DOCSLIB.ORG

NH Bridge Type Key 29

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NH Bridge Type Key 29 INDEX 2017 State Rehabilitation and Replacement Title Page 1 Index 2 State-Owned Red List Bridges 3 State-Owned Red & Near Red List Bridges 4 State-Owned Yellow List Bridges 5 Total State-Owned Bridge Counts & Deck Area 6 State-Owned Bridge Condition Data by Year 7 2017 State Rehabilitation and Replacement List by Priority 8 2017 State Rehabilitation and Replacement List by Town or City 18 2017 State Rehabilitation and Replacement Bridge Summary Key 27 NH Bridge Type Key 29 2 State-Owned Red-List Bridges Red List Bridge Count Over Time 144 143 142 142 140 140 138 136 136 135 134 Owned Red Count Red Owned - 133 132 132 State 130 128 127 127 126 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Years Figure 1: Represents the red list count for state-owned bridges Total Deck Area of Red List Bridges Over Time 12.0 10.0 9.68 9.86 8.0 8.96 8.49 8.76 8.36 8.09 7.71 7.74 6.0 x 100,000 Area (sq.ft) Area 4.0 2.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Years Figure 2: Represents the total deck area for state-owned red list bridges 3 State-Owned Red & Near Red List Bridges State-Owned Bridge Counts Over Time: Red & Near Red List Bridges 350 300 305 286 295 295 300 267 271 254 261 250 Red List (Poor Condition 0-4) 200 Near Red List (Min. Condition=5) Owned Counts Owned - 150 142 143 140 State 100 127 135 127 132 136 133 50 0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Years Figure 3: Represents the counts for state-owned red and near red list bridges State-Owned Deck Area Over Time: Red & Near Red List Bridges 14.00 12.4 11.5 12.00 10.4 10.5 9.9 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.5 10.00 9.7 9.9 8.00 9.0 8.5 8.8 8.4 8.1 Area (sq.ft) 7.7 7.7 x 100,000 6.00 Red List (Poor Condition 0-4) 4.00 Near Red List (Min. Condition=5) 2.00 0.00 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Years Figure 4: Represents the total deck area for the state-owned red and near red list bridges 4 State-Owned Yellow List Bridges Yellow List Bridge Count Over Time 880 866 870 860 850 844 840 830 830 820 810 803 Count (#) Count 801 800 783 784 790 781 779 780 770 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Years Figure 5: Represents the yellow list bridge counts for state-owned bridges (min. condition=5 or 6, i.e. “fair”) Total Deck Area for Yellow List Bridges Over Time 37.0 36.7 36.4 36.5 36.0 35.5 34.9 35.0 34.7 34.5 x 100,000 Area (sq.ft) Area 33.8 34.0 33.6 33.6 33.7 33.5 33.0 32.6 32.5 32.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Years Figure 6: Represents the total deck area for state-owned yellow list bridges (min. condition=5 or 6, i.e. “fair” ) 5 Total State-Owned Bridge Counts & Deck Area Total Population of State-Owned Bridges Over Time 2165 2160 2159 2160 2160 2158 2155 2155 2153 2150 2145 2143 Count (#) Count 2140 2136 2135 2130 2127 2125 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Years Figure 7: Represents the total population of state-owned bridges Total Deck Area for State-Owned Bridges Over Time 106.0 105.0 104.9 105.0 104.6 103.9 104.0 104.0 103.5 103.0 102.2 102.0 x 100,000 Area (sq.ft) Area 101.0 100.0 99.0 99.0 98.4 98.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Years Figure 8: Represents the total deck area for state-owned bridges 6 Table 1: State-owned bridge condition data by year Red Yellow (Rating 5) Yellow(Rating 6) Green Other Year Count Area %Area Count Area %Area Count Area %Area Count Area %Area Count Area %Area # ft2 % # ft2 % # ft2 % # ft2 % # ft2 % 2009 127 968,325 9.8 254 945,103 9.6 527 2,318,523 23.6 1189 5,537,068 56.2 30 75,727 0.8 2010 135 985,889 10.0 261 972,701 9.8 522 2,390,618 24.2 1191 5,480,821 55.4 27 68,644 0.7 2011 127 895,821 8.8 267 965,394 9.4 517 2,398,952 23.5 1206 5,894,608 57.7 26 68,079 0.7 2012 132 835,924 8.1 271 952,706 9.2 508 2,425,873 23.4 1216 6,067,705 58.6 26 68,079 0.7 2013 136 849,486 8.2 286 992,329 9.6 517 2,479,406 23.9 1193 5,998,657 57.8 23 65,612 0.6 2014 142 809,023 7.7 295 1,039,999 9.9 506 2,332,667 22.3 1194 6,216,459 59.4 23 65,620 0.6 2015 143 876,373 8.3 295 1,047,123 10.0 535 2,440,267 23.2 1163 6,070,395 57.8 23 65,058 0.6 2016 140 771,078 7.3 300 1,152,457 11.0 544 2,485,704 23.7 1150 6,019,476 57.4 24 65,679 0.6 2017 133 773,842 7.4 305 1,240,767 11.9 561 2,426,746 23.3 1137 5,895,255 56.7 25 68,395 0.7 Table 2: Total counts and deck areas for the state-owned bridges Totals Total State-Owned Bridge Population 2165 10.6 Year Total Count Total Area Statistics Over Time # ft2 2160 10.5 2009 2127 9,844,746 2155 10.4 2010 2136 9,898,673 2150 * 10.3 2011 2143 10,222,854 2012 2153 10,350,287 2145 10.2 Count (#) Count 2013 2155 10,385,491 Millions 2140 Total Bridge Count 10.1 2014 2160 10,463,769 2135 10.0 2015 2159 10,499,216 Total bridge Deck Area 2016 2158 10,494,394 2130 9.9 2017 2161 10,405,005* 2125 9.8 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 *Portsmouth 258/128 (I-95 over Piscataqua River) was split into three Years individual bridge records. The Maine approach spans (approx. 140,800 SF) are now inventoried solely in Maine’s bridge inventory. Figure 9 : Represents the total bridge count and deck area for the state-owned bridges 7 March 27, 2018 2017 STATE Bridge Rehab and Replace List by Priority Page 1 of 10 (based on bridge inspection data through 12/31/2017) NHDOT 2017 Priority State Draft 2019- Est. Bridge Condition of Deck, Total Length (ft); Date of Most Detour Bridge State Red List Roadway Recommended Action Gross Deck RIS Cost Bridge Structure Year Modified From Ranking Town / City Owner Project Facility Carried Feature Crossed Scour Condition ADT (Year) 2028 Construction Superstructure, Substructure, Total Width (ft); Cost per ft2 Recent Length BRIDGE_ID Number Status Tier and Status Area (sf) per ft2 Posting Type / Year Built Sheet No. 10-Year Plan Cost or Culvert No. of Spans Inspection (Miles) ($Millions) Deck 8 Very Good L=1199.0 Hampton 3 - Critical during 1 235/025 NHDOT 15904 NH 1A HAMPTON RIVER 1999 2 8,959-15 2023 Bridge Replacement $28.00 Superstructure 4 Poor W=33.5 40,168 $697 $350 11/21/2017 10 E-2 BAS 1984/1949 Hampton 235/025 (Seabrook-Hampton) floods Substructure 6 Satisfactory 13-span Bridge Rehabilitation Deck 5 Fair L=846.0 Lebanon, NH - CONNECTICUT 3 - Critical during Superstructure replacement 2 044/103 NHDOT 16148 I-89 SB 2011 1 20,433-15 2019 $17.80 Superstructure 4 Poor W=35.8 30,288 $588 $650 11/22/2017 1 NPR IB-C 1966 Lebanon 044/103 RIVER,NECRR floods Widen to add lane Hartford, VT Substructure 6 Satisfactory Scour Countermeasures 6-span Bridge Rehabilitation Deck 4 Poor L=847.0 Lebanon, NH - CONNECTICUT 3 - Critical during Superstructure replacement 3 044/104 NHDOT 16148 I-89 NB 2012 1 20,433-15 2019 $17.80 Superstructure 5 Fair W=35.8 30,323 $587 $650 11/22/2017 1 NPR IB-C 1966 Lebanon 044/104 RIVER,NECRR floods Widen to add lane Hartford, VT Substructure 5 Fair Scour Countermeasures 6-span Lancaster, NH- Deck 4 Poor L=404.0 CONNECTICUT 8 - Stable for 2019 4 Guildhall, VT 111/129 NHDOT 16155 US 2 2013 2 3,500-15 Bridge Replacement $10.90 Superstructure 4 Poor W=34.8 14,059 $775 $900 11/7/2017 9 E-1 HT 1950 Lancaster 111/129 RIVER extreme flood SB367 (Rogers Rangers) Substructure 4 Poor 2-span Deck 7 Good L=923.0 I-293 SB,NH101 MERRIMACK 8 - Stable for 5 Bedford 199/128 NHDOT 40731 2015 1 41,000-15 Prior To Preservation $2.25 Superstructure 6 Satisfactory W=54.5 50,304 $45 $75 11/15/2017 1 NPR IB-C 1991/1960 Bedford 199/128 EB RIVER,PAR extreme flood Substructure 4 Poor 7-span Dover Turnpike Deck 1 Closed - Failing L=1585.0 8 - Stable for Rehabilitate for use as 6 (Newington-Dover) 200/023 Bureau, 11238S ROAD LITTLE BAY 1979 6 0-03 2019 $31.70 Superstructure 1 Closed - Failing W=30.6 48,501 $654 $900 11/20/2017 18 BRC HT 1950/1934 Dover 200/023 extreme flood Pedestrian/Recreational bridge General Sullivan Bridge NHDOT Substructure 1 Closed - Failing 9-span Deck 4 Poor L=167.0 Concord I-393,US N - Not Over 41,300-13 3 7 152/108 NHDOT 13742 I-93 2011 1 2024 Bridge Replacement $15.00 Superstructure 6 Satisfactory W=93.8 15,665 $958 $650 11/17/2017 NPR IB-C 1981/1958 Concord 152/108 (Bow-Concord) 4,US202 Waterway 62,000-14 0 Substructure 4 Poor 2-span Deck 3 Serious L=396.0 8 - Stable for 8 Ossipee 137/297 NHDOT 14749 NH 16,NH 25 BEARCAMP RIVER 2004 2 11,000-13 Prior To Bridge Replacement $4.90 Superstructure 4 Poor W=33.2 13,147 $373 $910 11/13/2017 3 NPR IB-C 1955 Ossipee 137/297 extreme flood Substructure 5 Fair 5-span Deck 6 Satisfactory L=253.5 8 - Stable for 9 New Castle-Rye 066/071 NHDOT 16127 NH 1B LITTLE HARBOR 1994 3 4,000-13 2019 Bridge Replacement $8.00 Superstructure 3 Serious W=30.8 7,807 $1,025 $1,000 11/22/2017 2 15 Tons BAS 1975/1942 New Castle 066/071 extreme flood Substructure 5 Fair 6-span Deck 3 Serious L=172.0 RELIEF 8 - Stable for 10 Ossipee 137/299 NHDOT 14749 NH 16,NH 25 2004 2 11,000-13 Prior To Bridge Replacement $3.46 Superstructure 3 Serious W=33.2 5,705 $606 $910 11/13/2017 3 NPR IB-C 1955 Ossipee 137/299 BEARCAMP RIVER extreme flood Substructure 5 Fair 4-span EAST Deck 5 Fair L=471.0 Lyme, NH- CONNECTICUT 8 - Stable for Bridge Rehabilitation 11 053/112 NHDOT 14460 THETFORD 2013 4 2,100-13 2021 $4.50 Superstructure 4 Poor W=23.7 11,163 $403 $275 10/12/2017 6 15 Tons HT 1937 Lyme 053/112 Thetford, VT RIVER extreme flood Remove lead based paint & recoat ROAD Substructure 4 Poor 2-span Deck 4 Poor L=106.0 CONWAY LAKE 8 - Stable for 12 Conway 158/137 NHDOT 15864 US302,NH113 2010 2 9,200-13 Prior To Bridge Replacement $2.80 Superstructure 4 Poor W=33.0 3,498 $800 $910 12/1/2017 13 NPR CTB 1955 Conway 158/137 OUTLET extreme flood Substructure 4 Poor 3-span Turnpike Deck 7 Good L=166.0 Concord N - Not
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Carroll County, New Hampshire— New County, for Carroll Needs Hazard Mapping of Flood —Scoping
    Flynn, R.H. Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 1 —Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Carroll County, New Hampshire— Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Carroll County, New Hampshire Open-File Report 2006–1236 Open-File Report 2006–1236 U.S. Department of the Interior Printed on recycled paper U.S. Geological Survey Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Carroll County, New Hampshire By Robert H. Flynn Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 1 Open-File Report 2006–1236 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Acknowledgments The author thanks Debra Foster for her assistance in contacting towns in Carroll County to obtain preliminary scoping needs information and for editing this report, Laura Hayes for her assistance in entering effective stream information for Carroll County into the WISE (Watershed Information SystEm) Scoping module, and Ann Marie Squillacci and Tina Cotton for their help in publishing this report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
    A River Network Publication Volume 18| Number 3 - 2008 Celebrating 40 Years: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by David Moryc, American Rivers & Katherine Luscher,River Network It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act – October 2, 1968 hat do a Snake, a Sturgeon, a Little Beaver Tuolumne River loved by John Muir, and the and a Buffalo have in common? They are Delaware, Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Rivers, all rivers protected by our federal Wild which cradled the American Revolution, are protected W and Scenic Rivers Act. On October 2, by this visionary law. And despite various myths and 1968, the Act—championed by Senator Frank Church misconceptions, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (ID)—was signed into law by President remains a powerful tool available for Lyndon Johnson. Forty years later, watershed conservationists to protect the Act protects more than 11,434 their local river.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolved by the Senate and House Of
    906 PUBLIC LAW 90-541-0CT. I, 1968 [82 STAT. Public Law 90-541 October 1, 1968 JOINT RESOLUTION [H.J. Res, 1461] Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1969, and for other purposes. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatimes of tlie United Continuing ap­ propriations, States of America in Congress assernbled, That clause (c) of section 1969. 102 of the joint resolution of June 29, 1968 (Public Law 90-366), is Ante, p. 475. hereby further amended by striking out "September 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "October 12, 1968". Approved October 1, 1968. Public Law 90-542 October 2, 1968 AN ACT ------[S. 119] To proYide for a Xational Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purPoses. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Wild and Scenic United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) this Act Rivers Act. may be cited as the "vVild and Scenic Rivers Act". (b) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandin~ly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoy­ ment of l?resent and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appro­ priate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be com­ plemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof m their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2020 Traffic Count Locations
    MUNICIPALITY LOCATION TYPE ALBANY NH 112 (KANCAMAGUS HWY) WEST OF BEAR NOTCH RD SINGLE TUBE COUNT ALBANY BEAR NOTCH RD NORTH OF KANCAMAGUS HWY DOUBLE TUBE COUNT ALBANY DRAKE HILL RD OVER CHOCORUA RIVER SINGLE TUBE COUNT ALBANY DUGWAY RD EAST OF NH 112 SINGLE TUBE COUNT ALBANY NH 112 (KANCAMAGUS HWY) OVER TWIN BROOK SINGLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT US 302/NH 16 SOUTH OF HURRICANE MT RD AT CONWAY TL SINGLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT US 302 (CRAWFORD NOTCH RD) EB AT STONY BROOK DOUBLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT US 302 (CRAWFORD NOTCH RD) WB AT STONY BROOK DOUBLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT ALBANY AVE AT STATE OF NH RR TRACKS SINGLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT RIVER ST AT SACO RIVER SINGLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT TOWN HALL RD EAST OF US 302/NH 16 SINGLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT NH 16A OVER EAST BRANCH RIVER SINGLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT BEAR NOTCH RD OVER DOUGLAS BROOK SINGLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT FOSTER ST BRIDGE OVER BROOK SINGLE TUBE COUNT BARTLETT HURRICANE MOUNTAIN RD OVER HOYT BROOK SINGLE TUBE COUNT BATH US 302/NH 10 (RUM HILL RD) WEST OF NH 112 SINGLE TUBE COUNT BATH WEST BATH ROAD WEST OF STATE OF NH RR SINGLE TUBE COUNT BATH DODGE RD EAST OF PETTYBORO RD SINGLE TUBE COUNT BATH PORTER RD OVER AMMONOOSUC RIVER SINGLE TUBE COUNT BENTON TUNNEL STREAM RD OVER DAVIS BROOK SINGLE TUBE COUNT BERLIN SCHOOL ST NORTH OF MASON ST SINGLE TUBE COUNT BERLIN MOUNT FOREST ST EAST OF FIRST AVE SINGLE TUBE COUNT BERLIN EXCHANGE ST WEST OF PLEASANT ST SINGLE TUBE COUNT BERLIN YORK ST WEST OF PLEASANT ST SINGLE TUBE COUNT BERLIN MADISON AVE NORTH OF EMERY ST SINGLE TUBE COUNT BERLIN GRANITE ST BETWEEN
    [Show full text]
  • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
    Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542, as amended) (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) 1An Act To provide for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. ********************************************************************* National Wild and Scenic River is a designation for certain protected areas in the United States. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was an outgrowth of the recommendations of a Presidential commission, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC). Among other things, the commission recommended that the nation protect wild rivers and scenic rivers from development that would substantially change their wild or scenic nature. The act was sponsored by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 2, 1968. A river or river section may be designated by the U.S. Congress or the Secretary of the Interior. As of 2004, a total of 156 rivers have wild and scenic status. Selected rivers in the United States are preserved for possessing outstandingly, remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. Rivers, or sections of rivers, so designated are preserved in their free-flowing condition and are not dammed or otherwise improved. Designation as a wild and scenic river is not the same as designation as a national park, and does not generally does not confer the same level of protection as a Wilderness Area designation. Instead of enacting strict and mandatory conservation measures, the goal is often to preserve the character of a river. National Wild and Scenic rivers are each managed by one or more agencies of the federal or state government.
    [Show full text]
  • Carroll County, New Hampshire
    VOLUME 1 OF 2 CARROLL COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Carroll County Community Community Community Community Name Number Name Number ALBANY, TOWN OF 330174 JACKSON, TOWN OF 330014 BARTLETT, TOWN OF 330010 MADISON, TOWN OF 330220 BROOKFIELD, TOWN OF 330179 MOULTONBOROUGH, TOWN OF 330015 CHATHAM, TOWN OF 330181 OSSIPEE, TOWN OF 330016 CONWAY, TOWN OF 330011 SANDWICH, TOWN OF 330017 EATON, TOWN OF 330204 TAMWORTH, TOWN OF 330018 EFFINGHAM, TOWN OF 330012 TUFTONBORO, TOWN OF 330234 FREEDOM, TOWN OF 330013 WAKEFIELD, TOWN OF 330019 *HALE’S LOCATION, TOWN OF 330246 WOLFEBORO, TOWN OF 330239 HART’S LOCATION, TOWN OF 330213 *No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified Effective: March 19, 2013 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 33003CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections).
    [Show full text]
  • Missisquoi & Trout Rivers Management Plan, Vermont
    March 2013 Front Cover Photo Credits Main Photo: Missisquoi River – Dan Moriarty, courtesy of the Missisquoi River Basin Association (MRBA) First Row: John Little Paddling the Missisquoi – Ken Secor; Covered Bridge – John Selmer; Fishing the Trout – Brenda Elwood; Moose near the Hopkins Covered Bridge – Frank Wirth Second Row: Nice Buffer/Floodplain – Shana Stewart Deeds; Paddling the Missisquoi – Shana Stewart Deeds; Bakers Falls on the Missisquoi – Jonathan and Jayne Chase; Fog on the Missisquoi – Mary Alice Brenner; Behind the Monastery on the Missisquoi – Ave Leslie Inside Front Cover: Missisquoi River, Orleans County – Art Bell; flyover provided by Lakeview Aviation Back Cover Photo Credits Inside Back Cover: Missisquoi River, Franklin County – Art Bell; flyover provided by Lakeview Aviation. Back Cover: John Little’s Boat on the Trout River – Art Bell Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Management Plan is now available on our website (www.vtwsr.org and hard copies in the Town Clerks’ offices). This is a non- regulatory Plan summarizing the information collected over the three year study by the locally appointed Study Committee, illustrating examples of management success stories in our region, and encouraging the voluntary recommendations which the Study Committee feels will maintain the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in healthy condition. Should designation occur, it will be based on this locally-developed Management Plan and would not involve federal acquisition or management of lands. The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Committee is pleased to present its Management Plan for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers for community review.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 18/Monday, January 28, 2013/Rules and Regulations
    5738 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations Date certain Federal assist- State and location Community Effective date authorization/cancellation of Current effective ance no longer No. sale of flood insurance in community map date available in SFHAs Braselton, Town of, Barrow, Gwinnett 130343 August 12, 1991, Emerg; September 29, ......do ............... Do. and Hall Counties. 2006, Reg; March 4, 2013, Susp. Buford, City of, Gwinnett and Hall 130323 N/A, Emerg; May 22, 1995, Reg; March 4, ......do ............... Do. Counties. 2013, Susp. Cumming, City of, Forsyth County ........ 130236 July 23, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1986, Reg; ......do ............... Do. March 4, 2013, Susp. Douglas County, Unincorporated Areas 130306 January 31, 1975, Emerg; January 2, 1980, ......do ............... Do. Reg; March 4, 2013, Susp. Douglasville, City of, Douglas County ... 130305 August 22, 1979, Emerg; June 25, 1982, ......do ............... Do. Reg; March 4, 2013, Susp. Duluth, City of, Gwinnett County ........... 130098 December 17, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1981, ......do ............... Do. Reg; March 4, 2013, Susp. Forsyth County, Unincorporated Areas 130312 April 12, 1977, Emerg; July 4, 1989, Reg; ......do ............... Do. March 4, 2013, Susp. Gwinnett County, Unincorporated Areas 130322 April 9, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1981, Reg; ......do ............... Do. March 4, 2013, Susp. Norcross, City of, Gwinnett County ....... 130101 October 24, 1974, Emerg; May 1, 1980, ......do ............... Do. Reg; March 4, 2013, Susp. Sugar Hill, City of, Gwinnett County ..... 130474 September 30, 1998, Emerg; September ......do ............... Do. 29, 2006, Reg; March 4, 2013, Susp. Suwanee, City of, Gwinnett County ...... 130328 September 22, 1980, Emerg; June 1, 1981, ......do ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Carroll County, New Hampshire
    VOLUME 1 OF 2 CARROLL COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Carroll County Community Community Community Community Name Number Name Number ALBANY, TOWN OF 330174 JACKSON, TOWN OF 330014 BARTLETT, TOWN OF 330010 MADISON, TOWN OF 330220 BROOKFIELD, TOWN OF 330179 MOULTONBOROUGH, TOWN OF 330015 CHATHAM, TOWN OF 330181 OSSIPEE, TOWN OF 330016 CONWAY, TOWN OF 330011 SANDWICH, TOWN OF 330017 EATON, TOWN OF 330204 TAMWORTH, TOWN OF 330018 EFFINGHAM, TOWN OF 330012 TUFTONBORO, TOWN OF 330234 FREEDOM, TOWN OF 330013 WAKEFIELD, TOWN OF 330019 *HALE’S LOCATION, TOWN OF 330246 WOLFEBORO, TOWN OF 330239 HART’S LOCATION, TOWN OF 330213 *No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified Preliminary: April 29, 2011 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 33003CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections).
    [Show full text]
  • Wildcat Brook
    Wildcat Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Jackson, New Hampshire DRAFT REPORT February, 1988 North Atlantic Regional Office National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service This report was prepared pursuant to Public Law 90-542. the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended. Publication of the findings and conclusions herein should not be construed as representing either the approval or disapproval of the Secretary of the Interior. The purpose of this report is to provide the information and alternatives for further considera­ tion by the National Park Service, the Secretary of the Interior, and other federal and state agencies. This report also serves as an Interim Report to Congress as called for in the Public Law. The Wildcat River in Jackson, New Hampshire is often popularly identified as "Wildcat Brook" in publications, maps and the media. Except where otherwise noted, this Draft Report also refers to the main stem of the river as Wildcat Brook. TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1 II. BACKGROUNDANDSTATUSOFTHESTUDY 9 III. RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 15 N. RIVER CONSERVATION PLAN 27 v. ALTERNATIVES FOR RIVER PROTECTION 37 VI. APPENDICES 45 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 VIII. STUDY PARTICIPANTS 57 Summary of Findings BEANS PURCHASE • Wildcat River SACO RIVER BA'>L'I 0 5 MILES Orientation Map . =._. --,_, f'ti u•~ 0 -·--- """W,. ::;-;;,:;;_:. ' ---- ...~ -- .":. ' ORTHCONWAYN"W.NH-ME --1---._____ ..... _,.. __ _,..,._ ,._ I -~""..,..,' _____ -- .., -- i:--:i--~, ,__ --- ~ __ 23 ___ _ --- lJCl-·- •".0._u_....,. .... _.,..,.._, ,_ _.., I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In 1982 the National Park Service published the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, which systematically identified and evaluated rivers that would meet the minimum criteria for further study and/or potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
    [Show full text]
  • Then and Now USVLT Turns 20
    Then and Now USVLT Turns 20 Peter Benson Interviewed by Meghan Moody Upper Saco Valley Land Trust (and recently rejoined Board member) the side of the road, and everyone knew achieved its 20th anniversary on Peter Benson. where it was. It was fantastic. There September 15th, 2020, a remarkable “When you are in the start of was no way that a larger organization milestone. Over the past two decades, something, you don’t know what the was going to take on a project of its size the organization has conserved more future holds,” Peter said. “We were very at the time. Everything really took off than 12,000 acres. No one, including intentional in developing the Land from there.” USVLT’s founders, could have predicted Trust, but I don’t think anyone could USVLT has continued to fill this how those conservation victories have have guessed where this was going local void within the conservation added up, nor the upheaval 2020 has to go.” Peter used the organization’s community ever since. Some projects delivered. Especially with this year’s first project, the Harding Easement that Peter helped start in the 90’s have increased demand for trails and open in Jackson, as an example of how the only been finalized since he returned to space, for recreational and spiritual group had a much more organic and the Board. Peter smiled and said, “The purposes alike, USVLT’s achievements home-grown approach to conservation. seeds that you plant sometimes can seem more important than ever. To “We just went there, it was 12 acres, saw take a while to germinate, but they do honor the occasion, we asked new that it was beautiful and had a ski trail come up.” He added that there has been Board member Meghan Moody to on it, and said, ‘Sure, why not?’” Peter a shift over the past two decades, as interview Land Trust founding member continued, “It was high-profile, right on some land owners have become much —continued on page 3 Photo: Mike Dana Mike Photo: “Nature is not a place to visit.
    [Show full text]
  • Probabilistic Assessment of Wadeable Rivers and Streams
    MASSACHUSETTS PROBABILISTIC MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OF WADEABLE RIVERS AND STREAMS 2011-2015 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS KATHLEEN A. THEOHARIDES, SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MARTIN SUUBERG, COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF WATER RESOURCES KATHLEEN BASKIN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER September 25, 2020 Cover Photo: Ashley Hill Brook in Mt. Washington, MA (MassDEP) Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................6 Survey Design ................................................................................................................................................6 Site Evaluation ...............................................................................................................................................7 Monitoring Design .......................................................................................................................................10 Sampling Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Field and Analytical Methods .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]