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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
Wetlands Permit Application Form
Wetlands Permit Application Form
[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.
[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 2 of 5
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
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
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
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION: By initialing here , I hereby authorize NHDES to communicate all matters relative to this application electronically
[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 3 of 5
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
[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 4 of 5
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.
[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 5 of 5
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.
The Application Fee is the above calculated Total or $200, whichever is greater = $ 379.80
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx
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.
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.
[email protected] or (603) 271-2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
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).
[email protected] or (603) 271-2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
www.des.nh.gov
Wetlands Permit Application Attachment A – Revised 01/2017 Page 2 of 6
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.
[email protected] or (603) 271-2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
www.des.nh.gov
Wetlands Permit Application Attachment A – Revised 01/2017 Page 3 of 6
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.
[email protected] or (603) 271-2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
www.des.nh.gov
Wetlands Permit Application Attachment A – Revised 01/2017 Page 4 of 6
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.
[email protected] or (603) 271-2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
www.des.nh.gov
Wetlands Permit Application Attachment A – Revised 01/2017 Page 5 of 6
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.
[email protected] or (603) 271-2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
www.des.nh.gov
Wetlands Permit Application Attachment A – Revised 01/2017 Page 6 of 6
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
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
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
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 6
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.
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 7
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.”
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 8
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.
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 9
(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.
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 10
(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
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
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 11
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,
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 12
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
(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.
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 13
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
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161220.docx
Application Narrative - 14
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.
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx
New Hampshire Department of Transportation Existing Bridge Section
Franconia 089/099
Bureau of Bridge Design
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
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.
New Hampshire Department of Transportation Existing Bridge Section
Franconia 089/099
Bureau of Bridge Design
Inspection History:
Deck:
Super:
Substr:
Culvert:
11/25/2014 Inspector: MAHInspection Date:
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.
PICTURES: A391-42 THRU 43.
4 Poor
4 Poor
7 Good
N N/A (NBI)
Deck:
Super:
Substr:
Culvert:
04/21/2014 Inspector: TDCInspection Date:
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.
PICTURES: A372-26 THRU 28.
5 Fair
4 Poor
7 Good
N N/A (NBI)
Deck:
Super:
Substr:
Culvert:
12/03/2013 Inspector: TDCInspection Date:
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.
PICTURES: A367-37 THRU 38.
5 Fair
4 Poor
7 Good
N N/A (NBI)
NHDOT 008 Inspection Thu 2/25/2016 14:17:22
Page 4 of 8Franconia 089/099
Bridge Inspection Report
New Hampshire Department of Transportation Existing Bridge Section
Franconia 089/099
Bureau of Bridge Design
Inspection History:
Deck:
Super:
Substr:
Culvert:
04/04/2013 Inspector: TDCInspection Date:
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:
10/26/2012 Inspector: TDCInspection Date:
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:
03/08/2012 Inspector: MAHInspection Date:
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:
12/08/2011 Inspector: MAHInspection Date:
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)
NHDOT 008 Inspection Thu 2/25/2016 14:17:22
Page 5 of 8Franconia 089/099
Bridge Inspection Report
New Hampshire Department of Transportation Existing Bridge Section
Franconia 089/099
Bureau of Bridge Design
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:
10/29/2010 Inspector: WBLInspection Date:
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:
03/25/2010 Inspector: WBLInspection Date:
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)
NHDOT 008 Inspection Thu 2/25/2016 14:17:22
Page 6 of 8Franconia 089/099
Bridge Inspection Report
New Hampshire Department of Transportation Existing Bridge Section
Franconia 089/099
Bureau of Bridge Design
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:
06/07/2006 Inspector: BEPInspection Date:
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:
06/02/2004 Inspector: BEPInspection Date:
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)
NHDOT 008 Inspection Thu 2/25/2016 14:17:22
Page 7 of 8Franconia 089/099
Bridge Inspection Report
New Hampshire Department of Transportation Existing Bridge Section
Franconia 089/099
Bureau of Bridge Design
Inspection History:
Deck:
Super:
Substr:
Culvert:
04/25/2002 Inspector: WBLInspection Date:
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:
06/23/2000 Inspector: WBLInspection Date:
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:
06/16/1998 Inspector: WBLInspection Date:
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:
08/01/1994 Inspector: Not AvailableInspection Date:
Notes:
6 Satisfactory
6 Satisfactory
7 Good
N N/A (NBI)
Deck:
Super:
Substr:
Culvert:
07/01/1992 Inspector: Not AvailableInspection Date:
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
NHDOT 008 Inspection Thu 2/25/2016 14:17:22
Page 8 of 8Franconia 089/099
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
NH 18 over LAFAYETTE BROOK
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
NH 18 over LAFAYETTE BROOK
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
NH 18 over LAFAYETTE BROOK
Monday, April 21, 2014
A372 26
MANY CRACKS, EFFLORESCENCE, SPALLS AND DELAMINATIONS IN DS EXTERIOR TEE BEAM AT FASCIA STONES.
Monday, April 21, 2014
A372 27
CORE SAMPLE TEST AREA APPROXIMATELY CENTER OF SOUTH ABUTMENT; TYPICAL AT NW CORNER.
Monday, April 21, 2014
A372 28
CORE SAMPLE TEST AREA IN DECK AT SE; TYPICAL AT SW AND NW.
FRANCONIA 089/099
NH 18 over LAFAYETTE BROOK
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
NH 18 over LAFAYETTE BROOK
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
NH 18 over LAFAYETTE BROOK
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A299 27
UPSTREAM CURB HEAVILY SPALLED.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A299 28
UPSTREAM RAIL FACIA CRACKED.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A299 29
TYPICAL CRACKS AND LEAKING IN UPSTREAM CTB.
FRANCONIA 089/099
NH 18 over LAFAYETTE BROOK
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A299 30
CRACKS ALONG DOWNSTREAM RAIL FACIA UP TO 3/8 INCH.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A299 31
CRACKS AND LEAKING IN DOWNSTREAM CTB.
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx
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.
Representative Site Photographs June 5, 2014
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.
Representative Site Photographs June 5, 2014
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.
Representative Site Photographs June 5, 2014
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.
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx
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
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF HIGHWAY DESIGN
STANDARD SYMBOLS
2 8
SUBJECT TO CHANGE10/26/2016
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
STATE PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS
24497
DGN
STDSym.dgn
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF HIGHWAY DESIGN
STANDARD SYMBOLS
3 8
SUBJECT TO CHANGE10/26/2016
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
SUBJECT TO CHANGE10/26/2016
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
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_018_pln
&el0
1.d
gn
SHEET SCALEDRAWING NAMEPLOT DATE
AS NOTED
TOWN FRANCONIA BRIDGE NO. 089/099 STATE PROJECT 24497
LOCATION NH 18
10/26/2016 24497_018_pln&el01.dgn
SMH10/16
10/16
10/16
10/16
SUBJECT TO CHANGE10/26/2016
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"
NH 18 (PROFILE ROAD)
> CONSTRUCTION
NH 141 (BUTTERHILL ROAD)
> 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
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
NH 18 (PROFILE ROAD)
> CONSTRUCTION
NH 141 (BUTTERHILL ROAD)
> 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
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_ero
pla
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_eroplan01.dgn
SMH10/16
10/16
10/16
10/16
SUBJECT TO CHANGE10/26/2016
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_erosections01.d
gn
SHEET SCALEDRAWING NAMEPLOT DATE
AS NOTED
TOWN FRANCONIA BRIDGE NO. 089/099 STATE PROJECT 24497
LOCATION NH 18
10/26/2016 24497_erosections01.dgn
SMH10/16
10/16
10/16
10/16
SUBJECT TO CHANGE10/26/2016
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
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx
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.
Geomorphic Stream Assessment Field Photographs – 07/28/2016 NH Route 18 Bridge over Lafayette Brook, Franconia, NH
DSCN7311_09: Downstream view from bridge outlet .
DSCN7354_52: Upstream view toward bridge outlet.
Geomorphic Stream Assessment Field Photographs – 07/28/2016 NH Route 18 Bridge over Lafayette Brook, Franconia, NH
DSCN7343_41: Upstream view of stream above bridge.
DSCN7346_44: Downstream view of stream above bridge.
Geomorphic Stream Assessment Field Photographs – 07/28/2016 NH Route 18 Bridge over Lafayette Brook, Franconia, NH
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.
Geomorphic Stream Assessment Field Photographs – 07/28/2016 NH Route 18 Bridge over Lafayette Brook, Franconia, NH
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.
Geomorphic Stream Assessment Field Photographs – 07/28/2016 NH Route 18 Bridge over Lafayette Brook, Franconia, NH
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.
Geomorphic Stream Assessment Field Photographs – 07/28/2016 NH Route 18 Bridge over Lafayette Brook, Franconia, NH
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.
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx
Appendix E – FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
Appendix E
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx
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
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:
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
United States Department of InteriorFish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Bridge #089/099 Rehabilitation; NH 18 Over Lafayette Brook
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 09/20/2016 07:41 AM 3
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
United States Department of InteriorFish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Bridge #089/099 Rehabilitation; NH 18 Over Lafayette Brook
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 09/20/2016 07:41 AM 4
Critical habitats that lie within your project areaThere are no critical habitats within your project area.
United States Department of InteriorFish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Bridge #089/099 Rehabilitation; NH 18 Over Lafayette Brook
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
MHT Runway 35, TBD, Non-Federal ............................................................................................ 108 (When viewing these minutes online, click on a project to zoom to the minutes for that project)
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
\\vhb\proj\Bedford\52380.09\docs\Permits\Wetlands Permit\NHDES Standard Wetland App_Narrative_20161017_printversion.docx
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/
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:
Water Control AMM 2:
Water Control AMM 3:
Water Control AMM 4:
Water Control AMM 5:
Water Control AMM 6:
Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 1:
Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 2:
Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 3:
Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 4:
Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 5:
Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 6:
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
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