthic macroinvertebrate index of biological integrity;

b. Fish assemblage index of biological integrity; c. Habitat assessment; or

d. Stream channel stability;

(4) Within a 100‐year flood plain or fluvial erosion hazard zone; (5) In a jurisdictional area having any protected species or habitat; or (6) In or within 100 feet of a wetland that has been designated by a

municipality as a prime wetland pursuant to RSA 482‐A:15, unless a

waiver has been granted pursuant to RSA 482‐A:11, IV(b).

The watershed of Lafayette Brook in the location of Bridge #089/099 is greater

than 640 acres (the watershed is approximately 4,750 acres), therefore Lafayette

Brook is a Tier 3 stream (refer to Figure 4).

(b) The applicant for a project in which a stream crossing is categorized as tier 3 based solely on (a)(3) or (4), above, may request that the crossing be categorized

as a tier one or tier 2 stream crossing, as applicable based on watershed size, if

there are no impacts to the resource or the impacts to the resource are

specifically mitigated in accordance with Env‐Wt 800.

Not applicable.



(c) If an applicant for a project in which a stream crossing is categorized as tier 3 based solely on (a)(5), above, wishes to have the crossing categorized as tier one

or tier 2 based on watershed size, the applicant shall consult with the NHB if

any protected plant species or habitat is impacted or the NHF&G if any

protected wildlife species or habitat is impacted. The department shall

downgrade the stream crossing to tier one or tier 2, with mitigation if necessary,

if the NHB or NHF&G, as applicable, recommend such a downgrade.

Not applicable.

(d) A tier 3 stream crossing shall be a span structure or an open‐bottomed culvert

with stream simulation, not a closed‐bottom culvert or pipe arch.

The existing Bridge #089/099 spans Lafayette Brook, allowing the natural brook

channel to flow under the bridge without obstruction. The proposed

rehabilitation of the bridge will maintain the open bottom characteristics of the

existing bridge, allowing the brook to flow naturally underneath the bridge.

Therefore, the proposed project complies with this requirement.

(e) The applicant shall use an alternative design only if the request is submitted and

approved as specified in Env‐Wt 904.09.

Not applicable.

(f) Compensatory mitigation shall not be required for: (1) Any new tier 3 stream crossing that is self‐mitigating; or

(2) Any replacement of a crossing that met all applicable requirements when originally installed but is in a location that results in the

crossing being classified as tier 3 under these rules, provided the

proposed stream crossing meets the requirements of Env‐Wt 904.08.

No compensatory mitigation is required for the proposed project as indicated by

Lori Sommer, NHDES Mitigation Coordinator. (Refer to Appendix F for

Resource Agency Meeting notes.) The proposed rehabilitation meets the

requirements of Env‐Wt 904.08. A stream geomorphic assessment is provided in

this application (see Section 5.1), and an Alternative Design Report is provided

below. Additionally, permanent wetland impacts are limited to repair of an

existing riprap slope within its existing footprint.

(g) Plans for a tier 3 stream crossing shall be stamped by a professional engineer who is licensed under RSA 310‐A to practice in New Hampshire.

See Appendix C for a copy of the project plans which have been stamped by a

NH professional licensed engineer.



(h) Construction involving in‐stream work shall be limited to low flow conditions.

The proposed work will likely be conducted during April and May in order to

reduce the impacts to the surrounding community related to the 6.3 mile detour

that is expected to last approximately eight weeks. Due to the nature of the

project (superstructure replacement, with limited in‐stream work for rip‐rap

replacement), no work is proposed to be conducted in the flowing water other

than the installation of water diversion structures. These structures will allow for

the continual flow of Lafayette Brook.

(i) Crossings that require excavation in flowing water shall use best management

practices, such as temporary by‐pass pipes, culverts, or cofferdams, so as to

maintain normal flows and prevent water quality degradation.

Water diversion structures will allow for the toe and lower sections of riprap

slope stabilization to be constructed without excavating in flowing water.

Env‐Wt 904.05 Design Criteria for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Stream Crossings

(a) In accordance with the NH Stream Crossing Guidelines, University of New

Hampshire, May 2009, which can be downloaded for free at

http://des.nh.gov/ogranization/divisions/water/wetlands/documents/nh‐stream‐

crossings.pdf ;

The design for the proposed project is in accordance with the NH Stream

Crossing Guidelines (May 2009) (referred to herein as “Guidelines”) referenced

above, with the exception of the existing width of the structure. According to the

Guidelines, the standard for streambed widths inside the bridge structure is 1.2

times the bankfull width plus 2 feet. The bankfull width at the existing bridge

structure is 36 feet. (See Appendix D.) Therefore, according to the Guidelines the

recommended span width of a new bridge structure would be approximately 45

feet. The proposed rehabilitation will maintain the existing bridge span of

approximately 37 feet, which may be slightly restrictive of the natural

geomorphic characteristics of Lafayette Brook according to the Guidelines.

However, as stated in the Guidelines, these standards do not apply for all

situations and all streams, as the geomorphic characteristics of each stream is

different. Bridge #089/099 was constructed over Lafayette Brook in the 1930s and

has remained in good condition over various stream flow conditions through the

years.

The standards for bankfull width outlined in the Guidelines are meant to ensure

the balance of sediment erosion and deposition as well as aquatic organism

passage. Currently the banks of Lafayette Brook are being eroded upstream of

the bridge and to a lesser degree downstream of the bridge. Maintaining the

existing bridge substructure and applying rip‐rap to the banks of Lafayette Brook

is the most cost‐effective alternative at this time to address the structural



deficiencies of the bridge. Replacing the bridge completely would significantly

increase impacts to the brook and nearby wetland resources as a much wider

bridge would need to be constructed with realignments of the roadways.

Additionally, the existing span of the bridge does not restrict the passage of

aquatic organisms during normal to high flow conditions. Therefore it is

recommended that the existing span of the bridge be maintained as proposed for

the rehabilitation work.

(b) With the bed forms and streambed characteristics necessary to cause water depths and velocities within the crossing structure at a variety of flows to be

comparable to those found in the natural channel upstream and downstream of

the stream crossing;

The existing bridge structure allows the water depths and flows of the brook to

pass underneath the bridge as under natural conditions.

(c) To provide a vegetated bank on both sides of the watercourse to allow for

wildlife passage;

During normal to low flow conditions there would be exposed banks along both

sides of Lafayette Brook underneath Bridge #089/099, allowing for wildlife

passage. The banks would be typically unvegetated during most of the season,

similar to the existing condition which is characteristic of high gradient streams

in the White Mountain region.

(d) To preserve the natural alignment and gradient of the stream channel, so as to

accommodate natural flow regimes and the functioning of the natural

floodplain;

The existing flow of Lafayette Brook will be maintained after the proposed

rehabilitation work is completed. No changes from the current conditions of the

channel, flow regime, or floodplain of the brook will result from the proposed

project. Proposed project work involves the rehabilitation of the existing bridge,

which includes the improvement of the hydraulic opening by increasing the

vertical clearance under the bridge.

(e) To accommodate the 100‐year frequency flood, to ensure that: (1) There is no increase in flood stages on abutting properties; and

(2) Flow and sediment transport characteristics will not be affected in a manner which could adversely affect channel stability;

The proposed design fully passes the 100‐year frequency flood and therefore

meets this criterion. There is no increase in the flood stages upstream or

downstream of the bridge associated with this project. The existing abutments

are to remain and the new superstructure provides additional vertical clearance

and freeboard for the design flood. Since the hydraulic opening is unchanged,



the channel velocities are not affected by the project thereby maintaining the

sediment transport mechanisms and channel forms that already exist.

(f) To simulate a natural stream channel; and

The existing stream channel will be maintained during and after the proposed

rehabilitation work is completed. No work will be conducted within the channel

of Lafayette Brook with the exception of the placement of temporary water

diversion structures around each bridge abutment and along the bank repair

area located along Butterhill Road.

(g) So as not to alter sediment transport competence.

The natural transportation of sediment within the stream channel will be

maintained during and after the proposed rehabilitation work is completed.

Water diversion structures and erosion control barriers will be installed to

minimize the potential of additional sediment entering the stream during

construction.

Env‐Wt 904.08 Replacing Tier 3 Existing Legal Stream Crossings

(a) As part of an application for replacing an existing legal crossing that would be classified as a tier 3 stream under Env‐Wt 904.04(a), the applicant shall provide

an assessment of the geomorphic compatibility of the existing stream crossing

based on the NH Stream Crossing Guidelines, University of New Hampshire,

May 2009, which can be downloaded for free at http://www.unh.edu/erg/

stream_restoration/.

A Stream Geomorphic Assessment of the reach of Lafayette Brook within the

area of the bridge was conducted by VHB on July 28, 2016. A description of this

assessment is provided in Section 5.1. Additionally, the data and pictures from

the Stream Geomorphic Assessment are available in Appendix D.

(b) A replacement tier 3 stream crossing shall comply with the specific design criteria in Env‐Wt 904.05, unless a request for an alternative design is submitted

and approved as specified in Env‐Wt 904.09.

As explained in Env‐Wt 904.05(a) above, the proposed tier 3 stream crossing

rehabilitation complies with the specific design criteria as outlined in

Env‐Wt 904.05, with the exception of the recommended span. Further

information explaining why a fully compliant project is not practicable is

provided in Env‐Wt 904‐09(c) below.



Env‐Wt 904.09 Alternative Designs

(a) If the applicant believes that installing the structure specified in the applicable rule is not practicable, as that term is defined in Env‐Wt 101.73, the applicant

may propose an alternative design in accordance with this section.

The proposed rehabilitation of the existing bridge structure meets all of the

standards outlined in the NH Stream Crossing Guidelines (May 2009), except

that the proposed retention of the existing abutments does not provide a span of

1.2 times the bankfull width plus 2 feet, as explained above at Env‐Wt 904.05(a).

Below, we provide an alternative design report, as required by Env‐Wt 904.09,

which we believe demonstrates that a fully compliant project is not practicable.

(b) To request approval of an alternative design, the applicant shall submit a

written request to the department, accompanied by a technical report prepared

by an environmental scientist or professional engineer that clearly explains how

the proposed alternative meets the criteria for approval specified in (c) or (d),

below, as applicable.

See the information provided below, which provides the information required by

Env‐Wt 904.09(c).

(c) The department shall approve an alternative design for a new tier 2 crossing, a

replacement tier 2 crossing that does not meet the requirements of Env‐Wt

904.07, or a new or replacement tier 3 crossing if:

(1) The report submitted pursuant to (b), above, demonstrates that adhering

to the stated requirements is not practicable;

(2) The proposed alternative meets the specific design criteria specified in Env‐Wt 904.05 to the maximum extent practicable; and

(3) The alternative design meets the general design criteria specified in Env‐Wt 904.01.

In order to fully comply with the NH Stream Crossing Guidelines, one or both of

the abutments would have to be replaced. During project planning, a full bridge

replacement was considered as an alternative to the proposed action, but was

rejected because:

The existing abutments were found to be structurally sound and of

durable quality;

The bridge was determined eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places on September 10, 2014, and retaining some of the

architectural structure of the bridge would be historically valuable;

Replacement of the bridge abutments would increase temporary impacts

to Lafayette Brook during construction;

Replacement of the bridge abutments would substantially increase the

cost of the project; and



Based on the results of the geomorphic analysis, the existing span of the

bridge does not significantly impact sediment transport characteristics or

restrict the passage of aquatic organisms during normal to high flow

conditions.

Based on these considerations, the full replacement of the bridge in order to

achieve the 45 foot span recommended by the NH Stream Crossing Guidelines

was determined to be impractical. Please also see the information provided

above at Env‐Wt 904.05.

(d) The department shall approve an alternative design for a new tier one crossing

or a replacement tier one crossing that does not meet the requirements of Env‐Wt

904.07 if:

(1) The report submitted pursuant to (b), above, demonstrates that adhering

to the rules is not practicable; and

(2) The alternative design meets the general design criteria specified in Env‐Wt 904.01 to the maximum extent practicable.

Not applicable.


Figures

Figures

Figure 1 .................................................................................. USGS Project Location Map

Figure 2 ......................................................................................... Wetland Resources Map

Figure 3 ...................................................................................... Wildlife Action Plan Map

Figure 4 ........................................................................................................ Watershed Map

Figure 1- USGS Locus MapFranconia (NH#24497)Profile Road (NH 18) over Lafayette Brook

Franconia, New Hampshire

l0 2,000 4,000 Feet

Approximate Project Limits

Project Location

Path: \\Vhb\proj\Wat-LD\08518.05\reports\Block 5 NOI\Figures

USGS Quads: Franconia, Sugar Hill

Lovetts Inn

BUTTERHILL ROAD

l0 100 200 Feet

Delineated Wetland Edge

Delineated Stream Top of Bank

Delineated Stream Center Line

Delineated Ditch

Open Water

Wetland

File\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.02 Franconia\GIS\Project\2015_Figures\Figure6_WetlandResources.mxd

Source: ArcGIS Online, NHGRANIT, VHB

NH Route 18 over Lafayette Brook Bridge # 089/099Figure 2Wetland ResourcesFranconia, NH

PR

OF

ILE R

OA

D

?«

?«

PR

OFILE

RO

AD

BUTTERHILL ROAD

Aþ

Project Location

1 inch = 100 feet

Lafayette Brook

l0 400 800 Feet

Brook, Stream, River

1 Highest Ranked Habitat in New Hampshire

2 Highest Ranked Habitat in Biological Region

3 Supporting Landscapes

File\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.02 Franconia\GIS\Project\2015_Figures\Figure2_WAP.mxd

Source: ArcGIS Online, NHGRANIT

NH Route 18 over Lafayette Brook Bridge # 089/099Figure 3Wildlife Action PlanFranconia, NH

Meadow Brook

Lafayette BrookP

RO

FILE

RO

AD

Beaver Brook

PRO

FILE RO

AD

BUTTERHILL ROAD

Project Location

1 inch = 400 feet

l0 2,500 5,000 Feet

Approximate Project Catchment Area (4,750 Acres)

USGS HUC-12 Watershed

River/Stream (Longest Flow Path ~ 5.5 Miles)

100-Year Floodplain

Index Contour - 100'

20' interval

File\\NHBEDATA\projects\52380.02 Franconia\GIS\Project\Watersheddea.mxd

Source: ArcGIS Online, NHGRANIT

NH Route 18 over Lafayette BrookBridge # 089/099

Franconia, NH

Figure 4Watershed Map

Approximate Project Location

1 inch = 2,500 feet


Appendices

Appendices A through G

Appendix A ...................................................................... Bridge Inspection Report

Appendix B .......................................................... Representative Site Photographs

Appendix C ............................................................................................ Project Plans

Appendix D ......................................................... Stream Geomorphic Assessment

Appendix E ......................................................... FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map

Appendix F ........................................ Natural Resource Agency Correspondence

Appendix G ........... NLEB Project Submittal Form and Bridge Inspection From


Appendix A – Bridge Inspection Report

Appendix A

Bridge Inspection Report


New Hampshire Department of Transportation Existing Bridge Section

Franconia 089/099

Bureau of Bridge Design

Over

NHDOT

Picture taken during inspection��

Owner:

Date Report Sent:

Date of Inspection: 11/06/2015

1/13/2016NH 18

LAFAYETTE BROOK

Recommended Postings:

Weight: E2 Weight Sign OK��

Substructure:

Culvert:

Deck:

Condition:

Superstructure:

Structure Type and Materials:

%Sufficiency Rating:

NBI Status:

38.9

Plan Location:

NH Bridge Type:

Rail Transition:

Bridge Approach Rail:

Approach Rail Ends:

Bridge Rail:

Clearances:

(Feet) 0.00

Route:

Under:

Over:

Structurally Deficient

N N/A (NBI)

4 Poor

State Redlist

4 Poor

7 Good

Substandard

Substandard

Substandard

Substandard

M-9

Concrete Tee Beam

Deck Type: Concrete, Cast in Place

Wearing Surface: Bituminous

Membrane: None

Deck Protection:

Optional Centerline Height Sign Rec: None

None

Curb Reveal:

Pavement thickness:

None

Number of Approach Spans: 0

1Number of Spans Main Unit:

Not Applicable

4.9 in

Primary Height Sign Recommendation: Height Signs OK��

Width: Not Required Width Sign OK��

23.9 ft

0.7 ft

52.0 ft

Bridge Dimensions:

23.0 ft

Width Curb to Curb:

Length Maximum Span:

Left Curb/Sidewalk Width:

Total Bridge Width:

Total Bridge Length:

Right Curb/Sidewalk Width:

Approach Roadway Width (W/ Shoulders):

56.0 ft

0.7 ft

29.2 ft

Median: No median

Bridge Skew: 45.00 °

Bridge Service:

Year Built:Type of Service on Bridge:

Type of Service under: Year Rebuilt:

Detour Length:Lanes on bridge:

Lanes Under:

Not Rebuilt

5.0 mi

1932Highway

Waterway

2

NA

Year of AADT:10 %

Year of Future AADT:947

640AADT:

Future AADT:

2012

2035

Percent Trucks:

Main Span Material and Design Type

Tee BeamConcrete

NHDOT 008 Inspection Thu 2/25/2016 14:17:22

Page 1 of 8Franconia 089/099



Franconia 089/099


Bridge Scour Critical Status:

Waterway Adequacy:

Channel/Channel Protection:

Structural Evaluation:

Approach Alignment:

Underclearances:

Deck Geometry:

Riprap Condition:

Debris Present:LIGHT SCOUR. MODERATE BANK EROSION. LIGHT VEGETATION.

Above Mininimum Criteria

Bank Slumping

Minimum Tolerable

Equal Desirable Criteria

Not Applicable (NBI)

Minimum Tolerable

Fair Condition

Stable for extreme flood

Debris Present

National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Appraisal Ratings:

Date of Underwater Inspection: Not Applicable

Rural Min. Collector

Primary-DOT Maintained

Eligible (Historic)

Two-way traffic

Fed. Definition BridgeFederal or State Definition Bridge:

Roadway Functional Class:

New Hampshire Highway System and Class:

Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places:

Traffic Direction:

AASHTO CoRe Element Condition State Data:

No. Description Env. Material Notes and Condition Notes

13 Concrete Deck - Unprotected, with Asphalt Pavement

CORE DRILLED IN AREAS. LIGHT CRACKS THROUGHOUT IN PAVEMENT.DELAMINATIONS, CRACKS AND HEAVY SPALLS ALONG THE US CURB WITH MANYRUSTED REBAR'S EXPOSED.

Moderate

110 Reinforced Concrete Beam or Girder (Open Web)

CTB'S WITH EXTERIORS ARCHED

CRACKS AND HEAVY LEAKING IN EXTERIOR GIRDERS; MINOR TO LIGHT SPALLS ANDDELAMINATIONS IN DOWNSTREAM GIRDER ALONG FASCIA STONES.

Moderate

215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment

FEW LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS, LIGHT EFFLORESCENCE.

Moderate

217 Other Material Abutment

C.I.P. WINGS WITH STONE MASONRY

CRACKS AND LOOSE MORTAR.

Moderate

333 Other Material Bridge Railing

CONCRETE PARAPET WITH FACED WITH MORTARED FIELD STONE.

CRACKS IN MORTAR WITH FEW LOOSENED STONES AND CAP STONES; ONE CRACKEDMASONRY STONE AT SE CORNER.

Moderate

359 Soffit of Conc Deck or Slab Condition Warning Flag

FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS; A FEW REBAR'SEXPOSED. SMALL AREA OF MODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE TOHEAVY LEAKING AT STONE FASCIA AND CURB LINES.

Moderate

State 5State 2State 1 State 4State 3DescriptionNo. UnitsEnv. Quantity

13 Concrete Deck - Unprotected, with Asphalt Pavement (SF) 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 %Moderate 1,604





Franconia 089/099


State 5State 2State 1 State 4State 3DescriptionNo. UnitsEnv. Quantity

110 Reinforced Concrete Beam or Girder (Open Web) (LF) 42 % 18 % 40 % 0 %Moderate 213

215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment (LF) 85 % 15 % 0 % 0 %Moderate 79

217 Other Material Abutment (LF) 80 % 15 % 5 % 0 %Moderate 105

333 Other Material Bridge Railing (LF) 35 % 65 % 0 %Moderate 200

359 Soffit of Conc Deck or Slab Condition Warning Flag (EA) 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 %Moderate 1

Bridge Notes:

Added to Red List 2010

Inspection History:

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:

11/06/2015 Inspector: MAHInspection Date:

Notes:

MAH inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: SEVERAL LOOSENED STONES AND CAP STONES. CRACKS INMASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH WIDE ALONG D/S VERTICAL FASCIA STONES AT MID SPAN.ONE CRACKED STONE UP TO 3/16" AT SE ABOVE VERTICAL FASCIA STONES;UNCHANGED THIS DATE.DECK/SUPER: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS; A FEWREBAR'S EXPOSED. SMALL AREA OF MODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS.MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKING AT STONE FASCIA AND CURB LINES. FINE AND LIGHTCRACKS WITH LEAKING AND EFFLORESCENCE IN EXTERIOR STEMS. LIGHT SPALLSAND DELAMINATIONS ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.PAVEMENT: LIGHT CRACKS, FEW PATCHED TEST HOLES; DELAMINATIONS ALONGCURBS. CRACKS WITH MODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS WITH REBAR EXPOSED INCURBS.SUB: FEW LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

PICTURE: A411-38.

4 Poor

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:

04/29/2015 Inspector: TDCInspection Date:

Notes:

TDC inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: SEVERAL LOOSENED STONES AND CAP STONES. CRACKS INMASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH WIDE ALONG D/S VERTICAL FASCIA STONES AT MID SPAN.ONE CRACKED STONE UP TO 3/16" AT SE ABOVE VERTICAL FASCIA STONES;UNCHANGED.DECK/SUPER: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALLAREA OF MODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKINGAT STONE FASCIA AND CURB LINES. FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING ANDEFFLORESCENCE IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHT SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS ALONGSTONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.PAVEMENT: LIGHT CRACKS, FEW PATCHED TEST HOLES; DELAMINATIONS ALONGCURBS. CRACKS WITH MODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS WITH REBAR EXPOSED INCURBS.SUB: FEW LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

PICTURES: A397-12 THRU 13.

4 Poor

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

PAVEMENT: CRACKED. (7)EMBANKMENTS WASHED.NO APPROACH RAIL.

Approach and Roadway Notes:





Franconia 089/099


Inspection History:

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

MAH inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH; SEVERAL LOOSENEDSTONES AND CAP STONES. ONE CRACKED STONE UP TO 3/16" AT SE ABOVE VERTICALFASCIA STONES.DECK/SUPER: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALLAREA OF MODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKINGAT STONE FASCIA AND CURBLINES. FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING ANDEFFLORESCENCE IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHT SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS ALONGSTONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.PAVEMENT: FEW LIGHT CRACKS, FEW PATCHED TEST HOLES; DELAMINATIONS ALONGCURBS. CRACKS WITH MODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS WITH REBAR EXPOSED INCURBS.SUB: FEW LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.


4 Poor

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

TDC inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH; SEVERAL LOOSENEDSTONES AND CAP STONES. ONE CRACKED STONE UP TO 3/16" AT SE ABOVE VERTICALFASCIA STONES.DECK/SUPER: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALLAREA OF MODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKINGAT STONE FASCIA AND CURBLINES. FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING INEXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHT SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS ALONG STONE WORK ONDOWNSTREAM GIRDER.PAVEMENT: FEW LIGHT CRACKS, FEW PATCHED TEST HOLES; DELAMINATIONS ALONGCURBS. CRACKS WITH MODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS WITH REBAR EXPOSED INCURBS.SUB: FEW LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.


5 Fair

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

TDC inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH; SEVERAL LOOSENEDSTONES AND CAP STONES. ONE CRACKED STONE UP TO 3/16" AT SE ABOVE VERTICALFASCIA STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT; FEW CRACKS IN SB LANE, DELAMINATIONSALONG CURBS. CRACKS WITH MODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS WITH REBAR EXPOSEDIN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHTDELAMINATIONS FORMING ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.SUB: FEW LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.


5 Fair

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)





Franconia 089/099


Inspection History:

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

TDC & MAH inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH; SEVERAL LOOSENEDSTONES AND CAP STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT; FEW CRACKS IN SB LANE, DELAMINATIONSALONG CURBS. CRACKS WITH MODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS WITH REBAR EXPOSEDIN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHTDELAMINATIONS FORMING ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.SUB: FEW LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.PICTURES: A349-14 THRU 15.

5 Fair

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

TDC & MAH inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH; SEVERAL LOOSENEDSTONES AND CAP STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT NEAR NEW CONDITION. CRACKS WITHMODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHTDELAMINATIONS FORMING ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

5 Fair

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

MAH inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH; SEVERAL LOOSENEDSTONES AND CAP STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT NEAR NEW CONDITION. CRACKS WITHMODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHTDELAMINATIONS FORMING ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

5 Fair

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

MAH inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH; SEVERAL LOOSENEDSTONES AND CAP STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT NEAR NEW CONDITION. CRACKS WITHMODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHTDELAMINATIONS FORMING ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

5 Fair

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)





Franconia 089/099


Inspection History:

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:

04/26/2011 Inspector: WBLInspection Date:

Notes:

WBL inspection comments - ***SEE STRUCTURE NOTES***STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY UP TO 3/8 INCH; SEVERAL LOOSENEDSTONES AND CAP STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE AND HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT NEAR NEW CONDITION. CRACKS WITHMODERATE AND HEAVY SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHTDELAMINATIONS FORMING ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

PICTURES: A299- 27 THRU 31. (4/11)

5 Fair

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

WBL inspection comments - SPECIAL INSPECTION - ADDED TO RED LISTSTONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY; FEW LOOSENED STONES AND CAPSTONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE TO HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT IN NEW CONDITION. CRACKS WITH MODERATEAND HEAVY SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHTDELAMINATIONS FORMING ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

PICTURES: A290- (10-29-10)48: AREA OF MODERATE LEAKING AT NW END.49: TYPICAL CRACKS AND LEAKING IN DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.50: STAINS AND MINOR SPALLS AT SOUTH END CENETERLINE CONSTRUCTION JOINT.51: AREA OF MODERATE LEAKING AT SE END.52: TYPICAL CRACKS AND LEAKING IN UPSTREAM GIRDER.53: TYPICAL CRACKS ALONG TOP OF ARCH FASCIA STONES.54: HEAVY SPALLS IN UPSTREAM CURB.55: MODERATE TO HEAVY SPALLS IN DOWNSTREAM CURB.

5 Fair

4 Poor

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

WBL inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY AND FEW LOOSENED CAP STONES. NEEND CAP MOVED OUT OF POSITION.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE TO HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT CRACKED. CRACKS AND MEDIUM TO HEAVYSPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS. LIGHTDELAMINATIONS FORMING ALONG STONE WORK ON DOWNSTREAM GIRDER.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.PICTURE A269- (3-10)32: TYPICAL CRACKS IN STONE FACIA.33: CRACK AND LIGHT LEAKING AREA IN DECK AT NW.36: TYPICAL OF CRACKS AND LEAKING IN EXTERIOR CTB's.37: HEAVY SPALLS IN UPSTREAM CURB.

5 Fair

5 Fair

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)





Franconia 089/099


Inspection History:

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:

05/30/2008 Inspector: BEPInspection Date:

Notes:

BEP inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY AND FEW LOOSENED CAP STONES. NEEND CAP MOVED OUT OF POSITION.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW AND SE ENDS. MODERATE TO HEAVY LEAKING AT STONEFASCIA AND CURBLINES. PAVEMENT CRACKED. CRACKS AND MEDIUM TO HEAVYSPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

PICTURE A235-33: TYPICAL OF CRACKS AND LEAKING IN EXTERIOR CTB's.34: FINE CRACK WITH MODERATE LEAKING NEAR NW END OF DECK.

5 Fair

5 Fair

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

BEP inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY AND SEVERAL LOOSENED CAP STONES.NE END CAP MOVED OUT OF POSITION.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW END. LEAKING THROUGH EXTERIOR T-BEAMS ATCURBLINES. HEAVY LEAKING IN STONE FASCIA. PAVEMENT CRACKED. CRACKS ANDMEDIUM TO HEAVY SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

PICTURE A210-07: BOTTOM OF DOWNSTREAM CTB CRACKED AND LEAKING. HEAVY LEAKING ATSTONE FASCIA.08: FINE CRACK WITH MODERATE LEAKING NEAR NW END OF DECK.

6 Satisfactory

6 Satisfactory

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

BEP inspection comments - ROAD RESURFACED IN 2002.STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY AND SEVERAL LOOSENED CAP STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN AREAS. SMALL AREA OFMODERATE LEAKING AT NW END. LEAKING THROUGH EXTERIOR CTB's AT CURBLINES.HEAVY LEAKING IN STONE FASCIA. PAVEMENT CRACKED. CRACKS AND MEDIUM TOHEAVY SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS WITH LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

PICTURE A177-21: FINE AND LIGHT CRACKS IN WEB OF DOWNSTREAM CTB.22: FINE CRACK WITH MODERATE LEAKING IN NW END OF DECK.23: BOTTOM OF DOWNSTREAM CTB CRACKED AND LEAKING. HEAVY LEAKING ATSTONE FASCIA. (UPSTREAM BEAM SIMILAR)

6 Satisfactory

6 Satisfactory

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)





Franconia 089/099


Inspection History:

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by DEP at 10/04/2002 10:28:47WBL inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY, SEVERAL LOOSE CAP STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS; LIGHT LEAKING IN AREAS.HEAVY LEAKING IN STONE FASCIA. PAVEMENT CRACKED; SOME SEALED. CRACKS ANDMEDIUM TO HEAVY SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE CRACKS AND LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.

PIC.A133-15: CRACKS AND LEAKING IN DOWNSTREAM EXTERIOR T-BEAM.

6 Satisfactory

6 Satisfactory

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by DEP at 10-25-2000 13:35:22WBL inspection comments -STONE MASONRY RAIL: CRACKS IN MASONRY, SEVERAL LOOSE CAP STONES.DECK: FINE CRACKS, MINOR SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS; LIGHT LEAKING IN AREAS.HEAVY LEAKING IN STONE FASCIA. PAVEMENT CRACKED; MOST SEALED. CRACKSAND MEDIUM SPALLS IN CURBS.SUPER: FINE CRACKS AND LEAKING IN EXTERIOR T-BEAMS.SUB: LIGHT CRACKS AND MINOR SPALLS.PIC. A086-33: SOUTH APPROACH.34: UPSTREAM ELEVATION.35: CRACKS AND LEAKING IN DOWNSTREAM EXTERIOR T-BEAM.

6 Satisfactory

6 Satisfactory

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by DEP at 12-23-98 08:01:01WBL inspection comments -

6 Satisfactory

6 Satisfactory

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:

05/01/1996 Inspector: Not AvailableInspection Date:

Notes:

6 Satisfactory

6 Satisfactory

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

6 Satisfactory

6 Satisfactory

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Deck:

Super:

Substr:

Culvert:


Notes:

6 Satisfactory

6 Satisfactory

7 Good

N N/A (NBI)

Copy Distribution:Border State Dept. of Res. and Econ. Dev.

(3) Bureau of Municipal Hghways

(2) Bureau of Municipal Hghways

Army Corps Of Engineers

Bureau of Rail and Transit

USDA Forest Service

Dept. of Environmental Services

Bureau of Turnpikes Railroad Bureau of Traffic



FRANCONIA 089/099

NH 18 over LAFAYETTE BROOK

Friday, November 06, 2015

A411 38

HEAVY SPALLS ALONG THE US CURB WITH MANY REBAR'S EXPOSED.

FRANCONIA 089/099


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

A397 12

CRACKS IN MORTAR ABOVE VERTICAL FASCIA STONES AT MIDSPAN UP TO 3/8" WIDE.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

A397 13

OVERALL CONDITION OF ASPHALT.

FRANCONIA 089/099


Tuesday, November 25, 2014

A391 42

HEAVY LEAKING AND EFFLORESCENCE IN UNDERSIDE OF DS EXTERIOR STEM.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

A391 43

CORE TEST SAMPLE HOLES IN AREAS OF THE DECK.

FRANCONIA 089/099


Monday, April 21, 2014

A372 26

MANY CRACKS, EFFLORESCENCE, SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN DS EXTERIOR TEE BEAM AT FASCIA STONES.


A372 27

CORE SAMPLE TEST AREA APPROXIMATELY CENTER OF SOUTH ABUTMENT; TYPICAL AT NW CORNER.


A372 28

CORE SAMPLE TEST AREA IN DECK AT SE; TYPICAL AT SW AND NW.

FRANCONIA 089/099


Tuesday, December 03, 2013

A367 37

CRACKS AND LEAKING AT DS CONCRETE TEE BEAM; TYPICAL AT US.

Tuesday, December 03, 2013

A367 38

CRACKED MASONRY RAIL STONE UP TO 3/16" AT SE ABOVE VERTICAL FASCIA STONES.

FRANCONIA 089/099


Thursday, April 04, 2013

A349 14

LIGHT DRIFT CAUGHT ON CONCRETE TEE BEAM AT DS NW.

Thursday, April 04, 2013

A349 15

LIGHT TO MODERATE EMBANKMENT EROSION AT US NE.

FRANCONIA 089/099


Tuesday, April 26, 2011

A299 27

UPSTREAM CURB HEAVILY SPALLED.


A299 28

UPSTREAM RAIL FACIA CRACKED.


A299 29

TYPICAL CRACKS AND LEAKING IN UPSTREAM CTB.

FRANCONIA 089/099



A299 30

CRACKS ALONG DOWNSTREAM RAIL FACIA UP TO 3/8 INCH.


A299 31

CRACKS AND LEAKING IN DOWNSTREAM CTB.


Appendix B – Representative Site Photographs

Appendix B

Representative Site Photographs

Representative Site Photographs June 5, 2014

Photo 1: View looking southeast and downstream of bridge and Lafayette Brook.

Photo 2: View of bridge and Lafayette Brook from Butterhill Road.


Photo 3: View north of Lafayette Brook along the western side of Profile Road, to the north of the bridge.

Photo 4: View looking west from Butterhill Road toward the intersection with Profile Road.


Photo 5: View looking south of the intersection of Butterhill Road (left) and Profile Road (right).

Photo 6: View looking north of Lovett’s Inn Pond adjacent to Profile Road.


Photo 7: View north of wetland area adjacent to Lovett’s Inn Pond.

Photo 8: View north of the drainage ditch between Lovett’s Inn Pond and Lafayette Brook.


Appendix C – Project Plans

Appendix C

Project Plans

drive

gravel

5.1'

c

2'c

.5'c

4.3'c

2'c

benchgran

lawn

stream

5.7' from ep

tree face

brushb

rush

hdr

stone

w

post

post

post

post

post

post

post

postmd

mb

lp

lp

lplp

ip

ip

ip

glgl

gl

gl

gl

glgl

gl

gl

gl

glgl

gl

bnd

bnd

bnd

bnd

bnd

bnd

bnd

an

an

an

an

1105.6

16

PER PLAN 4028

TO 18/27

ACCESS EASEMENT

APPROX. LOC.ECHO LAKE

PROFILE LAKE

EXIST 34C

EXIST 35

FRANCONIA

EXIT 36

EXIT 38

ROAD

BUTTERHILL

RO

AD

PR

OFI

LE

EXIT 37

3

93

93 142

18

18

141

TOTAL SHEETSSHEET NO.STATE PROJECT NO.FEDERAL PROJECT NO.

1CH

EC

KE

D

BY

DR

AW

N

BY

DA

TE

DA

TE

LOCATION MAP

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DESIGN DATA

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 20

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 20

PERCENT OF TRUCKS

DESIGN SPEED

LENGTH OF PROJECT (NH 18)

FUNCTIONAL CLASS

TE

H

ST

AT

E

OF

NE

W

HA

MPSHIRE

DEPARTME

NT

O

F

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TION

TOWN OF FRANCONIACOUNTY OF GRAFTON

SCALE: 1"= 60'24497 8

23

43

NH PROJECT NO. 24497

KD

W

JA

W

10/26/2016

10/26/2016

670

810

8.8%

40 mph

775 ft

205210

300

305

215

0

GRAPHIC SCALE

11 1/2 2 MI.

NH ROUTE 18 OVER LAFAYETTE BROOK

RURAL MINOR COLLECTOR

LAF

AYETTE BR

OO

K

(N

H 141)

BUTTER

HILL R

OA

D

(NH 18)

PROFILE RD

BRIDGE NO. 089/099

NH 18

N

SUBJECT TO CHANGE10/26/2016

PRELIMINARY PLANS

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION

STA 206+00

LIMIT OF WORK

STA 204+50END CONSTRUCTION

STA 210+00

LIMIT OF WORK

STA 303+00

LIMIT OF WORK

STA 212+25

X-A002(899)

STATE PROJECT 24497

TO FRANCONIA

TO LI

NCOLN

INDEX OF SHEETS

NOTE

SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.

FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ALIGNMENT DETAILS,

WETLAND PLANS

TO LI

NC

OL

N

NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

THE STATE OF

WETLAND IMPACT SECTIONS

WETLAND IMPACT SUMMARY

WETLAND IMPACT PLANS

BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION

GENERAL PLAN

STANDARD SYMBOLS

TITLE SHEET

DESCRIPTION

8

7

6

5

4

2-3

1

SHEET NO.

w

DRIVEWAYS

BUILDINGS

FOUNDATION

STEPS AND WALK

INTERMITTENT WATER COURSE

SHORE LINE

BRUSH OR WOODS LINE

TREES (PLANS)

HEDGE

WELL

SEPTIC TANK

LEACH FIELD

GAS PUMP

FUEL TANK (ABOVE GROUND)

GRAVE

ROCK OUTCROP

ORIGINAL GROUND

(TYPICALS & SECTIONS ONLY)

(TYPICALS)

ROCK LINE

STONE WALL

RETAINING WALL (LABEL TYPE)

SIGNS

MAILBOX

(label type)

(label type)

river/stream

(deciduous)(coniferous) (stump)

(double post)

(single post)

(label type)

SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA

DELINEATED WETLAND

BORING LOCATION

TEST PIT

CONSTRUCTION BASELINE

PC, PT, POT (ON CONST BASELINE)

PI (IN CONSTRUCTION BASELINES)

INTERSECTION OR EQUATION OF

TWO LINES

ORIGINAL GROUND LINE

(PROFILES AND CROSS-SECTIONS)

PROFILE GRADE LINE

(PROFILES AND CROSS-SECTIONS)

SLOPE LINE (FILL)

SLOPE LINE (CUT)

ORIGINAL GROUND ELEVATION (LEFT)

FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION (RIGHT)

INTERSTATE NUMBERED HIGHWAY

UNITED STATES NUMBERED HIGHWAY

STATE NUMBERED HIGHWAY

PROFILES AND CROSS SECTIONS:

(label surface type)

pond

(label size & type)

FLAG POLE

ENGINEERING

SLOPE LINE

79.1

4

72.5

CLEARING LINE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

TRAVELED WAY

ROADWAY

PROPOSED

roadway

existing

outside slope lines)

(pavement removed

be removed)

(building to

of building)

(label house or type

water body)

(label name of

fp

field

leach

retained ground)

(points toward

s

gp

ft

gr

mb

da

vpVENT PIPE

PHONE

TIDAL BUFFER ZONE

ORDINARY HIGH WATER

SPECIAL AQUATIC SITE

TOP OF BANK

TOP OF BANK & ORDINARY HIGH WATER

VERNAL POOL

INVASIVE SPECIES

SLOPE LINE

CLEARING LINE

30 31 32

GENERAL

ph

STORAGE TANK FILLER CAP

2

PUB2E

cgr

JERSEY BARRIER

fc

B

WATER FRONT BUFFER

NATURAL WOODLAND BUFFER

POTENTIAL WET AREA SYMBOL

MONITORING WELL

II

I.S.

I

I.S.INVASIVE SPECIES LABEL

TP

PRIME WETLAND

WETLAND DESIGNATION AND TYPE

293

3

102

BRIDGE CROSSINGS

STREAM OVERPASS

TREE OR STUMP (CROSS-SECTIONS)

(show station, circumference in feet & type)

existing PROPOSED

500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY

100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY

FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY

FLOODWAY

GROUND LIGHT/LAMP POST gl lp

FENCE (LABEL TYPE)

CURB (LABEL TYPE)

w

mon

SHEET 1 OF 2

NON-JURISDICTIONAL DRAINAGE AREA

COWARDIN DISTINCTION LINE

PRIME WETLAND 100' BUFFER

WIDTH AT BANK FULL

MEAN HIGH WATER

MEAN LOW WATER

DEVELOPED TIDAL BUFFER ZONE

REFERENCE LINE

SHORELAND - WETLAND

GUARDRAIL (label type)bgr

NORMAL HIGH WATER

HIGHEST OBSERVABLE TIDE LINE

PROTECTED SHORELAND

REVISION DATE

11-21-2014

STATE PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS

24497

DGN

STDSym.dgn


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF HIGHWAY DESIGN

STANDARD SYMBOLS

2 8


PRELIMINARY PLANS

TELEPHONE POLE

POWER POLE

JOINT OCCUPANCY

MISCELLANEOUS/UNKNOWN POLE

POLE STATUS:

AS APPLICABLE e.g.:

LIGHT POLE

LIGHT ON POWER POLE

LIGHT ON JOINT POLE

(plot point at face

not center of symbol)

RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

TOWN LINE

COUNTY LINE

STATE LINE

BOUND

DRILL HOLE IN ROCK

NATIONAL FOREST

(label type)

BOW

CONCORD

COOS

GRAFTON

MAINE

IRON PIPE OR PIN

NHDOT PROJECT MARKER

PEDESTAL WITH PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL

HEADS AND PUSH BUTTON UNIT

CONTROLLER CABINET

METER PEDESTAL

PULL BOX

LOOP DETECTOR (QUADRUPOLE)

LOOP DETECTOR (RECTANGULAR)

(label size)

(label size)

PROPERTY PARCEL NUMBER

HISTORIC PROPERTY

WATER SHUT OFF

GAS SHUT OFF

RAILROAD

RAILROAD SIGN

RAILROAD SIGNAL

(label ownership)

HYDRANT

UTILITY JUNCTION BOX

MAST ARM (existing)

OPTICOM RECEIVER

OPTICOM STROBE

MANHOLE

CATCH BASIN

DROP INLET

DRAINAGE PIPE (existing)

EROSION CONTROL/ STONE

SLOPE PROTECTION

(existing)

DRAINAGE

BOUNDARIES / RIGHT-OF-WAY

UTILITIES

di

cb (PROPOSED)

RCP

g os

H Y D

12

DRAINAGE PIPE (PROPOSED)

HEADER (existing & PROPOSED)

REMOVE, LEAVE, PROPOSED, OR TEMPORARYEND SECTION (existing & PROPOSED)

OPEN DITCH (PROPOSED)

SEWER

TELEPHONE

ELECTRICAL

GAS

30' MA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

S/L T/L

bnd

TOWN LINE MONUMENT

STATE LINE/

of flow

direction

show& type)

(label size

& type)

(label size

W/ FLUSHING BASIN

UNDERDRAIN (PROPOSED)

STAN'S

SIGN

MANHOLES

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

RR RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE

PROPERTY LINE (COMMON OWNER)

TAX MAP AND LOT NUMBER

protection)

(with stone outlet

6.80 Ac.±

1642/341

14

156

note if abandoned)

label size, type and

(on existing lines

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

W/ FLUSHING BASINUNDERDRAIN (existing)

L P+04

25.0'

R T+04

25.0'

jb

M H T

M H E

M H S

M H G

SOG

W

SO

m h

e

m h

g

hy d

m ht

m h

s

wso

cc

pb

mp

PB

MP

(NOTE ANGLE FROM Å)

FENCING NOTE

CLEARING AND GRUBBING AREA

DRAINAGE NOTE

GUARDRAIL NOTE

G-1

B-1

LIGHTING NOTE

EROSION CONTROL NOTE

A

1

A

A

1

A

CONSTRUCTION NOTES

(PROPOSED)

GUY POLE OR PUSH BRACE

BENCH MARK / SURVEY DISK

METAL or PLASTIC

CURB MARK NUMBER - GRANITE

CURB MARK NUMBER - BITUMINOUS

fb

TELEPHONE

ELECTRIC

GAS

LIGHTING

FIBER OPTIC

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

WATER

SEWER

JB

CC

SIGNAL CONDUIT

PROPOSEDexistingPROPOSEDexisting

dh

ip

1TRAFFIC SIGNAL NOTE

SHEET 2 OF 2

m h

uUNKNOWN

m hd

TRAFFIC SIGNALS / ITS

ITS NOTE 1

FIBER OPTIC DELINEATOR

s vf

ITSitsVS F

FODfod

VARIABLE SPEED LIMIT SIGN

DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGN

FIBER OPTIC SPLICE VAULT

ROAD AND WEATHER INFO SYSTEM

CAMERA POLE (CCTV)

ITS EQUIPMENT CABINET

CONSERVATION LAND

OVERHEAD WIRE

(label type)

REVISION DATE

9-1-2016


24497

DGN

STDSym.dgn



STANDARD SYMBOLS

3 8


PRELIMINARY PLANS

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIREDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * BUREAU OF BRIDGE DESIGN

REVISIONS AFTER PROPOSAL

DESIGNED

DRAWN

QUANTITIES

REV. DATE

ISSUE DATE FEDERAL PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS

FILE NUMBER

OF

BRIDGE SHEET

DATEBY

CHECKED

CHECKED

CHECKED

DATEBY

KDW

JAW

JAW

8

\\nh-b

ed\projects\5

2380.0

9\cad\st\pla

nset\24497_003_ro

adpla

n01.d

gn

SHEET SCALEDRAWING NAMEPLOT DATE

AS NOTED

TOWN FRANCONIA BRIDGE NO. 089/099 STATE PROJECT 24497

LOCATION NH 18

10/26/2016 24497_003_roadplan01.dgn

SMH10/16

10/16

10/16

10/16


PRELIMINARY PLANS

FAMILY TRUST

DAVID SYMMES

####

UNDETERMINED

OWNER

####

TRUST

BROOK REALTY

THE LAFAYETTE

####

CORPORATION

DEVELOPMENT

MOUNTAIN

LAFAYETTE

####

REALTY TRUST

STONY HILL

####

REALTY TRUST

STONY HILL

####

TRUST

2010 FAMILY

LOVETT-RETZ

####

2'c

.5'c

4.3'c

2'c

benchgran

lawn

stre

am

5.7' from ep

tree face

w/chevron

w/chevron

brushb

rush

State park"

Franconia Notch

in Mtn.Tw

"So. Franconia

hdr

stone

Symmes"

David and Jean

"1421

w

post

post

post

post

post

postmd

mb

lp

lp

lplp

ip

ip

glgl

gl

gl

gl

glgl

gl

gl

gl

glgl

gl

bnd

bnd

bnd

bnd

an

an

an

1105.6

16

SC 203

+09.22

204

205

CS 205

+55.00

206 207 208 209 305 210 211

PC

21

0+

76.

94

PT 305

+67.42

212

PCC 304+23.00

PC 303+05.38

302

303

304

305

ST

20

7+

05.

00

R = 1050.00'

T = 275.43'

Xs= 149.92

Ls= 150.00'

E = 19.84'

Lc= 245.79'

Dc= 5°27'24.27"

Sc= 396.86

Ç = 21°35'49.25" RT

E = 969589.31

N = 621242.68

PI= 204+34.65

PROFILE ROAD (NH 18)

CURVE# 1

R = 1800.00'(1) R = 400.00'(2)

T = 171.44'(1) T = 93.82'(2)

E = 8.15'

Lc= 117.63'(1) Lc=144.42'(2)

Dc= 3°10'59.16"(1) Dc= 14°19'26.20"(2)

Ç = 24°25'48.28" RT

E = 969493.10

N = 621643.08

PI= 304+76.81

BUTTERHILL ROAD (NH 141)

CURVE# 1R = 5729.58'

T = 143.15'

E = 1.79'

Lc= 286.25'

Dc= 1°00'00.00"

Ç = 2°51'44.94" RT

E = 969342.55

N = 621993.70

PI= 212+20.09

PROFILE ROAD (NH 18)

CURVE# 2

(NH 18)

PROFILE ROAD12'

12'

LIMIT OF WORK

STA 303+00

089/099

BRIDGE NO.

LAF

AYETTE BR

OO

K

(N

H 141)

BUTTER

HILL R

OA

D

12'

12'

LIMIT OF WORK

STA 204+50

TL-2 EAGRT UNIT

INSTALL 25'

NH 141 (BUTTERHILL ROAD)

> CONSTRUCTION

NH 18 (PROFILE ROAD)

> CONSTRUCTION

TL-2 EAGRT UNIT

INSTALL 25'

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION

STA 206+00

END CONSTRUCTION

STA 210+00

BUTTERHILL ROAD STA 305+67.42

PROFILE ROAD STA 209+27.60

LIMIT OF WORK

STA 212+25

RIPRAP

POND

RECONSTRUCTION

SWALE

N

SCALE IN FEET

30 0 30 60

GENERAL PLAN

1.

NOTES

UTILITY POLE AND GUY WIRE RELOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED.

4



DESIGNED

DRAWN

QUANTITIES

REV. DATE


FILE NUMBER

OF

BRIDGE SHEET

DATEBY

CHECKED

CHECKED

CHECKED

DATEBY

KDW

JAW

JAW

8

\\nh-b

ed\projects\5

2380.0

9\cad\st\pla

nset\24497_018_pln

&el0

1.d

gn


AS NOTED


LOCATION NH 18

10/26/2016 24497_018_pln&el01.dgn

SMH10/16

10/16

10/16

10/16


PRELIMINARY PLANS

PLAN

305207 208 209

305

N

SCALE: „" = 1'-0"

OU

T-

TO-

OU

T

29'-2"

TO FRANCONIA

TO LINCOLN

LA

NE

11'-0"

LA

NE

11'-0"

SH

OU

LD

ER

1'-0"

SH

OU

LD

ER

1'-0"

11'-0"

11'-0"

BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION

CU

RB-

TO-

CU

RB

24'-6"


> CONSTRUCTION


> CONSTRUCTION

TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)

CURB (TYP)

FACE OF

(> BRG TO > BRG)

FG EL = 1093.47

STA 207+82.75

END OF DECK (TYP)

FG EL = 1092.35

STA 208+36.87

TOP OF SLOPE (TYP)

DRAINAGE AREA

DESIGN FLOOD VELOCITY (100 YR) 15 FPS

200 SQ. FEET

HYDRAULIC DATA

DESIGN FLOOD DISCHARGE (100 YR)

DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION (100 YR)

6.5 SQ. MILES

1610 CFS

1087.3 FEET

LAF

AYETTE BR

OO

K

> BRG ABUT A (EXP) > BRG ABUT B (EXP)

45° (TYP)

AND ROUTE

3

TO I-

93

SCALE: „" = 1'-0"

ELEVATION

(1087.3)

Q100

WINGWALL TO REMAIN

ABUTMENT AND

CAP STONES

SALVAGED

TO REMAIN (TYP)

AND STONE FACING

EXISTING PILASTER

TRANSITION

BRIDGE RAIL

FLOOD DISCHARGE.

SURVEYED WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS SIMILAR TO THE 2 YEAR DESIGN

COMPUTED SCOUR DEPTHS ARE NEGLIGIBLE.

2.

1.

BOX BEAM (WEST AND EAST SIDE)

PRECAST CONCRETE BRIDGE RAILBRIDGE RAIL

PRECAST CONCRETE

CAP AT PILASTER

CONCRETE

STONE (TYP)

RESET CAP

(WEST AND EAST SIDE)

PRECAST CONCRETE BRIDGE RAIL

BRIDGE SEAT

CAP AT PILASTER

CONCRETE

OF RAIL (TYP)

APPROXIMATE FACE

CAP AT PILASTER

CONCRETE

HYDRAULIC NOTES

BRIDGE FULL WATERWAY OPENING PERPENDICULAR TO RIVER

RAIL (TYP)

APPROACH

6" UNDERDRAIN (TYP)

HEADWALL

CONCRETE

5

LEVEL OF PROTECTION TO STRUCTURES AND DOWN-GRADIENT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.

DROP INLET SEDIMENT BARRIERS SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS THE PRIMARY MEANS OF SEDIMENT CONTROL AND SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 8.4.

CLEAN CATCH BASINS, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND CULVERTS IF SIGNIFICANT SEDIMENT IS DEPOSITED.8.3.

INSTALL SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND SEDIMENT TRAPS AT INLETS TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM.8.2.

DIVERT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER AWAY FROM INLET STRUCTURES TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.8.1.

PROTECT STORM DRAIN INLETS: 8.

DETENTION BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE A 2 YEAR STORM EVENT.12.7.

ALL AREAS THAT CAN BE STABILIZED SHALL BE STABILIZED PRIOR TO OPENING UP NEW TERRITORY.12.6.

GRAVEL, OR CRUSHED STONE BASE TO HELP MINIMIZE EROSION ISSUES.

FOR HAUL ROADS ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS OR STEEPER THAN 5%, THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONSIDER USING EROSION STONE, CRUSHED 12.5.

AREAS WHERE HAUL ROADS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND STORMWATER CANNOT BE TREATED THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONSIDER INFILTRATION.12.4.

SLOPES 3:1 OR FLATTER WILL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT ALONE.12.3.

SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 WILL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT WITH MATTING.12.2.

STRATEGIES.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH RSA 485:A:17 AND ENV-WQ 1500; ALTERATION OF TERRAIN FOR CONSTRUCTION AND USE ALL CONVENTIONAL BMP 12.1.

STRATEGIES SPECIFIC TO OPEN AREAS LESS THAN 5 ACRES:12.

TABLE 1

GUIDANCE ON SELECTING TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES

EROSION CONTROL STRATEGIES

NOTES:

2. PRODUCTS CONTAINING POLYACRYLAMIDE (PAM) SHALL NOT BE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO OR WITHIN 100 FEET OF ANY SURFACE

3. ALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS SHALL BE MADE WITH WILDLIFE FRIENDLY BIODEGRADABLE NETTING.

1

SLOPES

CHANNELS

APPLICATION AREAS DRY MULCH METHODS HYDRAULICALLY APPLIED MULCHES2

ROLLED EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS3

HMT WC SG CB HM SMM BFM FRM SNSB DNSB DNSCB DNCB

STEEPER THAN 2:1 NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO YES

2:1 SLOPE YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES NO YES YES YES

3:1 SLOPE YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES NO

4:1 SLOPE YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO

WINTER STABILIZATION 4T/AC YES YES YES NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

LOW FLOW CHANNELS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES

HIGH FLOW CHANNELS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES

ABBREV. STABILIZATION MEASURE ABBREV. STABILIZATION MEASURE ABBREV. STABILIZATION MEASURE

HMT HAY MULCH & TACK HM HYDRAULIC MULCH SNSB SINGLE NET STRAW BLANKET

WC WOOD CHIPS SMM STABILIZED MULCH MATRIX DNSB DOUBLE NET STRAW BLANKET

SG STUMP GRINDINGS BFM BONDED FIBER MATRIX DNSCB 2 NET STRAW-COCONUT BLANKET

CB COMPOST BLANKET FRM DNCB 2 NET COCONUT BLANKET

REVISION DATE

12-21-2015

WATER WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE NH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.

1. ALL SLOPE STABILIZATION OPTIONS ASSUME A SLOPE LENGTH \10 TIMES THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE COMPONENT OF THE SLOPE, IN FEET.

FIBER REINFORCED MEDIUM

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND SELECTION OF STRATEGIES TO CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT ON HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

SWEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION RELATED DEBRIS AND SOIL FROM THE ADJACENT PAVED ROADWAYS AS NECESSARY.7.2.

INSTALL AND MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION EXITS, ANYWHERE TRAFFIC LEAVES A CONSTRUCTION SITE ONTO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.7.1.

ESTABLISH STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXITS:7.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) BASED ON AMOUNT OF OPEN CONSTRUCTION AREA

1 1

HYDROLOGY BEYOND THE PERMITTED AREA.

DIVERT OFF-SITE WATER THROUGH THE PROJECT IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER SO NOT TO DISTURB THE UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM SOILS, VEGETATION OR 5.5.

AND DISCHARGE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO USE.

STABILIZE, TO APPROPRIATE ANTICIPATED VELOCITIES, CONVEYANCE CHANNELS OR PUMPING SYSTEMS NEEDED TO CONVEY CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER TO BASINS 5.4.

CONSTRUCT IMPERMEABLE BARRIERS AS NECESSARY TO COLLECT OR DIVERT CONCENTRATED FLOWS FROM WORK OR DISTURBED AREAS.5.3.

LOCATION.

DIVERT STORM RUNOFF FROM UPSLOPE DRAINAGE AREAS AWAY FROM DISTURBED AREAS, SLOPES, AND AROUND ACTIVE WORK AREAS AND TO A STABILIZED OUTLET 5.2.

DIVERT OFF SITE RUNOFF OR CLEAN WATER AWAY FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO REDUCE THE VOLUME THAT NEEDS TO BE TREATED ON SITE.5.1.

CONTROL STORMWATER FLOWING ONTO AND THROUGH THE PROJECT:5.

WITH SECTION 2.1.2.1. OF THE 2012 NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT.

WHEN WORK IS PERFORMED WITHIN 50 FEET OF SURFACE WATERS (WETLAND, OPEN WATER OR FLOWING WATER), PERIMETER CONTROL SHALL BE ENHANCED CONSISTENT 3.5.

WHEN WORK IS PERFORMED IN AND NEAR WATER COURSES, STREAM FLOW DIVERSION METHODS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION OR FILLING.3.4.

PROTECT AND MAXIMIZE EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION AND NATURAL FOREST BUFFERS BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND SENSITIVE AREAS.3.3.

CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SEQUENCED TO LIMIT THE DURATION AND AREA OF EXPOSED SOILS.3.2.

CLEARLY FLAG AREAS TO BE PROTECTED IN THE FIELD AND PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION BARRIERS TO PREVENT TRAFFICKING OUTSIDE OF WORK AREAS.3.1.

PLAN ACTIVITIES TO ACCOUNT FOR SENSITIVE SITE CONDITIONS: 3.

MET.

CRITICAL PATH METHOD SCHEDULE (CPM), AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS ADEQUATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO ENSURE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS WILL BE

MONTHS, UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATES TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ADDITIONAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE IS NECESSARY TO MEET THE CONTRACTORS

, OR EXCEED ONE ACRE DURING WINTER TH

THROUGH NOVEMBER 30ST

THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DISTURBED EARTH SHALL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL OF 5 ACRES FROM MAY 14.3.

UTILIZE TEMPORARY MULCHING OR PROVIDE ALTERNATE TEMPORARY STABILIZATION ON EXPOSED SOILS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1.4.2.

SHALL BE USED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF SOIL EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS AND VEHICLE TRACKING.

CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SEQUENCED TO LIMIT THE DURATION AND AREA OF EXPOSED SOILS. MINIMIZE THE AREA OF EXPOSED SOIL AT ANY ONE TIME. PHASING 4.1.

MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF EXPOSED SOIL:4.

UP AND DOWN THE SLOPE, DISKED, HARROWED, DRAGGED WITH A CHAIN OR MAT, MACHINE-RAKED, OR HAND-WORKED TO PRODUCE A RUFFLED SURFACE.

THE OUTER FACE OF THE FILL SLOPE SHOULD BE IN A LOOSE RUFFLED CONDITION PRIOR TO TURF ESTABLISHMENT. TOPSOIL OR HUMUS LAYERS SHALL BE TRACKED 6.4.

CONVEY STORMWATER DOWN THE SLOPE IN A STABILIZED CHANNEL OR SLOPE DRAIN.6.3.

CONSIDER HOW GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ON CUT SLOPES MAY IMPACT SLOPE STABILITY AND INCORPORATE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE EROSION.6.2.

OUTLET OR CONVEYANCE.

INTERCEPT AND DIVERT STORM RUNOFF FROM UPSLOPE DRAINAGE AREAS AWAY FROM UNPROTECTED AND NEWLY ESTABLISHED AREAS AND SLOPES TO A STABILIZED 6.1.

PROTECT SLOPES:6.

MONITORING OF THE SYSTEM.

DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE IN THE DESIGN OF FLOCCULANT TREATMENT SYSTEMS. THE CONSULTANT WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND

TREAT AND RELEASE WATER CAPTURED IN STORM WATER BASINS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT WHO HAS

THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN APPROVED DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ENV-WQ 1506.12 FOR AN ACTIVE FLOCCULANT TREATMENT SYSTEM TO 14.3.

AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT IN THE STORMWATER TREATMENT BASINS.

THE DEPARTMENT ANTICIPATES THAT SOIL BINDERS WILL BE NEEDED ON ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1, IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE EROSION AND REDUCE THE 14.2.

TREATMENT OPTIONS USED FOR UNDER 5 ACRES AND BETWEEN 5 AND 10 ACRES WILL BE UTILIZED.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH RSA 485:A:17 AND ENV-WQ 1500 ALTERATION OF TERRAIN AND SHALL USE CONVENTIONAL BMP STRATEGIES AND ALL 14.1.

STRATEGIES SPECIFIC TO OPEN AREAS OVER 10 ACRES:14.

ALSO CONSIDER A SOIL BINDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NHDES APPROVALS OR REGULATIONS.

SLOPES 3:1 OR FLATTER WILL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT OR OTHER TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES DETAILED IN TABLE 1. THE CONTRACTOR MAY 13.4.

BONDED FIBER MATRIXES (BFMS) OR FLEXIBLE GROWTH MEDIUMS (FGMS) MAY BE UTILIZED, IF MEETING THE NHDES APPROVALS AND REGULATIONS.

THE CONTRACTOR MAY ALSO CONSIDER A SOIL BINDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NHDES APPROVALS OR REGULATIONS. OTHER ALTERNATIVE MEASURES, SUCH AS

SLOPES STEEPER THAN A 3:1 WILL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT WITH MATTING OR OTHER TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES DETAILED IN TABLE 1. 13.3.

DETENTION BASINS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM EVENT AND CONTROL A 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM EVENT.13.2.

TREATMENT OPTIONS USED FOR UNDER 5 ACRES WILL BE UTILIZED.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH RSA 485:A:17 AND ENV-WQ 1500 ALTERATION OF TERRAIN AND SHALL USE CONVENTIONAL BMP STRATEGIES AND ALL 13.1.

STRATEGIES SPECIFIC TO OPEN AREAS BETWEEN 5 AND 10 ACRES:13.

LOSS UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.

SOIL TACKIFIERS MAY BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND REAPPLIED AS NECESSARY TO MINIMIZE SOIL AND MULCH 9.4.

AND PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15, OF ANY GIVEN YEAR, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION PRIOR TO THE END OF THE GROWING SEASON.

EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX SHALL BE SOWN IN ALL INACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE PERMANENTLY SEEDED WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF DISTURBANCE 9.3.

2012 CGP. (SEE TABLE 1 FOR GUIDANCE ON THE SELECTION OF TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES.)

IN ALL AREAS, TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 2.2) OF THE 9.2.

WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE LAST ACTIVITY IN AN AREA, ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS, WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE, SHALL BE STABILIZED. 9.1.

SOIL STABILIZATION: 9.

LINE.

SLOPES. THE PERIMETER CONTROLS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE FILL SLOPE TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR FILL SLOPE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS IN THE DITCH

CHANNEL PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH PERIMETER CONTROL MEASURES WHEN THE DITCH LINES OCCUR AT THE BOTTOM OF LONG FILL 11.9.

PLAN, DEVELOPED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR A CPESC SPECIALIST, IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

THE AREA OF EXPOSED SOIL SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE ACRE, OR THAT WHICH CAN BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH DAY UNLESS A WINTER CONSTRUCTION

WINTER EXCAVATION AND EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES NEED TO BE LIMITED IN EXTENT AND DURATION, TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION IMPACTS. 11.8.

PERMANENT DITCHES SHALL BE DIRECTED TO DRAIN TO SEDIMENT BASINS OR STORM WATER COLLECTION AREAS.

TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT DITCHES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED, STABILIZED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE SCOUR. TEMPORARY AND 11.7.

PLACE TEMPORARY STONE INLET PROTECTION OVER INLETS IN AREAS OF SOIL DISTURBANCE THAT ARE SUBJECT TO SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION.

CATCH BASINS: CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENTS DO NOT ENTER ANY EXISTING CATCH BASINS DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 11.6.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR ONE YEAR AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION.

VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED PERMANENTLY STABILIZED UNTIL VEGETATIVE GROWTH COVERS AT LEAST 85% OF THE DISTURBED AREA.

PERMANENT STABILIZATION MEASURES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO STABILIZE AREAS. 11.5.

STABILIZATION OF THE CONTRIBUTING DISTURBED AREA.

THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD UTILIZE STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM PRIOR TO THE PERMANENT 11.4.

ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDANCE MEMO FROM THE NHDES CONTAINED WITHIN THE CONTRACT PROPOSAL AND THE EPA CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT.

AFTER ANY STORM EVENT GREATER THAN 0.25 IN. OF RAIN PER 24-HOUR PERIOD. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES WILL ALSO BE INSPECTED IN

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 645 OF NHDOT SPECIFICATIONS, WEEKLY AND WITHIN 24 HOURS 11.3.

MEASURES (TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX AND MULCH, SOIL BINDER) OR COVERED WITH ANCHORED TARPS.

ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE CONTAINED WITH TEMPORARY PERIMETER CONTROLS. INACTIVE SOIL STOCKPILES SHOULD BE PROTECTED WITH SOIL STABILIZATION 11.2.

TACKIFIERS, AS APPROVED BY THE NHDES.

USE MECHANICAL SWEEPERS ON PAVED SURFACES WHERE NECESSARY TO PREVENT DUST BUILDUP. APPLY WATER, OR OTHER DUST INHIBITING AGENTS OR

USE TEMPORARY MULCHING, PERMANENT MULCHING, TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER, AND PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR DUST CONTROL. 11.1.

ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL GENERAL PRACTICES:11.

EROSION, POLLUTION, AND TURBIDITY PRECAUTIONS.

THE CONTRACTOR IS DIRECTED TO REVIEW AND COMPLY WITH SECTION 107.1 OF THE CONTRACT AS IT REFERS TO SPILLAGE, AND ALSO WITH REGARDS TO 1.6.

)HTTP://DES.NH.GOV/ORGANIZATION/COMMISSIONER/LEGAL/RULES/INDEX.HTM(

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH RSA 485-A:17, AND ALL, PUBLISHED NHDES ALTERATION OF TERRAIN ENV-WQ 1500 REQUIREMENTS 1.5.

OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (NHDES).

MANUAL, VOLUME 3, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS DURING CONSTRUCTION (DECEMBER 2008) (BMP MANUAL) AVAILABLE FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT

ALL STORM WATER, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW HAMPSHIRE STORMWATER 1.4.

THE SPECIAL ATTENTION ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

THE CONTRACTOR'S ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE NHDES WETLAND PERMIT, THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT, WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND 1.3.

GENERAL PERMIT (CGP).

AS ADMINISTERED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE MOST RECENT CONSTRUCTION

THIS PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE US EPA'S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORM WATER CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT 1.2.

REGULATIONS.

THESE GUIDELINES DO NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CONTRACT PROVISIONS, OR APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 1.1.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:1.

SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT FROM AREAS OF UNSTABILIZED EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.

TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS SHALL BE PLACED AND STABILIZED AT LOCATIONS WHERE CONCENTRATED FLOW (CHANNELS AND PIPES) DISCHARGE TO THE 10.3.

CONSTRUCT AND STABILIZE DEWATERING INFILTRATION BASINS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION THAT MAY REQUIRE DEWATERING.10.2.

STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM A 10-YEAR 24 HOUR STORM EVENT. ON-SITE RETENTION OF THE 10-YEAR 24-HOUR EVENT IS NOT REQUIRED.

TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS USED TO TREAT STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM AREAS GREATER THAN 5-ACRES OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE SIZED TO ALSO CONTROL

24-HOUR STORM EVENT FOR ANY AREA OF DISTURBANCE OR 3,600 CUBIC FEET OF STORMWATER RUNOFF PER ACRE OF DISTURBANCE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS (CGP-SECTION 2.1.3.2) OR SEDIMENT TRAPS (ENV-WQ 1506.10) SHALL BE SIZED TO RETAIN, ON SITE, THE VOLUME OF A 2-YEAR 10.1.

RETAIN SEDIMENT ON-SITE AND CONTROL DEWATERING PRACTICES:10.

.TH

THE REQUIREMENTS OF NO LESS THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK SCHEDULED AFTER NOVEMBER 30

(E) A SWPPP AMENDMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT, FOR APPROVAL, ADDRESSING COLD WEATHER STABILIZATION (ENV-WQ 1505.05) AND INCLUDING

WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY NHDOT THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ENV-WQ 1505.02 AND ENV-WQ 1505.05.

(D) WINTER EXCAVATION AND EARTHWORK SHALL BE DONE SUCH THAT NO MORE THAN 1 ACRE OF THE PROJECT IS WITHOUT STABILIZATION AT ONE TIME, UNLESS A

INCOMPLETE ROAD SURFACES, WHERE WORK HAS STOPPED FOR THE SEASON, SHALL BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1.TH

AFTER NOVEMBER 30(C)

SHALL BE STABILIZED TEMPORARILY WITH STONE OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1.

, TH

, OR WHICH ARE DISTURBED AFTER OCTOBER 15TH

ALL DITCHES OR SWALES WHICH DO NOT EXHIBIT A MINIMUM OF 85% VEGETATIVE GROWTH BY OCTOBER 15(B)

, SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1. TH

15

, OR WHICH ARE DISTURBED AFTER OCTOBER TH

ALL PROPOSED VEGETATED AREAS WHICH DO NOT EXHIBIT A MINIMUM OF 85% VEGETATIVE GROWTH BY OCTOBER 15(A)

FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.

OF ANY YEAR SHALL BE CONSIDERED WINTER CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE ST

AND MAY 1TH

CONSTRUCTION PERFORMED ANY TIME BETWEEN NOVEMBER 302.8.

TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL REMAIN UNTIL THE AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED.2.7.

A WATER TRUCK SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO CONTROL EXCESSIVE DUST AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR.2.6.

BE REQUIRED.

ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE CONTAINED WITH A PERIMETER CONTROL. IF THE STOCKPILE IS TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS, MULCHING WILL 2.5.

TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATION CONFORMING TO TABLE 1 HAS BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED (D)

A MINIMUM OF 3" OF NON-EROSIVE MATERIAL SUCH AS STONE OR RIP-RAP HAS BEEN INSTALLED;(C)

A MINIMUM OF 85% VEGETATED GROWTH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED;(B)

BASE COURSE GRAVELS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN AREAS TO BE PAVED;(A)

AN AREA SHALL BE CONSIDERED STABLE IF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING HAS OCCURRED:2.4.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGES CONSTRUCTION.

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT AND SECTION 645 OF THE NHDOT 2.3.

SEDIMENTATION BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT DURATION.

EROSION, SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AND INFILTRATION BASINS SHALL BE CLEANED, REPLACED AND AUGMENTED AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT 2.2.

INSTALLED AS SHOWN IN THE BMP MANUAL AND AS DIRECTED BY THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) PREPARER.

PERIMETER CONTROLS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. PERIMETER CONTROLS AND STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXITS SHALL BE 2.1.

STANDARD EROSION CONTROL SEQUENCING APPLICABLE TO ALL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS:2.


24497

DGN

EroStrat.dgn



86

WETLAND IMPACT PLANS


PRELIMINARY PLANS

md

gl

an

an

1085

1085

1085

1085

1085

1085

1090

1090

1090

1090

1090

10901090

1090

1090

1095

1095

1095

1095

1095

1095

1095

N


AREA

PERMANENT IMPACTS

SF

(NON-WETLAND)

N.H.W.B.IMPACTS

TEMPORARY

SF SF

LOCATIONCLASSIFICATION

WETLAND

A.C.O.E. (WETLAND)

N.H.W.B. AND

TOTAL

NOTES

WETLAND DESCRIPTION

SCALE IN FEET

10 0 10 20I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

LAFAYETTE BROOK

LAFAYETTE BROOK

LAFAYETTE BROOK

LAFAYETTE BROOK

LAFAYETTE BROOK

LAFAYETTE BROOK

LAFAYETTE BROOK

LAFAYETTE BROOK

POND 156

509

29

527

32

395

40

192

19

771 10967

SCALE: 1" = 10'

(SUPERSTRUCTURE NOT SHOWN)

R3RB2H

PUB2H


LEGEND

= RIVERINE UPPER PERENNIAL ROCK BOTTOM RUBBLE PERMANENTLY FLOODED

= PALUSTRINE UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM SAND PERMANENTLY FLOODED

= EROSION CONTROL BARRIER

STRUCTURE

= TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION

= TEMPORARY BED IMPACT

= TEMPORARY BANK IMPACT

= PERMANENT BED IMPACT

= PERMANENT BANK IMPACT

R3RB2H (BANK)

R3RB2H (BANK)

R3RB2H (BANK)

R3RB2H (BED)

R3RB2H (BED)

R3RB2H (BANK)

R3RB2H (BANK)

R3RB2H (BANK)

PUB2H (BANK)

RIPRAP FOR SLOPE STABILIZATION

TEMPORARY ACCESS FOR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION AND SLOPE STABILIZATION

RIPRAP FOR SLOPE STABILIZATION AND BANK REPAIR

TEMPORARY ACCESS FOR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION AND SLOPE STABILIZATION



RIPRAP FOR SLOPE STABILIZATION

TEMPORARY ACCESS FOR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

ROADWAY DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE SWALE

PLAN

32

2011 ADJUSTMENT.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88. COORDINATES ARE NH STATE PLANE NAD83,

OF THE UNITED STATES (COWARDIN ET AL., 1979, REVISED 1985).

METHODOLOGY CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER HABITATS

WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS WERE CLASSIFIED USING THE USFWS

FOR SECTIONS A-A AND B-B SEE WETLAND IMPACT SECTIONS SHEET.

320 CFS.

THE ESTIMATED 2-YEAR FREQUENCY DISCHARGE OF LAFAYETTE BROOK IS

CONTRACT.

QUALITY OF LAFAYETTE BROOK UNDER ITEM 699 OR SPECIFIC ITEMS IN

TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO PROTECT WATER

EROSION AND TURBIDITY CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR

PERMIT.

IN THE WETLAND IMPACT PLANS AND DESCRIBED IN THE NHDES WETLAND

THERE SHALL BE NO IMPACTS TO WETLANDS OR STREAMS EXCEPT AS SHOWN

ENV-WT 101.07 AND RSA 483-B:4 (XI-e).

WETLAND SCIENTIST, KRISTOPHER WILKES (CWS#288) IN ACCORDANCE WITH

(R3RB2H) AND ADJACENT POND WAS DELINEATED ON JUNE 5, 2014 BY VHB

STREAM TOP OF BANK AND ORDINARY-HIGH-WATER ALONG LAFAYETTE BROOK

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

(N

H 141)

BUTTER

HILL R

OA

D

206207 208 209

304

305

(NH 18)

PROFILE ROAD


> CONSTRUCTION


> CONSTRUCTION

BR

OO

K

LAF

AYETTE

ABUTMENT A

ABUTMENT B

6" UNDERDRAIN (TYP)

A

BARRIER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

INSTALL EROSION CONTROL

STABILIZATION

RIPRAP SLOPE

STABILIZATION

RIPRAP SLOPE

A

A

STRUCTURE (TYP)

WATER DIVERSION

OF ITEM 503.1,

APPROXIMATE LOCATION

STABILIZATION

RIPRAP SLOPE

REALTY TRUST

STONY HILL

####

APPROX. EXIST. R.O.W.

APPR

OX. E

XIST. R.

O.

W.

APPR

OX. E

XIST. R.

O.

W.

FAMILY TRUST

DAVID SYMMES

####

UNDETERMINED

OWNER

####

APPROX. EXIST. R.O.W.

CORPORATION

DEVELOPMENT

MOUNTAIN

LAFAYETTE

####

BANK REPAIR

LIMIT OF CHANNEL

7:1

1.5:1

2:1

1.5:1

3:1

B

BPOND

B

C

F

E

D

G

H

I

SECTIONS SHEET)

(SEE WETLAND IMPACT

DRAINAGE SWALE

RECONSTRUCT

HEADWALL

CONCRETE

SEED (TYP)

LOAM AND

SEED (TYP)

LOAM AND



DESIGNED

DRAWN

QUANTITIES

REV. DATE


FILE NUMBER

OF

BRIDGE SHEET

DATEBY

CHECKED

CHECKED

CHECKED

DATEBY

KDW

JAW

JAW

8

\\nh-b

ed\projects\5

2380.0

9\cad\st\pla

nset\24497_ero

pla

n01.d

gn


AS NOTED


LOCATION NH 18

10/26/2016 24497_eroplan01.dgn

SMH10/16

10/16

10/16

10/16


PRELIMINARY PLANS



DESIGNED

DRAWN

QUANTITIES

REV. DATE


FILE NUMBER

OF

BRIDGE SHEET

DATEBY

CHECKED

CHECKED

CHECKED

DATEBY

KDW

JAW

JAW

8

\\nh-b

ed\projects\5

2380.0

9\cad\st\pla

nset\24497_erosections01.d

gn


AS NOTED


LOCATION NH 18

10/26/2016 24497_erosections01.dgn

SMH10/16

10/16

10/16

10/16


PRELIMINARY PLANS

6:1 3:1

À SWALE

SECTION B-B SCALE:•" = 1'-0"

(E

XI

STI

NG)

TO

P

OF

BA

NK

EXISTING GROUND

VARIES (TYP)

FINISH GRADE

SECTION A-A

GEOTEXTILE

3'-0"

(MI

N)

3'-0"

(TOE)

3'-0"

SCALE:•" = 1'-0"

(TYPICAL RIPRAP SLOPE STABILIZATION DETAILS)

VARIES (TYP)

CHANNEL

VARIES (TYP)

EXISTING GROUND

(E

XI

STI

NG)

TO

P

OF

BA

NK

FINISH GRADE

SUMMARY SHEET FOR LOCATION)

(SEE WETLAND IMPACT

DIVERSION STRUCTURE

ITEM 503.1, WATER

SIZE AND GRADATION)

SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE

(SEE NHDOT STANDARD

583.4, RIPRAP CLASS V

8

WETLAND IMPACT SECTIONS


Appendix D –Stream Geomorphic Assessment

Appendix D

Stream Geomorphic Assessment

Geomorphic Stream Assessment Field Photographs – 07/28/2016 NH Route 18 Bridge over Lafayette Brook, Franconia, NH

DSCN7337_35: Upstream view from bridge inlet.

DSCN7336_34: Downstream view toward bridge inlet.


DSCN7311_09: Downstream view from bridge outlet .

DSCN7354_52: Upstream view toward bridge outlet.


DSCN7343_41: Upstream view of stream above bridge.

DSCN7346_44: Downstream view of stream above bridge.


DSCN7306_04: Hard bank armoring present along right bank approximately 250 feet downstream of bridge.

DSCN7324_22: Hard bank armoring (rip-rap) present along right bank approximately 150 feet upstream of bridge.


DSCN7342_40: Erosion present along right bank immediately upstream of bridge.

DSCN7318_16: Erosion present along right bank at location of rip-rap approximately 150 feet upstream of bridge.


DSCN7322_20: Continuous undercutting along left bank starting at approximately 100 feet upstream of bridge.

DSCN7325_23: Significant scour present along inside of meander bend (left bank) located greater than 100 feet upstream from bridge.


DSCN7339_37: Sediment deposits present along left bank, immediately upstream of crossing as well as underneath bridge.

DSCN7352_50: Point bar located on inside of meander bend along right bank approximately 100 feet downstream of bridge.


Appendix E – FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map

Appendix E

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map


Appendix F –Natural Resource Agency Correspondence

Appendix F

Natural Resource Agency Correspondence

The NH Natural Heritage database has been checked for records of rare species and exemplary naturalcommunities near the area mapped below. The species considered include those listed as Threatened orEndangered by either the state of New Hampshire or the federal government. We currently have no recordedoccurrences for sensitive species near this project area.

A negative result (no record in our database) does not mean that a sensitive species is not present. Our datacan only tell you of known occurrences, based on information gathered by qualified biologists and reported toour office. However, many areas have never been surveyed, or have only been surveyed for certain species.An on-site survey would provide better information on what species and communities are indeed present.

This report is valid through 9/19/2017.

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau

To: Lindsay Jones2 Bedford Farms Drive Suite 200Bedford, NH 03110-6532

Date: 9/20/2016

From: NH Natural Heritage Bureau

Re: Review by NH Natural Heritage Bureau of request dated 9/20/2016

NHB File ID: NHB16-2899 Applicant: NHDOT

Location: Tax Map(s)/Lot(s):Franconia

Project Description: The proposed project involves the rehabilitation of theexisting bridge which carries NH Route 18 over LafayetteBrook in Franconia, NH. The existing bridge is in poorcondition and has been listed on the NHDOT Red List(2010). The proposed project would replace the bridgesuperstructure while retaining the existing abutments andwingwalls with modifications to the upper railing sections.

Department of Resources and Economic Development DRED/NHBDivision of Forests and Lands 172 Pembroke Road(603) 271-2214 fax: 271-6488 Concord NH 03301

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau

MAP OF PROJECT BOUNDARIES FOR NHB FILE ID: NHB16-2899

Department of Resources and Economic Development DRED/NHBDivision of Forests and Lands 172 Pembroke Road(603) 271-2214 fax: 271-6488 Concord NH 03301

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICENew England Ecological Services Field Office

70 COMMERCIAL STREET, SUITE 300CONCORD, NH 03301

PHONE: (603)223-2541 FAX: (603)223-0104URL: www.fws.gov/newengland

Consultation Code: 05E1NE00-2016-SLI-2253 September 20, 2016Event Code: 05E1NE00-2016-E-03141Project Name: Bridge #089/099 Rehabilitation; NH 18 Over Lafayette Brook

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed projectlocation, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, aswell as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary ofyour proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfillsthe requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of theEndangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ).et seq.

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution ofspecies, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free tocontact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts tofederally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed criticalhabitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 ofthe Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification canbe completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification becompleted by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning andimplementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requestedthrough the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosedlist.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species andthe ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2)of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 ), Federal agencies are requiredet seq.to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened andendangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangeredspecies and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings havingsimilar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of thehuman environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biologicalevaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project mayaffect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommendedcontents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation,that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, theagency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Servicerecommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressedwithin the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "EndangeredSpecies Consultation Handbook" at:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden EagleProtection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), and projects affecting these species may requireet seq.development of an eagle conservation plan(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projectsshould follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizingimpacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communicationstowers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;http://www.towerkill.com; andhttp://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encouragesFederal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their projectplanning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number inthe header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your projectthat you submit to our office.

Attachment

2

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 09/20/2016 07:41 AM 1

Official Species List

Provided by: New England Ecological Services Field Office

70 COMMERCIAL STREET, SUITE 300

CONCORD, NH 03301

(603) 223-2541

http://www.fws.gov/newengland Consultation Code: 05E1NE00-2016-SLI-2253Event Code: 05E1NE00-2016-E-03141 Project Type: BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE Project Name: Bridge #089/099 Rehabilitation; NH 18 Over Lafayette BrookProject Description: The proposed project involves the rehabilitation of the existing bridge whichcarries NH Route 18 over Lafayette Brook in Franconia, NH. The existing bridge is in poorcondition and has been listed on the NHDOT Red List (2010). The proposed project would replacethe bridge superstructure while retaining the existing abutments and wingwalls with modificationsto the upper railing sections. Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so itmay be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Codematches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

United States Department of InteriorFish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Bridge #089/099 Rehabilitation; NH 18 Over Lafayette Brook


Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-71.72425908224874 44.20708345617362, -71.72426196367356 44.20719648099228, -71.72418681482134 44.20726980801432, -71.72333486579996 44.20743111172271, -71.72322749012665 44.20740602656176, -71.72317899904697 44.207337745724125, -71.72273746951329 44.205946609422035, -71.72017884005301 44.20494351499726, -71.72012778731747 44.20488564109365, -71.72012192966595 44.204783998413326, -71.72039556117284 44.20429876339684, -71.72046706894133 44.20425563873259, -71.72055033397335 44.20426196582234, -71.72230150696662 44.20497178712461, -71.72215243692914 44.204597773422805, -71.7213043291153 44.20377212807763, -71.72126541030775 44.20370027073698, -71.72127425903149 44.20361903126952, -71.7213277352911 44.20355723773714, -71.72174833986008 44.203299446254036, -71.72187443206187 44.20331447951836, -71.72310076434175 44.20455724802453, -71.72425908224874 44.20708345617362))) Project Counties: Grafton, NH




Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 2 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in

an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain

fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the

Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your

project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS

office if you have questions.

Mammals Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Population: Contiguous U.S. DPS

Threatened Final designated

Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis

septentrionalis)

Population: Wherever found

Threatened




Critical habitats that lie within your project areaThere are no critical habitats within your project area.



BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENT CONFERENCE REPORT

SUBJECT: NHDOT Monthly Natural Resource Agency Coordination Meeting DATE OF CONFERENCE: August 19th 2015

LOCATION OF CONFERENCE: John O. Morton Building ATTENDED BY:

NHDOT Matt Urban Ron Crickard Mark Hemmerlein Chris Turgeon Bob Landry Bob Juliano Marc Laurin Bill Saffian Jennifer Reczek Chris Carucci Rebeca Martin Stephanie Micucci Kirk Mudget Ron Kleiner Rita Hunt

Federal Highway

Administration

Jamie Sikora Army Corps of Engineers

Michael Hicks NHDES Jocelyn Degler Lori Sommer NH Fish & Game Carol Henderson NH Natural Heritage

Bureau

Amy Lamb CLD

Kristen Rutter John Byatt

MHT

Richard Fixler Joan Hagopian Mike Venti Jacobs

Sean Tiney Smart Associates

Jennifer Riordan SPNHF

Reagan Bissonnette VHB

Julie Whitmore Pete Walker

PRESENTATIONS/ PROJECTS REVIEWED THIS MONTH:

(minutes on subsequent pages) Finalization of May 20th Meeting Minutes ......................................................................................... 3

Andover, 40486, Non-Federal ............................................................................................................ 4

Canaan, 40493, Non-Federal .............................................................................................................. 9

Lebanon, 40495, Non-Federal .......................................................................................................... 13

Washington, 29761, Non-Federal ..................................................................................................... 16

Hampton-Falls, 40502, Non-Federal ................................................................................................ 16

Piermont, Former12260, Non-Federal ............................................................................................. 29

Franconia, 24497, X-A002(984) ...................................................................................................... 41

Stewartstown-Canaan, 15838, A000(152) ....................................................................................... 53

Concord, 28417, X-A003(741)......................................................................................................... 59

Chichester-Epsom, 29533, X-A004(170) ......................................................................................... 77

Farmington, 16146, X-A001(152) .................................................................................................... 90

MHT Runway 35, TBD, Non-Federal ............................................................................................ 108 (When viewing these minutes online, click on a project to zoom to the minutes for that project)

mailto:[email protected]?subject=NHDOT%20Natural%20Resource%20Agency%20Coordination%20Meeting




August 19th Natural Resource Agency Coordination Meeting

Page 5

Streambed will be built-up using on site burrow from failing slopes Driveway side (river right) to be hard embankment with adequate shoulder for safety. River left will be a “living wall” In-stream structures (log vanes, rock weirs, etc..) are conceptualized to direct stream to the

side of the existing channel away from the driveway and to provide a gradual transition of stream energy down the steep grade to a point that is stable.

NHDES asked what the estimated flows are. C. Turgeon explained that surface runoff is minimal. T. Mallette said that the flow is metered by a 48” RCP under NH 10. The watershed is less than 200 acres. Estimated peak flow range for design frequency events 2 yr ~15 fps, 50 yr ~ 55 fps. Hydrologic estimates will be finalized for next meeting. Carol Henderson asked if fixing the breached non-jurisdiction dam was considered to restore the channel to it’s original course that existed in the1930s (under the driveway through a culvert). T. Mallette said that it is being considered as an alternative, but he does not believe it is likely to be practical now that the channel has redirected and incised for decades. There are significant topographic challenges. He stated that the state may not have flowage rights to redirect flow given the development and subdivision of property in the area. Embankment stabilization and/or stream restoration is anticipated to be funded by betterment funds. This is not a concept in project development it is maintenance operation.

Jocelyn Degler agreed to look into the potential for compliance with deemed minimum 303.04(T) $200 application fee (minimal impact). She will discuss with Gino Infascelli who reviewed a prior permit for the site. Amy Lamb requested that Natural Heritage Inventory (DRED) be checked prior to the next meeting. The inventory includes documentation of any occurrences of endangered or threatened species or prime wetlands The project will be brought back to a future Natural Resource Agency Coordination Meeting when the design is further along. This will be sooner rather than later given the driveway embankment hazard. This project has not been previously discussed at a Monthly Natural Resource Agency Coordination

Meeting. This project was previously reviewed on the following dates: Franconia, 24497, X-A002(984)

Pete Walker summarized the project, which involves the rehabilitation of a historic bridge in Franconia on NH 18 over Lafayette Brook. (See attached slides.) Lafayette Brook has its headwaters on the northwest slope of Mt Lafayette. Watershed is about 6.5 square miles. The Brook flows generally north to its confluence with Gale River near downtown Franconia. The existing bridge was constructed in 1932. It is a single span bridge with a deck about 52 feet long, with a hydraulic opening of 37 feet. It was added to the Red List in 2010. The deck and beams are in poor condition, but the abutments are in good condition. A Type-Span-Location (TSL) Report was issued in April 2015, and evaluated three alternatives: Bridge rehabilitation; Bridge rehabilitation with widening; and Complete replacement. Based on the TSL study and public feedback, the Bridge rehabilitation is the selected alternative: the bridge superstructure would be

pwalker

Highlight

August 19th Natural Resource Agency Coordination Meeting

Page 6

replaced, but the abutments and wingwalls would be retained. The existing width of the bridge deck would be maintained, but the superstructure would be slightly shallower such that the hydraulic opening would be improved. VHB completed a wetland delineation in 2014. Aside from the brook itself, there is a small man-made pond and a natural forested wetland in the study area. However, it is currently expected that only the banks of the brook would be impacted. Based on conceptual plans, less than 600 square feet of permanent wetland impacts anticipated (~85 linear feet along bank), which is required to stabilize to eroded stream bank along the north side of the stream using rip-rap. There may be additional temporary impacts for stream diversion during construction. Mike Hicks asked if impacts were above or below ordinary high water. P. Walker and Julie Whitmore replied that the design is not yet complete, but that rip-rap would almost certainly be keyed in below OHW. P. Walker reported that the USFWS IPaC system had flagged Canada Lynx, but based on the nature of the project, no actual impacts are anticipated. A check of the NH Natural Heritage Bureau database indicated that there were no known occurrences of state-listed rare species. Amy Lamb noted that the NHNHB data check would need to be re-run since the results are more than one year old. The project is outside of important wildlife habitat (per the NH Wildlife Action Plan), and there would not be substantial permanent impacts in the stream (aside from minor rip-rap), so impacts to aquatic biota are not expected. There would be no tree clearing, and the bridge is not known to provide roosting opportunities, so impact to Northern Long-eared Bat is also not anticipated. Project design is on-going, but compliance with the stream crossing rules (Env-Wt 900) is expected. Based on hydraulic analysis, the bankfull width is estimated to be 30 ft, which is subject to confirmation. The existing span of 37 feet provides 1.2 times the bankfull width plus 1 ft of width (which is just less than the 2 ft recommended in the UNH stream crossing guidelines). The rehabilitation would maintain an open bottom with the same slope, geometry and substrate, and the new rehabilitated structure would pass the 100-year flood with about 1.7 feet of freeboard. M. Hicks asked about Section 106 coordination. P. Walker replied that coordination with DHR is ongoing. The bridge is eligible for listing and Lovett’s Inn near the project is already listed. The project has been determined to result in an adverse effect on the bridge. An MOA must therefore be completed. NHDOT and VHB are working with the consulting party and discussing mitigation efforts. Julie pointed out that NHDOT is considering maintaining pilasters at abutments as part of mitigation. Carol Henderson asked how the project would improve the hydraulic opening if it is a rehabilitation. P. Walker and J. Whitmore clarified that the superstructure would be entirely replaced and the new beams would be shallower (i.e., eliminating the arch) which would increase the hydraulic opening slightly. Matt Urban asked Lori Sommer if mitigation would be required. L. Sommer replied that mitigation would not be needed for bank repair as there is already existing rip-rap. Mark Hemmerlein asked if there would be any changes in pavement surface or drainage patterns. Julie replied that there would be no substantial changes; there would only be minor improvement to shoulder drainage on southeast approach. This project has not been previously discussed at a Monthly Natural Resource Agency Coordination

Meeting. Stewartstown-Canaan, 15838, A000(152)

pwalker

Highlight

pwalker

Highlight

pwalker

Highlight


Appendix G – NLEB Project Submittal Form and Bridge Inspection Form

Appendix G

NLEB Project Submittal Form and Bridge Inspection Form

1

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for

Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat

Project Submittal Form for FHWA, FRA, and Transportation Agencies Updated June 23, 2015

In order to use the programmatic informal consultation to fulfill Endangered Species Act consultation requirements, transportation agencies must use this form to submit project-level information for all may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determinations to the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) field office prior to project commencement. For more information, see the Standard Operating Procedure for Site Specific Project(s) Submission in the User’s Guide. In submitting this form, the transportation agency ensures that the proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the range-wide programmatic informal BA. Upon submittal of this form, the appropriate Service field office may review the site-specific information provided and request additional information. If the applying transportation agency is not notified within 14 calendar days of emailing the Project Submittal Form to the Service field office, it may proceed under the range-wide programmatic informal consultation. Further instructions on completing the form can be found by hovering your cursor over each text box.

1. Date:

2. Lead Agency: This refers to the Federal governmental lead action agency initiating consultation; select FHWA or FRA as appropriate 3. Requesting Agency:

a. Name:

b. Title:

c. Phone:

d. Email:

4. Consultation Code1:

5. Project Name(s):

1 Available through IPaC System Official Species List: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

2

6. Project Description: Please attach additional documentation or explanatory text if necessary

7. Other species from Official Species List:

No effect – project(s) are inside the range, but no suitable habitat – see additional information attached May Affect – see additional information provided for those species (either attached or forthcoming

8. For Ibat/NLEB, if Applicable, Explain Your No Effect Determination

No effect – project(s) are outside the species’ range (form complete)

No effect – project(s) are inside the range, but no suitable summer habitat (form complete) No effect from maintenance, alteration, or demolition of bridge(s)/structure(s) – results of inspection surveys indicate no signs of bats. (form complete) No effect – other (see Section 2.2 of the User’s Guide – form complete) Otherwise, please continue below.

3

9. Affected Resource/Habitat Type

Trees

Bridge

Other Non-Tree Roosting Structure (e.g., building)

Other (please explain):

10. For Tree Removal Projects:

a. Please verify that no documented roosts or foraging habitat will be impacted and that project is within 100 feet of existing road surface:

b. Please verify that all tree removal will occur during the inactive season2:

c. Timing of clearing:

d. Amount of clearing:

11. For Bridge/Structure Work Projects:

a. Proposed work:

b. Timing of work:

c. Evidence of bat activity on bridge/structure:

d. If applicable, verify that superstructure work will not bother roosting bats in any way:

e. If applicable, verify that bridge/structure work will occur only in the winter months:

2 Coordinate with local Service field office for appropriate dates.

4

12. Please confirm the following:

Proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the range-wide programmatic informal BA (see Section 2.0).

All applicable AMMs will be implemented, including3:

Tree Removal AMM 1:

Tree Removal AMM 2:

Tree Removal AMM 3:

Tree Removal AMM 4:

Bridge AMM 1:

Bridge AMM 2:

Bridge AMM 3:

Bridge AMM 4:

Structure AMM 1:

Structure AMM 2:

Structure AMM 3:

Structure AMM 4:

Lighting AMM 1:

Lighting AMM 2:

Dust Control AMM 1:

Water Control AMM 1:






Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 1:






3 See AMMs Fact Sheet (Appendix B) for more information on the following AMMs.

APPENDIXC:Bridge/StructureInspectionForm

Bridge Inspection FormThis form will be completed and submitted to the District Environmental Manager by the Contractor prior to conducting any work below the deck surface either from the underside, from activities above that bore down to the underside, or that could impact expansion joints, from deck removal on bridges, or from structure demolish. Each bridge/structure to be worked on must have a current bridge inspection. Any bridge/structure suspected of providing habitat for any species of bat will be removed from work schedules until such time that the DOT has obtained clearance from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, if required. Additional studies may be undertaken by the DOT to determine what species may be utilizing structures prior to allowing any work to proceed.

DOT Project # Water Body Date/Time of Inspection

Route: County: Federal

Structure ID:

Bat Indicators

Check all that apply. Presence of one or more indicators is sufficient evidence that bats may be using the structure.

Visual Sound Droppings Staining Notes: (e.g.,number & species of bats, if known)

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or

imperfections in concrete

Human disturbance or traffic

under bridge/in culvert or at

the structure

High Low None

All crevices >12” deep & not sealed Spaces between walls, ceiling joists

Possible corridors for netting None/poor Marginal excellent

All guardrails Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present?

Yes No

All expansion joints

Lafayette Brook 5/8/2014, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM

NH 18 Grafton 089/099 No visible evidence of bat activity or roosting habitat

yes

yes

yes

yes

lgjones

Rectangle

lgjones

Rectangle

lgjones

Rectangle

April 17, 2015

129

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck

Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______________________________ Signature(s): _________________________________________________

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______________

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

1. Inventories must be completed prior to conducting any work below the deck surface on all bridges that meet the physical characteristics described inthe Programmatic Informal Consultation, regardless of whether inventories have been conducted in the past. Due to the transitory nature of bat use,a negative result in one year does not guarantee that bats will not use that structure in subsequent years.

2. Contractors must complete this form no more than seven (7) business days prior to initiating work at each bridge/structure location. Legible copies ofthis document must be provided to the District Environmental Manager within two (2) business days of completing the inspection. Failure to submitthis information will result in that structure being removed from the planned work schedule.

3. Any bridge/structure suspected of providing habitat for any species of bat will be removed from work schedules until such time that the DOT hasobtained clearance from the USFWS, if required. Additional studies may be undertaken by the DOT to determine what species may be utilizing eachstructure identified as supporting bats prior to allowing any work to proceed.

4. Estimates of numbers of bats observed should be place in the Notes column.5. Any questions should be directed to the District Environmental Manager.

yes

yes

Lindsay Jones, Environmental ScientistDesktop review of inspection photos

NHDES Wetlands Permit Application - New Hampshire · 2016-12-30 · NHDES Wetlands Permit...

Documents

Transcript of NHDES Wetlands Permit Application - New Hampshire · 2016-12-30 · NHDES Wetlands Permit...